A fetus has far less moral value than that of a fully grown person
Disgusting, morally reprehensible, and scientifically ignorant. As I have said so many times before, it does not matter that the unborn child cannot think logically; there are plenty adults who cannot think logically and using the child's mental capacity as justification for his murder is disgusting and has equally horrible implications for the already-born. Using the child's inability to feel pain eat certain stages is also logically bankrupt and has disgusting and horrific implications for the already-born, logically necessitating if upheld with any consistency that the murder of those on anaesthetic or pain-killer (or those on drugs) is morally justified as they cannot feel pain. And using the baby's dependency on his mother as grounds for his extermination is also logically bankrupt and morally reprehensible, as we are all dependent upon other human beings for our existence – other people grow our food, other people manufacture nearly all of the necessities of life which provide our substances, so this argument logically must justify the killing of practically every human being on the face of this planet who is not self-sufficient, including almost certainly yourself, as we are all dependent on the exertions of other human beings for our very survival. All of these arguments you have made for the continuity and expansion of the Holocaust of the Unborn we call "abortion" are logically unfounded and amoral.
@9CJ6CB61mo1MO
Just as I have said before, the condition of being born was a requirement for that mora logic. You must be born to have the same rights as anyone else, as I’ve also stated a thousand times.
This is, again, the Question-Begging Fallacy. You have assumed your own viewpoint in order to argue for it, making no logical argument. What you have said is that "I know you have to be born to have equal rights because you have to be born to have equal rights!" Circular reasoning – a real vicious case of it, with deadly repercussions. Instead, take my argument on its own merits. Do you have a rational response? Or does the Marxist Death Cult pretty much get ripped to pieces with this?
@9CJ6CB61mo1MO
For starters, morals are based upon one’s own beliefs and logical thought processes behind it. I am setting up my own morals by adding requirements, the same way most people do, and that’s why I add that they must be born, because there’s a massive difference between someone on their deathbed with loads of meds, and a fetus who’s never seen daylight and is incapable of feeling.
there’s a massive difference between someone on their deathbed with loads of meds, and a fetus who’s never seen daylight and is incapable of feeling.
Still begging the question, all you did was rephrase it to make it look like you weren't. You still have never bothered to explain WHY there's a moral difference (which is what we would be discussing if you had been honourable and logical) and I am instead left politely asking you to provide a rational argument for your position, which you so far seem incapable of doing. It that is the case, just say so, and we can end this here, right now...
@9CJ6CB61mo1MO
Because they’re different circumstances, therefore different actions should be taken. The man on his deathbed was previously capable of thought and feeling, and has gained rights because they were capable of sentience and consent in the first place. Losing that due to having a coma doesn’t change the fact that you normally can, same way as consenting to sex while under the influence is not considered consent. A fetus hasn’t ever had that capacity, nor even been close to developing it, therefore it’s wants and needs are of less moral value because it never once had that capacity, nor would they ever feel that no matter what medicinal circumstance they have.
