Abortion is morally wrong

[fr0d0]

He would know

Yeah that's what I thought

[Losty]

He would know

Yeah that's what I thought

Are we now using mental illnesses as some sort of insult like the playground bully who calls everyone a retard?

Well how very mature.

[fr0d0]

It's not an insult Losty. I'm joking. Apologies if you're offended.

[Arthur123]

I apologize for taking so long to respond. I am extremely busy with work/school and considering the fact that I have finals tomorrow I probably shouldn't be on here in the first place haha

To respond to your post, Cthulhu, I fully admit that there may indeed be a distinction between a human being and a person. (However, I am not quite convinced I could be swayed one way or the other on this point.) But in regards to my argument, you are correct, I am using human beings and the idea of human rights as my definitional and metaphysical reference in regards to this argument. I am working from the starting point of morality and believe that the law should emulate morality not vice versa. In response to your statement concerning consciousness and ethical behavior as the be all end all as far as humans go I believe we can discover I few problems with this definition.

To back up, a theory should be rejected if it has underlying issues, doesn't explain facts of reality as well as another theory, or contradicts other well accepted facts ect. By reducing humans to purely cognitive and moral function it confuses functionality with ontology. Stated similarly, what a thing can do with what it actually is. Furthermore, it raises ethical issues such as do people who are amoral lack the requirements of human rights? Or how about someone who is half conscious? One quarter conscious? Say, half the population in Earth come down with a virus and cease to have these qualities, do they loose there human rights and is not permissible to kill them? I think in these cases the answer is no.

[GrandizerII]

Like I keep saying, regardless of whether abortion is moral or not, it boils down to one thing:

Women's rights vs. the rights of a fetus.

Who is more important to you? Your fellow human being who has the mental capacity to fight for her rights and to experience suffering and who you are much more likely to be attached to emotionally than a stranger in her womb? Or a fetus that hasn't reached such an advanced level of psychology yet? That is the key question.

[Arthur123]

I say they both have rights and the right of the fetus to live greatly outweighs the womans temporary discomfort. Everything stems from morality. Especially law. (Ideally)

[The Valkyrie]

I say they both have rights and the right of the fetus to live greatly outweighs the womans temporary discomfort. Everything stems from morality. Especially law. (Ideally)

A fetus has no rights so long as it is dependant upon its mother's body for survival. At viability - around 20-24 weeks - then I accept that it does unless it's survival directly threatens the life of the mother.

The life of a living, breathing person trumps the rights of a potential person every time.

"temporary discomfort"

Spoken as a male, obviously.

[Arthur123]

So a man hooked up to a breathing machine has no rights? I see. How about in the case of a woman trapped in a cabin no food ect. only her breast milk will save the baby. Still has no rights huh? And yes temporary discomfort, lets stick to logos not pathos here.

[Losty]

So a man hooked up to a breathing machine has no rights? I see. How about in the case of a woman trapped in a cabin no food ect. only her breast milk will save the baby. Still has no rights huh? And yes temporary discomfort, lets stick to logos not pathos here.

A man on a ventilator is not using someone else's body to survive. A woman trapped in a cabin with no food? How can she have breast milk with no calorie intake?

Pregnancy and childbirth is not a temporary discomfort. It is life threatening and potentially traumatizing.

[The Valkyrie]

So a man hooked up to a breathing machine has no rights? I see. How about in the case of a woman trapped in a cabin no food ect. only her breast milk will save the baby. Still has no rights huh? And yes temporary discomfort, lets stick to logos not pathos here.

Bad comparison.

Life support devices are NOT biological organisms. And we're talking about a living breathing woman in your cabin scenario.

Would you like to try any other fallacies?

---

So a man hooked up to a breathing machine has no rights? I see. How about in the case of a woman trapped in a cabin no food ect. only her breast milk will save the baby. Still has no rights huh? And yes temporary discomfort, lets stick to logos not pathos here.

A man on a ventilator is not using someone else's body to survive. A woman trapped in a cabin with no food? How can she have breast milk with no calorie intake?

Pregnancy and childbirth is not a temporary discomfort. It is life threatening and potentially traumatizing.

Apparently these facts are ignored.

Postpartum depression, anyone?