But it obviously hasn't begun when there is no brain yet. I can be quite sure about that.
No brain yet. At what point may we kill the child? 1 day before she develops her brain to the standard of sentience you set? This is why my example is valid.
No brain yet. At what point may we kill the child? 1 day before she develops her brain to the standard of sentience you set? This is why my example is valid.
I can say, with absolute 100% certainty, that sentience does NOT exist when the brain does not exist. The fact that there is a later stage of development where the degree of sentience sufficient for "personhood" is uncertain, does not change the absolute 100% certainty that a fetus with NO brain is not sentient.
Similarly, there is a "gray area" between life and death for many coma patients. Does this mean that all long-dead corpses should be immediately dug up and attached to life-support machines? Should the ashes of cremated people be rushed to burn-treatment units?
As for your 'exercise'.
Rape is wrong because of the lack of consent. The woman has not consented to the assault on her person, which therefore is wrong. If the woman does consent, then the same act changes from an assault, to consensual sex.
Rape is wrong because of the lack of consent. The woman has not consented to the assault on her person, which therefore is wrong. If the woman does consent, then the same act changes from an assault, to consensual sex.
1. Forcibly preventing rape victims from seeking abortion.
This is wrong because of the lack of consent. The woman has not consented to the pregnancy (an assault on her person), which therefore is wrong. If the woman does consent, then the same act changes from an assault, to consensual pregnancy.
2. Forcing women to endure pregnancy in the event of contraceptive failure.
This is wrong because of the lack of consent. The woman has not consented to the pregnancy, which therefore is wrong. If the woman does consent, then the same act changes from a forced to a voluntary pregnancy.
Millions of women who CHOOSE to proceed with unwanted pregnancies are pro-choice.
Let's see. Pro-choicers have the option of abortion available to them. If pregnancy is such a torture as you claim, why don't these women have abortions? Why do they keep the child if the child is so much of a burden, that to kill, relieves the mother?
Let's see. Pro-choicers have the option of abortion available to them. If pregnancy is such a torture as you claim, why don't these women have abortions? Why do they keep the child if the child is so much of a burden, that to kill, relieves the mother?
But why do some rape victims choose not to report the rape? Who knows? Should we therefore assume that rape victims who don't seek to prosecute their rapists must automatically agree that ALL rape should be legalized? That is what you're implying.
If I CHOOSE to perform a somewhat unpleasant activity (tattooing myself, for instance), does this mean that I support compulsory tattooing?
There are many, many people who support freedom as an important principle: the freedom of others to make choices that may differ from those WE might make.
What YOU are doing (in blaming women for contraceptive failure) is directly equivalent to saying that a rape victim is guilty for her rape because she went out to a bar.
The woman is NOT guilty for her rape. Where have I said she was?
The woman is NOT guilty for her rape. Where have I said she was?
Hence the "exercise" I presented you with. You failed to provide an argument against rape that doesn't also apply to forced pregnancy. That doesn't mean that you approve of rape, but it DOES mean that you can't argue that what you're proposing is wrong.
The forced pregnancy of rape victims is a monstrous evil. It is, in fact, WORSE than rape. Rape is unpleasant, but it is brief. You support a form of rape that lasts for nine months and is a MUCH greater violation of the victim.
Comment