I was just in the Politics forum and saw a question on abortion. I am actually rather interested in this because I find my view does not easily fit in with what I am used to hearing. I think this will be an interesting discussion.
I am pro-abortion. In fact, if post-natal abortion (infanticide) were an issue, I would be pro that also (up to some reasonable age... perhaps 6 months or so).
How do I defend this? I believe we have laws against murder because most reasonable people do not wish to be murdered. Furthermore, it is somewhat detrimental to society if people were to go around killing people all the time. Indeed, we would all live in fear of our neighbor in that case.
However, my view of what makes a person is rather limited. To me, a person is a developed and functioning member of society. To clarify, personhood, to me, is something that is obtained, not granted by virtue of conception (I do not have high standards for this. I do not use this thinking to discriminate against functioning individuals over the age of 6 months).
From my understanding of developmental biology, a child's brain continues to develop for many years, not reaching a computational level comparable to an adult until about the age of 12. Indeed, a child is born with a large brain (in fact, humans have far more neurons at birth than they do as an adult), but it lacks the internal structure of adults. The neuronal connections necessary to be capable of the levels of thought we consider "human" are developed slowly over time. Only the most basic instincts are present at birth. To me, it is an "animal" until it grows up a little (and clearly, as a meat-eater, I have no qualms with killing animals).
Therefore, I do not consider very small children and fetuses to be a "person" by my formal definition, though they may be considered such strictly. I do not think they are developed enough to know what they are missing, nor do I think they are intelligent enough to understand the difference between life and death. Since I do not believe in hell, I do not think I am damning them to an afterlife of torment. When killed, they simply no longer exist. I find this preferable to committing them to a life where they are neither cared for nor wanted.
I suppose similar logic may be used to rationalize the "mercy killing" of the extremely mentally disabled. I do not, however, advocate indiscriminately killing handicapped people and such. My thoughts on this are arbitrary (like all law and philosophy), but as such, they have arbitrary limits which I have (hopefully) clearly defined.
I realize this will be unpopular, but I am interested in hearing what y'all have to say. In particular, I think the "pro-choice" crowd should give some interesting feedback.
Oh, by the way, don't any of your pro-lifers go thinking that this is the generally accepted view for the "pro-choice" movement. I know I'm fringe. Don't let me hurt your view of them. They are likely more sane than I.
I am pro-abortion. In fact, if post-natal abortion (infanticide) were an issue, I would be pro that also (up to some reasonable age... perhaps 6 months or so).
How do I defend this? I believe we have laws against murder because most reasonable people do not wish to be murdered. Furthermore, it is somewhat detrimental to society if people were to go around killing people all the time. Indeed, we would all live in fear of our neighbor in that case.
However, my view of what makes a person is rather limited. To me, a person is a developed and functioning member of society. To clarify, personhood, to me, is something that is obtained, not granted by virtue of conception (I do not have high standards for this. I do not use this thinking to discriminate against functioning individuals over the age of 6 months).
From my understanding of developmental biology, a child's brain continues to develop for many years, not reaching a computational level comparable to an adult until about the age of 12. Indeed, a child is born with a large brain (in fact, humans have far more neurons at birth than they do as an adult), but it lacks the internal structure of adults. The neuronal connections necessary to be capable of the levels of thought we consider "human" are developed slowly over time. Only the most basic instincts are present at birth. To me, it is an "animal" until it grows up a little (and clearly, as a meat-eater, I have no qualms with killing animals).
Therefore, I do not consider very small children and fetuses to be a "person" by my formal definition, though they may be considered such strictly. I do not think they are developed enough to know what they are missing, nor do I think they are intelligent enough to understand the difference between life and death. Since I do not believe in hell, I do not think I am damning them to an afterlife of torment. When killed, they simply no longer exist. I find this preferable to committing them to a life where they are neither cared for nor wanted.
I suppose similar logic may be used to rationalize the "mercy killing" of the extremely mentally disabled. I do not, however, advocate indiscriminately killing handicapped people and such. My thoughts on this are arbitrary (like all law and philosophy), but as such, they have arbitrary limits which I have (hopefully) clearly defined.
I realize this will be unpopular, but I am interested in hearing what y'all have to say. In particular, I think the "pro-choice" crowd should give some interesting feedback.
Oh, by the way, don't any of your pro-lifers go thinking that this is the generally accepted view for the "pro-choice" movement. I know I'm fringe. Don't let me hurt your view of them. They are likely more sane than I.
:o 
