Originally posted by rhemalogosWomen do not abort fetuses resulting from rape because they think it will relieve their emotional distress. They abort because they do not want to carry to term a fetus that was forced upon them. To take this choice away from a woman is to victimize her twice over. It is not punishment to an early fetus to be aborted, since it lacks even the capacity for consciousness. It has no mind and hence no interests, so aborting it is not a violation of its interests.
"The victim of rape is justifiably angry, but the proper object of that anger is not the child in her womb.
To abort because of rape is to inflict a death dealing injury on another in hoping doing so will relieve th emotional distress of the victim. One victim is changed to two. We should not punish the innocent with the guilty. Inspite of this we face ...[text shortened]... victim." The aforegoing in "" is a quote which said what I wanted to say so well, I used it.
Originally posted by zakkwylderYou should look up the word "sentience".
One doesn't need sentience to experience suffering. Take for example, I go out hunting and I shoot a deer. I wound but do not kill. Just by looking at the animal you can sense it is in pain. Whether or not it understands pain is really not relevant.
Originally posted by zakkwylderYikes, you are really confused! In all contexts it indicates states of consciousness. In normal discourse these are taken as synonymous. In philosophical contexts, "sentience" refers to the capacity to consciously experience pain or other states adverse to the entity in question. That is, sentient states are a subset of conscious states.
In certain contexts it can include a state of consciousness.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrYou say babies "develop minds late in their gestation" AND "an early fetus...lacks capacity for consciousness". Is there some sort of physical evidence or some other reasoning that make you say that?
Fetuses develop minds late in their gestation. They develop the capacity for sentience, and thereby the capacity to experience suffering. Further, they develop the capacities for rudimentary self-awareness and thought. Prior to the development of a mind, fetuses can be harmed only in the limited sense in which plants can be harmed. Prior to the development ...[text shortened]... fetuses cannot be harmed from their own point of view, since they have no point of view.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI love women. I view them as cuddly, warm, desirable creatures, inspite of the fact they can do me harm sometimes. I am probably guilty of putting them on a pedestal.
I fail to see why you're having such a moral dilemma over it; you've repeatedly stated you regard abortion as murder in this thread. Why wouldn't murder, esp. the murder of a defenseless child in your view, not warrant the severest penalty the law allows?
After I said what I did not like, I had to put myself in the place of sentencing a woman who aborted her baby. I simply do not like the idea of holding one accountable for a capital crime in the case of abortion, but there may be an exception to that. I do think the person who performs an abortion is accountable for the crime of murder.
Will I have a more rational viewpoint later...probably.
Originally posted by rhemalogosYour condescending attitude towards people who's right to self-autonomy you refuse to recognize is duly noted.
I love women. I view them as cuddly, warm, desirable creatures, inspite of the fact they can do me harm sometimes. I am probably guilty of putting them on a pedestal.
After I said what I did not like, I had to put myself in the place of sentencing a woman who aborted her baby. I simply do not like the idea of holding one accountable for a capital crime ...[text shortened]... accountable for the crime of murder.
Will I have a more rational viewpoint later...probably.
Paying someone else to kill for you is considered an aggravating circumstance in the law i.e. a contract killing that deserves at least equal, if not greater punishment than a normal murder. Your illogical response shows a deep flaw in your thinking, does it not? Or should the criminal law be based on ill-defined feelings of individuals like yourself?
Originally posted by no1marauderI considered a riposte, but in view of your good mind, but bad temper, I'll say this and be quiet.
Your condescending attitude towards people who's right to self-autonomy you refuse to recognize is duly noted.
Paying someone else to kill for you is considered an aggravating circumstance in the law i.e. a contract killing that deserves at least equal, if not greater punishment than a normal murder. Your illogical response shows a deep fla ...[text shortened]... not? Or should the criminal law be based on ill-defined feelings of individuals like yourself?
Originally posted by rhemalogosConsciousness in humans requires the presence of an appropriate neural substrate. Early fetuses lack the appropriate neural substrate. If you're interested in the data, start with the following article in Slate and track the sources:
You say babies "develop minds late in their gestation" AND "an early fetus...lacks capacity for consciousness". Is there some sort of physical evidence or some other reasoning that make you say that?
http://www.slate.com/id/2120872/
Originally posted by no1marauderWell at least your moral stance is consistent. So I assume you make no moral judgement as to prostitution being moral or otherwise?
.
I would favor legalized prostitution (you seem insistent in going into other areas) but I wouldn't believe it is required by Natural Rights theory. Government has a more legitimate power to regulate commercial activity between individuals than it does to dictate what "moral" choices individuals can make as regards what's contained within the confines of their own bodies.
1 edit
The law stating that prostitution is illegal is in my mind a violation of human rights. Killing is illegal for you violate someone by taking their life. Robbery and rape are both illegal for their appropriate reasons, both on account of them being a violation of someone(s). However it is not illegal to sell something to someone. Just because you or I may find prostitution morally unacceptable should not make it illegal. I don't find it moral, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. If a woman or a man for that matter wishes to sell a sexual act just as you'd pay a surgeon or a chiropractor, then I say fair game. The same people who uphold this law probably have a whore in every major city(need I mention Mr. Elliot Spitzer). Hyprocrisy is all that this amounts to.
Originally posted by zakkwylderSo you find prostitution immoral yet you will not stand up for your morals by saying it should be made illegal?
The law stating that prostitution is illegal is in my mind a violation of human rights. Killing is illegal for you violate someone by taking their life. Robbery and rape are both illegal for their appropriate reasons, both on account of them being a violation of someone(s). However it is not illegal to sell something to someone. Just because you or I may ...[text shortened]... every major city(need I mention Mr. Elliot Spitzer). Hyprocrisy is all that this amounts to.
I assume you have good reasons for saying it is immoral? I am also equally sure you would hate to have your daughter, for example, become a prostitute yet you have no problem with other people doing it?
Just because something is made legal or illegal will not stop people from engaging in certain behavoir, however, by the state taking a stand on the issue I would assume some would be dissuaded from engaging in certain behaviors. If only one person is dissuaded from engaging in such high risk behavior I say it is worth being made illegal.
I don't approve of prostitution. However why should other people be subject to why I think is right and wrong. Legalize prostitution, if I find it immoral then I can abstain from it can't I and stand up for my beliefs in that manner. The government can make a stand by regulating prostitution and making it safe, and while they're at it make a few tax dollars so we can actually pay for that universal health care.
2 edits
Originally posted by zakkwylderWhy should the government take a stand against anything? For example, why should it take a stand against murder? Who am I to say that killing people is "bad"? After all, many people around the world seem to think that killing others is often "good".
I don't approve of prostitution. However why should other people be subject to why I think is right and wrong. Legalize prostitution, if I find it immoral then I can abstain from it can't I and stand up for my beliefs in that manner. The government can make a stand by regulating prostitution and making it safe, and while they're at it make a few tax dollars so we can actually pay for that universal health care.