Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Natural abortion is the consequence and trade-off of being human. Medical science can only prevent this in so many ways. I would also be against artificial insemination. I don't know why these two views can't be concurrent.
|
Natural diseases are the consequence and trade-off of being human, yet we go to extreme efforts to prevent or fix diseases. To value the unique combination of a egg and a sperm to the same degree there should be herculean efforts to prevent the 1/3 of all babies that die due to the inaction of society!
And how could you be against artificial insemination, you'd deprive people who have desired to love and care for a child their whole lives a chance to do so? How much more would they care for a child that they've worked so hard for vs. a person who had to have a child because abortions were illegal and didn't care for it at all?
(See, appeal to emotion can be used to support any viewpoint).
Quote:
|
Although some would disagree, an emotional appeal is a central part to the morality of this debate. Human life can't be measured in utilitarian terms.
|
See above, I'm not saying human life has to be measured in a utilitarian fashion, but I don't think emotions have any place in a morality debate; they cloud the issue. Not every issue is cut and dried and tough choices require clear reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Within ethical debates, there is no such thing as generalizations. In a democracy, everyone has their own view which bears weight. The wisdom of crowds means something.
|
Sometimes the wisdom of the crowd has to be overcome by a small vocal minority. See slavery, racism, women's rights, etc. The majority isn't always right.