Abortion hypotheticals

[PsYcHo]

The argument can go against your position regarding newborn infants conceived of rape.

If:

It is moral to kill rape fetuses because they are incapable of survival on their own. Thus, my right to bodily autonomy overrides its right to life.

Then it would logically follow...

It is moral to kill rape infants because they are incapable of survival on their own, thus my right to bodily autonomy overrides its right to life.

It may be that I am severely deficient in my ability to make a coherent point, (alcohol may have been a factor), but I am really struggling to understand your position.

Are you arguing that killing an underdeveloped child (fetus) is somehow able to be justified morally? I'm not the most moral person, but I do believe there are moral lines that even I won't cross. I will (and have) killed animals with my bare hands for food, but I don't think (now) that my actions were morally right. I had other options. I would no longer (unless it was necessary for survival) kill an animal for food. There are other options.

Question for you; Would you be willing to personally kill this undesired child?

You make interesting arguments, but if I understand it correctly, you are (maybe only scholarly ) arguing that it's OK to kill an infant human.

Could you take this infant's neck in your hands, and twist until it stopped moving? Maybe cut it's throat until it bled out? Hell, just hold it high, and slam it on the floor, watching it burst.

I'm not even being facetious here.

I've killed living beings with my own hand. I hate that I've done that, but I accept that I did, and if necessary I would do it again.

Would you kill this fetus yourself? Or are you just comfortable making the argument that it's OK if someone else kills the fetus? A lot easier to wash yourself of guilt if you don't get your own hands dirty, ain't it?

[PsYcHo]

It is moral to kill rape fetuses because they are incapable of survival on their own. Thus, my right to bodily autonomy overrides its right to life.

Then it would logically follow...

It is moral to kill rape infants because they are incapable of survival on their own, thus my right to bodily autonomy overrides its right to life.

The proposed distinction between a “rape fetus” and a “rape infant” crumbles quickly under scrutiny.

I never said it was moral to kill a rape baby. I just said " I would understand".

The world we live in is (for lack of a better term) fucked up.

I may ramble on at times, but I challenge you and Carnap to do this-

Explain to me the moral justifications for killing an infant. (Keeping in mind my acceptance for rape/incest, mother's health abortions)

How is terminating a pregnancy (IE putting an unborn baby in a blender ) more moral than just giving the unwanted child away?

I don't even want to make abortions regulated; I just truly believe that having one is immoral. You're killing a sentient being for convenience.

[Lay Vegan]

PsYcHo,

I've already stated my position on the abortion hypotheticals. Read my first post on this thread.

Question for you; Would you be willing to personally kill this undesired child?

You make interesting arguments, but if I understand it correctly, you are (maybe only scholarly ) arguing that it's OK to kill an infant human.

Would you kill this fetus yourself? Or are you just comfortable making the argument that it's OK if someone else kills the fetus? A lot easier to wash yourself of guilt if you don't get your own hands dirty, ain't it?

It's questions like these that convince me you aren't following the discussion.

You think it’s OK to kill an 8 month old human child conceived of rape, but not a newborn child conceived of rape.

In cases of rape, incest, or possible harm to the mother, then abort away.

I thought I made it clear that killing the child (except in cases of rape or incest) is wrong.

Would you say it’s morally permissible to abort a 9 month old baby who was conceived in the act of rape? What about a 3 year old child who was the product of rape?

Nice counterpoint!

But, absolutely not.

You argued that the distinction between born and unborn humans conceived of rape that justifies killing the latter (but not the former) is the ability of the individual to survive on its own.

Once they decide to allow the fetus to exit their body, it is no longer a part of them. It is an individual capable of surviving without them (providing someone else is willing to provide for it, which many, many people would ). To kill it would be murder in the simplest terms. They could give it up for adoption, or sell it to the highest bidder. No reason to kill it.

I find this distinction to be arbitrary and unconvincing, since newborn infants too are incapable of surviving on their own. Your argument followed consistently would justify the death of human children anywhere from 0-3 years of age (produced by the act of rape).

The following argument merely serves to demonstrate your inconsistency.

If:

It is moral to kill rape fetuses because they are incapable of survival on their own. Thus, my right to bodily autonomy overrides its right to life.

Then it would logically follow...

It is moral to kill rape infants because they are incapable of survival on their own, thus my right to bodily autonomy overrides its right to life.

If you'd like to either retract or clarify your statements about aborting rape babies, that's fine. But I will not respond to disingenuous straw-man replies.

To be certain I'm not misunderstanding your arguments. I will ask you.

Is it moral to abort human fetuses conceived of rape? Why or why not? Not is it legal or do you personally like it? This is a discussion about the morality of abortion (look at the OP).

[PsYcHo]

It's questions like these that convince me you aren't following the discussion.

I'm on a hell of a drunken bender, and you are correct I haven't been following the discussion like I should have been, especially since I have been replying with incoherent replies.

This is a topic I have serious felling about, but I'm too drunk to continue engaging. (maybe I'll let y'all know the issue I'm dealing with later.)

Apologies for wasting your time; this is a really interesting thread; I hope others join in.

[Jebus]

OK, since Psycho PM:d me about my opinion to the issue, here it is:

From a consequential point of view considering the world we live in today, I favor abortion and I don't believe that anti-abortion laws serve any purpose. I also have no problem, in today's world, with the killing of newborn infants if all involved parties are in agreement.

However, in an ideal world where things such as overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, and global warming are not present, I would have a big moral problem with abortion and /or the killing of infants. The biggest factor to consider in this matter, is the potential for future happiness.

[esquizofrenico]

Lay Vegan, I don't understand your position. How could you justify actively killing an already born baby because of body autonomy of the mother. It would be like saying that if someone came to you on the street and asked "Please, give me something to eat, I'm starving", you would be justified to stab him because of body autonomy. What it would be justified is to tell him you won't give him anything to eat (which in some cases could lead to very similar ends, as in the case of an unwanted baby).

An interesting question would be if it is justified to kill a baby one hour before the delivery. Although it would be difficult to justify that in that case having an abortion would be less inconvenient for you than actually having the baby, so I think than even the most radical libertarian would argue that if you have two scenarios that are personally indistinguishable, you have the moral imperative of choosing the one that maximizes other individual's happiness.

[PsYcHo]

From a consequential point of view considering the world we live in today, I favor abortion and I don't believe that anti-abortion laws serve any purpose. I also have no problem, in today's world, with the killing of newborn infants if all involved parties are in agreement.

Interesting. I don't necessarily disagree with you. (apologies for going off topic on the thread to others, read my tagline)

I think the point I was trying to make (poorly) was that just because I think it is okay/acceptable to do something, doesn't mean that it is morally just.

I think it is okay to eat a bacon cheese burger; I also think it is immoral. (at least for those that are informed)

You say you favor abortion, and even killing newborns, but do you think that is morally right? i had an addendum here, but I don't wish to "put words into your mouth". Genuinely curious here, my sarcastic reputation aside.

[Jebus]

You say you favor abortion, and even killing newborns, but do you think that is morally right?

Yes, I believe the moral choice is the one that eventually causes the least suffering (or the most happiness). In today's world additional humans rarely cause less suffering.

[PsYcHo]

In today's world additional humans rarely cause less suffering.

Interesting indeed (to me, at least). I can't say I disagree, but I am a bit surprised at your response. I would like to sit down with a beer with you and discuss this more, but since that isn't likely, I'll contemplate on this and maybe think of another related thread...

[Jebus]

I would like to sit down with a beer with you and discuss this more

Sure, I love discussing things like this over a few beers. I just don't know how I would sell that to my wife.

Me: Honey, I'm meeting someone for a few beers tonight.
Wife: OK, is he an old friend?
Me: No, it's someone I met online.
Wife: Is that really a good idea? What's his name?
Me: His name is Psycho