RE: Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...
March 10, 2013 at 9:23 am
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2013 at 9:54 am by Mystic.)
(March 10, 2013 at 4:36 am)genkaus Wrote: 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.
So let me get this straight. You are saying in a situation where my life depends on you alone, you don't have an obligation to save me. My beliefs is the opposite. If I and you were in a situation were you were in danger and no one but me can save you, I would be obligated to save you.
Quote: 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.
As I stated, a month year old born baby has about the same intelligence as an animal. We value it more then animal because of the potential life it can live. We value the seed for the tree it can become in the situation. You haven't refuted the logic I've shown.
Quote: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.
Why is that. And even this was true, and she should be afforded the choice, it won't change it being wrong and the same as murder.
Quote: 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.
Yes...
Quote: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.
I don't see how this refutes the reasoning. Besides, having sex, you know there is a chance of a baby. Therefore, there was an element of choice and responsibility except in cases of rape.
I would also add that a mother and father have even more responsibility towards their child then other people. Blood relations are important. Even if you believe there is no basis to blood bond and relationships, no one knows that for sure.
Another thing is that precaution is sometimes the best policy. In the situation, murder vs inconvenience/hardship of raising a baby upon the mother....you don't want take a chance of murder.
Therefore precaution seems more reasonable.
