• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Intentionally causing fetal deformities

Why is it just for states to restrict the use of something like thalidomide if total autonomy is the justification for abortion? ...

States could be sued. It is rare but it has happened.
 
But why, if the fetus had zero rights when it was deformed, would it be unacceptable to have deformed it in the first place? You cannot violate the rights of something that has none.
Because it does have rights once born. Deforming it violated those rights.






Again, that's not the discussion here. At least not the discussion I'm trying to have.
Too bad. It's the only part of this thread worth debating.
 
you are missing the point which has been explained multiple times by various people

it is future harm to a living human being which is being prevented, nothing more, nothing less

No harm is being done to any future humans in this scenario. Only harm is being done to those without rights (supposedly). By the time you consider them to have rights, they might not have any pain at all. Missing an ear might not be painful. Difficult? Yes. But the harm is over and done with. No further harm is being done after birth.
 
No harm is being done to any future humans in this scenario. Only harm is being done to those without rights (supposedly). By the time you consider them to have rights, they might not have any pain at all. Missing an ear might not be painful. Difficult? Yes. But the harm is over and done with. No further harm is being done after birth.
are you being purposely obtuse?

does a person with special needs not have to overcome simple everyday life with many more challenges...if you say yes, then you are being purposely obtuse

if you say no then you have zero understanding of what an individual with special needs must overcome daily
 
Ok, so I'm wrong. Why is intentionally deforming a fetus morally acceptable?

It's not morally acceptable. At least, not to some people. To others, it is.

Saying that it's one or the other is like saying that chocolate is better than vanilla.

Whenever you make an argument that is based on a moral certainty, you are engaging in a logical fallacy because morals are not objective. You are "begging the question" because you have to *assume* that you're right despite a complete absence of proof.
 
are you being purposely obtuse?

No, he's just using the same logical fallacy that the pro-fetus crowd uses - that his moral conclusions are universally and objectively true. And like the pro-fetus crowd, he will reject or ignore any arguments that run counter to his own moral conclusions (as you've noticed him doing)
 
Because it does have rights once born. Deforming it violated those rights.

The harm occurred before those rights were granted though. Yes, it will have rights if it survives, but the child wouldn't have had their rights violated at the point when those rights existed, so it seems like a moot point.
 
Everyone always goes straight for the legality on this forum. Very practical I guess, but I'm looking for a more philosophical discussion.

IF abortion is acceptable, why isn't it morally acceptable for a woman to deform her fetus.

Ok, I think I can explain this better after a night of sleep.

It is not immoral to abort a fetus. It is not immoral to mutilate a fetus that will not be brought to term because there is no mind to experience it. It IS immoral to mutilate a fetus that will be brought to term because there will be a mind to experience the consequences.

Now let's go back even further.

It is not immoral for a man to intentionally damage his sperm or for a woman to intentionally damage her eggs if they will never use it to create a fetus that will be brought to term. I think even most pro-lifers believe you can do what you want to your own sperm.

Now, I DO believe it is immoral to intentionally damage your sperm or eggs if you intend to us them to create a deformed or congenitally defected fetus that you will bring to term. If you do that it is immoral and I believe it should be illegal. Do you agree with this last paragraph? If so then why do you think it is ok to damage a sperm that won't be used to create a future person but it isn't ok to damage it if it will be used to create a future person?
 
Everyone always goes straight for the legality on this forum. Very practical I guess, but I'm looking for a more philosophical discussion.

IF abortion is acceptable, why isn't it morally acceptable for a woman to deform her fetus.

An abortion is a decision an individual woman makes in the best interests of her life and that of her family, current and future. So I see zero connection between that and your hypothetical. I asked for some rational context around it, but see none.

Your question makes it sound like women have abortions "just to see what happens' to the unborn.

I'm not interested in fantasies with no realistic foundation but other people may be interested.
 
It makes the pro-life side even more fringe. The pro-lifers that are pragmatic are drowned out by the fringe bringing up nonsensical topics. And with the traumatic decapitation transplant, the artificial womb as a replacement for abortion, and now intentional causation of anomalies of the fetus to make abortions "legal' when they are already legal at the stage where the anomalies would be caused......seriously I would like to get back to more pragmatic discussions....and they get less likely with topics like this. But like I said, go ahead....it just takes the discussions away from going toward common sense discussions that find common ground.

I missed the decapitation topic - what was that about?
 
I've heard from some pro-choice people that a woman can do what she wants to a fetus because (among other reasons) a fetus has no rights. Including and especially killing it. If you aren't of this opinion, this thread probably isn't for you.

My question regarding this level of autonomy over the self and authority over the fetus is this...

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to intentionally cause birth defects? Why or why not?

Consider this: Thalidomide was a drug used to treat pain in pregnant women. When it was found to cause severe birth defects, the product was pulled from the market. Should a woman have the right to take thalidomide even though she knows it will cause severe birth defects?

If it is ok to kill fetuses, why isn't it ok to deform them?

Inb4youcantkillwhatsnotalive

Only women can cause defects by lifestyle.
Nope
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei...ct+a+male's+sperm+and+possible+birth+defects'
 
This begs the question: "Why not? If abortion is morally acceptable for the reason that a fetus has no rights, why is it morally acceptable to destroy the fetus but not to deform it?"

Because that fetus will (most of the time) be born and then have to live with the deformities, ffs.
 
The harm occurred before those rights were granted though. Yes, it will have rights if it survives, but the child wouldn't have had their rights violated at the point when those rights existed, so it seems like a moot point.

No. If it is aborted, it never had rights, never will and may as well never been conceived. If it is, however, born...well, then we have a completely different equation. Do we not?
 
No. If it is aborted, it never had rights, never will and may as well never been conceived. If it is, however, born...well, then we have a completely different equation. Do we not?

It wouldn't matter if it is born or not since the harm occurred before the rights existed. You can't violate something that doesn't exist.
 
If a fetus has no natural rights, why isn't it morally acceptable to do whatever we like to them, including intentional deformation?

I do not believe in 'natural' rights. Rights are given. Animals do not have rights but it is immoral to abuse them, even when they are being raised for slaughter. Just because something does not have rights does not mean it's okay to mistreat it.
 
Because that fetus will (most of the time) be born and then have to live with the deformities, ffs.

Absolutely, I can agree that that's part of why it's unacceptable. But what about if the woman intends to abort (independent of the deformities)? Is it morally acceptable for her to, after she has already decided to obtain a legal abortion, use thalidomide to ease morning sickness?
 
I do not believe in 'natural' rights. Rights are given. Animals do not have rights but it is immoral to abuse them, even when they are being raised for slaughter. Just because something does not have rights does not mean it's okay to mistreat it.

I don't follow. If animals have zero rights, why would you be opposed to abusing them? Why should laws protect them if they have no rights?
 
I do not believe in 'natural' rights. Rights are given. Animals do not have rights but it is immoral to abuse them, even when they are being raised for slaughter. Just because something does not have rights does not mean it's okay to mistreat it.

The very idea of rights is that they CANNOT be given or taken away. Otherwise they are "privileges". You can't use the word rights when you actually mean privileges.
 
It wouldn't matter if it is born or not since the harm occurred before the rights existed. You can't violate something that doesn't exist.

omg...how can this not be clear


...it absolutely matters because once the decision has been made to move forward to a birth one must then protect that cell clump to ensure the best outcome
 
I do not believe in 'natural' rights. Rights are given. Animals do not have rights but it is immoral to abuse them, even when they are being raised for slaughter. Just because something does not have rights does not mean it's okay to mistreat it.

bingo...how is this a murky area :roll:
 
I don't follow. If animals have zero rights, why would you be opposed to abusing them? Why should laws protect them if they have no rights?

States have rights.
They can and often protect non persons.
 
Absolutely, I can agree that that's part of why it's unacceptable. But what about if the woman intends to abort (independent of the deformities)? Is it morally acceptable for her to, after she has already decided to obtain a legal abortion, use thalidomide to ease morning sickness?

why the hell would she do that...just get the abortion already, why would one take drugs to alleviate morning sickness? :shock:

I am beginning to think that other poster was correct
 
why the hell would she do that...just get the abortion already, why would one take drugs to alleviate morning sickness? :shock:

I am beginning to think that other poster was correct

It's not about why she would do it. It's a hypothetical. I know no one would ever do that. But why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't they?
 
Back
Top Bottom