Pro-choice people: Can nursing mothers without access to formula kill newborns? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2024, 02:26:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Pro-choice people: Can nursing mothers without access to formula kill newborns? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Skip
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 25

Author Topic: Pro-choice people: Can nursing mothers without access to formula kill newborns?  (Read 1089 times)
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,351


« on: February 19, 2021, 05:39:25 PM »

Mother's milk is a perfectly decent alternative to formula. To suggest anything else is unscientific.

Who in God's name sees a mother's milk as an "alternative to formula" rather than the other way around?! That's a ridiculous reversal of values and priorities, so much so that it makes one suspect that anprims have a point about most people being completely alienated from their natural selves.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,351


« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2021, 04:33:56 PM »

The problem here is with this odd assertion that a lot of people seem to make that bodily autonomy is a right that, unlike literally every other right we have, is completely unrestricted. MRDA to me saying this, but this just isn't the way normal moral reasoning on the subject works. Seatbelt laws and breathalyzer tests are obvious, straightforward infringements on bodily autonomy, but nobody thinks of them as human rights violations. The bodily autonomy argument for abortion rights is strongest when the point being made is (as Beet says above) that pregnancy is a uniquely demanding process, not when it's framed as this absurd claim that no violation of bodily autonomy is ever acceptable under any circumstances. That just isn't how people actually think about right and wrong.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,351


« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2021, 09:22:22 AM »

The problem here is with this odd assertion that a lot of people seem to make that bodily autonomy is a right that, unlike literally every other right we have, is completely unrestricted. MRDA to me saying this, but this just isn't the way normal moral reasoning on the subject works. Seatbelt laws and breathalyzer tests are obvious, straightforward infringements on bodily autonomy, but nobody thinks of them as human rights violations. The bodily autonomy argument for abortion rights is strongest when the point being made is (as Beet says above) that pregnancy is a uniquely demanding process, not when it's framed as this absurd claim that no violation of bodily autonomy is ever acceptable under any circumstances. That just isn't how people actually think about right and wrong.
That’s exactly how they justify it. Raising an infant is not less demanding than pregnancy, for that matter. Human babies are somewhat uniquely incapable of even the most basic tasks for years. Singer and Appel have explained before the minimal distinction between a baby up until 6-12 months and even a fetus at 8-9 weeks.

Singer and Appel are notorious galaxy-brained ghouls who think about morality completely differently from almost literally everybody on earth who doesn't have the misfortune to be a professional bioethicist. Again, that is not how normal people understand right and wrong.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 14 queries.