Considering there are those of character who realize there are many ways to achieve orgasm that do not involve the risk of having a child, I find it a lacking of character for anyone to reach a solution that involves the destruction of that child and a grasping of straws in referring to that "new" life as a fetus or "piece of meat" to ease the conscience of those who actually perform this utterly selfish act. You may use dogmatic, trible minded or whatever term you wish if it gives you some kind of satisfaction all the while being thankful your mother was dogmatic and trible minded at least in the fact that she did not so choose to end "your" RIGHT TO .LIFE.
Wow !! :whoa-dude: :Not-Impressed:
You write: "...the destruction of that child
..." which begs the whole question.
My argument was that a collection of cells, with no brain or developed central nervous system, is NO CHILD, by any concept of "child" that I ever heard of -- before the tribal-oriented church got into it.
By "tribal" I meantt: tradition-bound, and incapable of being flexible about adopting new customs or shedding any old ones.
I am certainly not
advocating wanton naked-organ intercourse!!!
... I was very conscientious about NOT getting a girl pregnant although I had many opporlunities. I trained myself to use those other methods of which you speak.
But this is a philosophy site
, so in my post I dealt with the issues by defining my terms
. Did you do that, William? Did you make any careful distinctions among vague and ambiguous terms, so as to clarify the concepts? I went by a standard definition of a "person" that I found in dictionaries. Do you have a superior one? Show why it is. Demonstrate logically the structure of your position.
Isn't it the commission of "The straw man fallacy of logic" to attribute to me that I said anything about (to quote you) "a piece of meat."
Fetus is a legitimate word in the science of Biology. Human beings are animals, but ones who are capable of reflecting upon their own reflections, and of definiing themselves. My own definition of me is: I AM.
I am that. I am that I am. I believe the whole controversy over abortion is silly - and futile. If a loving girl accidentally gets caught, and she is too poor to provide a good home for a baby, she most definitely ought to abort it, and the sooner the better. Yes, both men and women need to take seriously the ethical concept of RESPONSIBILITY.
You choose a poor illustration in bringing my mother into it
. She wanted, and very-lovingly provided for all her children. Yes, it is true I wouldn't be here if she aborted her first fetus, but she had no reason to. You seem to be overly-emotive rather than presenting a reasonable argument. I may be wrong, but you will have to show us.
A rational policy, an ethical one, would be for each family to have no more than two children, at most. My wife and I are childless altogether.
---------- Post added 07-27-2009 at 09:30 PM ----------
New Mysterianism;79878 wrote:
Aborting insentient fetuses is morally permissible, but aborting sentient fetuses isn't morally permissible. Sounds good. While I agree here, you might want to expand on why sentience is a morally relevant criterion for personhood for your critics.
Sentience is where the compromise comes in. The brain-active organism is beginning to show signs of consciousness, and thus starting to have a personality.
New Mysterianism;79878 wrote:
However, why is it permissible to abort sentient fetuses conceived through rape or incest? ... Persons "have a right to life," so aborting sentient fetuses is not morally permissible. Sounds good.
I said that there are exceptions - due to the over-riding ethical consideration of saving the life of the mother and at times the baby too - and rape and incest may be just the sort of rational grounds for making some exceptions. I allowed for surgery in the ninth month under emergency circumstances.. Although now that there is 'medical abortion' it may not be necessary to go for extreme measures, such as surgery.
My compromise, or reconiliation for rational persons, not only sounds good. It is good.
I am open to hearing of a better one, however. We can find common ground. We care about conscious life - I care even about mammals.
Those who say they care about LIFE must, by logic, be opposed to war, to capital punishment, to violence, to child abuse and all manufactured products produced in child sweat shops, to spousal abuse - even of the psychological variety, etc. If they are not, then they are utter hypocrites.