Little already-born kids can't talk right away either, and so can't defend themselves against people lobbying for the right to kill them indiscriminately either.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and that brings us back to the murdered 11 day old baby in edmonton
the case in which quip, by his own words, can't call a murder
glassjester
Well-known member
I understand that this is currently the law, but why should it be?
glassjester
Well-known member
Certainly an 11-day-old baby is a bigger impingement on the mother's autonomy than a child still in the womb. So much more demanding!
Why shouldn't the 11-day-old be killed, by the same legal principle that the pre-born child is killed?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
not sure you'll get anywhere gj, quip seems to be only interested in playing games
good luck
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
glassjester
Well-known member
I am optimistic.
That's dumb.
Because she's in the morally superior position here.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
everything past the beginning falls on the continuum of life, from development to maturation to decline to death
there's only two unambiguous points on that continuum
glassjester
Well-known member
That's dumb.
I have not claimed to be otherwise.
glassjester
Well-known member
How so?
You and I have no moral obligation to bodily sustain another's life by way of our own.
Do you agree with this...why or why not?
glassjester
Well-known member
I do not agree.
There are plenty of circumstances in which a person's life may depend on the actions of your body. Literally every single time one person cares for another's physical needs, they have sustained the life of the other's body, by way of their own.
Are there really no circumstances under which someone would be morally obligated to do so? Surely, there are many.
Though not unequivocally so.
I've no moral requirement to give you my blood even as doing so incurs your death.
Deep down jester..et al. you know this is correct, it's just that this reality paints an ugly picture; it's not retributive enough for the likes of you.
This woman simply must pay for her irresponsibilities and sexual malfeasance...correct?
"Life" is simply a side-bar to the true satisfying aim of moral redress.
glassjester
Well-known member
Absolutely not. Please do not assume an ulterior motive. I value honesty and sincerity.
I try always to explain my beliefs plainly and openly. Truly, I have no hidden agenda.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes, I agree.
But there can exist circumstances in which I would be morally obligated to act (ie, use my body) to preserve the life of another. Do you agree?
Personally engaged morality, of course. (That's the essence of choice) I'm saying there's no moral necessity to do so.
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you truly believe that I am pro-life for the sake of punishing a mother?
That makes as much sense as saying you are pro-choice for the sake of punishing unborn children. I would not assume this of you, and I would appreciate it very much if you would not assume such of me.
Perhaps pro-life people are just that - pro-life.