\
Parents raise their children for a number of reasons. Because of the joy/pride good feelings being a parent brings… out of some perceived obligation… as a trade for the future (expecting the child to care for them in old age)… etc. Parents make the decision that the time/effort/money spent on their children is worth the return (joy/pride/hope/etc).
Agreed. The fallacy of sweeping generalization.
I answered this a few pages ago. Including a fetus, but not including sperm and unfertilized eggs. A fetus is a potential moral agent. Neither sperm nor unfertilized eggs are.
Not technically true. My argument hinges on the fact that all humans, including the unborn, are human beings and therefore moral agents or potential moral agents. Neither a sperm cell nor an egg is a human being, genetically speaking. Both are missing some DNA.
Sure. In that case, a human being will die. One day technology will most likely overcome this, opening up a different can of worms. But as it stands, you are correct.
Depending on what you mean by “parents” - sure, or at least most likely.
Again, an egg is not a human. A sperm cell is not a human.
My logic does not lead to the conclusion that “letting” anything or anyone die is murder. I’ve not once offered a positive obligation. I’ve not argued that a parent must feed/clothe/educate a child. Nor have I argued that a woman may not evict a fetus from her body. Nor will you ever see me do so. A child has a right to be free from aggression. That does not imply care for the child. A parent, just like anyone else, may choose to refrain from taking care of his or her child, but a parent must refrain from initiating violence against anyone, including his or her child.
essentially the same point I was making on the 4th page.
What if her parents were dead and she didn’t have a legal representative?
Just because their definition encompasses more actions of killing, it doesn’t mean that they are more consistent.
People are responsible for providing their own security.
But both are potential humans, and as such, potential moral agents. So, they are both potential moral agents.
More actions of killing? Regardless, it is easier for an individual to follow their philosophy than it is to follow yours, in knowing what is right and what is wrong.
I do not understand how that follows.
That is completely subjective and irrelevant.
A question on positive obligations…
Driving drunk carries with it the possibility of getting into an accident and hurting someone, possibly other than myself. If I choose to do so anyway, and someone else is hurt, don’t they have a claim against me? While it was certainly an accident, I still have an obligation to make reparations to them.
Now, someone choosing to have sex does so knowing that it carries the possibility of pregnancy. Even condoms and pills aren’t 100% effective. The pregnancy may not have been the desired outcome of the sex, but it was still a risk. In the same way, doesn’t a parent have an obligation to the child created? Rape may be an exception, but certainly this would apply to any consensual sex. Freedom to do as you please does not mean freedom to ignore the consequences of risks you take.
Your answer is bolded.
You are playing a semantics game just so you can “win”. I tire of it.
I am not a biologist, but I would say that sperm cells are not potential humans, they only have the potential to make a human or become part of a human. Also there is a huge difference between the chances that a sperm will create a moral agent and the chances that a human baby will grow up to be a moral agent.
No. Your answer is bolded. Anyway, there is no answer that you can be sure of because your philosophy is nonsense. It basically boils down to “might is right.”
You appeal to semantics game is an obvious indicator that you cannot come up with a better answer, nor an answer that makes any sense, as a rebuttal. It is like you saying that “2 + 2 = 5” and then me saying that you are wrong by definition then you saying that I am playing a semantics game.
What you are talking about and asking has nothing to do with what you say here. You have failed to be logically consistent and thus stick with arbritary whims. You are theorizing that a child can be violated, though, the child is his or her own property. Violation of property rights is your theory. There’s no getting around that fact.
But the sperm and egg - separate - are NOT human. As you say here. We are talking about humans that are actually - human, but you go ahead and hold onto a fallious theory that supports rape of a 3 year old. When in the face of logical consistency you still hold onto such a theory one begins to wonder about the holder of the rape-theory. I try to not to assume, but then again, how can I not personally wonder about you? I mean look at your theory in the face of such facts that sheds on light on its inconsistencies. How your theory role-models that the State can step in and violate the property rights of every single person.
It’s pretty obvious Stranger has this thread won and it’s truly disturbing how out of touch with reality some of you are.
If someone is kidnapped and has not purchased any protection, no one is going to come looking for them.
The root of our moral agency is in our minds not in out DNA. if aliens have minds but lack human DNA they will have rights. Things with our DNA but without minds are not moral agents. dead Humans for example. Zygote’s do not have minds.