Abortion demonstration just doesn't sound right.
- Thread starter Unforgiven
- Start date
What is the sole purpose of the design of a woman's body?
Ever heard of any of this bull**** before?
"You're gonna get fat!"
"You have to finish school."
"You just started a career."
"What will the people at church think?"
"You're too young"
"You can't afford it."
"He doesn't love you."
Does any of that sound like "telling a woman what she can do with her body:"?
your arm is part of your body....right?
Just for laughs and giggles....try to find a surgeon that will cut of a good arm for you.
You'll get thrown in the loony bin...
Yet a woman is allowed and even encouraged in some cases to remove a viable part of her body
Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion may be stated as the following syllogism:
Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is necessarily wrong to take innocent human life:
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[17]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion may be stated as the following syllogism:
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.[15]
In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that defenders of abortion attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.[15]
Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is necessarily wrong to take innocent human life:
[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that despite the fact that a being is human, and alive, this does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[16]
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[17]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide
Last edited:
Say's the guy that hasn't made one good intelligent point that convinces me about taking freedom of choice away from women.
I think its cause, deep down you can't justify taking away that choice ether.
Pretty much typical of your idiotic comments (that you have every right to post) :lol: And what about young couples who can't have children who would give their eye teeth to adopt. This subject is much bigger than one selfish mother. :smile:
Maybe she should if it's not dangerous to her physical health. Preventing pregnancy is as simple as two aspirins held tightly between the knees.
What the hell are you talking about?
Accidents can happen.. unwanted children generally don't do well in life, we shouldn't continue to encourage unwanted births.
Don't many of the people who are rabidly against abortion also believe that we are all born sinners? That kinda knocks out the innocent human being argument, doesn't it?
If you say so, although I know of a few adoption agencies and families that would beg to differ.