'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

No it's not, it's fucking insanity.

Why would you want to commit to being with someone for your entire life when you don't even know if you're compatible in one of the most important ways?

Why the assumption that all people want to get married? Or that once you get married it doesn't matter because you'll want children? What then if you don't? Just don't have sex at all? Yeah, right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are even legal precedents for institutions/companies being liable for negligence/damages to persons who incurred birth defects as a result of their mismanagement ... even if the mismanagement occurred several months/years before their conception (toxic poisoning etc) ... what to speak of more straightforward moral implications of a pregnant woman smoking or whatever ... similarly its immoral for a mother to take drugs during pregnancy .... so in light of all this, its not clear why a different thinking is required if she decides to terminate the life during the same time frame

IOW just because its happening inside a woman's body in no way exempts the life that is coming to bear or the mother from a host of justice and moral related issues

then perhaps you are offering a different argument to Lucy, who was suggesting that a relationship of dependence automatically exempts one from any access to justice issues

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd wager it's pretty high on the list. Marriage counselors often gage the status of a relationship by how satisfied a couple is with their sex life or if there is a mismatch in satisfaction. If the importance of a sexual relationship was neither here nor there then why would professionals in the feild encourage couples to improve it? Without sex your relationship is no different than the relationship you have with friends maybe not even that. But I mean, if you actually enjoy being celibate while you are in a committed relationship then "to each their own" I guess. :shrug: For me it's the key difference between an intimate relationship and a close friendship.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My answer is precisely the same as yours:

The accusation is that in performing an abortion, one is killing. The pro-abortion camp would do much better for themselves if they simply said "yes, you're right". So be it.

At least then the anti-abortionist camp would then be forced to come up with some other semblance of an argument....

 

It's not?
When did this happen?

As far as I'm aware, capital punishment still happens in the States, not to mention the executionary powers granted to soldiers of numerous countries during wartime...

I don't see how.
You're saying that, somehow, we're now capable of performing an ethical calculus??

Signal already sufficiently responded for me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Rhetorical questions?

lightgigantic is threadshitting. It's the only thing he ever does here, and he's got over 12,000 posts' worth of history demonstrating his methods (not that there's anything particularly unique about them, here). This is news, or some mystery? The siezure-inducing avatar seems to sum it all up pretty well, frankly.

 

I don't think such cases are granted purely on the case of personal inconvenience (granted that their may be an exception for an easily offended militant despotic regime). Usually the case for it is national security or the like

On the contrary, comparing the moral value of several options is essentially what ethics is all about.

Consider the case of soldiers engaged in killing some people for the sake of protecting the security interests of their country ... and consider the case of soldiers engaged in killing some people for the sake of stabilizing the stock prices that the military has heavy investments in.

Which one do you think stands as higher on the moral barometer?

 

And you're arguing that a reason like 'national security' is in some significant way different from being 'inconvenienced'....

Sorry, I don't buy it...

Precisely.

But... there is no standard.

Ultimately, that ethical hierarchy is arbitrarily assigned by a specific culture and time.

Neither.

See above.

 

if one is both logical and consistent in one's reasoning, is it possible to formulate some objective ethical standards?

 

Really?
You think collective interests are on par with specific individual interests?

(IOW the difference between the mathematics of both groups doesn't weigh in on any ethical decision?)

Even if you want to isolate the investigation of ethics to a particular time and place, you still encounter several opposing views - abortion being a classic example

As far a s ethics is concerned, that's a non-argument.

IOW what you are advocating is a complete absence of tools to deconstruct any ethical problem

 

You don't think the area of killing treads on sensitive ethical ground?

 

I couldn't have put it better myself. Sex is natures way of keeping groups together (either pairs or small groups) and for the biological evidence of this the animal's which have long infancy (dolphins, apes and humans) are surprise surprise the same animals which get pleasure from sex

 

lemme guess .... pro-abortion and atheist, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So you are with your spouse for sex? (rhetorical question)

And no offense, but how do you know what animals get pleasure from sex? I think that is...where did you get this information from?

LOL...yeah for ten minutes...or so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well the world is going to become over populated anyway but the problem with abortion and reproduction in general is that smarter people are not reproducing or i should say less (sometimes much less) intelligent people are reproducing like factories. So sure everyone can and probably sould experience one...two...maybe three kids but 10-20 kids per person and the numbers just wont work out. In China they had or maybe still have one child per person. otoh, abortion hasnt been working out either...does not mean i am against abortion and for rape i think it goes without that it is definitely unfair to the woman but then lets eliminate the rapist too. People get uncomfortable with surgical controls as a requirement though. And yet there are so many other requirements and laws. So i have no answers.

And i notice the misspelling in all my posts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*tsk tsk*

For all usual practical intents and purposes,
logical consistency = OCD (also sociopathy(-like), psychopathy(-like))

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Around here, children are taught from early on that "life is a struggle for survival" and "only the strong survive".
This is used to justify meat-eating, abortion, capitalism, invading other countries ...
Early on, people learn to live in crisis mode.

Not for someone who lives in crisis mode.

Which matters very little when barbarians are invading your country (or at least you believe they are), or when you live in constant fear of losing your job ...

They say ethics are for people who can afford them, while the rest of us are just struggling to get by.

 

I'm a Satanist, and I favor legalizing retroactive abortion up until the fourth decade. Not a head-banging Satan-worshipper by age 40? Terminate - it's hopelessly compromised.

 

at the very least that is a more productive post than your last contribution here ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL who are you to talk about "productive" posting? You've produced the single largest mass of unbroken inanity of any poster here.