Evidence? I don't think this is a real thing any live human being believes.
-
-
-
Which? That people oppose abortion because they think women should not be having casual sex? Or that people oppose abortion because they think of foetuses as babies who are being killed?
-
That there are people who oppose abortion, but also think casual sex is fine. I mean there might be one, but I can't believe there are many.
-
LOL! Come to England.
-
Maybe. Show me valid polling data and I'm prepared to change my mind. Until then I don't believe it.
-
Well, until there are some studies checking correlation of people who think abortion is wrong and people who think casual sex is wrong, I can only suggest talking to more pro-lifers from all around the world.
-
This seems like a very American thing to me. I don't actually know any anti-sex people but I know many who think of foetuses as babies and abortion as killing babies.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
they are just anti female freedom
-
I disagree for the reasons I gave. Asserting the opposite isn't much good. Give a reason why you disagree.
-
Demanding control of another woman's body, using laws and legal consequence that will leave a pregnant woman with less bodily autonomy than a corpse is the deepest way to rob her of freedom. If you're anti abortion and act on that only by not having one would be the exception.
-
But we're talking about motivations for opposing abortion. Whether its because you want to control women's sexuality or because you think of embryos as babies and motivated by a misguided protective empathy.
-
As long as your "reasons" only apply to you. We do not accept misguided protective empathy for scientific fact when we are talking about public health and a persons right to control the use of their own body. People in America are free to do things others think are wrong.
-
This again is a different argument to motivations. I am talking about motivations and you entered the conversation by saying the motivation was to control women's sexuality.
-
Also, not everybody on the internet is in America.
-
also true, I am seeing through a paradigm of being where I am.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This probably isn't the thread to respond to, but on the "rational" question; does your consciousness-focused ethics system differentiate between instant, painless killing (or killing while asleep), and inflicting pain on a conscious individual? If the former is unethical, why?
-
I've read your blog post, hence my question. If inflicting pain is the defining criterion, is painless killing unethical?
-
Read the first paragraph again about how this is a different issue and why.
-
If your position is that a fetus's dependency places it in a unique paradigm, why doesnt that apply to any other dependency relationship? Moreover, why does it necessarily follow that consciousness (rather than anything else) is the absolute moral heuristic in this new paradigm?
-
It does. If anyone's life depended upon another person letting them take ownership of their body for several months, that person must have the right to say no.
-
There's a wide variety of relationships of dependency; is selecting this one as sufficient to grant an absolute veto but not any other non-arbitrary? Your choices aren't unreasonable, but they don't seem logically compelled
-
Not really. Quite black and white. No-one has the right to demand anyone else physically support their existence.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.