Topic: Abortion and Morality - page 2. (Read 3622 times)
If it doesn't put the lotion on the skin, whose fault is it for getting the hose again?
I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.
+1
Making sure I understand you both:
If the "mother" says kill any or all unborn kids inside her, you see nothing wrong. But if she spares an unborn child because its a boy, you think she should be ashamed.
That is correct. If she "spares" the boy for selfish reasons (i.e. her and her son will be better off (defecting) at the expense of the fair mothers (cooperating)) then yes, it is shameful. Those women are essentially playing a tragedy of the commons or a prisoners dilemma. The "spare" my boy but not my girl women is making a sucker of the other women. If everyone was to do the same, then we would be in bad shape. obviously. Hence the woman is immoral as she can not wish everyone do the same as her.
Although you could assume that it's your right to use violence against an intruder to your dwelling, it's not the same situation when you have invited them as a guest, knowing in advance what they would demand.
If I invite my leech of a brother-in-law to stay in my basement for 2 weeks knowing full well that he'll want to stay there for 9 months, I have the right to evict him, even if he'll die because of it.
You have that right because either the state upholds said law, or, within the context of no state, you have that right because you're confident you can overpower him and keep him out. In the former, you are under the umbrella of laws in which eviction is legal, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether the destruction of a fetus is legal or fair. In the latter, it's pointless to compare them, as it's mostly just a matter of how you personally choose to behave.
Although you could assume that it's your right to use violence against an intruder to your dwelling, it's not the same situation when you have invited them as a guest, knowing in advance what they would demand.
If I invite my leech of a brother-in-law to stay in my basement for 2 weeks knowing full well that he'll want to stay there for 9 months, I have the right to evict him, even if he'll die because of it.
You can remove anything from your own body, even if it's another person.
Although you could assume that it's your right to use violence against an intruder to your dwelling, it's not the same situation when you have invited them as a guest, knowing in advance what they would demand. So yes, there is a case that can be made for unintended pregnancies actually. That's why making laws against abortion is not the right way to go, you can never know if it's intended or not.
On the other hand, I have a friend who has aborted 7 times, all intended, mostly as a means to form a relationship. When the relationships changed color with the potential offspring, she decided to abort. So, I don't think it's clear cut, and in most cases the burden falls on the ones who made the decision in the first place.
Yeah, I'm not surprised that you weren't fair. 
Nope, I don't disagree at all. Please refer to a description of naturalistic fallacy for my objection. I actually gave a sample question for you to make the distinction.
Nope, I don't disagree at all, and described in detail why I don't. Basically the causality is reverse.
For you, the act of killing itself isn't wrong, but the intention of having fun while doing it is. Actually for you, you don't have to kill the animal at all to be bad/sick/evil/whatever. So my description (or at least intended description) of your point was correct.
To stay on-topic, I think the analogy is perfect. People tend to overlook what they are accustomed to and make ethical judgments based on patterns they are trained to recognize. For our generation, gender-related unfairness stands out. Totally arbitrary when you consider the whole affair.
Yes, as life has evolved, not as it might have evolved given different conditions billions of years ago. If you disagree, feel free to explain.
Nope, I don't disagree at all. Please refer to a description of naturalistic fallacy for my objection. I actually gave a sample question for you to make the distinction.
Quote
You think people who torture animals are sick.
Yes. They are either mentally sick, or just plain mean fuckers. Do you disagree?Nope, I don't disagree at all, and described in detail why I don't. Basically the causality is reverse.
Incorrect. Killing of animals can be wrong. Consider the mean fucker who kills animals for fun. Is this too difficult for you?
For you, the act of killing itself isn't wrong, but the intention of having fun while doing it is. Actually for you, you don't have to kill the animal at all to be bad/sick/evil/whatever. So my description (or at least intended description) of your point was correct.
To stay on-topic, I think the analogy is perfect. People tend to overlook what they are accustomed to and make ethical judgments based on patterns they are trained to recognize. For our generation, gender-related unfairness stands out. Totally arbitrary when you consider the whole affair.
You can remove anything from your own body, even if it's another person.
You think that predator-prey relationship is necessary for life on Earth.
Yes, as life has evolved, not as it might have evolved given different conditions billions of years ago. If you disagree, feel free to explain.
Quote
You think people who torture animals are sick.
Yes. They are either mentally sick, or just plain mean fuckers. Do you disagree?
Quote
Your conclusion is, killing of animals can't be wrong (or not an ethical question at all) because it's a natural necessity, but torturing of animals is bad because it is a gateway to antisocial behavior.
Incorrect. Killing of animals can be wrong. Consider the mean fucker who kills animals for fun. Is this too difficult for you?
You're the one not getting it. But I'll give you a second chance. If you're so certain what my viewpoint is, then please clarify it for me so that I know what I'm defending. Please do tell me what I advocate and what I don't advocate. Be precise.
Wow, your erect style is so cool, I'm shivering now. Please let me bite this one. Please find weak spots that are irrelevant to the topic but would still put me in a vulnerable position.
You think that predator-prey relationship is necessary for life on Earth. You think people who torture animals are sick. Your conclusion is, killing of animals can't be wrong (or not an ethical question at all) because it's a natural necessity, but torturing of animals is bad because it is a gateway to antisocial behavior.
Now, it's only fair that you tell me what my objection is. I'm saying this not to appear flaccid, otherwise I don't care. I don't think you can, actually.
And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?
EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?
Do you like dogs? If you don't like the idea of killing, then consider a campaign to eradicate dogs from the surface of the Earth, as they eat meat. EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?
Do you like the idea of the Earth existing, and life on Earth? Because if you do, consider learning about trophic cascades and the necessity of the predator and prey relationship. For starters, learn about wolves, riparian zones, and clean water.
Way to miss the point. I didn't once say killing animals is absolutely bad now, did I? It's all relative (or subjective, one might say).
The question is not that the behavior is not natural, it is your cherry picking of what's natural and what's not. Evidenced by you dismissing my question about the "naturality" of violence within a certain species. You can't have one and leave the other. Typical naturalistic fallacy.
I don't advocate sick little serial killers in the making torturing animals. Is this what you're referring to? Are you having trouble discerning torture from natural processes? Are you trying to compare sick people to the way things work? Are you challenged with regard to this subject?
This is a common fallacy with ethical reasoning, and the same kind OP is referring to. It is sick, because you perceive it as sick, and the more people perceive it as sick, the more deviant the behavior will be, and who's more deviant than sick people. Mind you, I really do think that generally sick people torture animals, but I don't identify them as sick because they torture animals, but because in general, only sick people are that deviant. There was a time when torturing animals was a common entertainment, and those people weren't sick little serial killers in the making, they were ordinary people like you and me, looking for fun.
This is kinda like condoning arbitrary killings committed by your national army but criticizing conditions of prisoners of war. Or turning a blind eye to indiscriminate murdering of civilians but get on the high horse when it's considered a "genocide". Or condoning abortion of fetuses for random reasons but intervening when the reason is gender-related.
You're the one not getting it. But I'll give you a second chance. If you're so certain what my viewpoint is, then please clarify it for me so that I know what I'm defending. Please do tell me what I advocate and what I don't advocate. Be precise.
And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?
EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?
Do you like dogs? If you don't like the idea of killing, then consider a campaign to eradicate dogs from the surface of the Earth, as they eat meat. EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?
Do you like the idea of the Earth existing, and life on Earth? Because if you do, consider learning about trophic cascades and the necessity of the predator and prey relationship. For starters, learn about wolves, riparian zones, and clean water.
Way to miss the point. I didn't once say killing animals is absolutely bad now, did I? It's all relative (or subjective, one might say).
The question is not that the behavior is not natural, it is your cherry picking of what's natural and what's not. Evidenced by you dismissing my question about the "naturality" of violence within a certain species. You can't have one and leave the other. Typical naturalistic fallacy.
I don't advocate sick little serial killers in the making torturing animals. Is this what you're referring to? Are you having trouble discerning torture from natural processes? Are you trying to compare sick people to the way things work? Are you challenged with regard to this subject?
This is a common fallacy with ethical reasoning, and the same kind OP is referring to. It is sick, because you perceive it as sick, and the more people perceive it as sick, the more deviant the behavior will be, and who's more deviant than sick people. Mind you, I really do think that generally sick people torture animals, but I don't identify them as sick because they torture animals, but because in general, only sick people are that deviant. There was a time when torturing animals was a common entertainment, and those people weren't sick little serial killers in the making, they were ordinary people like you and me, looking for fun.
This is kinda like condoning arbitrary killings committed by your national army but criticizing conditions of prisoners of war. Or turning a blind eye to indiscriminate murdering of civilians but get on the high horse when it's considered a "genocide". Or condoning abortion of fetuses for random reasons but intervening when the reason is gender-related.
Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.
It is equal from the perspective of the animal. Do you really think the animal cares, or understands, why it is suffering?
And if the perspective of the animal is irrelevant, the whole concept of "animal rights" is irrelevant too.
The only difference between cock fighting and battery hens is that one offends HUMAN cultural norms and the other one doesn't. Cultural norms are subjective.
Objectively, both are cruel.
Nature's life cycle depends on prey/predator relationships. I think you can figure it out from there.
And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?
EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?
Do you like dogs? If you don't like the idea of killing, then consider a campaign to eradicate dogs from the surface of the Earth, as they eat meat.
Do you like the idea of the Earth existing, and life on Earth? Because if you do, consider learning about trophic cascades and the necessity of the predator and prey relationship. For starters, learn about wolves, riparian zones, and clean water.
I don't advocate sick little serial killers in the making torturing animals. Is this what you're referring to? Are you having trouble discerning torture from natural processes? Are you trying to compare sick people to the way things work? Are you challenged with regard to this subject?
Nature's life cycle depends on prey/predator relationships. I think you can figure it out from there.
And, rival clans/families kill each other too, so murder is OK as well?
EDIT: I don't mind you preferring to eat meat, etc. but how can you compare killing something and torturing it and decide that torturing is worse?
I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.
+1
Making sure I understand you both:
If the "mother" says kill any or all unborn kids inside her, you see nothing wrong. But if she spares an unborn child because its a boy, you think she should be ashamed.
I can't speak for dayfall, but...
Yes. The difference, to me, is that sex-selective abortion will cause serious social problems like what is happening in China. Not having any children at all (or having them equally) is preferable to contributing to a sex imbalance.
Makes just as much sense as "animal rights" laws that say torturing animals for meat consumption is ok, but torturing them for entertainment is evil.
Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.
Not equal? Yes, they are different things. So tell me, if you had to choose between being tortured for entertainment (and let's suppose, consequently let go), or being killed, what would your choice be? And what's the kind way of killing someone?
Nature's life cycle depends on prey/predator relationships. I think you can figure it out from there.
Makes just as much sense as "animal rights" laws that say torturing animals for meat consumption is ok, but torturing them for entertainment is evil.
Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.
Not equal? Yes, they are different things. So tell me, if you had to choose between being tortured for entertainment (and let's suppose, consequently let go), or being killed, what would your choice be?
Does this make any sense at all?
Makes just as much sense as "animal rights" laws that say torturing animals for meat consumption is ok, but torturing them for entertainment is evil.
Killing animals humanely for meat consumption is not the equal of torturing animals for entertainment. Killing animals in an unkind way for meat consumption is not equal to torturing animals for entertainment.
I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.
+1
Making sure I understand you both:
If the "mother" says kill any or all unborn kids inside her, you see nothing wrong. But if she spares an unborn child because its a boy, you think she should be ashamed.
I am not saying it should be illegal, but that mother should be shamed.
+1
Jump to: