RE: Abortion and Global warming
May 22, 2014 at 6:57 am
(This post was last modified: May 22, 2014 at 7:29 am by Heywood.)
(May 22, 2014 at 5:48 am)Cato Wrote:(May 21, 2014 at 6:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: It doesn't matter why I value the baby more. I do. I could value the baby more because it looks like me.
Your garage is on fire. It contains 2 cars, a Bentley and a Kia. You can only save one car. You value the Bentley more so you drive it out.
Was the Kia not as much of a car as the Bentley? Negative....both by their very essence are cars. How much value you place on a thing doesn't determine its essence.
The analogy doesn't work for a couple reasons:
The difference between a Bentley and a Kia invokes eugenics. You should make the automobiles have the same make and model. The following is what then needs to happen to make your analogy appropriate for the discussion.
Your analogy only works if one car is fully operable and the other is simply the blueprints, assembley instructions, and only a portion of the raw materials required.
The example does work. Bad Wolf's claim was that a baby has a stronger right to exist then a zygote because we value them more. I was showing him the state of possessing existence rights has nothing to do with value by showing him that the state of being a car has nothing to do with its value.
(May 22, 2014 at 6:03 am)paulpablo Wrote: It is a consistent position, if you believe abortions will reduce overcrowding and therefore reduce the unhappiness, crime and pollution that comes with overcrowding for future people AND you also believe in cutting carbon emissions to slow down the greenhouse effect ALSO for the happiness of future generations. They both have the same result, happy people in the future.
The conclusion of this argument is that abortion isn't an inalienable right of the mother but rather a tool used by society to regulate its population.