Spiderman
Veteran Member
Limbo is not a place of torture. As much as I hate the teaching on limbo, it is a theory that doesn't include suffering or torture.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is abortion homicide?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
What does that have to do with anything?
She's dead. She doesn't matter any more. What matters is the here and now.
I am very results based. I wouldn't care if King George III started Planned Parenthood.
Tom
Spiderman
Veteran Member
That was an error in the posting....I started saying something onto my phone about Margaret Sanger being against abortion, then found that to be irrelevant, and quoted another post not knowing what I started to say would show up on the post.
You're talking about something different, though: yes, it says that God isn't bound by the sacraments, but it still says that it expects baptized people who aren't in a state of mortal sin when they die to end up in Heaven.
When it comes to unbaptized babies, though, they don't take this approach of saying "here's what we expect (with one asterisk)"... they just say "we don't know what happens."
The question of whether it's good or evil to torture a baby forever is beyond the Magisterium's understanding? Remind me to never let any of them near a child.
... but you do?
I'm not talking about limbo; I'm talking about Hell. The Church (consciously, IMO) does not exclude the possibility that unbaptized infants end up in Hell.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
I don't know why the Church takes it's stance...I don't know the fate of unbaptized inants. I believe they go to Heaven. I'm at a point in my life where I think Religion is quite ridiculous however, so I'm not a good person to defend or explain Catholicism .
I expect God to outdo humans in charity, and the God that Religion is typically portraying isn't merciful or rational.
You and me both.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Has anyone heard of the resurrection ? Infants will be resurrected to life and can grow to adulthood and learn about God. Then they can decide for themselves if they want to be baptized or not. Infant baptism does not make sense anyway because the Bible says one must repent and be baptized. No infant can repent so only people who are older enough to make that decision should be baptized. Infant baptism is an invention of the church and is not in the Bible.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
I think we need more of this sentiment in society today. For some reason our society thinks women should bear the burden of pregnancy alone. I think, even in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, the father should be liable for the health of the unborn child (and support of the mother), well until birth at least.
Stalwart
Member
Nobody ought to consider this as a desire to instigate further discussion about abortion on my part, but I feel I can answer this common (and mediocre) objection.
The verse relevant to the notion of repentance in conjunction with baptism (in reference to which you've said "the Bible says one must repent and be baptised") is Acts 2:38, wherein Saint Peter tells us:
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
Additionally, we hear from Our Lord in Mark 16:16:
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
Peter's use of 'and' in Acts 2 does not infer that repentance (denoted by 'do penance', and written as 'Repent, and be baptised' in more modern translations, such as the RSV) is necessary for the reception of baptism. He is saying that one must both repent and be baptised; not that they must repent so as to have access to baptism. This separation of the two from each other is made clear in Mark 16:16 wherein Our Lord tells us that baptism is a necessary element in attaining salvation (while also making clear that baptism alone is not sufficient, and that faith must also be present), but makes no mention whatsoever of repentance being necessary for the reception of that same baptism. What is necessary for baptism is desire; in the case of an infant, this desire is imparted by one's parents on the child's behalf, as they have authority over the child as he is the fruit of their marriage.
If it is that children and infants cannot sincerely repent, and can therefore not receive baptism, then children and infants cannot be saved until they reach adulthood, because baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21), due to the fact that baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) -- that is to say that it makes us members of the Church. We also know of whole families (that is, 'houses' and 'households', for one certainly cannot baptise a building) being baptised in 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:33, indicating that children are also to be brought into the Body of Christ through baptism. Child baptism is Biblical.
In addition, we have the following statements from Fathers of the Early Church (among many others):
Saint Irenaeus, 189: "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age."
Saint Hippolytus, 215: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them."
Saint Cyprian, 253: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born."
Saint John Crysostom, 388: "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his members."
Saint Hippolytus, 215: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them."
Saint Cyprian, 253: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born."
Saint John Crysostom, 388: "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his members."
But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. (Matthew 19:14)
For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:39)
If you want to talk more about this, @lostwanderingsoul, or about anything else, go ahead and start a new thread or a private conversation with me.
*Edit: Early Church statements
Last edited:
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Cool!
I certainly wouldn't say that rights are void of any moral dimension or that rights derive from a legal document. Just the contrary. I agree with your comments that rights are fundamentally moral, and that the rights denoted in or by legal documents are or should be derived from the moral dimension of rights--the purpose of legal rights is to secure what is moral. For example, we say that persons (generally) have “a right to life” to express the moral fact that it is morally wrong to kill persons (with certain exceptions).All good
Anyway, I only noted the issue of the legal dimension of rights because that's an easier subject matter, and because it seems to best dovetail with the title question.
What is your “definition of what constitutes 'personhood'”? At what point does a fetus or embryo or zygote achieve “personhood”?
As you undoubtedly know, the concept of “person” in the law is tricky. Federal statute in the US includes corporations, associations, firms, etc., as “persons”. Many state statutes include political subdivisions (states, counties, etc.) as “persons”.
When you say that the government has a strong mandate to restrict abortion, do you imply that there are circumstances where it should be allowed? If so, what circumstances?
This is, of course, different from the case of a pre-viable fetus, which cannot be separated from that particular woman's body and continue to develop. It often happens that mothers relinquish custody of their day-old infants to someone else who wants and can better care for the child.
The holding of Roe v. Wade did not imply any such thing as your first sentence, nor was it justified in any such way as your second sentence.
What's a "hard core abortionist"? (Hopefully you don't consider people who don't perform abortions "abortionists".)
I wasn't referring to any particular law. I was referring to the broadly pervasive attitude towards the ethics. I thought that quite obvious in the context of the post.
In the context of that post I mean everyone who hold the attitude, not just the personnel who perform the abortions. Rather like I might refer to people who supported slavery as slavers, even if they didn't happen to own one at any given moment.
Tom
(1) People who do not perform abortions are not "abortionists". (2) I believe the most common "attitude" toward abortion by most people who agree with the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade is something like what the Court said in arriving at the holding. You should read that decision. The Court's justification doesn't resemble a gleeful removal of a tumor. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
A person (or rather a rational agent) for me is someone who can understand and act upon representations of morality. Right to life extends not only to those who are persons, and those who have the capacity and eventuality to be persons (fetus', infant, toddlers, coma patients etc). This is usually the secular definition that I argue when it comes to this issue. However, as a Hindu, I also believe a person is a human body into which a soul has entered into (i.e from the moment of conception).
Yes there are come circumstances where I think it should be allowed. Abortions ideally should be restricted up to the point of marginal utility (where if I do not perform an abortion, then it would result in other greater or equal right being violated). In the case of abortion, it is acceptable when the mother's life is under genuine threat. I also think condition of life can also play a factor in this. If a child has a deadly genetic disease for example, which will cause them a life of great pain and suffering and they will die at the young age anyway then that may be also grounds for abortion. What I am against is viewing abortion as a fundamental right of choice. I also don't think anyone can decide whether someone's life is worth living or not.
On what basis do you claim that a zygote, a comatose person, or a person with such severe dementia that she cannot recognize her own children has “the capacity and eventuality” to “understand and act upon representations of morality”?
There are plenty of people in nursing homes who have neither the capacity nor the future prospect of passing even the simplest sort of intellectual test--which I assume would be a fair way to measure the ability to “act upon representations of morality”. Indeed, plenty of animals caged in zoos and raised in factory farms would outperform such people on most any test of ability.
By the way, doesn't any unfertilized egg residing in a woman's body and any sperm residing in a man's body have the same capacity for moral behavior as a zygote has? I would say that the line that you have drawn to define “person” is arbitrary (in more ways than one). A minute-old fertilized egg, an unfertilized egg and a sperm cell all engage in the same moral behavior at present. Imagine a school in which a hundred students are in each grade, but the third grade is special in that there is one teacher for every child, with the children randomly assigned for each teacher. The school bestows very special and coveted privileges on all “students,” and defines “student” as only those children who are in the 3rd grade or higher and who were in Ms. Smith's 3rd grade class, because (says the school) it is only these youngsters who have the “capacity” to excel on the SAT test and get into college. You would undoubtedly recognize that definition of “student” as arbitrary. Your definition of “person” is no less arbitrary insofar as it distinguishes between zygotes and gametes, is it not? Zygotes and gametes have the same capacity for moral behavior--the only difference is that some of the gametes won't get into Ms. Smith's class.
Also by the way, all definitions of “person” in the law are flagrantly speciesist. An association of birds or deer may be more cohesive, more stable, more cooperative, more productive and less destructive of the world than an association of humans, but it is only the latter that is recognized and protected as the legal entity of “person”. The average adult of a non-human hominid genus is more intelligent than the average 3-year-old human, but the former enjoys no rights of personhood. Predicating “the right to life” on such a speciesist concept as "person" entails can never be free of the irrationality of speciesism.
So no exceptions in cases of rape, incest, where the woman's health is at risk, non-genetic fetal diseases or deformities (e.g., microencephaly due to maternal malnutrition)? Why should abortion be allowed for genetic microencaphaly but not for acquired microencephaly?
What about women and teens who are just mentally and financially unable to care for a child--e.g., a child that will certainly be born addicted to opioids?
Isn't it unfair to the child to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child that she is unable to properly provide for?
I think one of the primary problems that arise in discussions about abortion is the tendency to falsely dichotomize the positions--"for abortion" vs. "against abortion". I don't know anyone who would say that abortions are perfectly acceptable at 8.9 months. I also don't know anyone who would say that abortions should never be allowed. In between those two extremes, I think there is a great deal of agreement among people.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Yes, I shall explain this further. Generally "understanding" representations of morality means to have an awareness of concepts of right/wrong . I would argue that even a individual with severe dementia would have such an awareness.This is because memory, or even intellect is not linked with such an awareness. More simply put, the ability to be empathetic (which is generally where this awareness seems to arise from) is something which makes us human. However my definition is not exhaustive. There many other definitions argued by philosophers (for example some argue that a 'person' is a social being who develops relationships with others, can form belief systems, can feel a variety of complex emotions). What I am interested here is the eventuality.
Those patients who are comatose may or may not have the capacity/eventuality for such an awareness depending their state. A common example which I give to illustrate this position is as follows. Consider three individuals who are in a Coma. Patient A will never come out of Coma (they are in essence braindead with no chance of recovery). Patient B may or may not come out of Coma (they have a possibility to do so). Patient C will come out of Coma after a certain period of time (lets say 3 months). Now, in this state of Coma, the patient are not conscious or have a semblance of consciousness (they are not sentient, no awareness of morality etc). I also assume that there is no dispute that once (and if) the patients come out of Coma, they have an indisputable right to life. Now what about right to life of these 'already in coma' patients? I would argue as follows:
Patient A does not have a right to life. She will never recover and hence does not have a eventuality to be a "person" (i.e by awareness of morality/ sentience etc). Therefore there is nothing wrong in ending her life. Patient C, I believe does have a right to life. She has the eventuality to be a person (if left alone in that state she will recover from the coma and be a 'person' as we understand it). Patient B however is a bit more interesting. I would (and many would argue) that the potential to recover is enough to warrant a right of life. There are others who disagree though (and say potential is not enough).
However the point I am making, is that the scenario of the fetus is analogous to that of person C. Both the fetus, and person C, if left in that state (of support, either by the mother or the hospital) will become something that has the right to life (an infant, or a post coma individual) and if it is wrong for for the hospital to withdraw life support from person C knowing full well that they would recover, then it is also equally wrong for a women to abort the child knowing full well that she (the fetus) would 'gain right of life' after a certain period of time.
Capacity must be differentiated from potential, because this is a common misunderstanding that occurs. Potential for X means there is a chance that X will occur but it requires external interference (i.e the action of another moral agent, or some chance event perhaps). Capacity and eventuality is understood as twofold. Firstly, capacity for X means an individual at any given moment can choose to do X (without needing interference from another moral agent) while eventuality means at some point in time onwards, the individual will most likely than not develop a capacity for X. An infant will more likely than not develop into an adult (if her current state is left unhindered). That is why an infant has the eventuality to become an adult. A lottery ticket has the potential to become money (in that the potential is dependent on either the action of another moral agent: someone drawing out lotto numbers, or a chance event: lotto numbers matching the ticket's). These concept must be confused, and is what I used to distinguish between zygotes and gametes, and is something that your scenario fails to incorporate. In a schooling system, a person who is in a lower grade, will more likely than not move up to the higher grade (that is the general trend, barring something extraordinary happening). That is why the distinction is arbitrary because all students have the eventuality to sit the SATs (provided they are enrolled in that school). In the case of the gamete and zygote, the gamete it not more likely than not to become a infant because it is dependent heavily on the actions of another rational agent (i.e that parents to have intercourse). See below for my discussion on this.
Without going too much into discussion of causality, (moral) actions are those are initiated by a moral agent. A gamete can never become a human being without a direct moral action of another rational agent (i.e sexual intercourse by parents). A zygote however is a result of that moral action, and requires no conscious action (from any moral agent) to develop into a person. They may require support, but the development from a zygote to an infant is not dependent exclusively on the actions of moral agents, while the development from a gamete to a person does. There is a change of state, morally I believe, from a gamete to a zygote. Simply put, if a gamete is left alone (in its original state) then it will never become a person. If a zygote is left alone (i.e no action is performed directed towards her, but the mother goes on with her life), then that zygote will develop into an infant at the least (the development from infant to person is a little bit more complex, but I assume people are generally OK with giving infants rights).
Oh I would call my self a speciesist, and I don't think there is anything irrational about it. All live is precious, but human life (I believe) holds a position above all other animal life, for the reasons above (humans can act upon representations of morality). That is why humans are given greater rights then animals of their intellectual equivalents
. Actually to defend a speciesist is must harder then critisizing it (because most of our moral intuitions can be considered speciesist.)
Oh don't get me wrong. In my initial position, the only exception that would be permitted would be if the woman's life is in danger. However, intuitively, I must also take into consideration the predicted quality of life of the unborn child. If they have a lethal recessive disorder that would result in the child's death anyway (such that they cannot grow and life a meaningful life), then that may be grounds for abortion.
What I mean here is the predicted health of the child (which is done through genetic testing). Obviously if the doctors can predict that the child will develop acquired microencephaly (although I'm not sure how it can be predicted before birth) then that may justify abortive actions. But, as far as I know, its not possible to do this for acquired microencephaly.
Adoption. There are many, many couples who cannot have children and are looking to adopt. However on a wider scale, I believe there are only a very very few situations in which the ending of a life is justified. This principle you are putting forth conflicts with so much that we accept today. You are saying on the basis of a certain negative consequences (opium addiction, or bad financial environment etc) it is acceptable to end the life of the child (i.e derive them of the many many positive experiences that life has to offer). Do you think it would be an acceptable principle to go around and euthanize drug addicts (or even possible drug addicts, who will develop a drug addiction) without their consent? Do drug addicts not deserve to live? Do they not have meaningful lives?
Yes, forced pregnancies may have side effects that are undesirable, but it would be greater moral transgression to end the life of the child simply because of these consequences and deprive them of the joys or even the very experience of life (especially without the consent of the unborn child). As a general principle, I don't think anyone has the right to determine whether someone else's life is worth living or not (with the rare exceptions above). I think its a very very pessimistic view of life, if I may add.
I have a opposition to free abortion (that stems from my own understanding of the subject). I don't have a problem with people who support abortion because they don't believe the fetus has a right to life. I do have a problem with people who agree with abortion because they think it is fundamentally an issue of autonomy and not life. To me, this shows and utterly disregard of even the willingness to consider and discuss whether the fetus is a life or not. But I agree with you here. Its the two extreme positions which seem to be the most dubious.
Last edited:
Don't people have to be taught what is right and wrong? Humans certainly engage in a lot of teaching of not only what is right and wrong generally (e.g., in mathematics) but also in matters of morality and ethics.
Are you saying that awareness of what is right or wrong on any particular matter is innate knowledge, special to humans? Why do so many non-human animals exhibit behavior similar or identical to what we refer to as moral?
I know of no reason to believe that a person with such severe dementia that she cannot comprehend a sentence has any more capacity for moral reasoning than the average chimp.
Obviously what you mean here is that for all those zygotes, fetuses and children who do not currently have the capacity to understand what is right or wrong, they have to be included as someday having that capacity--even though they won't unless and until they reach the age for such mental capacity and are taught what is morally right and wrong.
A prospective study of healthy newly married women who were trying to get pregnant found that 46.5% of conceptions ended in miscarriage or spontaneous abortion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12620443 The rate of miscarriage (<20 weeks) and stillbirth (>20 weeks) is increased by a variety of nutritional and health factors. See Table 1: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.520.5458&rep=rep1&type=pdf I see no reason to assume that even for women not taking hormonal contraceptives, fertilized eggs meet your probability definition of “eventuality” so as to qualify as “persons”. It seems that your contrivance for bestowing “the right to life” on human zygotes fails here.
Among women who take hormonal contraceptives, the non-implantation of fertilized eggs is apparently not unusual and is normally identified as one facet of the process by which hormonal contraceptives succeed in preventing the development of a fetus: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-pill-contraceptive-or-abortifacient/266725/ For all we know, in the US for instance, the number of zygotes that are not implanted (miscarried) due to contraceptives could be greater than the number of fetuses that are intentionally aborted. So do you oppose the use of hormonal contraceptives by women as strongly as, or more strongly than, you oppose abortion?
If women were to abstain from hormonal contraceptives, it would result in the suffering of many more unwanted, neglected and abused children. How could that possibly be a good thing?
In your your philosophy concerning abortion, do you place greater importance on principles such as upholding your definition of “person” than on seeking to prevent the suffering of innocents?
The reason that speciesism is more easily impugned than defended is only because there is no defense for speciesism. The absurdity of speciesism (or moral anthropocentrism) is no better illustrated that your own schema here, where you have elevated the intrinsic value of all human fertilized eggs over that of intelligent, loving, functional adult members of the same species, not on the basis of any fact that you can argue but merely because they are human cells.
There are lots of types of severe malformations of fetuses that are not genetic.
Moreover, one can fairly well predict that the life of an unwanted and neglected child born of an impoverished, chronically heroin-addicted mother is going to be quite painful. Many, many such mothers do not give their children up for adoption, and the children are abused by their boyfriend-of-the-week.
Microencaphaly in fetuses is diagnosed by measuring the head.
One would think that the people who are so adamantly opposed to pre-viable abortion and even contraceptives--if their motives were really what they claim-- would have a houseful of some of those millions of children already available for adoption. For some reason, that's very rarely the case, causing one to suspect that their motives are not really about the welfare of the millions more unwanted children that they want to populate the planet with.
An aborted fetus is no more “deprived” of positive experiences than are the uncountable eggs that are never fertilized. I was not deprived of an inheritance of $10 billion from my grandfather--but I didn't get such an inheritance.
Since the planet is not short of humans--just the contrary--one of the primary purposes of contraception and abortion of pre-viable fetuses is to prevent the needless suffering that occurs by bringing another unwanted child into the world.
There are no such noble reasons for forcing the births of children that are not wanted and cannot be provided for by their parents.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
No, not taught specific norms of morality, but my definition was able to act upon representations of moral law. If a being is able to understand any sort of moral concepts (whether they know it currently or not is irrelevant). This claim is not put forth by me, but by the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant. He claimed that if a being (whether they are human or alien) has the capacity to act upon representations of moral law (note capacity), then they are considered moral agents, and being moral agents, a great deal of rights (such as right of life, autonomy etc) apply to them. A moral agent cannot be ever used as a means to any any end. The act of abortion uses a moral agent (in a eventual sense) as a means to achieve an end therefore it is wrong.
I am not claiming that actual norms of right and wrong are innate in humans (because only a very few things are innate), but rather the ability to act upon moral representation is innate. Because these norms aris from empathy which is not possible for non-humans (their intelligence is not developed enough).
And this is where we must fundamentally disagree. Humans are the only species, I believe, that are capable of truly empathetic behavour and understanding of moral concepts. The cranial capacity of the lower hominids prevent them from doing so, while the enlarged cranial capacity and brain size of hominin have allowed us to have this trait. I hold that even a individual with severe dementia will be able to have an awareness of moral concepts, while an average chimp will not.
While there are several parts of my argument I believe you misunderstand, you have the gist. Capacity to understand right and wrong, does not necessarily mean it must be taught. An adult who has never encountered moral concepts still has the capacity to understand and act upon them.
What I look at is the intent. This way of looking at action is known as the doctrine of double of effect. If I have an action, and there are two consequences of such an action, one intended and one non-intended, then the intended action should be taken into account, assuming that the means to such an end are not wrong. That is why I am not as strongly opposed to hormonal contraceptives, because when a woman takes such contraceptives (and the means of taking such contraceptives, like in a pill form etc are not wrong) and the contraceptive has two effects: 1) the fetus does not implant in the uterine walls and his miscarried, 2) the mother does not get pregnant. I only hold the woman morally responsible for the 2nd outcome (which was intended) not the 1st one. In the action of abortion however, the very means of the action involves the ending of a being with a right to life, and hence is wrong. That is why there is a significant moral difference them. It is also why killing in self defense is morally okay, but murder is not. Both involve a wrong end (end of human life) but one is right and one is wrong because of intent.
I think ending the life of an innocent to prevent suffering is morally worse than the suffering itself. Here the means cannot justify the ends, because the means involves the loss greater than the ends itself. This is because, while life carries with it many sufferings, it also carries with it many joys. It is the potential in life that makes it so valuable. Especially in a first world country such as USA or Australia, even if a child is born in an unwanted fashion, they can still be given the support they need and more likely then not end up leaving fruitful and meaningful lives.
I kindly request that you do not misrepresent my arguments. I would like it also if you attacked the basis of my claims rather then jump of the emotional appeal bandwagon (because I am rather enjoying this debate, and it would be a shame to leave). For example, I would like to hear what you think about my coma patient scenario. This type of discussion (no matter how persuasive or not it may be) is great because is allows me to refine my arguments in light of opposing positions.
I have also honestly believe that I given you a very solid basis by which we can argue for the right of life of a fetus. Nor have I argued from the fact that they are human cells.
I have merely argued, that if a fetus has a right to life, then that right of life cannot be violated even at the expense of another's autonomy. This comparison you have applied to fetus' can also be applied to infants.. Infant are not that intelligent compared to their pre-birth counterparts, nor are they capable at present of loving (or understanding such an emotion), nor are they functional members of our society yet. So why is it that we see infanticide as morally wrong? Why are infants granted this right but not fetus'. I see a huge conflict in moral principles here, and I think my view resolves these. I would like to turn the question on you then? What property of human beings is it, that grants them the right to life?
I think we might be getting sidetracked. My point is, that if it can be predicted before birth that a child will not survive long after (due to debilitation illness) then abortion may be justified. However, even unwanted and neglected children is not grounds to end their life, I think. If we do admit this principle (that the outcome of children being unwanted/neglected/impoverished is enough of a justification to end their life), then do you it would be acceptable for the government to round up such children and euthanize them? this is why I cannot humor such a rhetoric. Even neglected children deserve to live, I think, especially in a first world society where so many options are available for such children.
Acquired is measured after birth when the doctors ascertain that the head is not growing properly after delivery (in humans esp, there is a period of growth called compensatory growth where the child's head grows rapidly after birth).
Again I think there is a difference between potential and eventuality. There is a nice example I like to give to illustrate this point. Imagine you buy a lotto ticket. Now this lotto ticket may or may not be the winning lotto ticket (a very very small chance that you will win), but you buy it for $2. Now someone comes along and steals that lotto ticket off you and gives you $2 in return. While it is still stealing, many would consider it to be a fair trade (since the chance of winning is so rare). It would be absurd to force the thief to be punished to stealing $10 billion dollars entirely, because the ticket only has the potential to yield that amount. Now lets say you still have the ticket and you find out that your ticket is the winning ticket (for 10 billion dollars). And someone now comes to you and steals your ticket and gives you $2, surely that trade would not be fair at all! The value of the ticket has now exponentially increased, because the ticket now no longer had the potential to be $10 billion dollars, but it will eventually become $10 billion dollars in the natural progression of things (you going and cashing it in). On the basis of this I discriminate between a gamete and a zygote. A gamete has a very rare potential to become a human being, a zygote however will eventually become a human being if left unhindered and hence the difference in moral treatment.
Let us switch this, to show the logical inconsistency in this position. If you argue that the fetus cannot be deprived of positive experiences, then nether can you argue the opposite (that fetus can be deprived from the negative consequences). You can only have it one way. If you argue that a fetus cannot be deprived of her experiences, then you cannot argue on the basis on any of these experiences (whether it is negative or positive). Then the argument of needless suffering falls apart.
If you admit on the other hand that we should abort due to the needless suffering the child will from being unwanted, then you must also admit my argument that aborting a fetus will also deprive the child of positive experiences of life. You cannot have it both ways I'm afraid. In Hindu logic, this is called ardha kukurka nyaya (the logic of accepting half a hen). Consequentialism in essence looks at the total pleasure-total suffering of an action. In order for this type of argument for work, you would have to demonstrate that the suffering that yields from allowing an unwanted child to live is equal to, or greater than the pleasure that yields from allowing an unwanted child to live.
Last edited: