General > Political and Religious
"Right to Privacy" Abortion Analogy
soundgarden:
--- Quote from: Omega on April 19, 2012, 07:09:45 PM ---
--- Quote from: eric42434224 on April 19, 2012, 07:03:00 PM ---Omega;
Is there any instance where it is not immoral to have an abortion?
--- End quote ---
would be if a woman faces a legitimate, real, and extreme threat to lose her life in the process of delivering a sickly or deathly child who faces abysmal chances of living (say, if the still-alive child had a brain tumor and whose delivery could legitimately result in the death of the mother).
--- End quote ---
The same people who decides when the threat is "real and extreme" are the same people who best knows when human life begins. Both scenarios are based on observations and educated assumptions by an expert. You would trust their opinion in the first scenario, but not the second?
Omega:
--- Quote from: soundgarden on April 26, 2012, 01:46:51 PM ---The same people who decides when the threat is "real and extreme" are the same people who best knows when human life begins. Both scenarios are based on observations and educated assumptions by an expert. You would trust their opinion in the first scenario, but not the second?
--- End quote ---
If you assert that human life does not begin when an egg is fertilized, then you're simply forced to make an arbitrary, subjective and unjustifiable choice as to when a human (or a fertilized egg) becomes "human" (whatever that's even supposed to mean).
There is no room for debate as to when a human being begins to exist and form, namely, at the moment of conception.
Scheavo:
--- Quote from: Omega on April 26, 2012, 02:01:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: soundgarden on April 26, 2012, 01:46:51 PM ---The same people who decides when the threat is "real and extreme" are the same people who best knows when human life begins. Both scenarios are based on observations and educated assumptions by an expert. You would trust their opinion in the first scenario, but not the second?
--- End quote ---
If you assert that human life does not begin when an egg is fertilized, then you're simply forced to make an arbitrary, subjective and unjustifiable choice as to when a human (or a fertilized egg) becomes "human" (whatever that's even supposed to mean).
There is no room for debate as to when a human being begins to exist and form, namely, at the moment of conception.
--- End quote ---
So should we let 5 year old vote and drive cars? Those are rights we expect as adults, but we don't give them to kids. I mean, there's a shitload of other examples like this.
Basically, we draw "arbitrary" lines all the time. There are several biological reasons involved in differentiating an embryo and a fetus, and there are reasons given for why the line should be drawn where it is. So really, it's not arbitrary at all. It's just different than yours.
soundgarden:
--- Quote from: Omega on April 26, 2012, 02:01:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: soundgarden on April 26, 2012, 01:46:51 PM ---The same people who decides when the threat is "real and extreme" are the same people who best knows when human life begins. Both scenarios are based on observations and educated assumptions by an expert. You would trust their opinion in the first scenario, but not the second?
--- End quote ---
If you assert that human life does not begin when an egg is fertilized, then you're simply forced to make an arbitrary, subjective and unjustifiable choice as to when a human (or a fertilized egg) becomes "human" (whatever that's even supposed to mean).
Your argument would hold more sway if you are against abortion in absolutely 100% of the cases.
There is no room for debate as to when a human being begins to exist and form, namely, at the moment of conception.
--- End quote ---
Then you cannot assert that a fetus will kill the mother, until you see a dead mother. Nor can you assert it will die due to terminal condition outside the womb until you see it dead, which of course is impossible.. Again, both scenarios are ultimately based on the educated guesses of doctors and scientists.
Your argument is more sound, if you were to agree that abortion is unacceptable in absolutely all cases. Because then you will be ignoring scientific study equally.
Omega:
--- Quote from: soundgarden on April 26, 2012, 02:11:34 PM ---Your argument is more sound, if you were to agree that abortion is unacceptable in absolutely all cases. Because then you will be ignoring scientific study equally.
--- End quote ---
But I do agree that abortion is unacceptable in all cases. There are simply some possible situations which can be imagined in which my personal emotions would supersede my moral reasoning and would lead me to make a patently unacceptable and immoral choice.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version