Rationally, if we assume that a woman has a right to her body, and may decide the fate of her fetus; what would be a moral objection to her chosing to abort it and giving her fetus to me to use in foods?
If a woman has a right to her own reproductive choices, what would be wrong with her employing herself by repeatedly getting pregnant to provide me with this food?
We are assuming she has a right to her body. We are also not using any divinely revealed moral systems, only rational ones. YOur disgust has no bearing as you cannot impose your asthetics on another rightfully.
Assuming we assure a disease free fetus, and the food will only be served well marked to those requesting it, is there any possible objection to this process?
2007-03-25 23:13:59 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't find anything morally wrong with this scenario, although i have a pretty big aesthetic objection; but, as you point out, I cannot impose my aesthetics upon you.
2007-03-25 23:27:31 · answer #1 · answered by Leo C 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I personally know someone who has done this. The man could not be charged with a crime for eating the fetuses, they had to charge him with hygenic violations.
Morally this is reprehensibly evil. That child is a child, scientifically it is a living human life form. How can our society survive when we allow such things? How can we call ourselves civilized?
This is certainly immoral and our society is becoming uncivilized and amoral.
I might add, this is horribly disgusting and repulsive.
2007-03-26 06:26:47 · answer #2 · answered by Shawn D 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That would be awfully expensive.
___________________________________
A Modest Proposal
For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public
By Jonathan Swift (1729)
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
2007-03-26 06:35:34 · answer #3 · answered by U-98 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a little different to your last proposal to eat the corpses of willing people who died naturally.
A fetus cannot give consent.
I know this is a typical argument against abortion but in this case I feel its valid.
2007-03-26 06:28:55 · answer #4 · answered by Judas. S. Burroughs. 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow, what's coming next ... Anyway, it is noon time over here and I will have lunch now. And do not think that you can affect my appetite by asking more of your increasingly braindead questions. I'm really wondering what more strange ideas you'll come up with.
2007-03-26 06:22:17 · answer #5 · answered by NaturalBornKieler 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Consider the implications here. By abortionist standards, that fetus was never alive, so then does it qualify as meat?
2007-03-26 06:36:23 · answer #6 · answered by startthisover 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Gee. Just think of the fast food market for amputated limbs.
*sarcasm*(see my answer to your last question)
2007-03-26 06:20:02 · answer #7 · answered by <><><> 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if there are countless alternative's,...... then why would you want to eat a human fetus.
that would be like swimming to china,.... when you could travel by boat or plane.
your suggestion is ludicrous....
2007-03-26 06:30:29 · answer #8 · answered by peanut 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Atleast you're not wasting it.
2007-03-26 06:31:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋