Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life

[JoeyArnold]

What is more important? Choice or life? Please choose your choice (response) if you are alive. If you are not alive, you cannot even choose to answer my question. You cannot have a choice if you are not alive.

People who are for abortion are pro-choice. People against it are pro-life. You cannot have choice without life. If your mother aborted you, you would not be allowed to be pro-choice because you would not be alive.

 

[ADTClone]

What is more important? Choice or life? Please choose your choice (response) if you are alive. If you are not alive, you cannot even choose to answer my question. You cannot have a choice if you are not alive.

People who are for abortion are pro-choice. People against it are pro-life. You cannot have choice without life. If your mother aborted you, you would not be allowed to be pro-choice because you would not be alive.

The first question you must ask yourself before you can pursue this question is what is a person? What are the conditions to classify someone as a "person"?

I tend to stick to the philosophical definition of a person as a "moral autonomous agent". In other words, a person must be able to think for themselves and must be able to decide between right and wrong before we can consider them a person.

Now this is a strict definition, as we wouldn't generally classify say a two year old child as a person(as they do not know the difference between right and wrong yet, ie. are not fully autonomous), so I would like to relax it for this discussion.

A person for this discussion will be an autonomous agent; a being that can think for itself.

The brain of a foetus starts to develop at about week 4 in the pregnancy. At around week 9, the nervous system is developed to a stage where it is quite functional. With our relaxed definition of person, we can say a foetus becomes a "person" between Week 4 - 10 when the brain is developed to an extent to where the baby can interact with its surroundings; its reality.

Hence, before week 4, the foetus really isn't a person and I don't see a problem with abortion. It is equivalent to the death of sperm in that the foetus is not a person. Between weeks 4-10 whether an abortion is okay or not would need to be researched to determine whether the foetus could be classified as a person. After week 10, I would say the foetus is a person and shouldn't be aborted.

However, I will grant exceptions to this, and this leads onto your argument that the aborted baby wouldn't get a chance to voice its say. Lets say the baby develops a severe genetic defect that would hinder it for the rest of its life. Would it be wise to bring that child into the world knowing that it will go through major pain throughout its life? Would it be wise to bring that child into the world knowing that their genetics could bring about the same defects in other children? Should the parent be required to undergo major stress in their life for a genetic mutation in their child?

At that stage, it should be up to the parent whether or not to abort their child, and that choice should be available for them up until they are ready to give birth.

 

[JoeyArnold]

What do you think about killing pets, animals, dogs, cats?

 

[IanCG]

What is more important? Choice or life? Please choose your choice (response) if you are alive. If you are not alive, you cannot even choose to answer my question. You cannot have a choice if you are not alive.

People who are for abortion are pro-choice. People against it are pro-life. You cannot have choice without life. If your mother aborted you, you would not be allowed to be pro-choice because you would not be alive.

What is more important, trying to impregnate as many people as humanly possible to prevent your sperm from dying, or allowing your seed to die?

Keep in mind, you're only alive because your parents had sex. If your parents didn't have sex, you wouldn't be able to answer this question. Just think of all the brothers and sisters you don't have because your parents weren't continuously locked in coitus.

 

[IanCG]

What do you think about killing pets, animals, dogs, cats?

There are certain circumstances where I could kill anyone or anything.

 

[TomZzyzx]

The first question you must ask yourself before you can pursue this question is what is a person? What are the conditions to classify someone as a "person"?

I tend to stick to the philosophical definition of a person as a "moral autonomous agent". In other words, a person must be able to think for themselves and must be able to decide between right and wrong before we can consider them a person.

Now this is a strict definition, as we wouldn't generally classify say a two year old child as a person(as they do not know the difference between right and wrong yet, ie. are not fully autonomous), so I would like to relax it for this discussion.

A person for this discussion will be an autonomous agent; a being that can think for itself.

The brain of a foetus starts to develop at about week 4 in the pregnancy. At around week 9, the nervous system is developed to a stage where it is quite functional. With our relaxed definition of person, we can say a foetus becomes a "person" between Week 4 - 10 when the brain is developed to an extent to where the baby can interact with its surroundings; its reality.

Hence, before week 4, the foetus really isn't a person and I don't see a problem with abortion. It is equivalent to the death of sperm in that the foetus is not a person. Between weeks 4-10 whether an abortion is okay or not would need to be researched to determine whether the foetus could be classified as a person. After week 10, I would say the foetus is a person and shouldn't be aborted.

However, I will grant exceptions to this, and this leads onto your argument that the aborted baby wouldn't get a chance to voice its say. Lets say the baby develops a severe genetic defect that would hinder it for the rest of its life. Would it be wise to bring that child into the world knowing that it will go through major pain throughout its life? Would it be wise to bring that child into the world knowing that their genetics could bring about the same defects in other children? Should the parent be required to undergo major stress in their life for a genetic mutation in their child?

At that stage, it should be up to the parent whether or not to abort their child, and that choice should be available for them up until they are ready to give birth.

"Personhood" is possibly the worse argument to make if you're trying to determine if it's ok to kill an innocent human being.

The real first question you should ask is "what is the unborn"?

If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification is necessary for abortion.
If the unborn is a human being, then no justification is adequate for abortion.

 

[IanCG]

Then it comes down to what defines a human being. For me, it's cognitive thought and sentience.

After that, I believe a woman's right to bodily integrity supersedes an unborn's right to inhabit her body, though if it's far enough along to be viable, you might as well deliver it.

 

[ADTClone]

"Personhood" is possibly the worse argument to make if you're trying to determine if it's ok to kill an innocent human being.

The real first question you should ask is "what is the unborn"?

If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification is necessary for abortion.
If the unborn is a human being, then no justification is adequate for abortion.

No, it is a perfectly sane perspective on the issue.

When is the unborn a human being? Would you call a foetus without a brain a human being? Could sperm be a human being? Where is the distinction between unborn human being and simply an unborn thing?

My use of the "person" argument simply provides a point where we can make that distinction.

What is your distinction for when the unborn becomes a human being?

 

[ADTClone]

What do you think about killing pets, animals, dogs, cats?

The topic of killing animals is very similar and also very distant.

Personally, I would not kill any of my pets(unless they are in much pain) because I view them as companions.

I, like many human beings, also would hesitate to kill any domesticated animals. This is because we as human beings see them as morally responsible for their actions. If a dog pees in the house, we punish him as we hold him morally responsible for what he does. When we treat these domesticated animals in this way, we start to perceive them as people.

This applies to all other types of domesticated animals, and is the reason I believe we see animal lovers going nuts over people who kill and eat dogs as food, but don't mind as much when we kill chickens for food.

When we talk about animals such as insects, I would kill them. I do not perceive them as related to a person simply because they do not represent a person in any obvious way. I don't mind the killing of animals such as sheep, cows, pigs, chickens ext as I have been brought up to see them as food; perceive them as food and not morally autonomous agents.

Anyway, the point is whether killing animals is right or wrong is a contentious topic and very difficult to answer in general. In the perspective of what is good for the human race, it would be moral to kill some animals(for food, to protect ourselves) and immoral to kill other animals(pets which assist in our survival through protection/increasing happiness/providing a companion).

I would not hesitate aborting any of my pets or any other animals unborn children however, and the reason is that we don't perceive them as morally autonomous agents.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Then it comes down to what defines a human being. For me, it's cognitive thought and sentience.

After that, I believe a woman's right to bodily integrity supersedes an unborn's right to inhabit her body, though if it's far enough along to be viable, you might as well deliver it.

Unlike "person" or "personhood" there is a definitive definition for "human being". Human Being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the speices Homo Sapiens. The unborn definitely fits this definition. Therefore, the unborn is a human being.

 

[IanCG]

Unlike "person" or "personhood" there is a definitive definition for "human being". Human Being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the speices Homo Sapiens. The unborn definitely fits this definition. Therefore, the unborn is a human being.

It's human, not necessarily a "being".

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, it is a perfectly sane perspective on the issue.

When is the unborn a human being? Would you call a foetus without a brain a human being? Could sperm be a human being? Where is the distinction between unborn human being and simply an unborn thing?

My use of the "person" argument simply provides a point where we can make that distinction.

What is your distinction for when the unborn becomes a human being?

Again, here is the definition; Human Being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the speices Homo Sapiens.

Sperm is can never be called a human being. Sperm is part of a human being, but it is not a whole human being.

There is no such thing as an "unborn thing". Every unborn is part of a particular species. There are unborn dogs, unborn cats, unborn whales, and unborn human beings.

As you say "my use of person" demonstrates that there isn't a definitive definition of "person". It can mean something different to anyone. For instance, my definition of a person is, "any person of the Human family, at any stage of development, from conception to death". Since there isn't a definitive definition for "person" then I believe we should never use "person" to determine if it is ok to kill an innocent human being.

 

[IanCG]

Someone who is completely brain dead is a human being as well, but I don't consider them to be a person and I actually consider it immoral to keep their body functioning when no mind exists.

 

[ADTClone]

Again, here is the definition; Human Being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the speices Homo Sapiens.

Sperm is can never be called a human being. Sperm is part of a human being, but it is not a whole human being.

There is no such thing as an "unborn thing". Every unborn is part of a particular species. There are unborn dogs, unborn cats, unborn whales, and unborn human beings.

As you say "my use of person" demonstrates that there isn't a definitive definition of "person". It can mean something different to anyone. For instance, my definition of a person is, "any person of the Human family, at any stage of development, from conception to death". Since there isn't a definitive definition for "person" then I believe we should never use "person" to determine if it is ok to kill an innocent human being.

Okay, I assume then you believe that abortion is immoral from the moment the sperm digs into the egg and the foetus starts to develop.

In that case, what is the reason why killing a "human being" is immoral?

Furthermore, can we make a statement that an undeveloped one week old foetus is innocent? Doesn't innocence require a moral agent? For example, it makes no sense to say my computer is innocent because it doesn't have the capabilities that we do to think.

Is there any cases where it is moral to kill another human being?

 

[ADTClone]

Someone who is completely brain dead is a human being as well, but I don't consider them to be a person and I actually consider it immoral to keep their body functioning when no mind exists.

I agree, that's where we run into problems with the "human being" definition. The question, which I asked Tom, is naturally to justify why it is immoral to kill a human being, and in which cases is it moral and why.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

I'm Pro-Choice, but I don't have respect for women who get an abortion just cause they can. I support the right, just don't expect me to support you.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Okay, I assume then you believe that abortion is immoral from the moment the sperm digs into the egg and the foetus starts to develop.

In that case, what is the reason why killing a "human being" is immoral?

Furthermore, can we make a statement that an undeveloped one week old foetus is innocent? Doesn't innocence require a moral agent? For example, it makes no sense to say my computer is innocent because it doesn't have the capabilities that we do to think.

Is there any cases where it is moral to kill another human being?

I'm assuming since you are changing the subject then we both agree that the unborn are whole human beings and that personhood is not a good way to determine if it is ok to kill an innocent human being.

I do believe that abortion is immoral because I believe morality is objective. If you do not believe in objective morality and believe morality is subjective then whatever reason I give you will not make sense to you and we would never agree on it. Do you believe morality is objective or subjective?

I mean innocent in the legal sense that the unborn is not guilty of any crime worthy of death.

 

[ADTClone]

I'm assuming since you are changing the subject then we both agree that the unborn are whole human beings and that personhood is not a good way to determine if it is ok to kill an innocent human being.

I do believe that abortion is immoral because I believe morality is objective. If you do not believe in objective morality and believe morality is subjective then whatever reason I give you will not make sense to you and we would never agree on it. Do you believe morality is objective or subjective?

I mean innocent in the legal sense that the unborn is not guilty of any crime worthy of death.

Well, no I haven't changed the subject, I am completely on the subject. I am considering your view point. I agree that unborn babies, in their foetus forms can be classified as the human genus. Whether it's okay to kill a human being is not contingent on the label we put on the foetus.

You said that in your eyes an unborn foetus is a human being, and I said well, yes it is. You then generalised and implied the argument "since it's a human being, and killing innocent human beings are wrong, killing a foetus is wrong", and I asked you why. That is not a change in subject.

Now onto your point about morality.

I believe all morality is inherently subjective. We can create models of objective morality which capture the collective intents of many of our subjective morals(such as murder is wrong).

If you are talking about innocence in a legal sense, then you're back into the realm of subjective morals. I assume when you say you believe in objective morality, you mean an absolute morality(such as a God or divine being)? Could you clarify that please, and continue on making your point.

EDIT: And as a note, I still personally hold that person-hood is a better way to determine the question of abortion than classification of a genus. However, I'd like to focus on your view point for now.

 

[joshuacox]

i disagree the question isn't if you like, want, or are cool with abortion. The question is do you want thousands of teenage girls our on daughters and sisters shoving clothes hangers inside them selves, or going to the doctor. women have found a way to end unwanted pregnancy for all of human history. The question is. If you come home from work to your daughter having tried the coat hanger thing on herself out of fear of telling you her hormones got the best of her. Do you think she should now be imprisoned for up to life. You have to way the worst case before you allow the government to pass laws on us.

 

[Paradoxum]

What is more important? Choice or life? Please choose your choice (response) if you are alive. If you are not alive, you cannot even choose to answer my question. You cannot have a choice if you are not alive.

People who are for abortion are pro-choice. People against it are pro-life. You cannot have choice without life. If your mother aborted you, you would not be allowed to be pro-choice because you would not be alive.

More important in what way? Neither are more important, but it depends on the situation. Normally people want life and then want choice to be able to live a free life. But if you are slowly dying and in great suffering, then you might value the choice to kill yourself more than life.

I know that if my mother had had an abortion then I wouldn't be alive. If anything tiny change in my parents lives had happened I might not have been alive. If they used contraception I might not be alive. If a butterfly flapped its wings in the distant past I might not be alive.

"Personhood" is possibly the worse argument to make if you're trying to determine if it's ok to kill an innocent human being.

It is quite a fair thing to talk about when you are talking to people who know roughly what it means. But it seems that most people don't have a clue.

The real first question you should ask is "what is the unborn"?

If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification is necessary for abortion.
If the unborn is a human being, then no justification is adequate for abortion.

I see no reason why that would be true. In fact it sounds speciesist to me.

Unlike "person" or "personhood" there is a definitive definition for "human being". Human Being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the speices Homo Sapiens. The unborn definitely fits this definition. Therefore, the unborn is a human being.

Tell me what the definition of 'human being' is then?

Maybe the unborn does fit this, but I don't find it to be obvious.

Again, here is the definition; Human Being - any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the speices Homo Sapiens.

What must one be to be in the genus Homo?

As you say "my use of person" demonstrates that there isn't a definitive definition of "person". It can mean something different to anyone. For instance, my definition of a person is, "any person of the Human family, at any stage of development, from conception to death". Since there isn't a definitive definition for "person" then I believe we should never use "person" to determine if it is ok to kill an innocent human being.

The definition of person isn't as vague as you think it is. Your definition is wrong. You are defining a human, not a person.

But you might be right that for most people it is easy not to talk about personhood. That is why I have started talking about the right to life and how the fetus can't possibly qualify to have it.