Aganist abortion (2 Viewers)

scarybunny

Rocket Queen
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
3,820
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
I think we value the elderly because they have contributed. We take care of them because they took care of us.

And we take care of children because they have lots of potential.
 

mes ami

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
417
Location
at the teaparty.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2008
I think we value the elderly because they have contributed. We take care of them because they took care of us.

And we take care of children because they have lots of potential.
this.

disableds are a burden.

lets turn them and the incapacitated elderly into fertilizer for your christian commune.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Well in this case:
1. The elderly have already contributed to society
2. The young have the potential to contribute to society
3. Disabled people will always be a burden on society, from birth to death
I think you are missing the point. Even if there is the potential to contribute, or a past contribution, this won't affect their current level of intrinsic value under this definition.

Also, point 2 would seem to undermine your own position here. If even the mere potentiality of contribution to society were enough to grant intrinsic value to a human being (something I disagree with), why not extend this onto the embryo or fetus?
 

mes ami

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
417
Location
at the teaparty.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2008
I think you are missing the point. Even if there is the potential to contribute, or a past contribution, this won't affect their current level of intrinsic value under this definition.

Also, point 2 would seem to undermine your own position here. If even the mere potentiality of contribution to society were enough to grant intrinsic value to a human being (something I disagree with), why not extend this onto the embryo or fetus?

look our population is too high. we don't need bucket loads of babies. natural selection will eventually prevail over overpopulation, but in the meantime crush those fetuses.

fuck seriously if you care so much about human life go help those struggling who are already out of the womb. Go help africans, go help orphans, go help war widows, go help countries raped by imperialism and left for the dogs.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
I think you are missing the point. Even if there is the potential to contribute, or a past contribution, this won't affect their current level of intrinsic value under this definition.

Also, point 2 would seem to undermine your own position here. If even the mere potentiality of contribution to society were enough to grant intrinsic value to a human being (something I disagree with), why not extend this onto the embryo or fetus?
Because they are not live human beings
 

MikeK

0/10
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
27
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
the paper
This paper deliberately disregards quality of life.

Following the reasoning of the paper, if pregnancy lasted 40 years and tortured the mother for all her waking hours, but allowed her to otherwise remain living, then abortion in that case is still "avoidable", even though the quality of her life is reduced by absurd amounts. I personally consider 40 years of torture to be far worse than a painless death, and hence it would be immoral to not perform an abortion in that case.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Why we are able to recognize that human beings have intrinsic value is not of great importance to me in this paper. All that mattered was that one was able to recognize this value and then look at whom it should be extended to.
Your premise was that we recognize that all 'humans' have intrinsic value, and you said "most people agree that human beings have intrinsic value". Now this simply isn't true to say for all things that are genetically homo sapiens, as demonstrated by the abundant objection in this thread.

We might see an 'intrinsic value' in the disabled or infants, but from the simplest prokaryote upwards all life has some value of sorts, it's simply the case that value is relative.

If we take your explanation for intrinsic value then I feel it leads us to some very award conclusions. Namely, if we have intrinsic value because of our abilities and cognition then both new born babies and disabled persons will have less intrinsic value than other human persons. But surely this cannot be true.
I don't find these to be awkward conclusions. Just because disabled people and babies have less value than an adult human =/= they have no value whatsoever.

We can see immense value in an infant, because an infant has immense abilities, even if it's abilites and hence it's value are relatively less than an adult. I see no good reason the value must be considered exactly equal.

If we value an organism on it's demonstrated abilities, babies and disabled people have exponentially greater value than a foetus, which is worth less than a housemouse.

It is their being human that provides them with this intrinsic value - not their abilities.
I still can't grasp the rationale behind what is 'intrinsically valuable' about a particular nucleotide sequence, being valuable solely because it is a nucleotide sequence of a particular order.
 
Last edited:

Lolsmith

kill all boomers
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
4,570
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Did you read the paper?

If I have successfully made a case for the pro-life position lacking any religious reasoning then how can it be that I hold this position because I am a christian?

Even if I did take on board the pro-life position just because I am a christian, this does nothing to undermine the truth of the arguments in the paper. This is because a belief can be true irrespective of how one came to hold such a belief. Genetic Fallacy
No I didn't because anything you write is 100% retarded fucking shit because you're a dumb fuck Christian and have yet to prove the opposite.

The only reason you believe in this pro-life crap is because you are a Christian. You thereafter go and pick out shit that can help you prove this already bigoted point of view so you can force it on the rest of society like the freedom-hating cunts you are. This is how you people work.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Now now, let's lay off ripping Brad a new one. We finally have an opposing view that doesn't consist of LOLKEKEKEKEKEKE GOD. Let's not scare him away.
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
"I'm a Christian so I'm all moral and I want the government to enforce my arbitrary morals at gunpoint"
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
if you think a woman is irresponsible for bumping uglies without a condom, just wait til she tries to keep track of her FAS baby whilst giving a jobby to keiran off the princes highway
hahahahahahahahahah fuck
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top