Wow, you can rationalize the concept of a righteous genocide? Then you believe might makes right. A dangerous amoral belief. No counterargument? What is nonsensical?
So you believe a woman DOESN'T have the ethical right to free reign over her body, for example if she wants to drink lots of alcohol and she's pregnant. Why then would it be such a jump to say that the woman might not have the ethical right to get an abortion? Or is your view that the woman only doesn't have the ethical right because of delayed gratification, and if she wants all her rights back she can always go schedule an abortion and then she will only be without her rights for a couple of days? In that case you do acknowledge that the woman should have to be without her ethical rights for some small period of time. Well, is it still such a jump then to say maybe she should wait till the end of the pregnancy? I mean, what if she couldn't get an abortion for 2 weeks? How about 4 weeks? As a hypothetical. Would she be under obligation all that time not to do whatever she wanted with her body until that pregnancy ended? You see, edna kawabata, your position really isn't that different from mine, fundamentally. It's just a matter of degree.
What I have said many times before is a right is a moral entitlement. Is the woman morally entitled to behave in a certain way or is she being unethical behaving in a certain way? If her behavior in unethical like abusing another living thing then she has no right to that behavior. She is not losing any rights she never had. Her rights and those of the fetus change as the fetus develops. After viability the woman has less choice. Ethically the woman would have to have greater sufficient reason to abort. Now are we fundamentally in agreement?
You don't believe a woman is immediately morally entitled to do what she wants with her body, you believe she should have to wait for the abortion, however long that takes. But you don't believe termination of that pregnancy is abuse.
No, I can recognize the possibility of a righteous genocide - which clearly, if commanded by the Author of righteousness, can hardly be otherwise. Actually I believe no such thing, and no such inference is reasonably drawn from anything I said. All the more reason for you to abandon it immediately if not sooner. You've already read and ignored it. Any argument for elective abortion that ignores the parental creation of the dependency of the unborn child on the mother.
I am just jumping right into the middle of it but I have to agree with yguy: sometimes genocide can be justified. Don't get me wrong, it's still pretty bad, but there is something worse.
I have to say, being a member of a nation that was bloody nearly completely successful with a program of genocide I am not too sure I can think of anything worse and I am bloody sure that the Tasmanian Aborigines would not agree with you But that genocide was seen as “ righteous” at the time
Huh? Not sure what you are trying to say. Anyway, all I am saying is that sometimes genocide can be justified.
Hilarious....being against abortion but justifying genocide..... how asinine Now since genocide has nothing to do with abortion ...let's get back to the topic ….
A person is not morally entitled or has a right to do anything they want to their body. A psychologically sick person does not have a right to self mutilation for example. "you believe she should have to wait for the abortion, however long that takes." I'm afraid I do not understand your point. I would not call abortion abuse if abuse is cruelty or mistreatment usually over a period of time. oops, I hit a wrong button
You believe that the most powerful thing in the universe, to you, can command to have every living thing in a city killed but calling them "not innocent" is the definition of might makes right. The "parental creation of the dependency" inadvertent, accidental or intentional does not overrule the right of the woman to end the pregnancy for sufficient reasons.
False. People do have the rights to their own bodies so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. It’s fundamental for a free society. And yes they do have the right to self mutilate if they so choose.
I think it depends on the jurisdiction. Where I live, if someone tries to cut off a part of their body that's perfectly healthy, they will be put in a mental institution and be given meds against their will.
Right, which is violation against they’re right to their own body and shouldn’t be allowed. I doubt there’s very many people clamoring for they’re rights to self mutilate however in principle it is not an exception to bodily integrity.
I'm not trying to say anything. I'm asking a question. Why don't you answer it? No, that's not all you're saying. You're also saying it can be justified because something else is worse. By that logic, murdering 10 people can be justified because murdering 100 people is worse. You get that, right? I am not talking about a "thing", and power is not the issue here. No, to everything in the universe. Assuming my correction reflects your intended meaning, such is the logic of the pro-abortion crowd, who by labeling the unborn child an intruder, a tumor, a clump of cells or whatever, imagine they can justify murdering it. Nothing I said implies God ever did anything like that. If morality is subjective, just who do you imagine determines what's right from a societal perspective? Hmmm? And your basis for this pronouncement is...?
I won't answer it because it would derail this thread. But anyway, my main point is that sometimes genocide can be justified. I think I know what I am saying better than you do. That's not what I am saying.
So you would not stop a suicidal person from jumping off a bridge because "it’s fundamental for a free society". Interesting.
Yep it’s your body, your life you have the right to end it if you want to. Now that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying to help someone from commiting suicide. But no, detaining someone, confining them, and forcing them medication against they’re will isn’t a description of a free society.
What if it's a person with untreated schizophrenia who might hurt others? Would you be ok with forcing them meds?
"the Author of objective morality, Who is very much able to ensure that no innocents die in such enterprises" Your god's power over your mind is the issue. It can say kill all the firstborn Egyptian male children or kill everything in that city including the animals because there are no innocents there and you agree. Anyone who can believe that cannot be argued with rationally.
We can keep diving into hypotheticals but it just deviates from the main topic. As for your question it depends if they’ve shown a propensity to violence against others. If so it’s no different than any other violent offender in prison. But the key point that I stated before is you have the right to your own body so long as you don’t cause harm onto others.
Would you say when a woman decides to get an abortion, she is also causing harm to the fetus. According to your principle, this is wrong.
