Abortion from a Veil of Ignorance

[Polerius]

@Apos

So far, it seems that you have no underlying rationale to present as to why it is wrong to kill the particular being that a zygote or a fetus is

OK, let’s see

(1) Using 100%, “ruthless”, logic at the most fundamental level:

As you yourself have said,
" break it down far enough, and no morality can be logically justified: we just take some values as givens. If you think it is okay to torture and kill a person who screaming for you to please please stop, I can’t necessary present a fully justified logical arguement as to why it’s wrong,"

So, it’s hard to justify logically why we shouldn’t kill humans, let alone fetuses. So in this scenario, humans and fetuses are on the same level, i.e. cannot be logically protected from harm.

(2) Using the “invented” morality of human society:

Since this morality is invented based mostly on empathy and the golden rule (not based on strict logic), it is quite arbitrary what one society chooses to have empathy for, and what not.

In some societies, it may be considered OK to torture a kitten, but not considered OK in other societies. The choice is rather arbitrary.

Most people today would have a problem pulling the plug from a patient that is brain-dead but has some chance of coming out of the coma. This is quite arbirtary, since, while brain-dead he cannot feel any pain, and if he has no living relatives, nobody will feel pain from his death. So what if there is a small probability that he might wake up later?

In any case, when we use the invented morality of our society, we can arbitrarily add classes of beings we want to protect, and most of these choices cannot be challenged on the basis of fundamental logic.

So, some people want to add fetuses to the class of beings they want to protect. Quite arbitrary, to a degree, but, since we are under an invented morality that is to a large degree arbitrary, we can’t use logical arguments to prove that this is an unacceptable class of beings we want to protect. (Especially if this new class of beings shares something with existing classes of protected beings)

In summary:
At a very fundamental level it is hard to prove why anything should be protected, neither humans nor fetuses.
If we go away from that, we have to work within the framework of a morality system that is by definition invented and quite arbitrary. In this case, it is hard to argue against someone who chooses a morality system that includes protection of the fetus.

[Polerius]

@Polerius

In summary:
At a very fundamental level it is hard to prove why anything should be protected, neither humans nor fetuses.
If we go away from that, we have to work within the framework of a morality system that is by definition invented and quite arbitrary. In this case, it is hard to argue against someone who chooses a morality system that includes protection of the fetus.

Maybe I didn’t say this clearly enough. I’ll try to say it another way:

If I say I want to protect fetuses from harm, someone will ask why, and I will give some reasons, and a discussion occurs that tries to go deeper and deeper into the fundamental reasons why I want to protect fetuses. If we keep going deeper and deeper, to the most fundamental level, it is clear that the need to protect the fetus cannot be logically proven, but neither can protecting other humans from harm be logically proven. So, we must choose a “level” at which to hold our arguments on issues like these, and not descend to the most fundamental level.

My arguments for protecting the fetus, when possible, are that it is a proto-human because it has the same genetic makeup as a human (unlike an egg or sperm which have only half the chromosomes), and with a good probability will develop into a human. Those are good enough reasons for me. No need to know when exactly it develops a nervous system or consciousness, or when it is a zygote and when a fetus.

Now, protecting the fetus does not imply outlawing abortion, because the interests of a human being, the mother, are involved. How to achieve the perfect balance of protecting a fetus and protecting the rights of the mother is something I don’t know.

[John_Allman]

@SentientMeat

We must establish that conception imbues some “personhood” upon the gestating entity.

Ah, the old dualistic, metaphysical argument, again. The superstitious speculation as to when the “ensoulment” of a human organism takes place, or, as you would have it, “enpersonment”. Of course a foetus is a human being, but, you ask, does that make him or her a person, or is something more needed.

What you mean, of course, isn’t that “we” must establish this. You mean that “they” must establish this, or “we” win. But the main argument against allowing social abortion is based upon the scientific position that there is no observable process of ensoulment known to biology, and that the belief in the existence of human beings without personhood, is total mumbo jumbo, that shouldn’t deceive any thinking person for even a minute.

It is not capable of ‘volition’ in any sense, and thus is ethically no different from, say, a potato.

Every night, I become incapable of volition in any sense for several hours. If haven’t been sleeping well lately, may I suggest changing your position on abortion?

[Sampiro]

Before responding, please know that the OP and every post through 82 are from 2004.

[Ludovic]

@John_Allman

Ah, the old dualistic, metaphysical argument, again.

You don’t say.

[Marley23]

This is a valid topic for discussion, but we don’t need to revive a 2004 thread to do it. If you’re interested in this, please feel free to open a new one. And welcome to the board, John Allman.