If you could be a God...

If you could be a God... Apr 4, 2018 19:14:36 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 19:14:36 GMT

Apr 4, 2018 2:45:53 GMT cupcakes said:

^tpfkar

Apr 4, 2018 1:13:25 GMT @miccee said:

If you're saying that an aborted foetus is a 'victim', then you're in with the rabid evangelical Christians who oppose the right to abortion. The foetus is no more victimised by mandatory abortion than by elective abortion. In either case, it is not a morally relevant entity with any interests invested in their continued existence. All I want to do is to take away the right to play God. And I'm not in favour of killing anyone who doesn't want to be killed, unless it's determined that omnicide is the only way to nip in the bud the perpetual cycle of imposition. Don't forget that a mass extinction is the eventual consequence of your views as well, but just imposed on a population that is temporally vastly removed from our own. So either natalism or antinatalism will result in the extinction of all life, but with antinatalism there would likely be less suffering involved.

Certainly more so than the empty spaces where nothing resides. And certainly when against the will of the mother. And of course you're still rabidly insane with your "you fully support a woman's right to get an abortion just like those rabid evangelical Christians that oppose a woman's right to get an abortion". Part and parcel for your Ada brain, although I'm probably impugning Ada. And you don't get much more play(timing as a) psychopathic god than by dreaming of force sterilizing all women and mass murdering countless, among other predatory and highly irrational traits. And of course there's no reason there has to be mass extinction, except in the pathologically morbid minds that want their pathetic moany personal misery writ large.

Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.

So you're claiming that an aborted foetus is a victim and has been deprived of life if the mother didn't want the abortion, but not if she wanted the abortion? Please explain how that could possibly make any sense.

As far as I'm aware, the foetus is not self aware and thus has no desires or interests invested in its own future. If aborted, it won't even know what's happened, let alone whether it was as a result of the mother's choice or someone else's. So I really fail to see how the foetus is 'deprived' in one scenario, but has not been deprived, or wronged in the other. How does the foetus know whether it's being aborted because the mother didn't want it, or because other people didn't want its welfare being risked without consent? When I asked you to explain why abortion was a hard compromise, you alluded to the benefits that already born individuals would derive from the foetus being born, not anything that relates to the foetus' own invested interests or desires in being born and entering the lottery.

Perhaps you're so appalled by antinatalism, but yet so stymied in being able to formulate a cogent argument against it that you're talking yourself round to a fundamentalist pro-life belief. Are these your peeps now?

Of course there has to be a mass extinction, because nothing is eternal. Perhaps not even the universe itself. Continuing to create more life only delays the inevitable, and for every generation that is created, there's billions or trillions of sentient organisms which are going to die (or worst, be forced to continue living until the heat death of the universe, because human views of death are too primitive to let people die when there's any possibility of preventing it, even against the will and pleading of the owner of the life).