If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Cryptolized

Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?

76 posts in this topic
Quote

I don't see how this disputes my point. Pregnancy is a risk (no matter what you do) implicit and well know in the act of sex.

It's not an implicit contract or agreement. Those only happen when you agree by doing what you do. They don't have to be written down or said loud.

 

Quote

is your responsibility, including the life you have created.

Not according to the NAP.

 

Quote

The baby now exists (by your own hand) and will become a moral agent if you don't murder it.

The fetus is not a moral agent according to the NAP. Hence, an abortion is not murder.

Quote

You can only define evil in terms of an objective (and true) principle (or value, which is what libertarian philosophers attempt to tie the NAP to, except for Stefan.) Otherwise it's nesseccarily subjective.

In itself, the NAP is binary. Either something violates it or it doesn't. The degree of the violation has to be judged individually. That judgment can't be found in the NAP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ofd said:

It's not an implicit contract or agreement. Those only happen when you agree by doing what you do. They don't have to be written down or said loud.

 

Not according to the NAP.

 

The fetus is not a moral agent according to the NAP. Hence, an abortion is not murder.

In itself, the NAP is binary. Either something violates it or it doesn't. The degree of the violation has to be judged individually. That judgment can't be found in the NAP.

I feel like we're going around in circles, so I'll stop here.

We both agree that abortion is evil and besides, as I said before, the argument is a red herring.

I'll quit while I'm ahead.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2017 at 5:02 PM, Eudaimonic said:

A child (from the moment of conception) is, at the very least, a potential moral agent (i.e if it is allowed to develop normally it will become one whereas a sperm or an egg by itself could never be.)

A potential moral agent is not a moral agent.

 

On 7/22/2017 at 5:27 PM, Eudaimonic said:

The abortion argument is one of the biggest red herrings in contemporary history.

Agreed. It is impossible to enforce a ban on abortion without a government. So you obviously are a statist. If you are not, you should give up because it is impossible to enforce without a government.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

A potential moral agent is not a moral agent.

It doesn't matter, the mother is responsible for the creation of that life. If she kills it she kills it's moral agency and places a value on it life (in the same way a murderer does.) The only difference between her and a murderer is that she did it at two months instead of at twenty-five years.

It's like if someone was in a comma and as long as you didn't pull the plug they were going to recover, then you pull the plug and say "oh but he's not a moral agent right now even though he definitely was going to be when he recovered, so it's OK." 

15 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Agreed. It is impossible to enforce a ban on abortion without a government. So you obviously are a statist. If you are not, you should give up because it is impossible to enforce without a government.

The assumption is insulting and I'm curious as to your genuineness of the pursuit of truth in this conversation because of it.

Government is not the only way to get people to stop doing something wrong, Anarcho-Capitalism is based on that premise. Ostracism works too. The red herring here is that no matter whether it's moral or not, anyone who would be willing to commit it is not a person you would want to have in your life.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

It doesn't matter, the mother is responsible for the creation of A MAYBE POSSIBLE FUTURE life. If she kills it she kills it's MAYBE EVENTUAL moral agency and places a value on it EVENTUAL life (in the same way a murderer does.) The only difference between her and a murderer is that she did it when it was A FUTURE POSSIBLE POTENTIAL MORAL AGENT instead of at twenty-five years, an actual moral agent.

Corrected it for you. It is a straight up lie when you admit it is not yet a moral agent, then claim it has the rights of a moral agent. I am not saying that there is nothing to your argument but you cant make a jump from potential future moral agent to moral agent without full proving that out.

 

10 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

It's like if someone was in a comma and as long as you didn't pull the plug they were going to recover, then you pull the plug and say "oh but he's not a moral agent right now even though he definitely was going to be when he recovered, so it's OK."

Doesn't support your argument. Nobody is required to provide medical care to you in a free society. Healthcare is not a right.

 

10 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

The assumption is insulting and I'm curious as to your genuineness of the pursuit of truth in this conversation because of it.

Government is not the only way to get people to stop doing something wrong, Anarcho-Capitalism is based on that premise. Ostracism works too. The red herring here is that no matter whether it's moral or not, anyone who would be willing to commit it is not a person you would want to have in your life.

When more than 50% of people disagree with you, and the ones that agree with you, most of them would not actually support any enforcement, you only have a small minority to enforce it.

 

Some examples, you ostracize abortion people, well 90% of business owners are not going to say goodbye to lets just say 50% of the populations business. So that isn't happening.

How do you even know who got an abortion anyways? If a woman goes in private to a doctor, nobody would ever even know. hmm so how would you actually ostracize these people? How do you know if the man wanted it or didn't want it to ostracize him?

 

Say you wanted to kill or imprison someone for abortion like I said, good luck when most of society would not allow you to do that. And people even who are anti abortion are not lining up to run around killing people.

 

Say you want to PAY people looking for abortions to not have an abortion. The cost would obviously be very expensive for just 1. There are so many, it would not be possible to pay to stop all abortions or adopt all the children and then care for them to adult hood. Lets say $5000 convinces a woman to carry the child and the kid wears $500 of clothes per year, eats about $1000 of food per year, and has $500 of medical expenses and $500 of housing expenses, all per year (This would be terrible living conditions btw) $2500 per year and lets say through age 15, you need $42500 PER CHILD. And I think 600,000 is about how many abortions per year in the US... so you would need 25.5 BILLION dollars to save 1 years worth of abortion children. Good luck raising that!

 

When something can be done between two consenting adults in private, its essentially impossible to effectively legislate or take any kind of meaningful action against.

 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Corrected it for you. It is a straight up lie when you admit it is not yet a moral agent, then claim it has the rights of a moral agent. I am not saying that there is nothing to your argument but you cant make a jump from potential future moral agent to moral agent without full proving that out.

I won't debate a person who claims I'm a liar so quickly, expressing no curiosity. Again, that's insulting and untrue.

If I'm truly a liar, does it make sense to debate me?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now