Philosophy Now Forum

Suppose you were pregnant and found out you were carrying a male fetus, would you consider an abortion if the fetus had the potential for having hemophilia and what if the fetus were female and had the potential for developing breast cancer down the road?


On the second question about the female fetus, it depended on whether or not the treatment options were still "cut (as in possible mastectomy), burn (as in radiation) and poison (as in chemotherapy) or there were other treatment options that were less extreme.

.







We are all born to die. Whether it is hemophilia or breast cancer or any number of other ailments.


What you are asking here is, Is it worth living?










.

Proud Cosmopolitan wrote:Suppose you were pregnant and found out you were carrying a male fetus, would you consider an abortion if the fetus had the potential for having hemophilia and what if the fetus were female and had the potential for developing breast cancer down the road?


On the second question about the female fetus, it depended on whether or not the treatment options were still "cut (as in possible mastectomy), burn (as in radiation) and poison (as in chemotherapy) or there were other treatment options that were less extreme.

No one take decissions likethat before the situation (with, always, many more variables). Also, if someone wants to have a boy, or a girl, it's their choice.

TSBU wrote:Also, if someone wants to have a boy, or a girl, it's their choice.

Well, if that's true, then you must be assuming that children are the property of their parents.

But let me ask you about that: how is your sentence above any different from the sentence, "If someone wants to have a chevy, a vauxhall or a toyota, it's their choice"?

And let me ask you this: is it the female parent or the male parent who owns the property rights to the child?

Immanuel Can wrote:

TSBU wrote:Also, if someone wants to have a boy, or a girl, it's their choice.

Well, if that's true, then you must be assuming that children are the property of their parents.

But let me ask you about that: how is your sentence above any different from the sentence, "If someone wants to have a chevy, a vauxhall or a toyota, it's their choice"?

And let me ask you this: is it the female parent or the male parent who owns the property rights to the child?

Own is a vague word, and, of course, we are talkig about protochidren, not children. But yes, as a simplificaton, parents own their children. Im not going to talk about this, is boring.

@Immanual Can Whose property is it then? God's? Yours? It is a woman's property while it is in her body. Btw, a religious point of view is irrelevant, so don't try to disguise it as 'philosophy' and faux-concern. People aren't that stupid any more.

TSBU wrote:Im not going to talk about this, is boring.

Yes.

And it just doesn't work with logic. So I quite understand. Funny you mentioned it at all.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Whose property is it then? God's? Yours? It is a woman's property while it is in her body. Btw, a religious point of view is irrelevant, so don't try to disguise it as 'philosophy' and faux-concern. People aren't that stupid any more.

Wow. You've devastated my worldview. Boy, I don't want to be "irrelevant," and "stupid." It would be wrong to "disguise" things, especially "faux" things.

Now I'll have to rethink eeeeevrything.

Have a nice day.

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Whose property is it then? God's? Yours? It is a woman's property while it is in her body. Btw, a religious point of view is irrelevant, so don't try to disguise it as 'philosophy' and faux-concern. People aren't that stupid any more.

Wow. You've devastated my worldview. Boy, I don't want to be "irrelevant," and "stupid." It would be wrong to "disguise" things, especially "faux" things.

Now I'll have to rethink eeeeevrything.

Have a nice day.

You don't have a 'worldview' to 'devastate'. You have a religious fucktard view.

Immanuel Can wrote:

TSBU wrote:Im not going to talk about this, is boring.

Yes.

And it just doesn't work with logic. So I quite understand. Funny you mentioned it at all.

It works with logic.

TSBU wrote: It works with logic.

I'm open to hearing you demonstrate that: but you'll have to show it if you expect anyone to believe it. Rational people don't take these things for granted.

So let me ask, if a child cannot be "owned" or killed at the pleasure of the parent, then at what point can the "proto-child" be owned? If a proto-child can be killed, then justify to me when it ceases to be a "proto-child," and hence can BE owned and killed.

And then please explain, in any case, which "parent" rightfully "owns" the "proto-child," and why.

Immanuel Can wrote:

TSBU wrote: It works with logic.

I'm open to hearing you demonstrate that: but you'll have to show it if you expect anyone to believe it. Rational people don't take these things for granted.

So let me ask, if a child cannot be "owned" or killed at the pleasure of the parent, then at what point can the "proto-child" be owned? If a proto-child can be killed, then justify to me when it ceases to be a "proto-child," and hence can BE owned and killed.

And then please explain, in any case, which "parent" rightfully "owns" the "proto-child," and why.

Look, I said it is boring, because it's very simple for me. Everything works with logic, or nothing works with logic, but "some things with logic and some things dont" that's something I don't like. As usual, it depends in what you call logic. I don't see a disinction between rational and not rational people, you seem to put yourself in one of the groups, I bet t is the rational one, as it usually is for people talking about "irrational people". Well, I put a distinction: tupid people vs non stupid people. It's similar but it's not the same, and, of course, I see things with my eyes and I know that I'm always wrong"er" than I will be.

And I can't demonstrate you my thoughts, or it would take a lot of time, and you can't either, so... ciao, last post here.

TSBU wrote:As usual, it depends in what you call logic.

This is, of course, complete tommyrot. If you were right, there would be no point in arguing, since there would be no such thing as truth and no way to discover it.

You're on a philosophy site. You need to be philosophical, which means first understanding what logic is and how it works. If you've got neither knowledge nor respect for logic, you're not doing philosophy at all.

And suddenly...you're gone!

It's like garlic to vampires...trot out a little logic, and poof, they're reduced to dust.

Such is the fate of all who murder their offspring. Their legacy is dust.

Immanuel Can wrote:

TSBU wrote:As usual, it depends in what you call logic.

This is, of course, complete tommyrot. If you were right, there would be no point in arguing, since there would be no such thing as truth and no way to discover it.

You're on a philosophy site. You need to be philosophical, which means first understanding what logic is and how it works. If you've got neither knowledge nor respect for logic, you're not doing philosophy at all.

And suddenly...you're gone!

It's like garlic to vampires...trot out a little logic, and poof, they're reduced to dust.

Such is the fate of all who murder their offspring. Their legacy is dust.

It's only religious fucktards like you who disingenuously claim it to be a 'philosophical' question. It isn't. It's a medical one, between a woman and her doctor, and none of your damn business.
Don't try to tell women what to do with their bodies, and expect a knee in the groin when you do.
I don't know why people keep posting abortion threads on here. Let the religious fucktards practice their misogyny on their own sites, instead of hijacking rational ones.

Ah, Veggietales:

I never know whether or not it's your logic or your eloquence that is your best feature.