News:

Pretty crazy that we're closer to 2030, than we are 2005. Where did the time go!

Main Menu

Re: Abortion ethics dilema

Started by iago, July 03, 2008, 01:52:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Rule

#75
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 09, 2008, 04:56:17 PM
My thoughts don't hinge on different situations.

So you are saying the married woman does not have the right to prevent her husband from impregnating her, preventing a potential baby from being born.

After all of my effort to re-explain things to you, I still don't think you understand the situation or the question.

MyndFyre

Quote from: Rule on July 09, 2008, 03:35:11 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the posts Ender and I made in response to Myndfyre.  It seems whenever a good point is made, it is ignored or not acknowledged by the other side, and then the discussion is derailed with irrelevant nonsense by people like Crazed, and then the other side picks up on the irrelevant nonsense and resumes posting.

I have a job and I can't always post a thoughtful, thorough reply.  This is one of those instances.  When I can post one, you'll see it.
Quote from: Joe on January 23, 2011, 11:47:54 PM
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Quote from: Rule on May 26, 2009, 02:02:12 PMOur species really annoys me.

CrAz3D

Quote from: Rule on July 09, 2008, 04:58:50 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 09, 2008, 04:56:17 PM
My thoughts don't hinge on different situations.

So you are saying the married woman does not have the right to prevent her husband from impregnating her, preventing a potential baby from being born.

After all of my effort to re-explain things to you, I still don't think you understand the situation or the question.


I understand it.  But your situation is about the woman having the choice to have SEX, not a child.  If she doesnt want a baby dont have sex.  If he still has sex with her it is rape.

Fairly simple.

Ender

#78
CrAz3d, wtf? You're batting 0.000 right now.

The point is:
Quote
The argument (introduced in Rule's post, and extended in my post) is that aborting a pre-sentient fetus is morally analogous to a woman not giving birth to a child in her lifetime, because the potential for life in both cases is the same. Since it is fine for a woman to live her life without giving birth, it must be fine to abort a pre-sentient fetus.

You have to approach an argument like a mathematical proof. You can't just spew your stream-of-conscious emotions all over the thread. I will delineate the above argument in step form:

Proof by contradiction:
1. We suppose for the sake of contradiction that abortion is morally wrong.
2. By its nature, a pre-sentient fetus (e.g. a single-celled fetus) cannot think, or feel pain, or feel emotion, or be aware of its surroundings, etc. Thus a pre-sentient fetus is no more human than a woman's unfertilized eggs.
3. By their nature, a woman's unfertilized eggs have the same potential for giving birth to a human as a pre-sentient fetus.
4. By (2) and (3), a pre-sentient fetus (e.g. a single-celled fetus) is isomorphic to unfertilized eggs (same humanity, same potential for humanity).
5. By our hypothesis, and our result from (4), it follows that is morally wrong for a woman to live her life without giving child.
6. (5) is a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), hence abortion is not morally wrong.

Which of these steps is wrong? Why? I am addressing this question to everyone, not just CrAz3d.

N.B. I made a conscious decision to use "ovaries" instead of "egg" in my other post because the former avoids confusion (namely the assumption that eggs are necessarily fertile). But CrAz3d, to my chagrin, caused me to have to type the annoying phrase "unfertilized egg".

CrAz3D

The fetus, if allowed to take it's natural course and have nothing altered, will be a walking talking person.

The same IS NOT TRUE for eggs.  Eggs need to be fertilized.  There is a HUGE difference.

A fetus is an already developing PERSON.  The egg's status is stagnant or dying without being fertilized.

Ender

#80
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 10, 2008, 12:54:10 AM
The fetus, if allowed to take it's natural course and have nothing altered, will be a walking talking person.

The same IS NOT TRUE for eggs.  Eggs need to be fertilized.  There is a HUGE difference.

A fetus is an already developing PERSON.  The egg's status is stagnant or dying without being fertilized.

Wrong. You are ignoring the fact that there are only two relevant properties: (1) sentience and (2) potential for sentience. The egg and pre-sentient fetus have the same sentience (that being a lack of) and the same potential for sentience. While the single-celled fetus (forgive me if it is never single-celled, you get my point) is already fertilized, it still has to be born, just like the egg has to be fertilized. They each require processes to take them to sentience, it doesn't matter what the processes are. They are isomorphic.

The way I'm explaining this probably sounds weird, but that's just because this is such an intuitive concept that it warrants no explanation, yet you are forcing it upon me. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore, as you keep ignoring my points.

Rule

#81
Myndfyre: I see you are unable to summon the humility to acknowledge when you make a mistake. 

CrAz3D

Quote from: Ender on July 10, 2008, 03:58:18 AM
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 10, 2008, 12:54:10 AM
The fetus, if allowed to take it's natural course and have nothing altered, will be a walking talking person.

The same IS NOT TRUE for eggs.  Eggs need to be fertilized.  There is a HUGE difference.

A fetus is an already developing PERSON.  The egg's status is stagnant or dying without being fertilized.

Wrong. You are ignoring the fact that there are only two relevant properties: (1) sentience and (2) potential for sentience. The egg and pre-sentient fetus have the same sentience (that being a lack of) and the same potential for sentience. While the single-celled fetus (forgive me if it is never single-celled, you get my point) is already fertilized, it still has to be born, just like the egg has to be fertilized. They each require processes to take them to sentience, it doesn't matter what the processes are. They are isomorphic.

The way I'm explaining this probably sounds weird, but that's just because this is such an intuitive concept that it warrants no explanation, yet you are forcing it upon me. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore, as you keep ignoring my points.


sometime i replied that your opinion is your opinion which is irrelevant....but some how it was deleted.

since your opinion doesnt mat6ter in a real discussion .... who cares.

rabbit

Because in a battle of ethics, opinion is ALL that matters.

CrAz3D

opinions is all that matters?




You done and got some good engrish there you sumbich
Quote from: rabbit on July 12, 2008, 09:10:40 PM
Because in a battle of ethics, opinion is ALL that matters.

rabbit

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 12, 2008, 09:12:24 PM
opinions is all that matters?




You done and got some good engrish there you sumbich
Quote from: rabbit on July 12, 2008, 09:10:40 PM
Because in a battle of ethics, opinion is ALL that matters.
That post made no sense at all.  Are you helping Trust "quit" or something?

CrAz3D


rabbit

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 12, 2008, 09:12:24 PM
opinions is all that matters?




You done and got some good engrish there you sumbich
Quote from: rabbit on July 12, 2008, 09:10:40 PM
Because in a battle of ethics, opinion is ALL that matters.
I'm still trying to figure out what's going on here.  You use the wrong form of "is" (should be "are"), and then you tell me I have "good engrish" and call me a "sumbich".

CrAz3D

shhhhhhh, just take it.    when i read it the first time I read "opinions is" ... but you dont have an s there now

while1

I eat babies for breakfast.  Babies, the real white meat.
I tend to edit my topics and replies frequently.

http://www.operationsmile.org