There is no tragedy in life like the death of a child.

[Metsfanmax]

If it makes my position clearer, consider an analogous situation where your friend has a pet frog, but falls on hard financial times and is unable to continue feeding the frog. He looks around for someone to adopt a frog, but since there is an abundance of unwanted frogs in the world, he cannot find anyone to adopt the frog. So he asks you to kill the frog. Would you consider it morally wrong to kill the frog? If not, but you would consider it morally wrong to kill a human fetus in the same situation, then you are defending a position that makes an arbitrary distinction on the basis of species, which is no more justifiable than the sexist's arbitrary distinction on the basis of sex or the racist's justification on the basis of skin color.

i mean, if you really think that setting t = 3 months is okay, but setting t = 6 months is not okay, then i have nothing else to say. i get the feeling that you're just saying that to ruin the thought experiment, though...

I am saying that, except for the specific numbers you chose. I think a reasonable dividing line would be about one month after a child is born, based on arguments I have read. That is definitely early enough to be sure that the infant has none of the important characteristics that make it a person. It's hard to choose a good line, but that's no defense for choosing a bad line.

[john9blue]

If it makes my position clearer, consider an analogous situation where your friend has a pet frog, but falls on hard financial times and is unable to continue feeding the frog. He looks around for someone to adopt a frog, but since there is an abundance of unwanted frogs in the world, he cannot find anyone to adopt the frog. So he asks you to kill the frog. Would you consider it morally wrong to kill the frog? If not, but you would consider it morally wrong to kill a human fetus in the same situation, then you are defending a position that makes an arbitrary distinction on the basis of species, which is no more justifiable than the sexist's arbitrary distinction on the basis of sex or the racist's justification on the basis of skin color.

i'd consider it wrong for the guy to buy a frog and then ask me to kill it a few months later

[crispybits]

Who said he bought the frog? The frog may have hopped into his house so he adopted it and started feeding it and made it somewhere nice to live in there.

[Metsfanmax]

If it makes my position clearer, consider an analogous situation where your friend has a pet frog, but falls on hard financial times and is unable to continue feeding the frog. He looks around for someone to adopt a frog, but since there is an abundance of unwanted frogs in the world, he cannot find anyone to adopt the frog. So he asks you to kill the frog. Would you consider it morally wrong to kill the frog? If not, but you would consider it morally wrong to kill a human fetus in the same situation, then you are defending a position that makes an arbitrary distinction on the basis of species, which is no more justifiable than the sexist's arbitrary distinction on the basis of sex or the racist's justification on the basis of skin color.

i'd consider it wrong for the guy to buy a frog and then ask me to kill it a few months later

What if the woman accidentally left the door open and the frog hopped inside the house?

[crispybits]

beat you to it

[john9blue]

maybe the fact that i'm not stupid enough to think that having sex is some kind of "accident" or "coincidence" means i'm not getting enough pussy.

but at least i'm not wrong

[Metsfanmax]

maybe the fact that i'm not stupid enough to think that having sex is some kind of "accident" or "coincidence" means i'm not getting enough pussy.

but at least i'm not wrong

Having sex is not always about getting pregnant. Some people do it for the enjoyment it brings, with no intention of doing it to achieve pregnancy (obviously the case for gays and lesbians, but not relevant for the purpose of this discussion). Many of these people use contraceptives purely for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy, but even then a few of these people may be the ones it is ineffective for. I see nothing wrong with having intercourse for this reason. If we could not have sexual relations for the purpose of just having pleasure, that would make oral sex morally wrong too.

That all being said, the reason that the pregnancy occurred is not important when deciding whether abortion is acceptable or not.

[john9blue]

why is intent not important? almost anyone would say that it is.

[Metsfanmax]

why is intent not important? almost anyone would say that it is.

I didn't say it's not important. But in the cases where pregnancy was not intended (for example), how can this fact really bear on the ethical question of whether abortion is justified? What conclusion would you draw from the fact that the pregnancy was unintended, and how would it help decide whether it is acceptable or not to terminate the life?

[john9blue]

that would be a known, unintended consequence. i mean this is like saying someone shouldn't be charged for killing someone in a drunk driving accident because all they wanted was to have a good ride with some alcohol. why can't people be responsible for their actions?

i've already gotten you to admit that you think it's okay to kill one-month-old children because they are inhuman, so i'm not sure why i'm playing along with the subject change, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

[Metsfanmax]

i've already gotten you to admit that you think it's okay to kill one-month-old children because they are inhuman, so i'm not sure why i'm playing along with the subject change, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

I didn't say it's okay because they're inhuman -- that would be an obvious mistake. I said it can be justified on the grounds that they're not persons.

that would be a known, unintended consequence. i mean this is like saying someone shouldn't be charged for killing someone in a drunk driving accident because all they wanted was to have a good ride with some alcohol. why can't people be responsible for their actions?

I agree, people should be responsible for their actions. That still doesn't answer the question of whether one should be able to abort an unwanted child.

[john9blue]

because it would be the abdication of responsibility for your actions.

if i'm a stock market wizard who makes money on 95% of his trades, why shouldn't i be responsible for the trades where i lose money? should i just be able to undo those?

[Metsfanmax]

because it would be the abdication of responsibility for your actions.

if i'm a stock market wizard who makes money on 95% of his trades, why shouldn't i be responsible for the trades where i lose money? should i just be able to undo those?

So just to make sure we're clear, the decision whether to terminate the life of a human being should be predicated on the fact that doing so would be an abdication of responsibility for a mistake the parents made? It shouldn't be made on the basis of answers to substantive questions such as, would the parents be able to provide a loving and comfortable life for the child?

[Metsfanmax]

The problem with your argument is that you are pre-supposing that abortion is wrong, and then arguing that people should take responsibility for that wrong. It's a circular argument. If abortion is not wrong in a given case, then "taking responsibility for your action" in that case means doing the right thing and ending the life.

[john9blue]

not at all. there are humble/shy people who won't take credit for their successes. it's any action, not just mistakes.

and no, if you allow the murder of people who don't have a "loving, comfortable life", then you might as well kill half of africa. are you a RACIST, mets??

[Metsfanmax]

I know you're trolling, but still, facepalm

[Haggis_McMutton]

John, you still haven't answered to my "pressing a button which causes/stops a baby being born with high probability" scenario.
Your probabilistic argument for determining whether something should be considered a person seems to mandate that my pressing the button is murder even though at the time I press it there is no inseminated egg present.

Got an answer?
I can find the past post where I describe the experiment more completely if you want.

[codeblue1018]

I thoroughly disagree. The death of an adult, who has spent years making plans and trying to carry them out, is a much more serious loss than the death of a child, who has just barely started to think as a unique individual. Obviously the loss of a child is devastating to the parents, but from the point of view of society, you do not lose as much.

Lol, totally absurd viewpoint mate. There is no need for me to respond further.

[Gillipig]

There is no tragedy in life like the birth of a child to parents who can't take care of it.

[cornpops]

There is no tragedy in life like fat girls who would be really hot if they stopped eating so many doughnuts.
Especially if you live in western Europe, Australia or the USA, where bite-sized girls are in short supply as it is.