Pro-lifers, explain your perspective for me please

[lightgigantic]

Potentially is the main word here. It's not a being, it's something that will potentially become a being. And since it isn't a being, why am I obliged to let it become one, and give birth to it?

even to ride with your (perhaps arbitrary) definition of a being, what is it exactly about "potentiality" that divorces it from moral obligation?

What to speak of moral obligation, even legal courts recognize potentiality as a feasible reason for damages (for instance if you are injured and cannot progress in employment as you could potentially otherwise, you can be awarded financial reimbursement)

 

[lightgigantic]

Life doesn't mean poo

and similarly poo does not mean life
(Doco's titled "two gross materialists and a cup" aside :runaway

A tapeworm is alive. Don't tell me I may not flush it outta my intestines???

There's a wider argument for respect for life, but first base happens at the level of one's own species (with the recognition that hosting parasites and an embryo are remarkably distinct)

 

[visceral_instinct]

even to ride with your (perhaps arbitrary) definition of a being, what is it exactly about "potentiality" that divorces it from moral obligation?

What to speak of moral obligation, even legal courts recognize potentiality as a feasible reason for damages (for instance if you are injured and cannot progress in employment as you could potentially otherwise, you can be awarded financial reimbursement)

Because you are a HUMAN BEING, not a potential being that has not yet grown a neocortex, and you are suffering.

It's not even remotely analogous to getting rid of a lump of gelatine that at a certain point will become a human.

 

[lightgigantic]

Because you are a HUMAN BEING, not a potential being that has not yet grown a neocortex, and you are suffering.

I'm trying to focus on your usage of "potential".

You are arguing that a fetus is merely a potential being.

I am bringing to your attention how even legal courts recognize potential as a sufficient means to be awarded damages (as in the case of a person being deprived from the potential to work through injury)

It's not even remotely analogous to getting rid of a lump of gelatine that at a certain point will become a human.

Once again, if you could indicate any old lump of gelatin as being capable of giving rise to life, your category would have been accurate

 

[visceral_instinct]

I'm trying to focus on your usage of "potential".

You are arguing that a fetus is merely a potential being.

I am bringing to your attention how even legal courts recognize potential as a sufficient means to be awarded damages (as in the case of a person being deprived from the potential to work through injury)



Once again, if you could indicate any old lump of gelatin as being capable of giving rise to life, your category would have been accurate

That's different though because you're depriving someone who actually exists and is conscious, of their future.

Why is it equivalent to destroying something that isn't even conscious?

 

[kira]

We are all initially fetuses. We don't suddenly have complete organs, we went through phases of growth (given the chance). To abort is simply to stop the phase of growth. In my opinion, that is the privilege of the divine, just like life and death.

If we don't want baby, we can always prevent to do so by doing birth control.

I don't blame people who abort because of weakness (e.g. mentally unstable, being raped and can't live with it, medical reasons, etc. those are perfectly understandable), but I can't respect people who do it by selfish reasons (like laziness to be responsible for their own actions).

Anyway, just trying to answer the thread title.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's different though because you're depriving someone who actually exists and is conscious, of their future.

So an injury that deprives a person of a conscious recognition of their future is not deserving of a damages pay out?

Why is it equivalent to destroying something that isn't even conscious?

Why is a fetus considered equivalent to a lump of gelatin or some other similarly unconscious substance, when there is no way in the world such a thing can give rise to life?

 

[visceral_instinct]

So an injury that deprives a person of a conscious recognition of their future is not deserving of a damages pay out?



Why is a fetus considered equivalent to a lump of gelatin or some other similarly unconscious substance, when there is no way in the world such a thing can give rise to life?

If by person you're talking about a fetus, no because it's not yet a person.

It's equivalent to a lump of gelatine because it's viscous, it doesn't do much, and it is basically just a blob.

Gelatine does, on the other hand, make a nice texture in sweets...ooey... *laughs childishly behind her hands*

Jokes aside, I cannot comprehend a point of view that says an existing flesh and blood woman who has thoughts and emotions and a whole life going on, should put this pre-neocortical ball of goop first. I honestly can't.

 

[Doreen]

If we don't want baby, we can always prevent to do so by doing birth control.

This is not foolproof and it also does not cover rape.
(I see you mention rape below)

 

[Doreen]

Does a cat have what it takes to be assigned any moral category?

I was actually thinking of human miscarriages.

But she raised the issue of cats so I put it in the terms of her example.

I will answer your question with MU.

 

[Doreen]

Hmmm... that's another topic altogether. But no, they are not murderers when there were food shortages, especially because I don't think that they are equipped with enough ratio in the first place.

so this opens the door for people weighing things. IOW abortion is not necessarily bad, but we much look at the situation.

 

[Doreen]

I don't think the fetus is in a position to make choices. In fact I don't think even a new born child is in a position to make choices of any great consequence for quite a few months or even years

So the souls are simply plopped into wombs and this has nothing to do with the pasts of those souls?

 

[kira]

This is not foolproof and it also does not cover rape.
(I see you mention rape below)

I didn't blame people who are raped, did I?

Also, for other cases, there are always option for adoption although it isn't an ideal life. I know people who are adopted and have a happy life, though the majority of them are probably having miserable lifes. But, c'est la vie. It's about experience.

 

[kira]

So the souls are simply plopped into wombs and this has nothing to do with the pasts of those souls?

Where do the souls come from? Where are yours come from? :shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

as opposed to believing that the phenomena of life is merely a consequence of material complexity derived from base elements?

Correct.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I would probably fall into kira's mentally unstable category...

 

[Doreen]

I didn't blame people who are raped, did I?

No, that's what I meant. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mentioned rape adn then noticed you mentioned it after.

Also, for other cases, there are always option for adoption although it isn't an ideal life. I know people who are adopted and have a happy life, though the majority of them are probably having miserable lifes. But, c'est la vie. It's about experience.

I guess for me a woman has the right to say she does not want to be the vessel for an entity. I cannot prove this is objectively moral, whatever that means, but I don't think this potential human has a right that overrides hers. I also believe in reincarnation and I am a theist, so I don't see the woman's starting position as her alone, creating this entity and then not taking reponsibility for it and denying it life for all time. The entity can come in somewhere where it is wanted. And it cannot be a great start to have your first relationship be one where the body you are in feels like you are an intruder. I see God and the soul involved as having a lot of responsibility also. Why was that soul drawn there? Why did God set it up so that it arrived where it was not wanted? I also doubt that the soul has now missed out on life, it was simply denied that access point.

 

[Doreen]

Where do the souls come from? Where are yours come from? :shrug:

Well, this would be going off topic but I am a mix of pantheist/panentheist - hence everything is God - pagan with some dashes of other stuff thrown in. So ultimately going back some distance in time, the soul is piece of God, just like everything else.

 

[kira]

I would probably fall into kira's mentally unstable category...

Are you pregnant? I would think you wouldn't even try, so it's rather irrelevant. What I said was, there are people who abort because they're mentally unstable. Can't blame them, just like law can't touch them for criminal acts.

No, that's what I meant. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mentioned rape adn then noticed you mentioned it after.

Ok.

I tried to position myself as a victim of rape. I would think it would be extremely difficult, probably don't want to even live anymore. But if that happens, I would think that I'd try to live for the kid and love him/her anyway, after all he or she is innocent. But this is rather easy to say because I have a strong family and friends support and have fixed income myself.

I guess for me a woman has the right to say she does not want to be the vessel for an entity.

This really depends on perspective. If you think of it as a vessel for an entity, or as VI said like baby machines, it's indeed kind of revolting. But if you think from the point of view as carrying entrusted being, it's like a blessing. For me as a theist, it's like, God trusts this being to me, so I'd take care of the trust. But I can't really say that either, coz I never been pregnant.

Well, this would be going off topic but I am a mix of pantheist/panentheist - hence everything is God - pagan with some dashes of other stuff thrown in. So ultimately going back some distance in time, the soul is piece of God, just like everything else.

More or less, same here.

 

[Doreen]

This really depends on perspective. If you think of it as a vessel for an entity, or as VI said like baby machines, it's indeed kind of revolting.

I didn't mean entity as negative. I use the term for people animals, deities, ghosts, whatever.

But if you think from the point of view as carrying entrusted being, it's like a blessing. For me as a theist, it's like, God trusts this being to me, so I'd take care of the trust. But I can't really say that either, coz I never been pregnant.

I cannot imagine that God would allow a fetus to be placed where God knows there is a good chance the baby is not welcome and then allows that to be it for the baby. Sorry, you lucked out. She had an abortion, you're history. That makes no sense to me. It is not what a loving father/mother would do.