Peter Singer on abortion (moral, reject, choice, euthanasia, sex)

[Storm]

Originally Posted by lilithu

That's funny because you just used it.

Only if subtlety is completely lost on you. Why are you trying to pick a fight with me?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Storm

Why are you trying to pick a fight with me?

I am pointing out the weaknesses in your reasoning. It has nothing to do with you personally.

[Faminedynasty]

Originally Posted by lilithu

but one of the people literally does all the work to support both of them. If the person doing all the work doesn't want to, you might morally think that it's wrong for her to refuse given that the other will die, but on what basis can you legally compel her to?

Mhmm. And how does that change after the baby is born? Thus Singer's troubling conclusion.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Faminedynasty

Mhmm. And how does that change after the baby is born? Thus Singer's troubling conclusion.

After a baby is born, any third party can care for the baby. Until it is born, the mother (and only the mother) carries that role.

[Faminedynasty]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

After a baby is born, any third party can care for the baby. Until it is born, the mother (and only the mother) carries that role.

Any third party may, but must any? Just as any potential mother may choose to go through with the pregnancy and raising the child, but must she? The child is still fully dependent on the support of others after birth, dependent on the efforts of others to sustain it. Is it simply that it becomes a social responsibility once the baby is born, while until birth it is solely the descision of the mother? And why is this so?
What if we substitute "people" doing all the work to sustain the baby instead of "person." What if society does not wish to carry the burden of caring for the baby? Or babies? Does that make it morally acceptable to let the baby starve? If not, why not? Is it simply a matter of the degree of burden being lesser when the baby is out of the womb and multiple people may help in sustaining it? Interestingly Singer's "famine, affluence and morality" points out that we (affluent society) tend to elect not to bear the most basic burdens sufficient to sustain the lives of people (babies included) in the third world.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Faminedynasty

Any third party may, but must any? Just as any potential mother may choose to go through with the pregnancy and raising the child, but must she? The child is still fully dependent on the support of others after birth, dependent on the efforts of others to sustain it. Is it simply that it becomes a social responsibility once the baby is born, while until birth it is solely the descision of the mother? And why is this so?
What if we substitute "people" doing all the work to sustain the baby instead of "person." What if society does not wish to carry the burden of caring for the baby? Or babies? Does that make it morally acceptable to let the baby starve? If not, why not? Is it simply a matter of the degree of burden being lesser when the baby is out of the womb and multiple people may help in sustaining it? Interestingly Singer's "famine, affluence and morality" points out that we (affluent society) tend to elect not to bear the most basic burdens sufficient to sustain the lives of people (babies included) in the third world.

When you ask if it is morally acceptable to let the baby starve after birth, I would unequivocally say "no".

Then again, those are my morals. I fully understand that not every person on earth shares my morals.

Obviously, Peter Singer would probably disagree with me.

[Faminedynasty]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

When you ask if it is morally acceptable to let the baby starve after birth, I would unequivocally say "no".

Then again, those are my morals. I fully understand that not every person on earth shares my morals.

Obviously, Peter Singer would probably disagree with me.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Also, just for the record, Singer's "famine, affluence and morality" is one of the most articulate appeals to the point that the resources of the world should be used to prevent starvation, poverty and death by curable disease that I have ever read. Strangely enough.