NationStates

Sundiata wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Why are you pro-life?

Because I believe that life begins at conception.

So what?

Sundiata wrote:

Neuer California wrote:Even in cases where there is no way the zygote will ever develop into a baby? Ectopic pregnancies routinely end with the zygote/fetus dead or aborted because there's no way they'll become viable and having them continue to "develop" greatly endangers the mother for no benefit to her or the zygote.

Yes: the principle of double effect.

Doing something wrong for the right reason is still wrong.

Says the one who would literally let the whole world die just to assuage their personal morality.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Yes they are, you are literally trying to ascribe guilt or innocence to what is essentially a bacterium.
Covid is not 'guilty' because it doesn't posses the capacity to make moral judgements, it does harm and must therefore be eradicated.
Try a less stupid argument.

You are literally trying to equivocate a human being and a virus. COVID doesn't undergo the same developmental stages as a human being. Even if a human being were to unintentionally cause harm or lack the capacity to make moral judgements they don't deserve to be killed.

But they can be defended against, with lethal force if necessary because it is unreasonable to expect a person facing such a threat to use deliberation in their response. A person is permitted to use such force as necessary to remedy the threat, and if that results in the death of the person who presents that threat--whether they actually intend harm or not--then that is an unfortunate consequence that in no way speaks against the one who used that force.

Your standards are unrealistic.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Yes they are, you are literally trying to ascribe guilt or innocence to what is essentially a bacterium.
Covid is not 'guilty' because it doesn't posses the capacity to make moral judgements, it does harm and must therefore be eradicated.
Try a less stupid argument.

You are literally trying to equivocate a human being and a virus. COVID doesn't undergo the same developmental stages as a human being. Even if a human being were to unintentionally cause harm or lack the capacity to make moral judgements they don't deserve to be killed.

Try a less stupid argument.

You are literally trying to equivocate a human being and a virus

A zygote and a virus, reading is important.
And yes they are equatable because they lack the capacity to make moral judgements which makes terms like 'guilty' or 'innocent' irrelevant.
Your feigned moral outrage is not an argument.

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:You are literally trying to equivocate a human being and a virus. COVID doesn't undergo the same developmental stages as a human being. Even if a human being were to unintentionally cause harm or lack the capacity to make moral judgements they don't deserve to be killed.

Try a less stupid argument.

You are literally trying to equivocate a human being and a virus

A zygote and a virus, reading is important.

A zygote is a human being, reason is important.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Yes they are, you are literally trying to ascribe guilt or innocence to what is essentially a bacterium.
Covid is not 'guilty' because it doesn't posses the capacity to make moral judgements, it does harm and must therefore be eradicated.
Try a less stupid argument.

You are literally trying to equivocate a human being and a virus. COVID doesn't undergo the same developmental stages as a human being. Even if a human being were to unintentionally cause harm or lack the capacity to make moral judgements they don't deserve to be killed.

Try a less stupid argument.

If the unborn is to be treated as a moral actor then by their unwelcome presence inside another's body and their failure to leave promptly they are no longer innocent.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:
A zygote and a virus, reading is important.

A zygote is a human being, reason is important.

Cool so are they a moral actor now and should be considered guilty? Or are they incapable of moral judgments and 'innocence' is irrelevant?
Your pick.
This is why your argument is bad.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:
A zygote and a virus, reading is important.

A zygote is a human being, reason is important.

Except a Zygote is incapable of reason. It is incapable of sensation. It is incapable of doing much other than absorbing nutrients and growing, which makes the comparison with a virus somewhat more apt than much of what you've put forward.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:
A zygote and a virus, reading is important.

A zygote is a human being, reason is important.

Is there a reason you are mimicking the manner of speech of the person you are responding to? You've done that several times now. Just wondering, because it just looks very weird.

Ifreann wrote:

Sundiata wrote:You are literally trying to equivocate a human being and a virus. COVID doesn't undergo the same developmental stages as a human being. Even if a human being were to unintentionally cause harm or lack the capacity to make moral judgements they don't deserve to be killed.

Try a less stupid argument.

If the unborn is to be treated as a moral actor then by their unwelcome presence inside another's body and their failure to leave promptly they are no longer innocent.

I disagree, a zygote's existence is not an act of intrusion, unwelcome or not because that would be synonymous with its presence. A zygote has the right to life and for someone actively to violate that through killing would make them morally culpable and guilty.

Sundiata wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If the unborn is to be treated as a moral actor then by their unwelcome presence inside another's body and their failure to leave promptly they are no longer innocent.

I disagree, a zygote's existence is not an act of intrusion, unwelcome or not because that would be synonymous with its presence. A zygote has the right to life and for someone actively to violate that through killing would make them morally culpable and guilty.

You are objectively wrong here.
The 'unwelcome' part is what makes its very presence an intrusion.
I don't believe you're actually this ignorant so why are you pretending to be?

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:A zygote is a human being, reason is important.

Cool so are they a moral actor now and should be considered guilty? Or are they incapable of moral judgments and 'innocence' is irrelevant?
Your pick.
This is why your argument is bad.

A zygote is an innocent moral actor, free of legal guilt or fault on the basis of its existence alone.

Sundiata wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If the unborn is to be treated as a moral actor then by their unwelcome presence inside another's body and their failure to leave promptly they are no longer innocent.

I disagree, a zygote's existence is not an act of intrusion, unwelcome or not because that would be synonymous with its presence. A zygote has the right to life and for someone actively to violate that through killing would make them morally culpable and guilty.

Whether the unborn's existence is an act of intrusion, whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant. They are not welcome, and they are not leaving, therefore they are not innocent.

Ifreann wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I disagree, a zygote's existence is not an act of intrusion, unwelcome or not because that would be synonymous with its presence. A zygote has the right to life and for someone actively to violate that through killing would make them morally culpable and guilty.

Whether the unborn's existence is an act of intrusion, whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant. They are not welcome, and they are not leaving, therefore they are not innocent.

No, the existence of the unborn, let alone the state of being welcomed, is not the fault of the unborn and no fault should be ascribed.

A zygote is an innocent human person.

Sundiata wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Whether the unborn's existence is an act of intrusion, whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant. They are not welcome, and they are not leaving, therefore they are not innocent.

No, the existence of the unborn, let alone the state of being welcomed, is not the fault of the unborn and no fault should be ascribed.

The very word 'fault' is ascribing moral agency to a non-thinking thing, and whether or not it's unwelcome presence it its 'fault' is irrelevant the presence is still unwelcome and will be ended.
You keep using the word 'existence' when we're talking about it's unwelcome presence.
Please keep up.

Sundiata wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Whether the unborn's existence is an act of intrusion, whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant. They are not welcome, and they are not leaving, therefore they are not innocent.

No, the existence of the unborn, let alone the state of being welcomed, is not the fault of the unborn and no fault should be ascribed.

A zygote is an innocent human person.

Innocence is irrelevant here.

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:No, the existence of the unborn, let alone the state of being welcomed, is not the fault of the unborn and no fault should be ascribed.

The very word 'fault' is ascribing moral agency to a non-thinking thing, and whether or not it's unwelcome presence it its 'fault' is irrelevant the presence is still unwelcome and will be ended.

Because fault cannot be ascribed to a zygote in the most limited sense of the word, it's an innocent human agent by default. And unwelcome or not, it has the right to life.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:The very word 'fault' is ascribing moral agency to a non-thinking thing, and whether or not it's unwelcome presence it its 'fault' is irrelevant the presence is still unwelcome and will be ended.

Because fault cannot be ascribed to a zygote in the most limited sense of the word, it's an innocent human agent by default. And unwelcome or not, it has the right to life.

Of course it has the right to life, elsewhere.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:No, the existence of the unborn, let alone the state of being welcomed, is not the fault of the unborn and no fault should be ascribed.

A zygote is an innocent human person.

Innocence is irrelevant here.

It certainly is relevant when we're talking about killing human beings.

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Because fault cannot be ascribed to a zygote in the most limited sense of the word, it's an innocent human agent by default. And unwelcome or not, it has the right to life.

Of course it has the right to life, elsewhere.

It has the right to life everywhere.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Of course it has the right to life, elsewhere.

It has the right to life everywhere.

Does it have the right to someone else's body?

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Innocence is irrelevant here.

It certainly is relevant when we're talking about killing human beings.

It isn't relevant in self-defense, as it is not reasonable to expect the defender to establish guilt or innocence when defending themselves.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Of course it has the right to life, elsewhere.

It has the right to life everywhere.

Then it is free to go live the remainder of its natural life elsewhere, outside the woman's uterus, once it is removed.

Sundiata wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Innocence is irrelevant here.

It certainly is relevant when we're talking about killing human beings.

No it isn't. A person attacking me relentlessly who isn't compos mentis and in control of their actions is innocent, but if the only way to stop them is their death, then their innocence is irrelevant. Similarly, the innocence of the fetus is utterly irrelevant.

Genivaria wrote:

Sundiata wrote:It has the right to life everywhere.

Does it have the right to someone else's body?

Not anymore than the rights that someone else has to its body.

Sundiata wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Does it have the right to someone else's body?

Not anymore than the rights that someone else has to its body.

The right to defend one's-self is a recognised right. The right to usurp the body of another against their will is not.

Godular wrote:

Sundiata wrote:It has the right to life everywhere.

Then it is free to go live the remainder of its natural life elsewhere, outside the woman's uterus, once it is removed.

To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.