Consequence of consent. A felony murder takes place when perps (at least one kills/is killed) and involves the others in that specific act and consequence. Consequence of consent to an act.
I don't understand the reference, but I do understand the basic human need to be loved. Perhaps your attempts to appear that you care about these precious lives are just your way of trying to get others to like you. Perhaps one day you will be willing to invest your own love in one of these unloved, unwanted children. Nah! Its much easier to argue semantics.
Yes, consequences of CRIMINAL acts..... so you want sexual intercourse to be deemed a criminal act with punishment.....weird....truly weird....
MOD EDIT>>>RULE 15<< If my argument was that it would be EASIER if abortion was illegal, then all your counter arguments would be valid. However that isn't my argument, my argument is that it is IMMORAL. You can't refute a moral principle with pragmatic arguments. The reason I called that sociopathy is because a sociopath can only think rationally without taking empathy or morality into consideration, I am sorry if I offended anyone by calling it that and will refrain from doing so again, but my point still stands that no amount of pragmatic advantages will ever outweigh even the most insignificant of moral principles. That being said, I will from here on out only reply to arguments that address flaws in my reasoning, not arguments that address the pragmatic consequences rather than my actual argument. You can't say 2+2 doesn't equal 4 just because it would be more convenient if it were 5, that's all.
Adultery shouldn't be illegal, but besides that all the things you mentioned are natural law. The right not to get murdered, the right not to be stolen from, and the right not to be punished based on a false testimony are all rights every human has until a person or entity(usually a government) decides to take them away. This is the basis of Libertarian and Anarchist philosophy. You do not need religion to come to the conclusion that these things are wrong.
Why do you think a fetus isn't a person? It has a heartbeat, sensory functions and all/most of the organs every person has. Where lies the difference?
Well what is consciousness then? I've read studies that came to the conclusion that language is essential to self-awereness and thus consciousness, does that mean babies aren't conscious? You might think that is a ridiculous argument, but I have actually encountered people who argue that a woman should have the right to have an abortion until a year AFTER the child is born because it isn't "conscious". If a (potential)person doesn't have the skillset to tell us whether or not he/she is conscious wouldn't be the moral thing to do to assume they are because we have no reason to believe they aren't?
1. "Sometimes intentionally killing someone isn’t wrong though" It is only not wrong when defending yourself, and even then only when done so accidentally or when left with no other choice. But at least we are getting somewhere now. My premise is that killing people is wrong, yours is that it is wrong "most of the time". So what is your standard for when it is and isn't wrong? What is the defining factor here? It's only wrong when it doesn't inconvenience someone? I hope not. 2. Of course it is entirely possible that you do indeed lack emphatic abilities, like a lot people do. So if you do not understand morality for morality's sake, let me put it like this. If everybody respects everybody else's rights then the whole of society will be better off. In this case: If we do not allow people to prove their value to society because we end their lives before it even began then the whole of society will be worse off. What if Albert Einstein was aborted, or Winston Churchill? Of course it is always possible they become evil, like Adolf Hitler. But that doesn't change the fact that we should allow everyone the right to make the best of their lives. So if you do insist on a pragmatic argument, there you have it. Although I do still believe you shouldn't need a pragmatic reason for upholding a moral principle. As for lying, there is nothing inherently wrong with lying. If you do not want to share a certain truth then it would be immoral if you were forced to anyhow. Lying is only wrong when done so under oath for example, because it harms people. So if we apply your logic to abortion, then abortion would only be moral when it is done so to save the mother's life. Which is the belief I already hold. Irresponsible young adults generally don't get an abortion to save their lives though, and in those cases it would indeed be immoral. Are you satisfied with that line of reasoning? 3. That is because I made a moral argument, not a pragmatic one. If my argument was that it would be more convenient if abortions were illegal then all your points would be correct. However my argument is that it is INconvenient but that we should illegalise it anyway because it is wrong. You are therefore replying to an argument I never made which is not getting the discussion anywhere. My argument is that abortion is wrong because a fetus has all the same signs of life as a child does. If you see any flaws in that line of reasoning then I will happily listen to them and consider your points, but I am getting a bit tired of having to refute arguments against a position I do not even hold.
Then why don't you respect women's rights? Women have NO obligation to provide Einsteins for the world. NONE. IF a fetus had all the same signs of life as a child does it shouldn't have to stay in the womb, it could just betaken out at any stage and fed by someone else while it grows...
It doesn’t really matter when or how often it isn’t wrong. The point is that you can’t automatically say abortion is wrong because (if?) it involved killing a person. I don’t think there is a simple standard, that’s one of the reasons this is such a difficult issue. It’s the same for anything where killing someone might be justifiable; assisted suicide, execution, “do not resuscitate” statements, self-defence, police shootings, wartime killing etc. That’s not morality for morality’s sake then, it’s morality for a purpose. Look at it this way – did morality exist before we had any form of structured society or before human beings (or any other sentient being if you like) existed at all? If morality just exists because, when and why did it first come in to being? That’s an argument (a pragmatic one ), but it’s one you’d have to support. It’s a simplistic counter but if the our population was increased by the total number of abortions over a lifetime, would the world necessarily be better off for that? I’m not convinced by the idea of existence for the sake of existing any more than morality for the sake of morality. You’ve not made a moral argument, you’ve made a moral assertion. I don’t think it’s possible make an actual argument without pragmatism because if your position is just morality for the point of morality, I could take exactly the same position but assert that it’s immoral not to allow abortion if the mother wants it. We’ve already established that the fact something has signs of human life doesn’t automatically make killing it wrong though. A housefly has the same signs of life as a human foetus but we don’t think twice about killing them. Abortion in general isn’t right or wrong. If any specific scenario where it is relevant, with its individual and unique parties, circumstances and conditions, there will be a number of different options and the people involved are faced with choosing the best (or least worst) one. I’m not convinced it is beneficial to trying to apply too many generic preconditions, presumptions or values to those already difficult decisions.
Nice diversio..SQUIRREL!!! So, getting back to these precious lives... One of the arguments for anti-abortion laws is "If we can save only one life, its worth it" What is stopping you? You can save a little life right now!
I don't think about it, it's not my area of expertise. We have a medical and legal community that can make those laws and definitions. And my guess it fetus was defined long before any abortion issues ever came about. But I would say as you noted above, it may have all or most organs. And it still resides in a body of another human being.
You think a govt, in particular, the USA gov't, murders, steals, and bears false witness more than people do?
Marriage is a covenant/contract. There are legal consequences for breaking that contract. Many see natural law and rights as coming from nature's Creator. The sun rises and sets on both the wicked and righteous. My take is that the evidence of the Creator's Law is all around us whether we are able to see it's Source or not we can still sense its relevance in our lives.
I used be pro-abortion and even donated to PP but am now anti-abortion, especially after 12 weeks which is the cut off point in Denmark and most civilized countries. I'm not a libertarian and voted for Jill Stein despite her pro-abortion stance because I agree with her on everything else.
Why should I believe anything you had to say about Libertarian philosophy when some other poster had to school you on their philosophy? ""The association between a pregnant woman and the developing fetus inside her must be a voluntary association to avoid violating the NAP. The fetus is, after you strip away all the appeal to emotion, a parasitic organism. That is, it is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. The woman must voluntarily agree to maintain this relationship. To force her to do otherwise is a violation of the NAP.""""
What about forcing a woman to let another person use her body against her will? What does the Non-Aggression Principle say about that?
Another poster explained that to the poster you're responding to : ""The association between a pregnant woman and the developing fetus inside her must be a voluntary association to avoid violating the NAP. The fetus is, after you strip away all the appeal to emotion, a parasitic organism. That is, it is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. The woman must voluntarily agree to maintain this relationship. To force her to do otherwise is a violation of the NAP."""" I think he ignored it
