Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ethics of Killing Unconscious Fetus

Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 3:48:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This comes off of my Big Issues opinion section:
"The fetus may not be fully formed, but given some time it will be. When a fetus is aborted, the abortion cuts off all chances of the fetus developing a conscience or anything that we consider the characteristics of a human "person". If lack of conscience or lack of the ability to feel pain is all that it takes to justify killing someone, then knocking someone out and anesthetizing before killing them would also be completely ethical. Of course, it is obvious that it is unethical to do so, because that person, while not conscious or pain sensitive in that moment, still had the potential to regain that consciousness and sense of pain. In the same way, a fetus will gain that consciousness, if not now, at a future date."
As you can see, my general stance is that the *potential* to be conscious and feel pain must be taken into consideration when talking about the ethics of abortion, and that since a fetus obviously has the potential to be conscious/feel pain, and will be given some weeks, abortion is therefore unethical.

I just want to garner the opinion of other folks on my take on the ethics of killing a human fetus: is my analogy a valid one in your opinion? If not, why and is there any way to improve it?
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 4:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nah because sperm and egg have the potential to become a baby but contraception isn't unethical. Unless you're Catholic. But even for catholics, chastity isn't unethical even though sex has the potential to create a human being who wouldn't exist otherwise.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 4:19:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 4:00:46 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Nah because sperm and egg have the potential to become a baby but contraception isn't unethical. Unless you're Catholic. But even for catholics, chastity isn't unethical even though sex has the potential to create a human being who wouldn't exist otherwise.
But I was talking more of potential that is *already possesed*.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 4:27:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 4:19:13 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:00:46 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Nah because sperm and egg have the potential to become a baby but contraception isn't unethical. Unless you're Catholic. But even for catholics, chastity isn't unethical even though sex has the potential to create a human being who wouldn't exist otherwise.
But I was talking more of potential that is *already possesed*.

If it was already a baby, then it would be one already. We all have the potential to be dead one day, but it's not okay to cremate us prematurely. Potential and actual are different.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 5:18:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 4:27:13 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:19:13 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:00:46 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Nah because sperm and egg have the potential to become a baby but contraception isn't unethical. Unless you're Catholic. But even for catholics, chastity isn't unethical even though sex has the potential to create a human being who wouldn't exist otherwise.
But I was talking more of potential that is *already possesed*.

If it was already a baby, then it would be one already. We all have the potential to be dead one day, but it's not okay to cremate us prematurely. Potential and actual are different.
Fair enough.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 5:29:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 5:18:23 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:27:13 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:19:13 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:00:46 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Nah because sperm and egg have the potential to become a baby but contraception isn't unethical. Unless you're Catholic. But even for catholics, chastity isn't unethical even though sex has the potential to create a human being who wouldn't exist otherwise.
But I was talking more of potential that is *already possesed*.

If it was already a baby, then it would be one already. We all have the potential to be dead one day, but it's not okay to cremate us prematurely. Potential and actual are different.
Fair enough.
Though, given your response, I would like to see your opinion on whether killing an unconscious, pain-insensitive adult would be fine for that same reason.
falling
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 5:44:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As mentioned earlier, the egg and sperm have potential for life, yet women lose their eggs every month.
Death23
Posts: 784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 6:39:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whether or not the organism in question has had any appreciable degree of sentience, intelligence, self-awareness, and/or consciousness in the past is material to the ethical inquiry.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 7:27:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 5:29:38 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/24/2015 5:18:23 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:27:13 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:19:13 PM, Harper wrote:
At 5/24/2015 4:00:46 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Nah because sperm and egg have the potential to become a baby but contraception isn't unethical. Unless you're Catholic. But even for catholics, chastity isn't unethical even though sex has the potential to create a human being who wouldn't exist otherwise.
But I was talking more of potential that is *already possesed*.

If it was already a baby, then it would be one already. We all have the potential to be dead one day, but it's not okay to cremate us prematurely. Potential and actual are different.
Fair enough.
Though, given your response, I would like to see your opinion on whether killing an unconscious, pain-insensitive adult would be fine for that same reason.

Yeah, like death23 said, the unconscious adult is already a grown human. It's not that we think she has the potential to be a human adult, but rather that she already is.
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 9:53:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just want to garner the opinion of other folks on my take on the ethics of killing a human fetus: is my analogy a valid one in your opinion? If not, why and is there any way to improve it?

The Moment the Sperm Touches the Egg and begins its division crap or whatever... Its a living being.. and completely defenseless . The Sperm did not ask to go to the egg. Its just instinctively goes there... Both the Sperm and the egg The sperm though dies faster then the monthly egg . Separate they are nothing... Just what ever sperm is its just sperm.. whether one wears contraception or not or weather one rubs one out doesnt matter.. because it will die off and new ones will spawn.. The egg also cycles out once a month give or take an a women generally has a snot load of eggs.. Each egg n sperm have a difference chance of what comes out when mixed.. ..

So yes Its un ethical to abort a fetus. The sperm and the egg is not self consuies that we know off it did not get a choice.. or a pop up menu would u like to attach your self to egg... They fought through heck to get there... only to die at the hands of some one stronger.
Remember If u didnt have sex. or unprotected sex.. there would be nothing to abort anyways... It Takes 2 to tango or rape.. but .. it still requires 2 people of oppo gender .. If every one aborted.. u would not be there reading writing or thinking about this.
There are also a lot of other factors but i wont go into it .. do i believe in never aborting no .. but only rare and unique circumstances.

Sex with oppo gender and doing the Thing.. was designed for reproduction.. Not just to get ones rocks off . Women may claim its my body and ill do what i want etc etc... But Inside your body is another body.. and it should have rights 2 .. .It didnt have a choice.. it followed natural and baser instincts.. just what the women in most cases did.. When she wanted to get her rocks off . Or She would have Chose Not to M8... or worn protection . The baby never asked to occupy u.. it never asked for the egg 2 be there.. it was born theere the same way your egg was in your mother 2 spawn u... It never asked to play connect 4 with a sperm . In fact u gave it permission when u got your freak on.. Baby is helpless and not grown or intelligent.. So what.. Neither are the people aborting it.. That that Food chain.. There is always some one bigger and badder at the top of the food chain. We are Frail being who also answer 2 death.. who can also be killed by other people.. By ones logic.. you should off your self if u believe in abortion .. because you will always be weak, defenseless, and possibility less intelligence then another . If one where aborted u would not be alive to abort something else...

Then again this is another issue dealing with Flawed Logic . because people where never taught to think logically to begin with
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:31:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 3:48:54 PM, Harper wrote:
This comes off of my Big Issues opinion section:
"The fetus may not be fully formed, but given some time it will be. When a fetus is aborted, the abortion cuts off all chances of the fetus developing a conscience or anything that we consider the characteristics of a human "person". If lack of conscience or lack of the ability to feel pain is all that it takes to justify killing someone, then knocking someone out and anesthetizing before killing them would also be completely ethical. Of course, it is obvious that it is unethical to do so, because that person, while not conscious or pain sensitive in that moment, still had the potential to regain that consciousness and sense of pain. In the same way, a fetus will gain that consciousness, if not now, at a future date."
As you can see, my general stance is that the *potential* to be conscious and feel pain must be taken into consideration when talking about the ethics of abortion, and that since a fetus obviously has the potential to be conscious/feel pain, and will be given some weeks, abortion is therefore unethical.

I just want to garner the opinion of other folks on my take on the ethics of killing a human fetus: is my analogy a valid one in your opinion? If not, why and is there any way to improve it?

I think what you are trying to do is define what a person is. I would argue that a good definition of a person is:

An individual substance, of a rational nature, that maintains its identity through change.

Personhood is a superset of humanity not a subset. People try to argue functionalism however functionalism falls apart as well.
Shield
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:45:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If a thing has never been conscious then it is not unconscious. A thing can only become unconscious after previously having been conscious. Until a thing becomes conscious, it cannot be said to have the capacity for unconsciousness. It can be up to 5 months before a growing fetus displays signs of consciousness. [1] At that point it may begin to drift in and out of conscious and unconscious states, but before the first state/glimmer of consciousness it will never have been unconscious. As a figurative analogy, a rock is not conscious, but if by some metaphysical force it were given what some would call a soul, it would then become aware, even if subtly, thus it would then be conscious, but you would not say that the rock was unconscious before it was given a soul. "Not being conscious" and "being unconscious" are not equal concepts.

[1] http://news.sciencemag.org...
The proudest moment of my life was when i traveled a thousand miles for love and brought that love back with me those same thousand miles. Nothing that has ever happened, nor ever will, will ever take that pride away from my heart.
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 9:11:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 3:48:54 PM, Harper wrote:
This comes off of my Big Issues opinion section:
"The fetus may not be fully formed, but given some time it will be. When a fetus is aborted, the abortion cuts off all chances of the fetus developing a conscience or anything that we consider the characteristics of a human "person". If lack of conscience or lack of the ability to feel pain is all that it takes to justify killing someone, then knocking someone out and anesthetizing before killing them would also be completely ethical. Of course, it is obvious that it is unethical to do so, because that person, while not conscious or pain sensitive in that moment, still had the potential to regain that consciousness and sense of pain. In the same way, a fetus will gain that consciousness, if not now, at a future date."
As you can see, my general stance is that the *potential* to be conscious and feel pain must be taken into consideration when talking about the ethics of abortion, and that since a fetus obviously has the potential to be conscious/feel pain, and will be given some weeks, abortion is therefore unethical.

I just want to garner the opinion of other folks on my take on the ethics of killing a human fetus: is my analogy a valid one in your opinion? If not, why and is there any way to improve it?

Consciousness and pain are not the only moral considerations. Quality of life, ability to live unassisted, medical costs, societies definition of punishment, consent, and others can play a part of "killing" someone.

Take an instance of an adult who may have just had lung surgery to remove a malignant tumor. He never regains consciousness after surgery and has to have a respirator to assist breathing. No living will, so his relatives have to make the decisions on whether to pull the respirator, which will kill the individual.

It is a decision many have to make every day in hospitals around the country. Make no question about it, pulling the respirator most the time in that type of situation results in the individual dying.

Is there a difference between me pulling a respirator from an individual versus "pulling" the uterus wall from a zygote so it does not have an ability to survive? I use second "pulling" roughly but a specific example would be emergency contraception which does exactly that, via hormones does not allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:21:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 4:00:46 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Nah because sperm and egg have the potential to become a baby but contraception isn't unethical.

I believe by "potential" he meant what the unborn child will become.

A sperm will not become a child. Neither will an egg. But when the egg is fertilized, from that moment onwards, it will become a human being.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 10:09:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 4:00:46 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Nah because sperm and egg have the potential to become a baby but contraception isn't unethical. Unless you're Catholic. But even for catholics, chastity isn't unethical even though sex has the potential to create a human being who wouldn't exist otherwise.

You're confusing active with passive potential. The sperm and egg only have the potential to become a baby in the same sense that sugar and flour have the potential to become a cake. The unborn human being from fertilization is *already* a human person because he/she has the active potential to develop human qualities and parts from within herself. The sperm and egg will never become a human being unless they fuse together and produce a human being, just like the sugar and flour, on their own, won't become a cake unless a baker combines them with the cake batter.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 10:11:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 12:31:22 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/24/2015 3:48:54 PM, Harper wrote:
This comes off of my Big Issues opinion section:
"The fetus may not be fully formed, but given some time it will be. When a fetus is aborted, the abortion cuts off all chances of the fetus developing a conscience or anything that we consider the characteristics of a human "person". If lack of conscience or lack of the ability to feel pain is all that it takes to justify killing someone, then knocking someone out and anesthetizing before killing them would also be completely ethical. Of course, it is obvious that it is unethical to do so, because that person, while not conscious or pain sensitive in that moment, still had the potential to regain that consciousness and sense of pain. In the same way, a fetus will gain that consciousness, if not now, at a future date."
As you can see, my general stance is that the *potential* to be conscious and feel pain must be taken into consideration when talking about the ethics of abortion, and that since a fetus obviously has the potential to be conscious/feel pain, and will be given some weeks, abortion is therefore unethical.

I just want to garner the opinion of other folks on my take on the ethics of killing a human fetus: is my analogy a valid one in your opinion? If not, why and is there any way to improve it?

I think what you are trying to do is define what a person is. I would argue that a good definition of a person is:

An individual substance, of a rational nature, that maintains its identity through change.

Personhood is a superset of humanity not a subset. People try to argue functionalism however functionalism falls apart as well.

*thumbs up*

That's what I take to be a person, too.
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 10:02:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Consciousness and pain are not the only moral considerations. Quality of life, ability to live unassisted, medical costs, societies definition of punishment, consent, and others can play a part of "killing" someone.

Take an instance of an adult who may have just had lung surgery to remove a malignant tumor. He never regains consciousness after surgery and has to have a respirator to assist breathing. No living will, so his relatives have to make the decisions on whether to pull the respirator, which will kill the individual.

It is a decision many have to make every day in hospitals around the country. Make no question about it, pulling the respirator most the time in that type of situation results in the individual dying.

Is there a difference between me pulling a respirator from an individual versus "pulling" the uterus wall from a zygote so it does not have an ability to survive? I use second "pulling" roughly but a specific example would be emergency contraception which does exactly that, via hormones does not allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall.

No because they never had to have had the baby in the first place. It Takes 2 to tango...... as for a person who doesnt wake up from a tumor.. that his fault for not leaving instructions... That his own business hes a grown man who can handle his own shiznaps . If he already dead and a veggie that on him.. Cost Booka money to keep some one in a comatose state etc .. The baby making process was not the baby fault.. It didnt not choose to Be Born...

It was born because 2 people engaged in cotais and resulted in the situation... YOu sir are grasphing at straws and making non connected analogies
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 2:24:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mostly agree with Peter Singer on this one, in that while you can consider an unborn fetus a human being to some extent, and possibly even a zygote, you can't say that its immoral in every case to kill a human.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:50:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 10:02:10 PM, VietTurtle wrote:
Consciousness and pain are not the only moral considerations. Quality of life, ability to live unassisted, medical costs, societies definition of punishment, consent, and others can play a part of "killing" someone.

Take an instance of an adult who may have just had lung surgery to remove a malignant tumor. He never regains consciousness after surgery and has to have a respirator to assist breathing. No living will, so his relatives have to make the decisions on whether to pull the respirator, which will kill the individual.

It is a decision many have to make every day in hospitals around the country. Make no question about it, pulling the respirator most the time in that type of situation results in the individual dying.

Is there a difference between me pulling a respirator from an individual versus "pulling" the uterus wall from a zygote so it does not have an ability to survive? I use second "pulling" roughly but a specific example would be emergency contraception which does exactly that, via hormones does not allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall.


No because they never had to have had the baby in the first place. It Takes 2 to tango...... as for a person who doesnt wake up from a tumor.. that his fault for not leaving instructions... That his own business hes a grown man who can handle his own shiznaps . If he already dead and a veggie that on him.. Cost Booka money to keep some one in a comatose state etc .. The baby making process was not the baby fault.. It didnt not choose to Be Born...

It was born because 2 people engaged in cotais and resulted in the situation... YOu sir are grasphing at straws and making non connected analogies

I don't understand what you are talking about. I did not give an analogy. I gave an example of a decision on a human which directly caused the human to die as an example to demonstrate that there are more factors than consciousness and pain involved.

While a zygote and a man living x years are clearly different situations, I would not understand why the two situations would have different logic or moral standards when trying to determine whether ending its life is moral.
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 1:01:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 6:50:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2015 10:02:10 PM, VietTurtle wrote:
Consciousness and pain are not the only moral considerations. Quality of life, ability to live unassisted, medical costs, societies definition of punishment, consent, and others can play a part of "killing" someone.

Take an instance of an adult who may have just had lung surgery to remove a malignant tumor. He never regains consciousness after surgery and has to have a respirator to assist breathing. No living will, so his relatives have to make the decisions on whether to pull the respirator, which will kill the individual.

It is a decision many have to make every day in hospitals around the country. Make no question about it, pulling the respirator most the time in that type of situation results in the individual dying.

Is there a difference between me pulling a respirator from an individual versus "pulling" the uterus wall from a zygote so it does not have an ability to survive? I use second "pulling" roughly but a specific example would be emergency contraception which does exactly that, via hormones does not allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall.


No because they never had to have had the baby in the first place. It Takes 2 to tango...... as for a person who doesnt wake up from a tumor.. that his fault for not leaving instructions... That his own business hes a grown man who can handle his own shiznaps . If he already dead and a veggie that on him.. Cost Booka money to keep some one in a comatose state etc .. The baby making process was not the baby fault.. It didnt not choose to Be Born...

It was born because 2 people engaged in cotais and resulted in the situation... YOu sir are grasphing at straws and making non connected analogies

I don't understand what you are talking about. I did not give an analogy. I gave an example of a decision on a human which directly caused the human to die as an example to demonstrate that there are more factors than consciousness and pain involved.

While a zygote and a man living x years are clearly different situations, I would not understand why the two situations would have different logic or moral standards when trying to determine whether ending its life is moral.

Because silly Boy.. a grown man is Grown.. If hes taking a life risking surgery.. He should have left Preset instructions on what the fak to do... If u could understand they diffrence in it.. you wouldn't have made the comparison in the first place...
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 8:12:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 1:01:08 AM, VietTurtle wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:50:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2015 10:02:10 PM, VietTurtle wrote:
Consciousness and pain are not the only moral considerations. Quality of life, ability to live unassisted, medical costs, societies definition of punishment, consent, and others can play a part of "killing" someone.

Take an instance of an adult who may have just had lung surgery to remove a malignant tumor. He never regains consciousness after surgery and has to have a respirator to assist breathing. No living will, so his relatives have to make the decisions on whether to pull the respirator, which will kill the individual.

It is a decision many have to make every day in hospitals around the country. Make no question about it, pulling the respirator most the time in that type of situation results in the individual dying.

Is there a difference between me pulling a respirator from an individual versus "pulling" the uterus wall from a zygote so it does not have an ability to survive? I use second "pulling" roughly but a specific example would be emergency contraception which does exactly that, via hormones does not allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall.


No because they never had to have had the baby in the first place. It Takes 2 to tango...... as for a person who doesnt wake up from a tumor.. that his fault for not leaving instructions... That his own business hes a grown man who can handle his own shiznaps . If he already dead and a veggie that on him.. Cost Booka money to keep some one in a comatose state etc .. The baby making process was not the baby fault.. It didnt not choose to Be Born...

It was born because 2 people engaged in cotais and resulted in the situation... YOu sir are grasphing at straws and making non connected analogies

I don't understand what you are talking about. I did not give an analogy. I gave an example of a decision on a human which directly caused the human to die as an example to demonstrate that there are more factors than consciousness and pain involved.

While a zygote and a man living x years are clearly different situations, I would not understand why the two situations would have different logic or moral standards when trying to determine whether ending its life is moral.

Because silly Boy.. a grown man is Grown.. If hes taking a life risking surgery.. He should have left Preset instructions on what the fak to do... If u could understand they difference in it.. you wouldn't have made the comparison in the first place...

So do you really think that all 5 year old boys never need life support and parents never have to make a decision to pull the life support which results in death?

Are you really that narrow minded that you can't imagine instances where people make decisions that kill other people every day? Again my point was to point out that there are many many more decisions points in end of life decision including a embryo than consciousness and pain.

Thanks for pointing out the differences and missing the point.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 8:52:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For this topic, we have to look at the ethics of killing an unconscious adult. This should be a fair analogy unless there is a relevant difference between comparing an unconscious adult and an unconscious foetus. I maintain that there is none.

So, why is it wrong to kill an unconscious adult? They don't feel anything now, yet it does not really follow that we are justified in killing them.

I would posit that it is wrong to kill an unconscious adult because it deprives them of their future life (something of near-universal value).

More broadly speaking, this is why it is wrong to kill conscious people as well. If you were to be asked whether you would like to be killed, chances are you would say no. If you were asked why, your justification would probably be that you value your future life, and hence would not like it to be eliminated.

Since a foetus has a future life, in which it can experience pleasure and happiness, it has something of value. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a foetus because it deprives someone of value. The fact that it is unconscious *now* has no bearing on the fact that it will be conscious in the future.

Consequently, abortion is wrong.
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:00:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 8:12:55 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/2/2015 1:01:08 AM, VietTurtle wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:50:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2015 10:02:10 PM, VietTurtle wrote:
Consciousness and pain are not the only moral considerations. Quality of life, ability to live unassisted, medical costs, societies definition of punishment, consent, and others can play a part of "killing" someone.

Take an instance of an adult who may have just had lung surgery to remove a malignant tumor. He never regains consciousness after surgery and has to have a respirator to assist breathing. No living will, so his relatives have to make the decisions on whether to pull the respirator, which will kill the individual.

It is a decision many have to make every day in hospitals around the country. Make no question about it, pulling the respirator most the time in that type of situation results in the individual dying.

Is there a difference between me pulling a respirator from an individual versus "pulling" the uterus wall from a zygote so it does not have an ability to survive? I use second "pulling" roughly but a specific example would be emergency contraception which does exactly that, via hormones does not allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall.


No because they never had to have had the baby in the first place. It Takes 2 to tango...... as for a person who doesnt wake up from a tumor.. that his fault for not leaving instructions... That his own business hes a grown man who can handle his own shiznaps . If he already dead and a veggie that on him.. Cost Booka money to keep some one in a comatose state etc .. The baby making process was not the baby fault.. It didnt not choose to Be Born...

It was born because 2 people engaged in cotais and resulted in the situation... YOu sir are grasphing at straws and making non connected analogies

I don't understand what you are talking about. I did not give an analogy. I gave an example of a decision on a human which directly caused the human to die as an example to demonstrate that there are more factors than consciousness and pain involved.

While a zygote and a man living x years are clearly different situations, I would not understand why the two situations would have different logic or moral standards when trying to determine whether ending its life is moral.

Because silly Boy.. a grown man is Grown.. If hes taking a life risking surgery.. He should have left Preset instructions on what the fak to do... If u could understand they difference in it.. you wouldn't have made the comparison in the first place...

So do you really think that all 5 year old boys never need life support and parents never have to make a decision to pull the life support which results in death?

Are you really that narrow minded that you can't imagine instances where people make decisions that kill other people every day? Again my point was to point out that there are many many more decisions points in end of life decision including a embryo than consciousness and pain.

Thanks for pointing out the differences and missing the point.

5 year old boys have already lived for 5 years and some circumstance caused them to be trapped there... to the point they need life support.. That then becomes a matter of wether or not they want them to suffer and remain in that state or to put them down. Which also cause a large financial burden... Of renting out a hospital room and associated bills to mantain everything.. Tis a diffrence to a healthy unborn child not on life support.. I got which point yall or u 2 tried to make.. its not a point.. Your Reaching... .. Which remains to my point in the first place.. No fak..= no baby...
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:05:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

Thanks for pointing out the differences and missing the point.

Its Still remains.. Cause and effect u dont fak any one.. = no baby... It takes 2 tango.. or an anolgy some one else made idk if it was here.. to make a cake u need both the flour and the egss.. Alone .. its just the flour and the egg.. Your logic is 2 flawed to understand it... Buddy.. hence the reason your stance is what it is.. Your making a stances . of killing somone who never asked to be born.. the 2 tangoers made that choice for them.. A 5 year old kid.. and old man.. they are were alive at one point and could make choice and safe gaurds in the first place. and.. im pertty sure ... There are more babies aborted for silly reason.. then.. 5 year old on life support.. So yeah.. keeping making comparisons to things with no. connection . Reach for the stars maybe one day u will end up in space and die from the lack of oxygen
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:16:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 11:00:50 AM, VietTurtle wrote:
At 7/2/2015 8:12:55 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/2/2015 1:01:08 AM, VietTurtle wrote:
At 7/1/2015 6:50:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/29/2015 10:02:10 PM, VietTurtle wrote:
Consciousness and pain are not the only moral considerations. Quality of life, ability to live unassisted, medical costs, societies definition of punishment, consent, and others can play a part of "killing" someone.

Take an instance of an adult who may have just had lung surgery to remove a malignant tumor. He never regains consciousness after surgery and has to have a respirator to assist breathing. No living will, so his relatives have to make the decisions on whether to pull the respirator, which will kill the individual.

It is a decision many have to make every day in hospitals around the country. Make no question about it, pulling the respirator most the time in that type of situation results in the individual dying.

Is there a difference between me pulling a respirator from an individual versus "pulling" the uterus wall from a zygote so it does not have an ability to survive? I use second "pulling" roughly but a specific example would be emergency contraception which does exactly that, via hormones does not allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall.


No because they never had to have had the baby in the first place. It Takes 2 to tango...... as for a person who doesnt wake up from a tumor.. that his fault for not leaving instructions... That his own business hes a grown man who can handle his own shiznaps . If he already dead and a veggie that on him.. Cost Booka money to keep some one in a comatose state etc .. The baby making process was not the baby fault.. It didnt not choose to Be Born...

It was born because 2 people engaged in cotais and resulted in the situation... YOu sir are grasphing at straws and making non connected analogies

I don't understand what you are talking about. I did not give an analogy. I gave an example of a decision on a human which directly caused the human to die as an example to demonstrate that there are more factors than consciousness and pain involved.

While a zygote and a man living x years are clearly different situations, I would not understand why the two situations would have different logic or moral standards when trying to determine whether ending its life is moral.

Because silly Boy.. a grown man is Grown.. If hes taking a life risking surgery.. He should have left Preset instructions on what the fak to do... If u could understand they difference in it.. you wouldn't have made the comparison in the first place...

So do you really think that all 5 year old boys never need life support and parents never have to make a decision to pull the life support which results in death?

Are you really that narrow minded that you can't imagine instances where people make decisions that kill other people every day? Again my point was to point out that there are many many more decisions points in end of life decision including a embryo than consciousness and pain.

Thanks for pointing out the differences and missing the point.

5 year old boys have already lived for 5 years and some circumstance caused them to be trapped there... to the point they need life support.. That then becomes a matter of wether or not they want them to suffer and remain in that state or to put them down. Which also cause a large financial burden... Of renting out a hospital room and associated bills to mantain everything.. Tis a diffrence to a healthy unborn child not on life support.. I got which point yall or u 2 tried to make.. its not a point.. Your Reaching... .. Which remains to my point in the first place.. No fak..= no baby...

Since you demand to go down that discussion lets go there.

You are right it is different.

A single poor mother in India with two boys. She provides daily rice and once a month is able to afford some goat meat once a month for her two boys. She gets pregnant and knows that if she keeps the child her two existing boys will get even less food than they currently get and it is clear they are malnourished.

It is not always about the poor innocent unborn child as much as you would like to believe.

I have given you an example where there is a significant financial burden not ending the life of the zygote and in this case that finance burden extends to kids who have been around. The zygote did not choose to be born, the two existing kids did not choose to be born. Also those two existing kids did not choose to be poor and malnourished. In fact they have dreams of goat meat and the one day a month they get it, they celebrate extensively.

Hell, for all we know the mother didn't choose to get knocked up and the household she irons shirts at to make a pittance may have pressured her to the point she had to have sex with the man or fear being fired and not even being able to afford rice for her boys.

Moral of the story is that you can't say context matters when it comes to end of life decisions for born humans but say it does not matter when it comes to unborn humans. It is intellectually dishonest.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 4:46:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am pragmatically pro-abortion, but philosophicaly anti. In reality pragmatic grounds - to my shame! - over-ride my moral scruples. (But then again, all my moral scruples are easily overcome).

I dont think abortion is ever a 'good' thing per se. They are all 'bad', but the badness is not constant. An early termination is 'less bad' than a late one for reasons I can assume you are well aware of. That means it is easier for the 'badness' of an early abortion to outweight the badness of non-termination than for a late termination.

So my broad view is that early abortion should be easy to get, late abortions almost impossible. Apart from the odd fundamentalist on either side I think that is what most people think.

The problem is that there is a lot of grey area and subjectivity involved. Lawmakers have the problem of coming up with actual rules and guidelines that work in practice. 'Allow all abortions' and 'Disallow all abortions' are not the only possible schemes, although the debate is usually couched as if they were. The debate needs to be about the details of a more flexible scheme, bearing in mind that in the real world we can only have a finite (indeed small) number of rules and real money costs are involved. For example it would be absurd practically and economically if a woman had to obtain a courts permission just to take a morning after pill, but to get a a very late termination (8+ months) the court's approval might be seen as reasonable.

The devil is in the details and I think it would be better to debate a realistic specific proposal - not a fundamentalist all-or-nothing one, because neither fundamentalist position is going to happen.
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 12:15:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have given you an example where there is a significant financial burden not ending the life of the zygote and in this case that finance burden extends to kids who have been around. The zygote did not choose to be born, the two existing kids did not choose to be born. Also those two existing kids did not choose to be poor and malnourished. In fact they have dreams of goat meat and the one day a month they get it, they celebrate extensively.

Hell, for all we know the mother didn't choose to get knocked up and the household she irons shirts at to make a pittance may have pressured her to the point she had to have sex with the man or fear being fired and not even being able to afford rice for her boys.

Moral of the story is that you can't say context matters when it comes to end of life decisions for born humans but say it does not matter when it comes to unborn humans. It is intellectually dishonest.

And now your talking about the uncommon situation of Rape.... U sir are a troll and were rekt'd repetitively.. U had no point from the start... Point remains dont Do a act of reproducing unless you take proper measures in the first place and or least ready to have a kid. Which is the whole purpose of reproduction . The Topic of this was killing fetus/ zyogate in the first place. dont do the time.. and there's no baby.. that simple .. Uncommon situations of Rape ,incest, Health issues. Which most people who are against abortion with half brain are all for anyways Sperm and the egg alone does nothing it takes 2 to tango . In which she shouldnt have had the kid in the first place. So she kept her crappy job.. ironing shirts.. n made the burden worse by having 2 kids from rape.... SHut Up.. ..... Deep down people dont wanna admit if their parents felt the same way they would be dead/aborted/not alive.... By cause and effect wouldnt be able to abort anything. because they wouldnt be there to abort. they dont wanna realize that the fetus/zyogte didn't have a choice in the matter in the first place . That they are now sharing the body and half of what they want to kill isn't even 100% their DNA any more only 50%
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:17:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 12:15:57 AM, VietTurtle wrote:
I have given you an example where there is a significant financial burden not ending the life of the zygote and in this case that finance burden extends to kids who have been around. The zygote did not choose to be born, the two existing kids did not choose to be born. Also those two existing kids did not choose to be poor and malnourished. In fact they have dreams of goat meat and the one day a month they get it, they celebrate extensively.

Hell, for all we know the mother didn't choose to get knocked up and the household she irons shirts at to make a pittance may have pressured her to the point she had to have sex with the man or fear being fired and not even being able to afford rice for her boys.

Moral of the story is that you can't say context matters when it comes to end of life decisions for born humans but say it does not matter when it comes to unborn humans. It is intellectually dishonest.

And now your talking about the uncommon situation of Rape.... U sir are a troll and were rekt'd repetitively.. U had no point from the start... Point remains dont Do a act of reproducing unless you take proper measures in the first place and or least ready to have a kid. Which is the whole purpose of reproduction . The Topic of this was killing fetus/ zyogate in the first place. dont do the time.. and there's no baby.. that simple .. Uncommon situations of Rape ,incest, Health issues. Which most people who are against abortion with half brain are all for anyways Sperm and the egg alone does nothing it takes 2 to tango . In which she shouldnt have had the kid in the first place. So she kept her crappy job.. ironing shirts.. n made the burden worse by having 2 kids from rape.... SHut Up.. ..... Deep down people dont wanna admit if their parents felt the same way they would be dead/aborted/not alive.... By cause and effect wouldnt be able to abort anything. because they wouldnt be there to abort. they dont wanna realize that the fetus/zyogte didn't have a choice in the matter in the first place . That they are now sharing the body and half of what they want to kill isn't even 100% their DNA any more only 50%

The op makes this claim

As you can see, my general stance is that the *potential* to be conscious and feel pain must be taken into consideration when talking about the ethics of abortion, and that since a fetus obviously has the potential to be conscious/feel pain, and will be given some weeks, abortion is therefore unethical.

I merely give another example of killing a human where more than those two factors are involved. I'm truly sorry you can't understand.