We are a society of laws interpreted by courts. Society and the courts have dictated which is acceptable and which isn't.
You asked how it wasn't killing, and I'm giving you an example where killing is acceptable. So now it is an issue of dependency? Alright. No, a fetus is solely dependent on its host. So you are against abortion on the fact that a fetus is dependent on someone else?
Because there are also laws in this country that allow, or at least, don't punish others, for the killing of another human. That is the difference.
No, I'm against it because, a majority of the time, if you let the fetus develop then it will become exactly what you and I are right now - living, breathing, fully functional human beings. Just because you are taking away their life at a time when they are still growing from the initial embryo doesn't make it. ETA I'm having a hard time putting things into coherent thoughts today for some reason.
The only case, from those you mentioned earlier, that I see killing as anywhere close to acceptable is self defense. You could incorporate war into the self defense category. Is that the law you speak of?
What you are saying is that you are against abortion because it is killing a human being, or a potential human being. What I'm saying to you is there are established instances where killing other human beings is acceptable, and you probably accept it. So what I'm asking is why do you accept the killing of a human being in one instance, and not another?
Because he is a consequentialist and not a deontologist, i.e. he finds the consequences of some death to be problematic but other death not. It's not that unusual of a position even if it is morally dubious.
Kill or be killed. Are you really trying to equalize self defense to the abortion of fetuses? Are you talking about instances of the mother's health being in danger or all abortions? Because every single pregnancy isn't going to threaten the mother's life. You of all people know that everything isn't cut and dry. There are exceptions to basically every rule.
You just blew my mind. I change my stance, I'll let the thief kill me if that situation ever arises. At least I won't have to worry about student loans after that.
If a man breaks into your home, or pulls a gun or knife on you, even if statistically speaking, you are unlikely to be killed, are you justified in killing that person, before any harm was done to you? Or are you of the opinion that every home invasion and mugging, or at least the large statistical majority, result in death of the other person?
Maybe not. I don't have any guns so unless I can get a hold of his head and beat him to death, I won't ever be in this predicament anyways.
This is what I've been arguing the whole time. It's not about one group trying to force their views and the other not. It's about which forcing is acceptable.
I'm asking your philosophical opinion. I'll rephrase: If a man breaks into someone's home, or pulls a gun or knife on them, even if statistically speaking, they are unlikely to be killed, are they justified in killing that person, before any harm was done to them?
