RE: Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...
March 10, 2013 at 4:36 am
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2013 at 4:44 am by genkaus.)
(March 10, 2013 at 3:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I tried to understand why being a host means the mother can do what it wants with it. I don't get it. Why is this the case? I just showed reasoning why (it's on the journey to higher life just as a baby is on a journey to higher life and we don't regard it as animal like in rights due to it's current state) that it's not ok to just kill it...and it's stated because it's a host and is dependent on the mother, you can kill it?
So, which is it? Do you understand it or not? Because here you seem to be saying that you get it but you don't get it. Let me put this as simply as I can.
The survival needs of one human being do not confer any sort of unchosen obligation upon another human being to fulfill them. If you are hungry or dying, I'm not obligated to feed you or save your life. Not unless I have consciously accepted such responsibility. Even if the fetus was considered a fully autonomic and human life-form, it still wouldn't create any obligation upon the mother to continue letting it leach off her body. If she wants it out of her body then she should be allowed to make that choice. If it cannot survive outside the mother - that's reality for you. It does not guarantee a life for every possible human being.
Furthermore, the fetus isn't a full human being to begin with. Even if the 'necessary obligation to support another human' was to be a consideration in overriding the mother's autonomy - which it most certainly isn't - this would make the argument even more worthless. If you value the potential life it could be so highly, then figure out a way to extract the fetus and support its life yourself - do not expect her to suffer for sake of your morality and your values.
Whether her choice was moral or immoral would depend upon the situation - but the negation of her agency would be an even greater immorality. Your arguments about valuing the life it could be are irrelevant unless the woman herself holds the same values. Babies and fetuses would be similar in that context - no one is obligated to support their continued existence unless they value the potentiality of higher life. The difference is that in case of babies, others are willing and able to assume responsibility (the state for example), whereas in case of the fetus, that is not possible and you'd have it forced upon someone who does not choose it.
(March 10, 2013 at 3:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote: LIKE SERIOUSLY WHAT KIND OF COLD LOGIC IS THIS?
Cold? Hardly. Just because I can actually justify my position using reasoned arguments and do not have to resort to appealing to emotions does not make it emotionless. Greater empathy is afforded to the woman - a fully conscious human being - whose rights you'd trample on than to the fetus - a clump of cells that shows no capacity for self-awareness.
