Original post by ChurchSkiz Bottom line: Being against killing unborn babies but for the death of criminals and enemies of the state is not any worse than being against the killing of soldiers for political purposes but being ok with the termination of an unborn fetus. To say one is hypocritical and the other is not is naive.
The inconsistency is especially useful when you want to execute women who terminate their pregnancies...
Or kill people during an anti-war rally....
Ritual public sacrifice!!!
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Original post by LessBread Just to make a note of it, I wasn't comparing abortion to capital punishment any more than I was comparing it to health and safety regulations. My point was that if you're going to call yourself "pro-life" then you ought to pursue agendas that support all life and not just the life of the unborn.
Why should they? The majority of the pro-life movement in the US is concerned with elective abortions. That is their cause. It's like criticizing PETA for not being concerned about how cruel cats can be to a mouse that they play with. The PETA movement isn't concerned about the cruel treatment of animals in general, they are concerned about the cruel treatment of animals by humans. They have a specific focus, and a single message, that is going to be much more powerful than the group who just wants bad things to stop happening.
Why should they? Because they claim to be pro-life not anti-abortion. If they want to focus on elective abortions, that's fine, but they shouldn't pretend that they're driven by a concern for life, because that's baloney.
You're splitting hairs with the terms. Why do they claim to be pro-life and not anti-abortion? For the same reason the other people claim to be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. When talking about abortion, the usage of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are very well known within the context of the conversation. Attempting to extrapolate beyond that is being dishonest. Unless when talking about abortion you think someone who is pro-choice is equally for the choice of what to have for breakfast as they are for whether or not women should have the choice to have an abortion.
Claiming that someone can't be pro-life because of a concern for life is baloney; that's just silly.
No, I'm not splitting hairs, I'm calling out the hypocrisy of those who call themselves pro-life. Their brand name is phony. Their concern for life is so severely limited in scope they aren't deserving of the name. When someone claims to be pro-choice, they are saying that they support a woman's right to choose what happens with her body, whether that choice is to carry the pregnancy to term or to terminate it. The so-called "pro-lifers" can't make that claim, in fact, some of them believe that a woman should have no choice in the matter even in cases of rape and incest or even if her life is in danger. There's nothing pro-life about that.
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Original post by LessBread Why should they? Because they claim to be pro-life not anti-abortion. If they want to focus on elective abortions, that's fine, but they shouldn't pretend that they're driven by a concern for life, because that's baloney.
By that standard, the pro-choice crowd should be supporting post-birth abortion? I see pro-life as simply a response to the term pro-choice. It does not indicate their platform is about anything other than abortion.
By what standard? And where did you get the idea that the pro-choice crowd supports infanticide? Again, if the so-called "pro-life" platform is only about abortion, they shouldn't be calling themselves pro-life, because that's not what they're about.
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Original post by LessBread By what standard? And where did you get the idea that the pro-choice crowd supports infanticide? Again, if the so-called "pro-life" platform is only about abortion, they shouldn't be calling themselves pro-life, because that's not what they're about.
And the pro-choice really isn't about pro-choice. After all, they aren't about the choice to smoke weed, or the choice to carry a concealed weapon. You could even say that their concern for choice is so severely limited in scope they aren't deserving of the name.
Perhaps there would be a whole let less whining about the name if both were called what they mean. for-elective-abortion and against-elective-abortion.
Original post by LessBread Why should they? Because they claim to be pro-life not anti-abortion. If they want to focus on elective abortions, that's fine, but they shouldn't pretend that they're driven by a concern for life, because that's baloney.
By that standard, the pro-choice crowd should be supporting post-birth abortion? I see pro-life as simply a response to the term pro-choice. It does not indicate their platform is about anything other than abortion.
By what standard? And where did you get the idea that the pro-choice crowd supports infanticide? Again, if the so-called "pro-life" platform is only about abortion, they shouldn't be calling themselves pro-life, because that's not what they're about.
'Pro-choice' and 'Pro-life' are BOTH euphemisms. Calling pro-life hypocrites for not defending all life is no more accurate than calling pro-choice hypocrites for not campaigning for the 'choice' to terminate all people (ie. both extremes are absurd). If one only applies to the duration of a pregnancy than so would the other, and vice-versa.
The Ehtics Progessor Marqeis argues that abortion is morally wronge because an abortion denies the fetus of it future. How does everyone here feel about that?
Here is a link of a summary on Marquis ' views: http://stairs.umd.edu/140/marquis.html
Original post by moralissues The Ehtics Progessor Marqeis argues that abortion is morally wronge because an abortion denies the fetus of it future. How does everyone here feel about that?
Here is a link of a summary on Marquis ' views: http://stairs.umd.edu/140/marquis.html
I would love to hear feedback
I just skimmed the article, but from what I read, it never questions whether it is morally right to force a woman to carry her pregnancy to term.
For the record, I don't like abortion. It's never a desirable outcome, but sometimes it's just the lesser of two evils.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight
Original post by moralissues The Ehtics Progessor Marqeis argues that abortion is morally wronge because an abortion denies the fetus of it future. How does everyone here feel about that?
Here is a link of a summary on Marquis ' views: http://stairs.umd.edu/140/marquis.html
I would love to hear feedback
You created an account just to post in this thread?
As far as ethics/morals go, can you not extend the same logic to allowing unfertilized eggs to be 'wasted'? After all, by not fertilizing them you are doing the same thing, denying a cell of its future.
I'm sure some would come back with "But the egg is different, it is just one cell", but then you're ignoring the sperm, so it really is a set of 2 cells. (And what about all those poor sperm without an egg?)
Where do you draw the line? 4+ cells? 8+? At what point are we morally required to ensure a collection of living cells a future?
I support the view that it is a woman's right to choose, but I also support the view that we should have solid programs in place to help people deal with issues surrounding pregnancy. A woman should never feel that she has to terminate a pregnancy because of how it will negatively affect her life, or because she doesn't feel the child will be able to be raised in a safe environment.
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.
Original post by Mithrandir "Vegans are retarded. I've said that for many many years. Happy?"
Mithrandir, this comment is disappointing. YOU engaging in empty name-calling!?
Original post by tstrimp "That and fetuses have never raped and killed people."
Carrots have never raped and killed people. I could say that those who claim to be pro-life are hypocrites when they take the LIFE of carrots. Of course, that would be completely intellectually dishonest of me because I know that there are valid reasons why people make a distinction between the lives of carrots and human beings. See my next point.
Original post by ChurchSkiz "What about the people who claim to respect all life and living things except for humans? Don't eat cows or even eggs, don't make pillows out of feathers or balls out of leather, but aborting a late-term fetus is no problem.
I've seen the same people decrying the inhumanity of eating a poor, unborn calf, rally for the right for women to dispose of unborn humans. Would they call it a travesty if we proposed to eat the leftovers of Planned Parenthood? I think there's some hypocrisy on both sides..."
Carrots don't have a mental life. They are not self-aware, so they are incapable of having desires and interests and thus they cannot be benefited or HARMED. Killing them cannot be wrong. Until the unborn reach a specific stage of development (prior to which they are effectively brain-dead), the same reasoning applies. That foetuses look like tiny human beings after a time means nothing, as what is important is what is going on "under the hood"*. Up until a certain point, they are just clumps of cells no different to vegetables.
The cows which are killed for their meat (and the animals killed to make leather) have a mental life and like human beings (including the extremely mentally retarded) "they have a life of their own that is of importance to them, apart from their utility to us" (Tom Regan). Eggs don't have a mental life, but the animals which lay them do and they are frequently mistreated in factory farms. Free-range chickens are killed for their meat once egg production decreases. Also, the male chicks which are born (approx. 50%) are mostly of no use in the egg industry and are killed simply because they have no economic value (they are in fact, an economic liability).
All sufficiently developed animals (including human ones) exist for their own purposes, they are not somethings, they are somebodies and their individual worth should not be diminished by treating them as mere tools, commodities or renewable resources that provide benefits to others. Intelligence is not an ethically relevant reason to discriminate. *Neither are cosmetic physical differences.
Original post by tstrimp "It's like criticizing PETA for not being concerned about how cruel cats can be to a mouse that they play with. The PETA movement isn't concerned about the cruel treatment of animals in general, they are concerned about the cruel treatment of animals by humans. They have a specific focus, and a single message, that is going to be much more powerful than the group who just wants bad things to stop happening."
I understand how your statement supports the argument you were making, but I just want to note (as an aside): I don't like PETA, but the reason they appeal to human animals to think about and treat non-human animals differently is because adult human animals are moral agents. They have the capacity to reflect on their beliefs and behaviour and to think ethically. Whereas moral patients, who are unable to do these things and behave more instinctively cannot be engaged in discourse or reasoned with. Moral patients (including human ones) sometimes pose threats to others that need to be neutralised, but we still need to treat them with respect. This precludes their exploitation (and in the case of violent persons who have already been incarcerated, their needless execution). Preventing a cat from toying with a mouse is paternalism. A nice gesture, but not something which will change the way that cats think and behave in the future.
Please try to understand the basis for other people's beliefs, instead of looking at their conclusions, judging these to be inconsistent according to your own reasoning, then throwing words like 'hypocrite' around because you assumed their decision-making process to be the same as your own (life = life = life, *sigh*).
Paulcoz.
[Edited by - paulcoz on November 29, 2010 2:08:06 AM]
