Moral Status of an Unborn Child

FSTDT · Jan 18, 2006

shinbits said:
Again, if you don't have the moral conviction that human life is special, there's no way you would think an unborn babies life matters.

Alright, I'll bite. On what basis is the human taxonomic group "special" that applies to no other taxonomic group?

Or, better yet, what measures of moral value apply to the unborn fetus?

Edit to add: w00t w00t! Post #616!

shinbits · Jan 18, 2006

FSTDT said:
Alright, I'll bite. On what basis is the human taxonomic group "special" that applies to no other taxonomic group?

Or, better yet, what measures of moral value apply to the unborn fetus?

Look inside yourself. Can you really, in your own heart, equate a babies life with a snail?

loriersea · Jan 18, 2006

shinbits said:
If you don't have the conviction that human life is special, then there's no way to reason with you.
A human life is a matter of morals, not intellectual decision.

But, what exactly is it that makes human life special? Is it simply having human DNA? If that is all that makes human life special, then every single one of my skin cells is just as valuable as a person, and I am perpetrating a grave moral wrong when I use a loofah in the shower.

Human life is more than simply the sum of our DNA. What makes human life so special and meaningful is our ability to have connections, to have experiences. And, that requires more than human DNA. It requires the ability to have some level of higher brain activity, beyond just the basic processes of life (respiration, etc.) and the basic brain stem activity.

Do you think it is morally wrong to take someone who is brain-dead (who lacks brain activity in any part of their brain other than their brain stem) off of life support? Is it morally wrong to transplant their organs into a cognizant human being? If you don't believe it is, then you DO think there is more to being human, in a meaningful sense, then just having human DNA.

I think human life is very sacred, but not because there is anything sacred about our DNA. It is sacred because of our ability to have experiences and to have connections. For me, to say that a fertilized egg, or a first-trimester embryo, is a human being whose life is sacred makes as much sense to me as saying that my egg cell that created that embryo is sacred, and a grave moral wrong is being perpetrated when I do not get pregnant in a given menstrual cycle and allow that egg to be expelled and die.

So I think the question is why does human life have value? If it is simply because of our DNA, then there is no reason why every cell in our bodies shouldn't be considered as sacred as a person.

shinbits · Jan 18, 2006

loriersea said:
But, what exactly is it that makes human life special? Is it simply having human DNA?

I think you know the answer to that. If you don't, I think we have the reason why so many people are murdered in cold blood.

FSTDT · Jan 18, 2006

shinbits said:
FSTDT said:

Alright, I'll bite. On what basis is the human taxonomic group "special" that applies to no other taxonomic group?

Or, better yet, what measures of moral value apply to the unborn fetus?

Click to expand...

Look inside yourself. Can you really, in your own heart, equate a babies life with a snail?

I noticed you didn't answer either of my questions, which are pretty essential for you to support your point and convince me that pro-lifer is the way to go. But, I'll forgive that and answer your question:

I need to reiterate that species membership doesn't matter morally, the experiences do.

So, just comparing the species of a snail and a baby means nothing, but rather to get anything productive done we need to compare their mental level. A baby undoubtedly has a greater mental and feeling capacity than any snail, so a baby has a greater claim to moral value than any snail.

A 9-week-old fetus has no experiences, so it does not have a greater claim to moral value than a snail or a grown adult. I think intuitively, the comparison might be uncomfortable for you, but thats only because we've become so accustomed to thinking that species membership is actually morally relevant.

So, with that out of the way, what measures of moral value apply to the unborn fetus?

shinbits · Jan 18, 2006

FSTDT said:
A 9-week-old fetus has no experiences, so it does not have a greater claim to moral value than a snail or a grown adult. I think intuitively, the comparison might be uncomfortable for you, but thats only because we've become so accustomed to thinking that species membership is actually morally relevant.

If a five year old dog and a baby was trapped in a burning building, and you could only save one, would you chose the dog because it has experienced petting, playing, running and other experiences?

53Isaiah · Jan 18, 2006

My wife thinks I am an in overly analytical individual...
Do you stop and consider every decision in life the way you have above, or do you make value judgments as to what deserves this level of analysis?

FSTDT · Jan 18, 2006

shinbits said:
If a five year old dog and a baby was trapped in a burning building, and you could only save one, would you chose the dog because it has experienced petting, playing, running and other experiences?

See Peter Singer FAQ, the section on animal liberation, there is a similar Q&A related to your question that might interest you. In general, because are obligated to minmize the harm that we cause, we can expect a dog to live 10 more years of happy life and a baby to live 70 more years of happy life, so saving the baby would contribute to a greater amount of overall happiness in the universe than the dog. To answer your next question, if it were 50 dogs or one baby, I'd save the dogs... please don't be alarmed by this answer, because I'm certain this scenario will never occur in the real world. Of course, thats just me, start a new thread on the topic if you are seriously interested in discussing the topic at greater length. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your red herrings.

If you are interested in contributing significantly to this thread, could you please answer the question I've been asking since the beginning: what measures of moral value apply to the fetus?

If you sincerely don't have an answer to the question, just say "I don't know", and I'll have a lot more respect for you has an honest human being than someone who tries to dodge the question with irrelevant red herrings.

Isaiah53 said:
Do you stop and consider every decision in life the way you have above, or do you make value judgments as to what deserves this level of analysis?

I've always had a dream of becoming an applied bioethicist, so yes, I do a lot of thinking on everything

shinbits · Jan 18, 2006

53Isaiah said:
Do you stop and consider every decision in life the way you have above, or do you make value judgments as to what deserves this level of analysis?

No, not about every little decision.

I think you'd agree, that some decisions warrent more value judments then others.
Deciding what kind of cereal you should by is not as important as what college to go to.

53Isaiah said:
My wife thinks I am an in overly analytical individual...

Perhaps.

shinbits · Jan 18, 2006

FSTDT said:
. In general, because are obligated to minmize the harm that we cause, we can expect a dog to live 10 more years of happy life and a baby to live 70 more years of happy life, so saving the baby would contribute to a greater amount of overall happiness in the universe than the dog.

So, by your own logic, it would be better to not abort a fetus, since letting it live would contribute to 70 more years of happy life.

53Isaiah · Jan 18, 2006

FSTDT said:
Otherwise, I'm not interested in your red herrings.

You do realize that this statement caused a chemical reaction in some of those reading this thread resulting in a reduced sense of happiness and thus their moral value.

[thinking; not sure how much longer I can ride the philosophical train this thread has become]

shinbits · Jan 18, 2006

53Isaiah said:
You do realize that this statement caused a chemical reaction in some of those reading this thread resulting in a reduced sense of happiness and thus their moral value.

[thinking; not sure how much longer I can ride the philosophical train this thread has become]

I think your train ride is pretty cool.

53Isaiah · Jan 18, 2006

FSTDT said:
I've always had a dream of becoming an applied bioethicist, so yes, I do a lot of thinking on everything

So youre a lover of the process as much if not more than the outcome?

belladonic-haze · Jan 18, 2006

I believe life is precious...no matter how simple that life may seem. But many think that life has to be about quantity, instead of quality. AND that is the biggest mistake. Pro-life is wonderful and I truly respect that and agree on so many levels. Life starts at the beginning of conception. Even if life has no self awareness (and honestly we can not measure that fact yet) doesn't mean it has no right being treated with respect. Sometimes it means that the quality is so low (pain, suffering, misery) that life is just a road of agony. And believe me, I have done my thesis on genetic disorders in unborn children, some unborn children are going through hell. But abortion is not the only way. You can have your child and make the child comfortable and love it, even if the life (after birth) is only 5 minutes.....It is the choice you make as a parent. You want what is best for the child....(and I am purely talking about serious defects here). If abortion is for a parent a way to end the life of the unborn child to make it suffer no more...I respect that as well....

Some day I will be in a very bad physical state and my hubs knows that my life has to have quality, not quantity. I do not want to spend my life depending on machines, not able to communicate with people or to experience the world around me. Euthanasia is not forbidden in my country and it can be done active with meds. I applaud that.

To me, abortion is euthanasia. It isn't a decision you make lightly....the parents go through hell and back and they will loose their child. They mourn it and need guidance on a mental, spiritual and usually level. I have talked to doctors who had to bring the bad news to a parent. "Your child is seriously ill and has NO change of having a good life..."

The trouble is the thin line. When is abortion really needed.

Life of the mother is in mortal danger and she will die if she doesn't have an abortion.
The child has no way of a survival (but NO doctor can guarantee that 100%...miracles do happen)
The mother has severe mental problems
The mother is not able to provide for the child.
The woman is raped and conceived (that number is really low...thank God we have a defense mechanism that somehow lowers the change to conceive tremdously during rape)

I always say: Before you start excusing a parent of murder, look at every case in it self. No human being is the same, no case is the same...and it is hard enough for the pregnant woman to do this.....it can cause mental problems, feelings of guilt and so on....... The least these women need is some idiot to tell them they are murderers

You have no idea what they are going through unless you have walked at least a mile in their shoes...

FSTDT · Jan 18, 2006

shinbits said:
If the future is a consideration, then wouldn't it be better to not abort a fetus, since letting it live would contribute to 70 more years of happy life?

Sorry, I'm not that type of utilitarian. My particular kind of utilitarianism is called Prior Existence Utilitarianism, which means if there are no interests which exist in the first place, then I do not deprive the world of anything. It follows very simply from the fact that you cannot deprive the world of something which does not exist. The part in silver is wrong, I wrote this post too quickly the first time. Prior Existence Utilitarianism means in so far as a person's interests are affected, we are obligated to consider them; sorry if there was any confusion

If the above fact were never taken into consideration, then anyone who didn't have as many babies as they possibly could endlessly and endlessly would be committing acts of murder, but that hardly makes sense does it?

In terms of abortion, it works like this: we weigh our actions against the number of interests affected. If a woman carries her pregnancy to term, her actions affect her childs interests; if she has an abortion, her actions affect no interests at all, because they do not exist.

53Isaiah said:
You do realize that this statement caused a chemical reaction in some of those reading this thread resulting in a reduced sense of happiness and thus their moral value.

Hopefully, as a consequence, it'll click with anyone who reads it, so that they'll stop making moral judgments based on irrelevant qualities like species membership, and overall maybe they'll stop contributing to cruel animal practices.

53Isaiah said:
So youre a lover of the process as much if not more than the outcome?

Yes. I guess it makes me a pretty shoddy utilitarian, eh?

53Isaiah · Jan 18, 2006

FSTDT said:
Yes. I guess it makes me a pretty shoddy utilitarian, eh?

I was once a professional thought thinker and would have you consider the opportunity cost of doing the same (thinking not doing). I am sure we'll run into each other again, till then...

sethad · Jan 18, 2006

When it comes to suffering...different sources tend to say different things of when the unborn baby can feel pain. I've seen things ranging from 8 weeks to 12 weeks to 24 weeks to 26 weeks to 28 weeks...to 30 weeks...etc.

One source I remember saying was that it was in stages...at 8 weeks the fetus could feel pain in one part of the body...at such and such a week another part and so on. That makes sense because the nervous system is developing...

I also read an article that says that the fetus doesnt have the same structure for feeling pain as adults. That article was refuting a claim that unborn babies cant feel pain before 29 or 30 weeks and can be found here judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/anand110105.pdf

I honestly think, that no one is positive and really knows.

As for conciousness...most sources I've seen say 26 weeks. But again I don't think that's a definite either.

shinbits · Jan 18, 2006

FSTDT said:
Sorry, I'm not that type of utilitarian. My particular kind of utilitarianism is called Prior Existence Utilitarianism, which means if there are no interests which exist in the first place, then I do not deprive the world of anything.

Again, if you're looking for an intellectual justification against abortion, there is none. Logically speaking, if you kill a fetus, that's less work to worry about.

The same for a newborn baby.

Or a one year old.

An elder person.

While we're at it, intellectually speaking, let's pick an empoverished country, and wipe out every last useless citizen, since there's overcrowding in the world.

With the land free from the genocide of useless poor people, we can use thier land to build hotel resorts, and turn that impoverished land into a prosperous, ecconomical structure.

Intellect without morals is worthless.
You can't intellectually decide an unborn human beings life.

It's a moral thing, to let the baby live.

Peace.

FSTDT · Jan 18, 2006

shinbits said:
Again, if you're looking for an intellectual justification against abortion, there is none.

You are free to refute the main point of this thread, which would be to provide a measure of moral value which applies to the fetus.

Logically speaking, if you kill a fetus, that's less work to worry about.

The same for a newborn baby.

Or a one year old.

An elder person.

While we're at it, intellectually speaking, let's pick an empoverished country, and wipe out every last useless citizen, since there's overcrowding in the world.

With the land free from the genocide of useless poor people, we can use thier land to build hotel resorts, and turn that impoverished land into a prosperous, ecconomical structure.

Lets not, because that contributes to so much gratuitous harm when otherwise everyone could enjoy their existence. See post #29.

Maybe I never mentioned this earlier, but being pro-choice does not mean being misanthropic. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Try explaining what measures of moral value apply to the unborn fetus, and if you can do that coherently I'll stop being pro-choice. But otherwise, your strawman arguments that being pro-choice means killing everyone on the planet are unpersuasive and irritating.

shinbits · Jan 18, 2006

FSTDT said:
your strawman arguments that being pro-choice means killing everyone on the planet are unpersuasive and irritating.

That was mere hyperbole.

It was only to stress a point, not to accuse anyone of misanthropy.

As far as abortion, we don't have the right to decide that a human being should die because it's inconvenient.
If this is why we kill a baby, I can't see how it's moral in any way.

Moral Status of an Unborn Child

Yahweh

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Yahweh

Well-Known Member

2 Timothy 4:1-8

Yahweh

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

2 Timothy 4:1-8

Well-Known Member

2 Timothy 4:1-8

belladonic-haze

Guest

Yahweh

2 Timothy 4:1-8

I'm not [senDing sublimInal messagEs!]

Well-Known Member

Yahweh

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency