Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Objections to Abortion

MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 12:05:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am pro-abortion, but I see a few problems with the philosophy. Perhaps someone can answer this question.

Why is it that it is morally wrong to kill a comatose person who is going to wake up in about nine months, but it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus? We should not rob a comatose person of future experiences, but the same logic applies to fetuses.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 12:11:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Several possible answers, but the first one that precludes the rest would be that the mother's interests/life are more valuable than a fetus's.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 12:23:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Foetus is a parasite. It is leeching off the mother. The mother should be allowed get rid of it. The same applies to the comatose person, to an extent. A comatose person can hear, so he is, in a way, semi-concious. Killng a semi concious person is unjust. Killing a non-concious parasite isn't.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 12:51:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 12:05:04 PM, MTGandP wrote:
I am pro-abortion, but I see a few problems with the philosophy. Perhaps someone can answer this question.

Why is it that it is morally wrong to kill a comatose person who is going to wake up in about nine months
They paid for the stay (If they didn't, no one is obligated to give them a machine of course). Besides, they're rational and therefore have rights, they are just sleeping longer than normal. Put into self-interested terms, which I require of all moral concepts-- I might be comatose someday, so you killing comatose people is a threat to me, so I should eliminate you if you do so, so you should not do it because you don't want people trying to kill you.

I won't ever be a fetus someday.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 1:06:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Personally, I believe the difference is between an established life and a possible life.

A comatose person has an established life, has experienced the outer world and is seen as the sum of their experiences and individuality.

A fetus has yet to experience cognitively, or establish their lives. They're not really individuals because they have nothing yet to distinguish themselves from others; no experiences, no personality traits, nothing. They're not the sum of their lives yet, because they're only possible lives.

It sounds cold when saying out loud, and when looking at the moral picture, neither situation is truly acceptable.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 1:07:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 12:29:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
Fetuses are slightly conscious. They can move.

Venus fly traps can move.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 1:12:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 12:51:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
[Some really awesome argument about how coma people are paying for the service so killing them is wrong, and then said]

I won't ever be a fetus someday.

I loll'ed so hard.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 1:22:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 1:12:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/3/2009 12:51:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
[Some really awesome argument about how coma people are paying for the service so killing them is wrong, and then said]

I won't ever be a fetus someday.

I loll'ed so hard.

RR does that, doesn't he?
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 1:34:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 12:51:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I won't ever be a fetus someday.

Nor will you ever be a woman. Being pro-choice, I find your argument less than worthless.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 2:13:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 12:23:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Foetus is a parasite. It is leeching off the mother. The mother should be allowed get rid of it. The same applies to the comatose person, to an extent. A comatose person can hear, so he is, in a way, semi-concious. Killng a semi concious person is unjust. Killing a non-concious parasite isn't.

So is a nursing infant or any child dependent on its parents for food, shelter, etc.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 2:52:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 2:13:33 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/3/2009 12:23:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Foetus is a parasite. It is leeching off the mother. The mother should be allowed get rid of it. The same applies to the comatose person, to an extent. A comatose person can hear, so he is, in a way, semi-concious. Killng a semi concious person is unjust. Killing a non-concious parasite isn't.

So is a nursing infant or any child dependent on its parents for food, shelter, etc.

...not to mention the nursing infant's inability to "eliminate", thus serving as another counterexample to Ragnar's argument from self-interest.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 3:07:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 2:13:33 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/3/2009 12:23:04 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Foetus is a parasite. It is leeching off the mother. The mother should be allowed get rid of it. The same applies to the comatose person, to an extent. A comatose person can hear, so he is, in a way, semi-concious. Killng a semi concious person is unjust. Killing a non-concious parasite isn't.

So is a nursing infant or any child dependent on its parents for food, shelter, etc.

Not true. A fetus physically absorbs food from its mother. An infant is not required to be given food. It is the mother's choice to feed him.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 3:44:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 3:33:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
Under that light, it's morally permissible to stop giving life support to people in comas.

That's exactly the problem.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 10:56:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

Not true. A fetus physically absorbs food from its mother. An infant is not required to be given food. It is the mother's choice to feed him.

Legally, not feeding leads to child endangerment, neglect and/or manslaughter charges if the parents refuse to feed the infant and it dies.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 11:21:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 10:56:26 PM, PervRat wrote:

Not true. A fetus physically absorbs food from its mother. An infant is not required to be given food. It is the mother's choice to feed him.

Legally, not feeding leads to child endangerment, neglect and/or manslaughter charges if the parents refuse to feed the infant and it dies.

I don't think that it's so much a legality problem: I think that, rape aside, because people like to bring up that scenario, that if the mother becomes pregnant, whether through a boyfriend, or a husband, or a steamy late-night encounter, that she takes responsibility for that fetus; however, once that fetus is born, she takes an even greater responsibility, because it now requires actual care (as in, she can't just let it absorb nutrients and such anymore).
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 7:40:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Very little time here. Why do I have to have a life outside of DDO?

At 8/3/2009 12:11:52 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Several possible answers, but the first one that precludes the rest would be that the mother's interests/life are more valuable than a fetus's.

I just want to say one thing here. We cannot judge one human life to be 'more valuable' than another. We just are not equipped to do so. We have not the knowledge or the understanding to place different values for different humans.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 7:44:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I believe that it is impossible to gage a reason why or why not because no definition of rights that isn't laughable can distinguish a newborn with rights from a fetus without them.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 9:06:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 7:40:38 PM, Lifeisgood wrote:
Very little time here. Why do I have to have a life outside of DDO?

At 8/3/2009 12:11:52 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Several possible answers, but the first one that precludes the rest would be that the mother's interests/life are more valuable than a fetus's.

I just want to say one thing here. We cannot judge one human life to be 'more valuable' than another. We just are not equipped to do so. We have not the knowledge or the understanding to place different values for different humans.

I completely and totally disagree. We not only have the knowledge and understanding to do so, but we do so on a daily basis, and this is the answer to the abortion debate.

You always have all these arguments that try to rationalize morality and reconcile pro choice or pro life decisions against other moral rules. Fetus is a parasite, fetus is like a tumor, Woman has rights, definition of human, what is life? What is potential life? etc. ad nauseum. At the end of the day, that's what everything remains, meaningless rationalizations.

Why is it okay to abort a fetus, but not to end the life of a comatose man?

Because we see the man as a man and we don't see the fetus as an actual member of society. Man in a coma is a man in a coma. We still see him as a man because he looks like a man. We can't see the fetus, it's not important to us. The fetus is physically and conceptually more distant from what we establish emotional and social ties with. We kill whoever the hell we want, based on how important society deems them. Morality is not just relative between people, but between similar situations. Not the answer that anyone wants, but that's the answer.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 11:04:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 1:34:02 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/3/2009 12:51:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I won't ever be a fetus someday.

Nor will you ever be a woman. Being pro-choice, I find your argument less than worthless.

I won't ever be a woman (Barring some tyrant imprisoning me and performing an experimental surgery because I'm the target he least likes), but there are just as many misandrists as there are misogynists, opening the door for one to murder opens the door to another. Ah yes, and I'd also like to get laid sometime, but not with a fetus :).

In any case, what's your argument? And why would it convince anyone to act or refrain from action?

...not to mention the nursing infant's inability to "eliminate", thus serving as another counterexample to Ragnar's argument from self-interest.
Actually, parents often get really frikkin crazy about killing off their infants due to hormones, so for anyone but them...

(in any case, that wouldn't count as a "counterexample," it merely states "Given this, infanticide is acceptable." Since I've never held that newborns have rights, this doesn't even serve as a reduction to a contradiction).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 9:12:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 11:04:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/3/2009 1:34:02 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
...not to mention the nursing infant's inability to "eliminate", thus serving as another counterexample to Ragnar's argument from self-interest.
Actually, parents often get really frikkin crazy about killing off their infants due to hormones, so for anyone but them...

Hormones? What happened to rational self-interest?

(in any case, that wouldn't count as a "counterexample," it merely states "Given this, infanticide is acceptable." Since I've never held that newborns have rights, this doesn't even serve as a reduction to a contradiction).

It serves as a reduction to absurdity.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 9:28:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 9:12:30 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/5/2009 11:04:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/3/2009 1:34:02 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
...not to mention the nursing infant's inability to "eliminate", thus serving as another counterexample to Ragnar's argument from self-interest.
Actually, parents often get really frikkin crazy about killing off their infants due to hormones, so for anyone but them...

Hormones? What happened to rational self-interest?
The rational self-interest is of the guy who doesn't want to be killed by those hormone-driven folk.

(in any case, that wouldn't count as a "counterexample," it merely states "Given this, infanticide is acceptable." Since I've never held that newborns have rights, this doesn't even serve as a reduction to a contradiction).

It serves as a reduction to absurdity.
No, the term "Reductio ad absurdum" refers only the the LOGICALLY absurd, i.e., the contradictory. It does not refer to the EMOTIONALLY absurd. Anything is absurd to someone's emotions or another, therefore, if showing that something is absurd to someone's emotion proves it false, everything is false and nothing is real and it's topsy turvy day.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 11:55:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 9:28:35 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/11/2009 9:12:30 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/5/2009 11:04:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/3/2009 1:34:02 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
...not to mention the nursing infant's inability to "eliminate", thus serving as another counterexample to Ragnar's argument from self-interest.
Actually, parents often get really frikkin crazy about killing off their infants due to hormones, so for anyone but them...

Hormones? What happened to rational self-interest?
The rational self-interest is of the guy who doesn't want to be killed by those hormone-driven folk.

...in other words, the irrational. But in your original argument, you assumed not only the rationality of the actor but also the rationality of those whose behavior the actor is trying to predict. Namely, you have others considering not your likely reaction to the legalization/practice of killing the comatose (nothing, as it would be only one of many legalities/practices that elicit no reaction from you beyond negative oration), but your "rational" reaction. Clearly, a woman's reaction to her infant's death, like her reaction to her grown offspring's death, is superrationally, not individually rationally, inspired.

(in any case, that wouldn't count as a "counterexample," it merely states "Given this, infanticide is acceptable." Since I've never held that newborns have rights, this doesn't even serve as a reduction to a contradiction).

It serves as a reduction to absurdity.
No, the term "Reductio ad absurdum" refers only the the LOGICALLY absurd, i.e., the contradictory. It does not refer to the EMOTIONALLY absurd. Anything is absurd to someone's emotions or another, therefore, if showing that something is absurd to someone's emotion proves it false, everything is false and nothing is real and it's topsy turvy day.

But infanticide is absurd to some vast majority's emotions, not just "someone's". It's unclear the point of introducing an argument that is merely free of logical fallacy.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.