Originally posted by: SValeCalGal
But what about what NEETU wanted at that time. She didn't wan the abortion and was being forced by the older sibling for it..
Neetu had not demonstrated even a modicum of maturity so her 'decision' that an abortion was anathema was muddled at best ... she did not even have enough factual information on hand to know that while there was nothing 'sinful' about having pre-marital sex, not using a prophylactic could have far worse consequences!! How was she in any position to judge that what her older sibling was recommending was not the best avenue?! I'm sorry, but where did you get the idea that the parents were looking forward to grandchildren - in this way i.e. a young woman left to her own devices by a scoundrel to raise a child?!In addition to Neetu's, Simi did have her parents' best interest at heart because yes, social mores had been violated and condemnation would have been heaped on their collective heads (that such social mores should exist is an entirely different matter) ...What constitutes morality?! We don't really know in black and white terms ... to the point that we must now also re-examine many many things based on what we know of life/non-life ... as an example, is it moral to hold a psychopath culpable for crimes if they have a genetic condition that leads them to commit crimes? There are many well known cases anymore ... at a minimum, I would hold an act immoral if physical/psychological harm were inflicted upon another with the express knowledge/desire of personal gain ... but then we need to figure out how to quantify a fully-functional rational brain to help determine if the act was indeed pre-meditated ...
D. beautifully done on the issue of morality...
D. This would be a great book titled THE PRESIDENT OF GOOD AND EVIL as primary title
and the secondary title being QUESTIONING THE ETHICS OF GEORGE.W.BUSH!!
BY PETER SINGER....DR.SINGER IS A PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY..⭐️