-
That's fundamentally different for a number of reasons. First of all, you cannot naturally avoid periods. It's therefore, the same as dying of old age, they are taking no action to end a life. Similar to masturbation, as one's intent is not to kill anything when masturbating, but the pleasure. The intent of abortion is to end the life of the child. While I consider masturbation immoral for a couple other reasons as well, I still do not think you can say it is the same. Also, the semen from masturbation is the DNA and such of the masturbated, and not its own DNA, and therefore is a part of his life, not another's.
-
Possible vs Existing. Not the same. - Der
-
Edited by Frasier Crane: 5/11/2014 10:25:48 PMWhy draw the line at existence? Why not draw it at consciousness? Or the ability to feel pain? These are the things that we value, and a fertilized egg is no more a "possible" conscious being as an unfertilized egg is.
-
[quote]and a fertilized egg is no more a "possible" conscious being as an unfertilized egg is.[/quote] You are kidding, right? That's like saying an un-bought raffle ticket is as much a potential winner one purchased. - Der
-
Maybe that was poor wording. I simply meant that both are potential conscious beings. Drawing the line at conception for when the woman suddenly gets no choice in the matter is completely arbitrary and unreasonable. There's no difference between an aborted embryo and an embryo that never existed to begin with.
-
Is there a difference between someone dying of old age and them dying of a severed spine or chemical poisoning?
-
Depends on what causes greater suffering.
-
Ok, this is the root of where we disagree. I believe that if you take an intentional action to end a life, that's far different than it ending on its own.
-
Edited by Frasier Crane: 5/11/2014 11:14:53 PMThe only difference would be the intent of the person ending the life. If someone severed your spine because they are sadistic psychopaths, we can obviously determine that they are being monstrously unethical. However, if someone knew for an absolute fact that, if they didn't kill you, you would die a much slower and more painful death, then it could be argued that they are actually making the ethical choice to kill you relatively quickly. Obviously no such situation would ever arise. People don't get abortions because they are sadists. They abort because they aren't ready, and don't want to bring a child into an unstable existence where their wellbeing is threatened. And, unlike the above hypothetical, no suffering is caused to the fetus. It didn't "miss out" on anything because it had no desires to be deprived of. It was just nothing and then it was less than nothing. You can hardly call that unethical.
-
Just because they do not realize they are being deprived of something doesn't matter. If your mother left you a $10,000 inheritance but I stole it and you never hear about it, would I not be immoral? I also realize they are not sadists. I believe that the women in crisis pregnancies need help, and we need to be helping them, not criticizing them. However, I do not think that it justifies the ending of the baby's life. Once the baby has its own DNA, it is no longer the mother's life, it is no longer just a part of the mother, but its own. If its life were to end naturally, then fine. But intentionally taking the life is another thing.
-
[quote]Just because they do not realize they are being deprived of something doesn't matter. If your mother left you a $10,000 inheritance but I stole it and you never hear about it, would I not be immoral?[/quote]Which is why I made sure to specify that ethics are defined by intent also. [quote]I also realize they are not sadists. I believe that the women in crisis pregnancies need help, and we need to be helping them, not criticizing them. However, I do not think that it justifies the ending of the baby's life. Once the baby has its own DNA, it is no longer the mother's life, it is no longer just a part of the mother, but its own. If its life were to end naturally, then fine. But intentionally taking the life is another thing.[/quote]Firstly, it isn't a baby. This kind of rhetoric used by pro-life people is incredibly dishonest and gives the impression of an embryo having valuable human attributes. An embryo is a cluster of cells. That's it. If you abort the pregnancy, it's as though you were never pregnant to begin with. In the cases of both abortion and abstinence the woman would be denying a potential life, yet you don't call people immoral for simply abstaining from sex. In one situation, she has the ability to create possible human life but can choose whether to do so or not. But the moment an egg is fertilized... she still has the ability to create possible human life, but suddenly she isn't able to choose? How is that rational? Obviously we are hardwired with instincts to reproduce and continue our species, so it makes some sense that intuitively the moment of conception is where "sanctity of life" begins. But our intuition isn't always (and, in fact, usually isn't) logical.