Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
There's so much that this article talks about that's messed up. Three choice quotes.
"If for some reason they ever found me guilty of raping him, my whole career would be completely destroyed, I'd be put in jail and the children would go in foster care," she said. "To destroy my entire family for the simple thing that he didn't want to pay child support, that's a very selfish thing to do."
"There is a case that deals with this. It's not exactly like Kris' case, but similar. It involves a 34-year-old man from Alabama who passed out at a party. A woman had sex with him while he was unconscious and she got pregnant. The court ordered him to pay child support."
"Experts say it is physically possible for a man to be raped by a woman, or, put another way, to get an erection without wanting to have sex."
This is starting to veer from being about abortion though.
The US government says murdering a human being isn't ok. If the US government says abortion is ok, then they are saying that an unborn baby isn't a human being. At what point then does the government get to "decide" when a baby becomes a human being? If the baby can be legally murdered after it comes out of the uterus, then it doesn't turn human during the process of born in their minds. How long after childbirth does it take for a baby to "turn" human? Until it's old enough to vote for liberal politicians?
The US government says murdering a human being isn't ok. If the US government says abortion is ok, then they are saying that an unborn baby isn't a human being. At what point then does the government get to "decide" when a baby becomes a human being? If the baby can be legally murdered after it comes out of the uterus, then it doesn't turn human during the process of born in their minds. How long after childbirth does it take for a baby to "turn" human? Until it's old enough to vote for liberal politicians?
*birth You are either being ignorant about the terms of abortion, or strawmanning heavily. I am not aware of anyone who supports the killing of a baby (a baby is in my view defined as such since birth, not before). Which by the way would not be an abortion at all anymore, since you are not aborting the process of gestation.
So you're saying it's only alright to kill a baby inside the womb but not outside of the womb?
actually, a baby is only one when it was near birth, around 7-9 months of gestation. so before it wasn't a baby, rather a sort of "baby candidate" (fetus). so abortion before that would not be killing a live baby, it would be like killing a live fetus. so you ARE strawmanning heavily
Abortion is alright during a medically/biologically reasonable period where the foetus is not very developed yet. Ideally where he has no consciousness. That can be up to three months or so.
So in the end, the politicians might decide whether they agree or not, but the mark until which abortion is ok should be based on a medical opinion, so I see no reason for any "government control" talk.
The US government says murdering a human being isn't ok. If the US government says abortion is ok, then they are saying that an unborn baby isn't a human being. At what point then does the government get to "decide" when a baby becomes a human being? If the baby can be legally murdered after it comes out of the uterus, then it doesn't turn human during the process of born in their minds. How long after childbirth does it take for a baby to "turn" human? Until it's old enough to vote for liberal politicians?
Just to clarify: no one doubts that a foetus is a human. It's not about its status as a human, but its status as a person. Or perhaps more properly: in virtue of what does a foetus have (or lack) a right to life? And another important question is how and/or why do the rights of a foetus outweigh the rights of the mother? I think this latter question is much more interesting. But the terminology confusion here doesn't affect your argument, so that's okay. In other words - you're not strawmanning (also neither is kenneth).
I am not aware of anyone who supports the killing of a baby (a baby is in my view defined as such since birth, not before).
Interestingly, Michael Tooley has just such a view. Just to clarify, he doesn't support infanticide - he just considers it to be morally permissible. This is one of the consequences in trying to develop criteria for personhood. As a result of Tooley's criteria, infants don't count as persons. Mary Ann Warren's criteria lead to a similar result, though she isn't quite as happy to bite the infanticide bullet as Tooley is.
So you're saying abortion is alright if you kill the unborn child before the 7 months mark?
Like i said, it was NOT a child or a baby before 7 months. it is a fetus. a fetus IS alive, but had no consciousness, quite akin to a baby chicken in an egg only aging before 20 days. So, i dare you to prove that i was strawmanning using your facts, tough guy.
Interestingly, Michael Tooley has just such a view. Just to clarify, he doesn't support infanticide - he just considers it to be morally permissible. This is one of the consequences in trying to develop criteria for personhood. As a result of Tooley's criteria, infants don't count as persons. Mary Ann Warren's criteria lead to a similar result, though she isn't quite as happy to bite the infanticide bullet as Tooley is.
Well, the thought is not new; there have been/are cultures where babies don't count much, and only after some arbitrarily chosen age/happening/ritual do they become persons, or get a soul, or whatever. But it's interesting to see that some consider the same after more in-depth consideration.
So you're saying that 7 months is when a fetus becomes a person that you don't kill? How do you prove that it has been exactly 7 months?
you're arguing the wrong point. fetus is a living being, but they doesn't sport a fully conscious mind, one less trait of a human being. so a fetus is more or less a human being, more so than just a bunch of cells, but still less than a fully developed human. so killing a fetus isn't the same as killing a person
Anyway on the strawman thing, your squabbling seems easy to counter-refute or whatever. BTY, Moe's response is much more appropriate than yours.
My squabbling may seem easy to counter, but yours are more so. Also you haven't even try countering it, how do you know it was easy? Prove your point that my squabbling is easy to counter refute, tough guy. Also, how do you know Moe's response are much more appropriate than mine? How subjective you are planning to be huh?
fetus is a living being, but they doesn't sport a fully conscious mind, one less trait of a human being.
So we have a possible criterion for personhood: consciousness. Unfortunately, personhood and consciousness can come apart in both directions. So we can have consciousness without personhood, and personhood without consciousness. On the first point, we can find many animals that would be considered conscious. Granted, it depends on how we define 'consciousness', but if we try to strengthen the notion (say, by making sentience rather than consciousness the necessary condition) we risk excluding infants as people. On the second point, there are persons who are not conscious. Every time you go to sleep, for example, you wouldn't be considered a person. People in comas also wouldn't qualify. So consciousness as a criterion for personhood doesn't work.
Yes, but your still depriving it from becoming a person, so it's the same thing as murder technically (taking away its potential life).
This is called a potentiality argument and, unfortunately, it doesn't work either. To see this, let's get the argument on offer clear. We're saying that a foetus has the potential to become a person. But it's only persons that have rights. So what we need is to claim that something with the potential to have those rights does, in fact, have those rights. But this isn't right at all. A U.S. citizen has the potential right, when they turn 18, to vote. But that doesn't mean that a 12-year old - who has the potential for this right - thereby has the right to vote.
Like i said, it was NOT a child or a baby before 7 months. it is a fetus. a fetus IS alive, but had no consciousness, quite akin to a baby chicken in an egg only aging before 20 days. So, i dare you to prove that i was strawmanning using your facts, tough guy.
(Ahem). Chicken foetus.
Yes, but your still depriving it from becoming a person, so it's the same thing as murder technically (taking away its potential life).
Sure, why not. Incdidentally, this means that you kill ~ten billion potential human beings approximately every week through criminal negligence. If you use a contraceptive, you are murdering at least one potential human being.
On the first point, we can find many animals that would be considered conscious. Granted, it depends on how we define 'consciousness', but if we try to strengthen the notion (say, by making sentience rather than consciousness the necessary condition) we risk excluding infants as people.
You'd also have to argue with me on non-human sentience.
But this isn't right at all. A U.S. citizen has the potential right, when they turn 18, to vote. But that doesn't mean that a 12-year old - who has the potential for this right - thereby has the right to vote.
That analogy falls apart, however, because they aren't being denied the eventual opportunity to vote.
