vlad321 said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:
See, now you are saying that if there's a parasite in you we get to control your body, simply put. I'm just purely looking at it from an Act Utilitarianism point of view. Meaning which will produce the greatest happiness in the most people. While the abortion won't necessarily cause happiness to the woman it certainly would prevent grief. On the other hand you have something that doesn't even feel ANYTHING, muchless happiness. Here you are telling me that the government should control just about every action of a woman when she is pregnant for some stupid parasite that won't even feel it if it got hit with a hammer in the zygote.
|
What does feeling have to do with living? What it be fine if I was shot in the head as long as I felt no pain during the event? I do not understand this objection: ''It'll make the mother happy!" It will also make the baby dead. Furthermore, if some action that you could that would make you happy (or not sad), and would also harm or kill someone else, why shouldn't you be stopped (is this what you meant by "controlling her body" this whole time? I thought you were referring to the fetus as "her body")?
|
No by her body I mean the mother's. Also the baby isn't conscious, feeling, or anything that even makes something even remotely human. It's a clump of cells which also happens to be a parasite. As I said earlier, if you wanna save the fetus good for you, I do too. However get it out of the mother if she wants it out and then save the little parasite in any way you want to.
|
I thought we were discussing this situation within the premise that it was a human ("Furthermore, if some action that you could that would make you happy (or not sad), and would also harm or kill someone else, why shouldn't you be stopped"? ). Given that, you would agree with what I said, right? And the reasons you gave for it not being human have already been given, so I think were just going in circles on that point.
