Sorry, but that argument doesn’t work. You don’t get to use a certain argument, in this case that it’s “okay” to kill someone to prevent future suffering on the basis that suffering is worse than death, yet completely throw out the same argument when it’s applied to a group you don’t want to apply it to. If suffering is worse than death, then why does it matter whether you’re a non-person and someone kills you to prevent future suffering or whether you’re a person and someone kills you to prevent future suffering? How can you say that it’s better to be dead than to be placed into situation X, but it’s not better to be dead than to continue to live in situation X, the same situation you said it’s better to be dead than to be placed into?
Are the mentally disabled afforded less moral status than your Nobel prize winning and member of MENSA astro-physicist? Are comatose patients afforded less moral status than you or I? You know, it’s a good thing individuals aren’t afforded moral status on the basis of having minds.
Yet you presume to speak for someone else when you state that it’s better to be dead than it is to live in less than ideal circumstance.
That doesn’t really answer my question.
No, they can’t. I’ve yet to meet a newborn who is capable of making their own decisions. They are just as helpless as they were before they were born.
You did make such an argument, as you are assuming that children who are not aborted would be placed in abusive situations. The natural response to this is how do you know? The only way to make this assumption is if you assume that the women who abort have a predisposition to being abusive.
If I may presume to speak for Zeriel, I gather he or she is prepared to let the person most affected by the continued development of the fetus (i.e. the pregnant woman) speak for the fetus, or at least have the choice regarding its fate.
Again, presuming… I gather the argument is that every year many thousands of women find themselves pregnant who don’t want to be. For American women, if abortion is not readily available in their state because of laws or regulations or violence, the wealthy women have the means to travel to another state, or Canada or elsewhere, to get the wanted abortion. Poorer women do not. Hence, in a venue where abortion access is limited, the number of abortions among wealthy women won’t change, but the number of abortions (or at least safe abortions) among poor women will decrease, leading to more babies being born to poor women, and the correlation between poverty and child abuse is well-researched and established. Outlawing or heavily regulating abortion will not turn an unwanted pregnancy into a wanted one, nor does it remove the stresses of poverty and deprivation.
If there’s a flaw in that reasoning, I invite you to point it out.
Personally, I don’t see a fetus as a human. It’s a potential, human, sure. And it’s definitely alive. But most pro-life people are not vegans, and have no problem ending the lives of much more developmentally advanced creatures in order to provide themselves with tasty meat protein. So my disconnect comes in with the “life begins at conception” camp - sure, life begins at conception. And so what? We kill lives things all the time - perfectly developed live things which have been proven to bond to companions, experience pain, stress, grief, etc. So why should an undeveloped potential human get more rights than a fully developed human person who chooses not to complete a pregnancy?
As to having an emotional disconnect by not calling it a baby? Not at all. At a certain stage of development, it does indeed become a baby. Again, so what? I would rather see humane infanticide than see children grow up unwanted in abusive homes, or languish in a state orphanage or institution. So no, the baby arguement doesn’t make me less pro-choice either.
Of course you do, when the two groups are so fundamentally different. As for a fetus, the woman it is inside can morally kill it for any reason whatsoever, not just to prevent future suffering. It is, again, just a thing.
Because the non-person has no rights because it isn’t a person. By definition.
Of course they are. When someone has no mind, they aren’t an “individual”, they aren’t “someone” at all anymore and we can disassemble them for parts. We aren’t talking about the mentally disabled, we are talking about the mindless.
It seems to be that the Violinist argument really truly parallels the anti-abortion in the case of rape. Since the society of music lovers essentially forced themselves upon the subject.
Isn’t the argument different if the subject had volunteered participate in the aid of the violinist?
Or am I understanding the thought experiment wrong.
I’d like to see a study which shows that restricting abortion leads to higher instances of child abuse. If anything it’s allowing abortion which leads to higher instances of child abuse, as women who have a history of abortion would be more likely to, for lack of a better word, abuse any children they may have after that as when compared to women who don’t abort.
I’m not sure if what you’re saying here is that the people who don’t think it’s a baby believe it “magically transmogrifies* at the moment of birth”, but that’s not what I think. I think it rather unmagically develops into a baby over a period of time during gestation. I think viability is the most reasonable point at which we can establish a bright line (one of the parts of Roe v. Wade which I think was logically determined**), although we haven’t really done a very good job of scientifically establishing that line.
I’d be willing to give the pro-life camp the benefit of the doubt on that issue, and move the legal date of viability to 20 weeks.
*Nice word.
**I’ve mentioned here many times that I believe Roe v. Wade is bad law; excellent policy, but bad law. In any event, I think the Court did err on this point in determining that a foetus which requires artificial support is viable, but it’s a reasonable conclusion.
I think it still applies, even if the subject initially volunteered. I don’t see how generosity in the past requires someone to continue to be generous into the future.
It’s not just a thing. It’s a human being, much like you and I are, whether you like it or not.
So then, by definition, what is a person?
Again, if this were true, then people who are comatose, in a persistent vegetative state or even severely mentally handicapped wouldn’t be anything at all, according to your logic.
The purpose of debating is to defend my opinions. .No offense but I haven’t yet seen one pro-choice statement on here that makes me think abortion is ok.
No it’s not the same thing AT ALL. A fetus is a developing human being. Sperm that has not yet joined an egg and fertilized it is not a potential human being.
Nor is an appendix or a gallbladder.
If you’re going to be that articulate and spot-on you can speak for me ANYTIME, big guy. (sig included due to gender question)
To get involved (stupidly, probably) in another conversation:
I wouldn’t disagree. Human rights attach to a sentient mind/personality. A brainless body is not human. A body with a non-functioning brain is not human.
Disagree: even the severely mentally handicapped have operating higher brain functions, even if those functions are impaired, thus they are logically and morally distinct from things with human DNA which do not have higher brain function at all.
No they don’t typically occur before the fetus can move. A seven week old fetus can move. Most abortions are done in the FIRST trimester and that ends at around 12 weeks so your statement is false.
It’s not offensive at all, honestly, as long as you’re not pushing positions on people they haven’t taken (which is why I gently chided you for using pro-abortion).
Morality is a tricky subject even when everyone agrees on the axioms. Since we have no rigorous definition of “when life begins” even within either the anti-abortion or pro-choice camps, there’s no axiomatic agreement and so everyone’s ultimately arguing from different principles.
Honestly? I already accept the premise that the fetus is effectively “human life” from day one–however, I believe the mother’s right to determine what’s done with her bodily fluids (and to change her mind mid-course, if it comes to that) is the key point from a moral standpoint–from my point of view, it’s somewhere between the Violinist thought experiment and my (obvious) right to not donate bone marrow even though I’m in the donor database and have previously donated–that is, regardless of another human’s right to life, I cannot morally be forced to give of my own body to preserve another human’s life even if I have previously made decisions that make it likely I will be asked and expected to do so (like joining said registry, or getting pregnant).
Conversely, if one believes the axiom that the fetus DOES have a right to demand sustenance from someone unwilling to provide it, then it’s perfectly logical to be pro-life.
No, I think that is a good point. And there’s another problem with that argument as well: the violinist is already brilliant and well loved by the time he is hooked up to the unfortunate surrogate, and he’s an adult who can probably fend for himself once he wakes up and is unhooked (if he can’t the society of music lovers have already proven that they’ll do almost anything to ensure his welfare). As such the surrogate’s responsibilities to the violinist do not extend beyond the period when they are physically connected. Conversely, a mother’s responsibilities to her baby doesn’t end at the moment of birth. A child needs care and stimulation, and can’t usually depend on having a society of baby lovers standing ready to provide those things if the mother should happen to be unwilling, or unable, to do so.
I think I know that there is no pregnancy before the first trimester…I meant most abortions are done** before **the end of the first trimester. I was responding to the post that says most abortions are done before a fetus can move. Therefore if a fetus moves at 7 weeks and most abortions are done before the end of the first trimester then the statement is false.
That still doesn’t make any sense. If you can establish that most abortions are done near the end of the first trimester, you might have a point. Otherwise, you seem to be assuming that the fact that the abortions are performed “during the first trimester” means they’re all done in the final week or something.
(sig included due to gender question)