Let's say I have the power to decide the law here. Why can't I say that YOU have not met my cut-off point and thus you can be killed if you are inconvenient to me? (Which you are, BTW, you take up time on my blog. ;-) ) This is not a rhetorical question.
Paul C said:
As a supporter of capital punishment you in fact do say that.
Wrong. It is not that capital criminals are inconvenient, it is that they have committed a capital crime.
The fulcrum is not arbitrary - commit a capital crime, death penalty. Don't commit one, no death penalty. Not that hard.
Nothing like the "fetus=baby when I say so" argument you're employing.
I didn't mention anything about ending human life because it's "inconvenient", of course - this is yet another feeble rhetorical ploy.
That is why the vast majority of abortions are performed - b/c having a baby would mess up the mother's/parents' life/lives. You are defending it, so defend it already.
Answer the question. Why can't I say that YOU have not met my cut-off point and thus you can be killed if you are inconvenient to me? You, like a baby, have not committed a capital crime (that I know of), so what's the difference? And why is it not arbitrary, and thus based on what the most people who are in power happen to think at that point in history?
If it is arbitrary, you don't have a good reason to hold to ANY cut-off point, do you?
What I object to is your calling a fetus a baby in an attempt to bolster your argument. "
I haven't seen a decent argument for not calling the fetus a baby from the moment of conception. Perhaps you could provide one.
"Major medical textbooks" will refer to it as a fetus and not a baby, of course - but I suppose you only cite them when they agree with you.
If there are some that agree with me, that serves to bolster my case, for those who are not so seared of conscience. That might be expecting too much of you.
If you are driving down the highway at night and you see some unusual movement ahead of you, do you not slow down? Why? You don't want to damage your car; you also don't want to run over a kid. Since you think some major medical authorities are in your favor and I know others are in mine, why not err on the side of life? Or are you in favor of shooting first and asking questions later? Does that mean you are in favor of the invasion of Iraq?
7 comments:
What is your definition of arbitrary?
I am defending the principle of abortion, not any specific case (or even the majority of cases). If you agree that a pregnancy can be terminated if the health of the mother is at risk, then you agree with abortion in principle. Anything else is just personal opinion.
I'm referring to the arbitrariness of setting the human being worthy of legal protection against being killed/non-human distinction of an unborn baby that you've been describing.
If it's a person in there, we can't be killing him/her for no reason.
I didn't ask what you were referring to, I asked what your definition of arbitrary is. As I have pointed out, unless you disagree with abortion in all circumstances, everything else is just personal opinion.
Well, let's say I DO disagree with abortion in every circumstance.
Regardless of your position on abortion, please give us the definition of arbitrary that you're using.
The dictionary.com def is fine.
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
So by the definition that you provide, that a decision is arbitrary has no bearing on whether that decision is supported by reason.
Post a Comment