RickD wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:29 pm
Thank you, Rick, for a clear answer. Just to be quite sure, I summarize: You think that it is objectively true that young fetuses have a right to live, but you haven't any argument to motivate your thought. That seems to be a view that is held by many “pro-lifers”.
No, human life has inherent value. All human life.
I say that you say: “young fetuses have a right to live”. I think that’s the same as saying that they have inherent value. OK?
All humans have a right not to be murdered.
Now you start talking about “murdering”, why? The definition of murder is: “the unlawful premeditated killing”.
Especially innocent humans, like the unborn kind. To say that many pro-lifers have no argument as to why baby humans shouldn't be murdered, is just ignorant.
Please read what I write. I wrote that you think that the young fetus has a right to live and that you (and pro-lifers) don’t motivate that thought
(and I’m not talking about “baby humans” and I’m not talking about “murder”)
My opinion is that the young fetus don’t have any right to live if the parents want to kill it. I don’t think that this is objectively true because I don’t think that there are any objective true moral statements. On the other hand I am quite sure that a prohibition of abortion of young fetuses will cause considerable suffering for many families and individuals. This view is held by most “pro- choicers”. I and those think that the only individuals that might suffer if a young fetus is killed is the parents but they have made a consent. The young fetus doesn’t feel anything.
The young fetus' right to life is less important than the parents' choice to kill another human for convenience. Got it.
“Convenience” is a euphemism for possibly spoiled lives.
You don't think there are any objective true moral statements? I think you're lying to yourself on that one. Take this statement: "It is wrong to rape and murder children." You don't think that's objectively true?
That’s a difficult and complex question that I prefer not to discuss now. Morality is apparently different in different cultures. Se for instance what is written in the old testament concerning killing children. I’m currently listening on a discussion between Dr Shermer and Dr. Nicholas A. Christakis about Chritakis’ new book. Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... Vgx7E16_qk
. It is interesting, recommended. I may have to modify my opinion about objectivity a bit.
The prohibition of abortion of young fetuses will cause considerable suffering to many families and individuals? So again, whatever suffering that families and individuals would have, takes precedence OVER the life of another human being. That seems pretty damn messed up, if you ask me. Individuals and families are inconvenienced by the birth of a child, so let's just kill the baby. PROBLEM SOLVED!
Then, what would you say if you argued with those that are for abortion of young fetuses? Would you say?: I think that you should adopt my principle of the right to life. This principle doesn’t generate any good. No less suffering, no more happiness or well being. But still you should adopt my thinking even if you know that lot off suffering will be the result of prohibiting abortion. And note that if you don’t accept my argument I will work for a law so that if you act according to your conviction, you and those that help you, will be sentenced to prison.
And this sums it up perfectly. "A lot of suffering will be the result of prohibiting abortion."
To hell with the suffering and murder of the unborn, if the parents are inconvenienced by a baby, IT'S A CRISIS!!!!
There is no suffering of the “unborn”. I am talking about young fetuses that don’t feel pain.
There is no murdering. I am talking about lawful killing.
The discussion will be more productive if you discuss what I’m talking about, not other things.
Good grief! Your priorities are really screwed up.
You prioritize the right to live for the young fetus which is as most a protohuman. Without memory, consciousness, feelings or any cognitive abilities. I don’t see any reason why the world would be better in any sense if we give these fetuses an unconditional right to live.
You claim this principle without any further motivation, without motivating why I should give any weight to it comparing it to the well documented sufferings an abortion ban would cause. What on earth could I say to the woman I told about earlier that aborted a fetus that probably had Downs syndrome. Shall I say. “You acted wrongly when you choose to have a healthy instead of a sick baby”? What’s your suggestion?
“Good grief” you say. You seem to forget that my view or some similar view is a majority view in many countries and recently even in the catholic Ireland.
And finally, prioritizing a principle that has no value before human suffering, isn’t that “screwed up”? (And again, notice that I’m talking about embryos and young fetuses)