Aug 21 2012

“Bioethics”…. apparently an oxymoron

Category: abortionharmonicminer @ 4:28 pm

Peter Singer, “bioethicist”

The fallacy in the anti-abortion argument lies in the shift from the scientifically accurate claim that the foetus is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens to the ethical claim that the foetus therefore has the same right to life as any other human being. Membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life. We can plausibly argue that we ought not to kill, against their will, self-aware beings who want to continue to live. We can see this as a violation of their autonomy, or a thwarting of their preferences. But why should a being’s potential to become rationally self-aware make it wrong to end its life before it has the capacity for rationality or self-awareness?

The logical end of this type of thinking is that parents should be able to kill one month old babies (who have essentially no “rationality” or “self-awareness”).  You may think that I’m exaggerating the case, and Singer doesn’t really intend that outcome.

But you would be wrong.  He is on record as saying exactly that.  So:  when someone is this morally, ethically deaf, should ANYTHING they say be given any credence whatsoever?

Obviously not….  except that Singer is a hero of the Progressive Left, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and by extension, whether you like it or not, the Democratic party, which supports these organizations.

Abortion is a MORAL issue before it is a POLITICAL one….  but sadly, there are two many Christians who want to be more “politically open,” extending to supporting the Democratic party in furthering the murder of the unborn.

It is truly the American Holocaust.  One of the saddest aspects:  the people in the USA who, of all people, should be most interested in protecting the helpless, because their forefathers were slaves, are in fact most likely to support candidates who favor making it easy for them to kill their unborn children.

10 Responses to ““Bioethics”…. apparently an oxymoron”

  1. innermore says:

    Neither one of you can make an absolute argument, build an impenetrable fortress or accuse someone of a crime, based on intangible things. The saddest aspect of all this is watching perfectly good children of God suffering so passionately to find a solution to an issue that will never satisfy them.

  2. harmonicminer says:

    ??? Is there something intangible about a human child?

    I don’t understand your comment.

  3. innermore says:

    Yes, unfortunately there are intangibles about all forms and aspects of life, and I think you understand exactly what I mean. Just the fact that anyone would put the phrase “end its life before it has the capacity” or “murder of the unborn” in a sentence proves to me that your kind will stop short of delusion to deny life’s intangibles.

  4. kdippre says:

    The problem here is just who determines who those “intangibles” are, the government? The Democratic party? I shudder to think that Beethoven easily could have been one of those “intangibles.”

  5. harmonicminer says:

    Hmmm, Innermore, what are “my kind”?

    Please explain difference between “tangible” and “intangible”. It seems to me that you’re taking the highly tangible, a living human being, and cooperating with the pro-aborts in making their state of being “intangible.”

    It isn’t.

  6. innermore says:

    umm… “your kind” would be (I don’t want to misrepresent anyone here), immutable?

    It’s hard to generalize what tangible and intangible things are. Depends on what you believe I guess. I suppose you could say that tangible things are confirmable, intangible things are deniable. But you are correct. Important parts of the pro-aborts’ argument are deniably intangible. So are important parts of the pro-lifs’. From where I sit in the chimera chair, the whole abortion issue’s deniable intangibles are basically: God, time, emotion, and the human soul. Agreeing or disagreeing on intangibles may be why nobody is solving the problem satisfactorily.

  7. amuzikman says:

    Innermore, I have read and re-read your posts… and I still have no idea what you mean by the term “intangible”. And after you say “depends on what you believe, I guess,” things become even more unclear. But unless and until you can define the word, or find a suitable synonym, your point is hopelessly obfuscated.

  8. innermore says:

    OK. I’ll go with the conventional. Sports stars are said to have “intangibles.” Something that makes them superstars. The “IT” factor with Tim Tebow or Michael Jordan. Nah, it must be just talent or luck, but there seems to be “something more.” Can’t put my finger on it. That’s a pretty basic example.

  9. harmonicminer says:

    So what is it that’s intangible about killing babies, either unborn or recently born?

  10. innermore says:

    For starters: a rather long list of straw men you allege perpetrated, conspired, or in some indirect way participated in these murders. The penalties for such capital offenses. And all testimony in defense of the accused, which you deny (in every sense of the word).

Leave a Reply