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.
Why should those who have lost their mental capacity, with no hopes of regaining it at the End of their lives, have more rights than those who will in a matter of weeks develop it, and thereon enjoy a life of potentially eighty years in extent, utilising to the benefit of society those abilities which the former party no longer possesses? It is an absurdity.
@9CJ6CB61mo1MO
Because they have been capable of feeling before, making it more than plausible to say that they have fulfilled the requirements to have implied rights to life due to being capable of consent at any point in their life. A fetus cannot have consent, and does not have the capacity to feel at all to begin with. Waiting for a bit will make them able to feel, yes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen, nor is future possibility applied to present possibility because that same logic could apply to sperm or earlier forms that are even further away from feeling, hence why I allow it… Read more
