Timothy Murray lost his father earlier this year and had been asking his principal for counseling when she called in the police

  • Herbal Gamer
    link
    fedilink
    211 months ago

    Maybe that’s just because it makes sense to not want a massive amount of expenses in a life where they may have trouble taking care of themselves already.

    You really act like it’s a bad thing to not have children if you can’t financially take care of them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -711 months ago

      And none of these have to do with targeted killing of human organisms based solely on the circumstances of their conception?

      You don’t get to play “the conservatives want to kill and imprison poor children” card, when pro-choice liberals celebrate the exact same thing (not pro-life ones like me).

      “You really act like it’s a bad thing to not have children if you can’t financially take care of them”

      This argument falls in the same category of logic error that the “abortion is good because it prevents children from being poor” that I am refuting.

      The fact that it is bad for people to be poor, does not follow that they should therefore be deprived of existence, because existence is not the cause of suffering but the poverty. When someone says “I wish I wasn’t poor”, they are NOT saying “I wish I didn’t exist” because they could easily make that happen. They are wishing that they had less hardship.

      Likewise your argument is also a failure at descriptivism. Not having children for financial reasons, is not immoral. Abortion is not just “not having children”, it is an active deprivation of all future experiences of an existing human organism. That’s why it’s immoral. (And yes trying to argue that fetuses aren’t people is insufficient since one can argue from idealized persons {e.g we don’t kill mentally ill suicidal people because an idealized person wouldn’t want to die, in other words the immediate condition of the human is gladly ignored), or cases of temporary loss of personhood (regardless of how you define it) which would permit killing many if not all adults.

      • Herbal Gamer
        link
        fedilink
        511 months ago

        Point is, it’s not immoral no matter how much you cry about it now stay out of other peoples lives.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -611 months ago

          Pretty sure I can rigorously prove that you accept moral principles, empirical facts and a logical system that determines that abortion is infact immoral, you simply never bothered to analyze it.

          “Now stay out of other people’s lives”

          Can you imagine what a horrible (dare I say immoral?) world you would have if immoral actions could not be restricted? Next time someone wrongs you remember that you are the real perpetrator for expecting them to follow your conception of morality.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            311 months ago

            Not the original poster, but I would enjoy seeing you rigorously prove that pro-choice views are incoherent. My views:

            All human beings should have a right to bodily autonomy. This includes the right to deny the use of their body to anyone, even if the person who is using their body is doing so in order to survive, and even if they’ve previously permitted that person to use their body. If the use can be ended without killing either party, that should be preferred, but if not, then the person being used should still be able to withdraw access.

            The real world is messy, obviously, so we have some ambiguity, but in general, this is the guideline.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -111 months ago

              Easy, define a form of bodily autonomy that permits forcing conscious action upon an individual (this is the basis for many laws1 ), but not prohibiting the individual from engaging in an action to override an already occurring unconscious process.

              This is necessary because the former is the description of what many morally accepted laws already do, and the latter is a description of what prohibiting abortion is.

              In other words this is the exact definition that we need to show is correct to justify abortion on the grounds of bodily control.

              Except we can’t, and it’s obvious why. Saying “you must do X” is clearly stronger than saying “you cannot stop Y from continuing to happen”. So we already accept a greater violation of bodily autonomy as good, and the abortion defence is actually contradictory.

              We can resolve this by rejecting one of the premises. So which one do you want to reject? The one that is the basis for societal rules, or the one that allows killing humans?

              As I already pointed out the bodily autonomy argument is essentially completely rejected in ethics, it’s only popular because of Thompson’s deeply flawed and overly simplistic paper (primarily because it already assumes that such a form of bodily autonomy already exists).

              1. Consider the fact that if you are in a circumstance were someone else depended on minimal effort from you for survival, saying you did not want to provide it is not a legal defence. You can’t just let your child drown in a 2ft pool, and claim that your right to bodily autonomy allows you to withold conscious support. You intuitively know that it is immoral simply to withhold life-saving actions, and so does everyone else in society. The only reason why fetuses have an exception is that they don’t appear human, despite satisfying all the necessary conditions. It is simply psychologically easier, much like how it’s psychologically easier to kill strangers who look differently to you than your friends or relatives.
              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                The first half of what you said is difficult to understand and I’m probably going to need you to simplify it for me.

                For the last part- you don’t believe that there’s any moral difference between:

                • One person not using their body to help another when the other is dying.
                • One person not allowing another to use their body to stay alive.

                ?

                And, follow up question - is a fertilized egg a person in this example? If not, at what point does it become one and have moral weight, in your view?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  111 months ago

                  This is an incorrect phrasing of the situation. The actual question is what moral principles do we already accept? Which ones are more fundamental than others. Instead you are literally affirming the consequent by presupposing that bodily autonomy is morally relevant.(Otherwise,if that’s not what you are doing,your phraseology is just bizarre)

                  Laws force people to use their body regardless of how they feel about it. We agree that it is moral.

                  Prohibiting abortion is denying the ability to perform an action. We assert that this is immoral.

                  However, forcing an action is stronger than denying an action. So which premise is wrong? Is it the one that leads societal rules unenforceable, or the one that makes a quarter of the population temporarily unhappy?

                  There is also the extrinsic teleological argument that pregnancy isn’t a violation anymore than your pancreas producing insulin. A belief can be irrational if it contradicts a biological function.

                  “Would a fertilised egg be human”

                  As long as it is a separate entity that is living and functional with a probability of future conscious experience. Note, that I don’t make the unique DNA distinction because that would render killing clones permissible.

                  Now unlike some people I don’t think that all abortion is immoral, just one’s where we have a reasonable expectation of future human experience so long as we do not take action to reduce this expectation. Like how rendering someone brain-dead so you can kill them is just a more elaborate active killing , something like drinking alcohol to render your fetus brain dead is also active killing.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    111 months ago

                    However, forcing an action is stronger than denying an action

                    Why?

                    As long as it is a separate entity that is living and functional with a probability of future conscious experience

                    Do you consider a fertilized egg to have the same moral weight as a person?

      • Herbal Gamer
        link
        fedilink
        411 months ago

        Abortion is not just “not having children”, it is an active deprivation of all future experiences of an existing human organism

        So is wanking into socks. Get over it.