RE: Abortion is morally wrong
June 23, 2014 at 8:51 pm
(This post was last modified: June 23, 2014 at 8:56 pm by Arthur123.)
My motus ponens is as follows:
1. It is morally impermissible to kill an innocent human being
2. A fetus is an innocent human being
3. Ergo, it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus.
Esquilax, once again, my argument has nothing to do with function whatsoever but with ontology. We do have a ethical hierarchy when it comes to other organisms if it is morally permissible to kill it or not. However, my whole argument has been based on humanity, the inconsistency, and outright arbitrariness, among what a human being actually is among pro-choice advocates.
In regards to objective morality, it is necessary proponent in this debate to accept that killing an innocent human is morally wrong. If not, than both violating a woman's bodily rights and that of her child is permissible, the conversation is a non-starter.
"My point is that you haven't adequately argued that a fetus is in the same category as a fully grown human life, and that simply appealing to genetics doesn't solve that problem, as there are plenty of genetically human things that we see fit to kill, including whole people in some cases. Say, where they're infringing on the rights of others" Agreed, and thats why women shouldn't infringe on the rights of their children in the worst possible way.
"So it is with the right to bodily autonomy; it needs to be applied consistently to work at all, and yet you're arguing" thats exactly what I have been arguing! Fetuses also if human beings have the right to bodily autonomy and it is the pro-choice advocate that is being inconsistent in there assertion of rights.
1. It is morally impermissible to kill an innocent human being
2. A fetus is an innocent human being
3. Ergo, it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus.
Esquilax, once again, my argument has nothing to do with function whatsoever but with ontology. We do have a ethical hierarchy when it comes to other organisms if it is morally permissible to kill it or not. However, my whole argument has been based on humanity, the inconsistency, and outright arbitrariness, among what a human being actually is among pro-choice advocates.
In regards to objective morality, it is necessary proponent in this debate to accept that killing an innocent human is morally wrong. If not, than both violating a woman's bodily rights and that of her child is permissible, the conversation is a non-starter.
"My point is that you haven't adequately argued that a fetus is in the same category as a fully grown human life, and that simply appealing to genetics doesn't solve that problem, as there are plenty of genetically human things that we see fit to kill, including whole people in some cases. Say, where they're infringing on the rights of others" Agreed, and thats why women shouldn't infringe on the rights of their children in the worst possible way.
"So it is with the right to bodily autonomy; it needs to be applied consistently to work at all, and yet you're arguing" thats exactly what I have been arguing! Fetuses also if human beings have the right to bodily autonomy and it is the pro-choice advocate that is being inconsistent in there assertion of rights.