Quote:
|
But we know what that cluster of cells is. Aren't humans above such pointless details? It is a life, and you are destroying it.
|
i dunno.. like i said, i don't see these details as being pointless. i'd characterize it as - it is life, but not A life. not anything remotely similar to what pops out after 9 months imo.
on a constitutional level, the charge that abortion kills life, therefore it should be illegal seems hypocritical to me. we've employed the death penalty for over 200 years now. doesn't that deprive someone of life? plus, at what point does the constitution apply - does it apply to the unborn? and also, forced pregnancy (i.e. when you take away choice) isn't exactly in the interest of liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the woman's perspective (and you could also argue that it's an invasion on her rights over her own body).
Quote:
|
But Bishop, utilitarians would argue that you could kill someone if it was in your best interest. Everything cannot be for utility. The child's life is not yours to deny in my opinion. If you do not want it afterwards perhaps you should cross that bridge when it comes.
|
no, everything cannot be for utility, that's true. but, there are instances where it does matter and is legitimate.. i find it to be the epitomy of hypocrisy that anti-choice people out there stir up such a shit storm about the rights of the unborn - but once the child is born, they could give a shit less about it. if the mother happens to be poor, uneducated and ill-equipped to supporting her child - it's all her problem, and she doesn't deserve the little bit of welfare she gets either. it amazes me how the anti-choice group seems to view the mother as public enemy #1, while it loses concern for the baby once it's born.