(February 23, 2020 at 9:17 pm)Agnostico Wrote:

Quote:If a 1 year old has kidney failure, is it moral to force the child's mother to give up one of her's to save the child?[/b]

No but no kidneys or anything is sacrificed in pregnancy?

Is it right for a child's mother to kill her child?

So, you are okay not forcing a woman to be a life support system for her 1 year old child, but you are okay with forcing a woman to be a life support system for her fetus.

Why the different standards?

Not to mention, that may not be true (that nothing is sacrificed in a pregnancy). There are many health problems associated with pregnancy, some are rare, but they are a risk to the woman, nonetheless: liver damage ( Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy), gestational diabetes, Preeclampsia and more. Also, pregnancy permanently alters a woman's physiology, in general.

You seem fine forcing women to risk her health brought on by pregnancy, but you you fine with not forcing them risk their health to save the life of their existing child. Again I ask, why the different standards?

Quote:Is it right for a child's mother to kill her child?

She is not 'killing her child', she is ending a pregnancy.

The fetus has every right to continue living, but not at the expense of the bodily autonomy of the mother.

And you seem to understand this, when it comes to her 1 year old child. The reason, I am assuming, that you are fine with allowing the 1 year old to die, by not forcing the mother to give up a kidney, is because it violates her bodily autonomy.

(February 23, 2020 at 10:26 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: No, I said there are certain conditions after viability that I accept for abortions.

Big difference.

And it's not always her choice, is it? Some women are the victims of rape and incest and there are groups passing laws to force these women to carry these kids to term.

There are also laws being passed where women are forced to have funerals if they miscarry. Let me put it into no uncertain terms. As far as I'm concerned, these people are scum.

Did you knlw that in some places a rapist has visitation rights to kids that are the result of that rape?

Forced to have funerals if they miscarry... Why?
A rapist with visitation rights. That's far out

Ye we said it b4 that we aren't talking about those xtreme cases.
There aren't many abortion's performed after the 1st trimester from what I understand

---

(February 23, 2020 at 10:18 pm)CaenLeranzo Wrote: I'm totally aware that there are people who are supportive and not supportive of abortion. Plus, I'm fully understanding of why abortion is illegal in some places and legal in other places because of cultures. To be brutally honest, I find that abortion is immorally murdering a developing human that didn't get the freedom of choice to live. Some people don't care about morals and they care about opportunities instead regardless of how immoral they are. I understand that. But, I don't trust those people who don't care about morals even if they wouldn't care that I don't trust them. Abortion is a form of skipping parental responsibility depending on whether the person is already a parent or not, which makes me feel dreary of how people behave because people who were born before the millennial era would most likely never perform an abortion. I feel like millennials and other people are indulging in toxic consumerism (which is why health problems are increasing worldwide and why nonrenewable resources are drying up), toxic individualism (which is causing current children to behave worse than the children in the past because young parents now don't want to be responsible parents that punish, discipline, and wisen their children to make them behave like civilized people in the future), immoral opportunism (which is causing people to become less trustworthy and less reliable), and codependent reliance on modern technology at the expense of developing problem-solving skills without the use of technology that is toxic (which is causing people to drastically limit their skills at the expense of their intellectual capacities). I find that abortion is another toxic product that these despicable millennials and younger people get so they don't have to be responsible for their actions from raising their children. The only time that I would feel supportive when someone were to have an abortion is when their life is in danger because of a dangerous pregnancy.

Respect mate I know exactly what u mean

Simon Moon Wrote:So, you are okay not forcing a woman to be a life support system for her 1 year old child, but you are okay with forcing a woman to be a life support system for her fetus.

Why the different standards?

One case is asking the mother to sacrifice one of her kidneys for the rest of her life
The other merely asks her to carry a child for 9 months
A tiny risk in pregnancy doesn't make it comparable to loosing a kidney

Simon Moon Wrote:She is not 'killing her child', she is ending a pregnancy.

The fetus has every right to continue living, but not at the expense of the bodily autonomy of the mother.

I meant to ask if it was ok for a mother to kill her 1 year old child?
If not then why is it ok to kill her unborn child? To deliberately harm it, to disturb its well being, to inflict pain upon it, to end it's life?
Why should the unborn child suffer the consequences for the mothers irresponsible actions?

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:I don’t think your ‘argument from pain’ is either strong or sound, because inflicting pain may - in a given situation - be the preferred moral choice

So the argument that inflicting pain is immoral isn't a strong one you say
So bashing some one is ok. Stabbing someone isn't immoral. Shooting someone is fine
Can u see the error in this line of thought...

If your going to reject the claim that inflicting pain is immoral then what is an immoral act? Define it.

(February 24, 2020 at 1:14 am)Agnostico Wrote:

Simon Moon Wrote:So, you are okay not forcing a woman to be a life support system for her 1 year old child, but you are okay with forcing a woman to be a life support system for her fetus.

Why the different standards?

One case is asking the mother to sacrifice one of her kidneys for the rest of her life
The other merely asks her to carry a child for 9 months
A tiny risk in pregnancy doesn't make it comparable to loosing a kidney

Simon Moon Wrote:She is not 'killing her child', she is ending a pregnancy.

The fetus has every right to continue living, but not at the expense of the bodily autonomy of the mother.

I meant to ask if it was ok for a mother to kill her 1 year old child?
If not then why is it ok to kill her unborn child? To deliberately harm it, to disturb its well being, to inflict pain upon it, to end it's life?
Why should the unborn child suffer the consequences for the mothers irresponsible actions?

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:I don’t think your ‘argument from pain’ is either strong or sound, because inflicting pain may - in a given situation - be the preferred moral choice

So the argument that inflicting pain is immoral isn't a strong one you say
So bashing some one is ok. Stabbing someone isn't immoral. Shooting someone is fine
Can u see the error in this line of thought...

If your going to reject the claim that inflicting pain is immoral then what is an immoral act? Define it.

A man is beating a six year old with a stick. Is bashing him immoral?

Another man is raping a woman. Is stabbing him immoral?

A third man is hold a bus load of people hostage. Is shooting him immoral?

You can look up a definition of morality for yourself. It’s a little more complicated than inflicting pain.

But I’m more interested in an answer to my question. If a foetus is anesthetized so that it feels no pain during the abortion, does that abortion become moral?

Boru

All this talk about causing pain, seems to me the little fucker is going to cause mommy more pain regardless. Seems to me that you would like to cause mommy some pain as well. It's not just that your moral condemnation is childish, Agno..it's that you're not going to apply it to the bay-bee or yourself.

You think that society should hurt women, so that babies can hurt women, so that no one hurts bay-bees. About half of those bay-bees will be women themselves. What a wonderful world to be force birthed into!

(February 23, 2020 at 7:43 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 23, 2020 at 4:59 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Then it's a human being which can't survive except by utilizing the organs of another human being.

At what age can a child survive without the help of other human beings? The carer needs his own organs to survive, and the child needs the carer. Therefore, the carer's organs are necessary for the child's survival, long after it is born.

Put into the forest without assistance, no child could survive. Put into the world without the whole network of society, very few adults could survive. 

A fetus is dependent on others, but so is every adult.

Yes, and it's unethical to force somebody to give his meal to a poor hungry person just because that poor hungry person depends on that for their survival. Similarly, it's unethical to force a woman to carry a fetus if she doesn't want to.

We might improve both of those statements.

Refusing to feed a poor hungry person is a situation with moral import. It may be unethical to force a poor hungry person to give another poor hungry person his food - but that wouldn't make it unethical to force a rich full person to give a poor hungry person his food. For this reason, we would need reference to facts of the specific transaction in question.

Forcing a woman to carry a fetus is a situation with moral import. It may be unethical to force a women to carry a fetus they don't want to - but that wouldn't make it unethical to force some women to carry a fetus when they indicate that they don't want to. For this reason, we would need reference to facts of the specific transaction in question.

The day to day morality of our general rules are a heuristic. Mostly but not always right - even by reference to themselves. The matter of the ethics of abortion is too complicated and specific for the singular application of the general rules. We're not picking out socks by reference to sweatshops. Every conceivable position on this topic will have real and profound effects on people.

(February 24, 2020 at 7:47 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Belacqua
it's unethical to force a woman to carry a fetus if she doesn't want to.

Suppose the father doesn't want to pay to support the child after it's born. Is it ethical for the government to force him to pay? 

How do we decide when a parent should be forced to support and when he or she shouldn't be forced?

(February 23, 2020 at 9:17 pm)Agnostico Wrote:

(February 23, 2020 at 6:28 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: I asked if you had ever been pregnant.  The answer for that is yes or no.

Waltzing around a direct answer to a direct question is a sure sign of dishonesty.  So is throwing in other blah, blah, blah.

No, no is the answer to my question.

Ye well what is your point?

---

(February 23, 2020 at 7:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Let me ask  you something.

If a 1 year old has kidney failure, is it moral to force the child's mother to give up one of her's to save the child?

No but no kidneys or anything is sacrificed in pregnancy?

Is it right for a child's mother to kill her child?

---

(February 23, 2020 at 5:06 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Actually he reason is because your comment makes no sense


Actually i did address them and countered them

---

Actually you give no reasons 


No we aren't .Nice non sequitur


Because all you give are things to reject

---

Yes they did .It's you who provides no logic just emotions 


So you have never been pregnant .


It can be moral to inflict pain and no one said it was responsible.

LOL mate u haven't even looked at the right post.
Ur responding to responses not to my argument...

Yes i have and i have countred you 

Nope i have responded to you

---

Quote:One case is asking the mother to sacrifice one of her kidneys for the rest of her life
The other merely asks her to carry a child for 9 months
A tiny risk in pregnancy doesn't make it comparable to loosing a kidney

Nine months or forever the length doesn't matter it's immoral period 

Quote:I meant to ask if it was ok for a mother to kill her 1 year old child?
If not then why is it ok to kill her unborn child? To deliberately harm it, to disturb its well being, to inflict pain upon it, to end it's life?
Why should the unborn child suffer the consequences for the mothers irresponsible actions?

No it's not bu ha's not he same . And it's no suffering because of her actions .

Quote:So the argument that inflicting pain is immoral isn't a strong one you say
So bashing some one is ok. Stabbing someone isn't immoral. Shooting someone is fine
Can u see the error in this line of thought...

If your going to reject the claim that inflicting pain is immoral then what is an immoral act? Define it.

The examples you give are not equal to abortion

---

Quote:At what age can a child survive without the help of other human beings? 

Not equal to using someone else's body against their will 

Quote:The carer needs his own organs to survive, and the child needs the carer.

And it has no right to someone else's organs 

Quote:Therefore, the carer's organs are necessary for the child's survival, long after it is born.

You hae not shown this 

Quote:Put into the forest without assistance, no child could survive.

Not equivalent  

Quote: Put into the world without the whole network of society, very few adults could survive. 

Not equivalent  

Quote:A fetus is dependent on others, but so is every adult

Which isn't the point

---

Quote:Suppose the father doesn't want to pay to support the child after it's born. 

Not equivalent to abortion  

Quote:Is it ethical for the government to force him to pay? 

Not equal to abortion 

Quote:How do we decide when a parent should be forced to support and when he or she shouldn't be forced?

Well first by not making bad comparisons like you are

(February 24, 2020 at 8:24 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 24, 2020 at 7:47 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Belacqua
it's unethical to force a woman to carry a fetus if she doesn't want to.

Suppose the father doesn't want to pay to support the child after it's born. Is it ethical for the government to force him to pay? 

How do we decide when a parent should be forced to support and when he or she shouldn't be forced?

Courts make these decisions all the time, it's not really a burning ethical question.  The father of a child is generally obligated to contribute financially to the support of that child and is punished if he fails in that obligation.  The mother generally contributes less financially because the burden of care tends to be on her.

But I'm not sure that the two situations have anything to do with one another.  Carrying a foetus to term entails health risks, both physical and emotional.  Signing a support cheque does not.

Boru