What is the basis for our ethical duty to care for our children?

Another abortion thread has started in Politics but instead of having too many sub discussions I've started another here.

I'd like to know from Pro-Choice Atheists why we have an ethical responsibility -if at all-to care for our children/offspring?

It maybe a strange question but it will prove important to the other discussion.

& BTW all things being equal, are we obliged to treat our children or offspring the same and not show preference either with our affections or our resources?

Tags: abortion

Views: 3

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A minor issue when its in the hundreds of thousands each year over many years, which I would think would run into millions if totalled together?

How about we simply a first goal try to be consistent with the consequences of our ethics? If you cannot even do that your moral system is no better than the one that you oppose.

So sure if you want to keep abortion allow infanticide and experimentation, think of the lives and resources that would be saved. You can stop making men pay child support and you will have a consistent ethics.

On the other hand if the US made abortion cases in most cases illegal plus resource single mothers and or compensate them for unwanted marriages, plus provide universal healthcare for chidren, it would be inlign with non pregnacy moral cases and values, raise the value of motherhood the welfare of children and above all else be consistent in all cases instead of treating a major moral precept as an aribitrary preference of one Human over another.

& while we are at we can also deal with the other atrocities from a stance of superior moral consistency.

Pro-Choice is the best choice for moral inconsistency.
BTW Sydni I'm surprised you raised sex selection which in due respect to you is another case of inconsistency.

If the prenatal have no value it isn't a person and we wish to respect a womans reproductive autonomy you have no right whatsoever to object to her reproductive choices. Pro-Choice is the best chocie afterall.
Certainly this is so in the light that there are currently no laws as to having to have nor not have children. I would add that where their are anti sex selection laws it is because of interest groups not because of the underlying reasoning.

On a related point given population pressures I do think reproductive rights will change to something like only replacement. I think with the coming climate and Peak resource crash with millions of people starving and becoming refugees the right to have as many children as we want will come under question.

Last thing there is plenty of money in the world to resource all children and single mothers let alone help the 3rd world develop, you only have to look at the US military budget alone and the billions spent on the bank bailouts to see that with due respect your 'kinder' approach is a copout. But it also shows the hypocrisy of the religious conservatives as well.
Is your intention in starting this thread to loudly disagree with all viewpoints presented by pro-choice atheists, or to actually hear them? I am sorry, but I think accusing pro-choice people of "infanticide" is just as bad as the religious who cry "abortion is murder". There is a distinction, and viability plays a major role. That is why the Roe v. Wade decision in the US divides the legality of abortion into three phases, based on the term of pregnancy. The longer the pregnancy has progressed (and more viable and physical developed the fetus is) the narrower the circumstances under which abortion is legal. Nuance is not the same as hypocrisy.
No Angie just trying to get people here to go beyond the street corner debate to issues raised in the academic philosophical lit, where people like Tooley can make the argument that if abortion based on non-personhood is justified so is infanticide. He doesn't get attacked for doing so because even if other philosophers disagree with him they realise given the centrality of personhood it isn’t a outlandish argument to make. It is only the uniformed that that reach for ad hominine attacks.

No one here has risen above the street corner debate or have even tried to address any of the points from the philosophical lit they have just resorted to the same old text book replies without any understanding of the underlying arguments.

& I’ve already posted about RvW and have already posted on the legal convenience of being a legal person at birth in the Constitution. There is no nuance just philosophical convenience. The law is in your favour so as long as an argument reaches a minimal level of comprehension people run with it.
No one here has risen above the street corner debate or have even tried to address any of the points from the philosophical lit they have just resorted to the same old text book replies without any understanding of the underlying arguments.

Well if my personal views - clearly explained and related to my very personal experiences, after a lifetime of pro-life stance - are so banal, I won't waste any more of your time.
If you feel that way fine but it is beholden on ANYONE to who enters this topic to at least know the underlying arguments and not resort to personal anecdotes. You aren't formally making an argument you are just expressing an opinion. Opinions aren't formal arguments; you wouldn't accept that from your opponents so why should I?
Common intuitions and real life experiences within the context of the norms of the day meant that slavery and sexism took way longer than they should have to be put in the dustbin of history. There is nothing wrong with starting out with intuition or real life experiences as long as the morals they produce are consistent with the underlying ethics that they are supposed to be based on. & that the individual is prepared to critically examine their beliefs.

Many atheists mock the theists for uncritical examination of their own beliefs and after having run- ins with Libertarian atheists who mock creationists for ignoring science but do the same with anything that says humans have a major detrimental effect on the environment or Pro-Choice atheist who likewise seem unable to reach the same levels of critical belief that they set for theists on their own pet beliefs.

You haven’t even bothered to enquire further about the underlying ethical philosophical issues and now have resorted in playing the ball and not the man.

If I sound "holier than thou" is that I set a high stand –though I’m not stupid to think I’m infallible- & whether they are theists or atheists if they aren’t prepared to question their beliefs I have little time for them and come across as abrasive and abrupt.

As I said right from the being IMO this is a socialised issue and like slavery and sexism before it the overwhelming majority go with whatever the group they identify with say.

The inconsistencies of not resourcing single mothers or children’s health insurance show this for the conservatives and viability, lack of personhood & infanticide , and male child support illustrate it for the Pro-Choice Atheists.

What probably disappoints me more that from people who think that they are freethinkers or more rational than those bible thumpers aren't capable of even attempting to step up to the plate.
*applause* Thank you Sydni. Okay I'm officially out now. Un-following this argument, er "discussion".
Typical, you didn't add anything to the debate anyway.

Some people cannot stand having their pet beliefs put up for question & think because the other side does this they are more rational!

& I'm being attacked for being self righteous!
BTW I suppose no ever likes being told some home truths, at a Catholic forum where I pointed out conservative inconsistencies they also said maybe I should move on. :)
People just don't like a messenger with bad news, it would seem they would rather people join the cheer squad.
@Simon

Could you please tell me the name etc of the book you mentioned about attitudes to children in the middle ages. When was it first published? It's over 20 years since I was at university,I'm probably a bit out of touch. I also love revisionist history.

Another rational alternative is that like say sexual mores,perceptions of children and childhood may also have changed several times over centuries and may be related to relative affluence. It seems to me that poverty and subsistence living lead directly to the exploitation of children.
NP:)
Growing up In Medieval London
The Experience of Childhood in History
By Barbara A. Hanawalt
Oxford University Press 1993

The identity and role of children like many other social players are largely socially constructed. I find it interesting that in a country that appears repressive in other ways gives the vote to teens a 16. IMO opinion all people have a ethical bias where their norms are rational and any harms are downplayed while other cultures harms are more open to critical appraisal.Why should we be any different?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service