I have noticed the position of debate claimed by many pro-lifers and many pro-choice people is that the fetus is a human being or isnt respectively. There exists some assumption that if it is a human being, it cant be touched, but if it isnt its ok. This a fallacy. Firstly, the fetus IS a human being - a member of the species of homo-sapien. In this regard choicer are flawed in their assertion that it isnt a human being. HOWEVER, so what if its a human? What is so special about human life? Its these questions lifers can NEVER answer. They just cry 'oh you're a nazi who doesn't care about killing anyone' blah blah cry cry, sulk sulk, then they never respond. They can NEVER substantiate the premise of why killing a human being is bad. (Let alone why my position, as detailed below, is wrong) If I, just for the sake of keeping them long enough so that they can see their own ignorance, say I'm a nazi (or the evil equivalent) - why is that bad? If I claim I'm a nazi and that I dont mind killing any and everyone (btw I dont, although I'm sure lifers will pull the old Orwellian theme on me and claim I in fact admitted I'm a nazi here) - say I have no regard for human life - they STILL NEED TO SHOW WHY THIS IS BAD!! They fail in every way to substantiate their views, positing their victories, or rather the denialist fantasies that sustain their childish political beliefs, through labels and complete rejection of the questions they HAVE TO answer in order to substantiate their case. You may now ask why do I believe abortion is ok (and early infanticide)? Here is my reasoning AGAIN for those lifers who always respond at the apex of their intellectual destruction with 'oh you never present your reasoning and all your arguments are arbitrary'. Actually I have consistently substantiated my position almost endlessly, and I find no arbitrary details in my position, but by all means point them out if you seem them dear lifers (or pro-choice people). The only objection would be 'oh its arbitrary to simply defend interests and nothing else'. This would be a fair crack at a refutation of my position, but its a flawed and weak one. Ethics 101: The principle of consideration of interests, which my position on abortion arises from, comes from the simple fact that as conscious beings with a certain brain capacity we hold and seek to fulfill the interests we possess. If we think rationally and objectively, we have no reason to consider our own interests anymore important than that of another. Consequently we can say all interests should be considered, and considered equally. There are various further extensions of this principle that apply to various topics, but with that which regards abortion, the principle simply means that we consider the interests of those involved. The interests involved, in the immediate circumstance are the mother and the fetus. The fact is however the fetus has no interests - let alone an interest in its existence. If it had preexisting interests, as say an unconscious (born and grown) person does, there would be grounds for reconsideration of abortion, but the fact is there aren't. The only interests to be considered are that of the mother. Killing a fetus does no harm to ANYONE because the fetus doesn't care if it lives or dies - it doesnt even (however you describe or conceptualize the mind) know, comprehend or think of its own material existence as a body. It has no conception of space, time, of itself or of anything within the confines of reality. It has feelings in the most primitive sense of psychical sensations, sure, but that does not constitute an interest or evidence that the mind has developed to keep an interest in living. This emerges only after the first few months of being born - but never before. Consequently my position is this: Killing a fetus is fine because the baby has no interest in its own existence. This means whether its human or not is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND NOT A VALID ARGUMENT THAT WOULD REFUTE MY POSITION. The fetus is a human being, sure, but so what? Right to life is dependent on the holding of an interest - not being a human being.
Why does everything with you people have to be about "rational objectivity" and the complete denial of rational self interest? I have no problems with abortion as a legal right, but I personally think that it's wrong to end the cycle that in all likelihood will produce a viable offspring and it has nothing to do with "rationality" because I'm not ruled by some kind of cold, calculating computer rationality when it comes to life. Economics and foreign policy maybe, but not raw life. My "gut instinct" tells me it's wrong and that is all I need and that is all that counts.
I like reality. Yes maybe that's me, but hell that's my standard. 'denial of rational self interest'? LOL Where did I show that? No I clearly indicated self interest is fine, merely also that consideration of other people's interests is a rational accompaniment to such thought. What's really interesting is you ask me why I'm so interested in rational thought and yet seem to chastise me for, what you say, is my rejection of 'rational self interest'? Again, you clearly haven't read, or rather, haven't thought out what I have written, otherwise you'd see I'm not against self interest at all, rather I am in favor any system that considered everyone's interests equally. If your reference to self interest is in anyway Randian, as it is for many Americans these days, you should know my position, in terms of law, is essentially no different, rather logical implications of what I propose cover the flaws in Rand's work, namely complete egoism, which is entirely nonsensical in establishing a functioning society let alone a rational code of ethics. Anyway, I digress. Why do you think that is wrong? So you;'re ruled by nonsensical emotionalism which could just as much kill as well as protect life. Sure mate, call rational thought cold and calculating if you want but the fact is its rational. I think you will find they are all part of the same dilemma. LOL So if the mother has the gut feeling of killing her kid, its fine then, so you shouldn't be disagreeing with me, really. As long as you've got an obscure gut feeling, its all good, yes? Like I said in the other thread, your logic is almost always contradictory, inconsistent and not thought out by any logical means. Good luck to you.
Dont see how that's relevant, but I'll answer it anyway. Laws that deal with murder and killing are only necessary for protecting people's individual interests. A fetus has no interests and thus nothing to defend.
Well if you think it hasn't been answered, you just haven't been reading. I think you are just being dishonest, as nearly all "pro choicers" are!!! This makes abortion a homicide. Our body of laws concerning homicides should be consistent! Roe falls WAAAAAAY outside the parameters of any and all other homicide laws on the books.
This is pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and you know it! Fetal homicide laws proect them, so does the unborn victims of violencs act, so you need to start over and find a new idiotic pro abortion rationale.
Haven't been reading what? Where is your answer? I have yet to see ONE. Sure mate. You keep telling yourself that but you;re just fooling yourself. Sure. Why? How so? And also, who cares. I think you need to come to grips with the fact we aren't discussing law here, which is for another thread. We are discussing ethics that create law, not the other way around. Besides, your repeated notion of 'consistent in homicide law' is the most laughable, childish excuse for an argument for the pro-life position on this entire forum. Not only does it have absolutely no legal ground, its it generally unjustifiable since the law has nothing to do with pure ethical decision making. The law is based on ethics, not the other way around.
Because laws that are inconsistent with one another tend to negate one another. Do you want anarchy? No homicide laws at all?
LOL Again, read this carefully, perhaps you need knew glasses - LAW IS IRRELEVANT HERE. I'm Australian, this thread was made by me. Law isnt a reason for anything because the law can be changed overnight. When we have debates like this it is to discuss what we should do not what we can do legally. Again, the fact you have to hide behind laws and childish legal arguments that are totally irrelevant to this thread is more evidence of your inability to address my ethical principle.
Laughing at your own idiocy it seems, sure looks like you were addressing laws here: Not about laws eh? INTERESTING Look at that, your very own childish legal argument!
LOL! Which laws did I sight? I am talking about the PURPOSE of the law, not the law itself BIG DIFFERENCE. Of course its confusing to you - everything here is confusing to you! You can even comprehend ONE SENTENCE that I write and repeat the same questions over and over again. Your comprehension is appalling. Where? What of my principle requires law? No, I simply stated the PURPOSE of the law. This is exactly what I want you to talk about - what the law SHOULD BE. You INSTEAD talk about existing laws and discuss the issue of abortion with an IRRELEVANT legal framework. If you cant make these basic distinctions you are clearly lost in this debate. You have as yet to respond to my actual argument without hiding behind some stupid legal argument. I'm still waiting for a response.
Well well aren't we getting testy. Obviously the majority of our laws are about protecting people and punishing those who commit wrongs against them. That is what maintains order in our societies. Your psuedo philosophical "why are human beings special anyway" is just silly.
Good question. What gives your life value? Why are there laws against other people killing you? By your own argument, your own life holds no value. You are a human being, correct? And we've covered this already in here. You've already tried this angle, remember? If right to life is dependent solely upon interest in one's own existence, then it should not be illegal to kill people who are suicidal. Do you support this idea as well?
No, just bored. Its annoying when you have to continually tell a soar loser the same stuff over and over again. Ok, so? Let me put it this way, what ethical basis (in regards to abortion) is the law constructed on that would make its designation of right and wrong, correct? Yeah but we aren't discussing law and order in society - we're discussing abortion. This is the abortion forum, not the civil liberties forum. How so? Oh right because you cant respond to it. like everything else I write.
I have an interest in my existence - a fetus doesnt. What part of my argument justifies that? What is up with you lifers? Cant you read? I specifically stated in the OP: The principle of consideration of interests, which my position on abortion arises from, comes from the simple fact that as conscious beings with a certain brain capacity we hold and seek to fulfill the interests we possess. If we think rationally and objectively, we have no reason to consider our own interests anymore important than that of another. Consequently we can say all interests should be considered, and considered equally. There are various further extensions of this principle that apply to various topics, but with that which regards abortion, the principle simply means that we consider the interests of those involved. The interests involved, in the immediate circumstance are the mother and the fetus. The fact is however the fetus has no interests - let alone an interest in its existence. If it had preexisting interests, as say an unconscious (born and grown) person does, there would be grounds for reconsideration of abortion, but the fact is there aren't. The only interests to be considered are that of the mother. Killing a fetus does no harm to ANYONE because the fetus doesn't care if it lives or dies - it doesnt even (however you describe or conceptualize the mind) know, comprehend or think of its own material existence as a body. It has no conception of space, time, of itself or of anything within the confines of reality. It has feelings in the most primitive sense of psychical sensations, sure, but that does not constitute an interest or evidence that the mind has developed to keep an interest in living. This emerges only after the first few months of being born - but never before. Yes but that is NO basis for rights, let alone the right to live. Where? LOL I recall having tried (successfully) with this angle since day one. Nothing I have said has been refuted by lifers. All they do is misread my contention, refute a strawman and then run away after I correct them. I expect you will do the same. In a way, yes; If someone wants to die, and is of full mental stability in that interest, yes a person could kill them, of course it would have to be in their interest that the other person kills them. See above - PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
Well you still have your delusion to comfort you! If you cannot see the implications there, it isn't me who has a problem. Oh I respond to it, then you get all bent out of shape because you end up looking foolish.
Look mate, I dont mind if anyone calls me a fascist, crazy, or as you do - deluded, AS LONG AS they substantiate their claim. If they cant, or dont, I interpret that as an insult. Please show why or how my principle is delusional. Why not? Law is irrelevant here. Show we the law, other than the fact it has the force of the state, is right. What principle is the law based on that makes it correct? Natural rights? That's what the constitution is based on. Is that what your lifer stance is based on? Natural rights theory? WHERE AND WHEN? Where and when? Actually I respond to your comments, refuting you, and then you run away or reply with ad hominem or some other diversion.
So what? Why should I care how you interpret anything? Well you dream up these false premises then try to pass them off as fact and irrefutable, which they clearly are not. What someone's mental capacity is has nothing at all to do with whether or not they are a human being! And certainly isn't a threshold to allowing the wanton killing of those below any given threshold.
I guess I was appealing your sense of logic and empathy. You increasingly appear to lack both. What false premises? Name ONE. How so? SHOW ME HOW THEY AREN'T. YOU CANT, ITS OBVIOUS. I never said it did. BUT WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT BEING A HUMAN BEING?? BEING A HUMAN BEING DOESNT MEAN (*)(*)(*)(*). Yes, it is, as I have explained and as of now you have yet to refute. I've noticed you;re the only lifer left here who actually bothers with their bs. haha
Which is irrelevant according to what you said here..... You are asking specifically what is so special about human life and why it is bad to kill a human being. If you are a human being, this applies to you as well. You don't make any reference to "interest in one's own existence" until further down your post. You even make this comment.... ....to separate it from your initial point about the value or non-value of human life. And this is exactly why I won't debate you at length with your debate request. Because you can't even be honest with yourself about your own position or when someone has discredited it. You have an Al Gore complex - clinging to the delusion that you have won something that you have lost. So there is literally nothing to be gained from trying to reason with you. It is an exercise in futility. Man, it's so obvious that you're only 19. You're aware that this is absurdly ideological and that no civilized society could ever functionally operate under laws promoting such behavior, aren't you?
I dont see how you reached the conclusion you state at the start. Human life isnt special. So? That doesn't mean all humans can be killed, What it means is HUMAN LIFE ISNT SPECIAL. Get it? What IS special is INTERESTS. A fetus, as OPPOSED TO you or me, has NO interests hence can be killed. THUS the fact I or you are human means NOTHING. ALL that matters is the fact we have interests. What of this dont you understand? Ypou continually manipualte it to garner conclusions that simply do not make sense. Where did I say all huamns could be killed? How COULD this be drawn form the principle of equal consideration of interests?!!!??? No the reason you dont debate me is because you know you'd get your ass handed to you. LOL Where did I lose? Sure mate. Anyone cna see you just kicked yourself into the dust bin of defeat with your FIRST LINE. Probably because Its stated above everyone of my posts, but anyway... Why couldnt it operate effectively? You have yet to show how this or your first claim are valid.
