Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think my argument still makes sense.
You could actually make a definition based on my argument:
"Death: When a human being has no more potential to have future experiences."
That is, in a nutshell, the definition of death. So yea, a brain-dead person is dead. Maybe the consent part is not as important in this case...thanks for the input.
so at what age does "it" become a human being with a right to life?Fair enough. I can work with that as an axiom. In this case the reason I feel abortion is an exception to the rule is that I do not feel a fetus is subject to the rule. I do not think a fetus is a human being (though personally I prefer the term person. I find it less subject to ambiguation).
Biologists everywhere are going to be surprised to learn of this revelation.
My ability to read! Do as I did and complete an Internet search. Use terms something like "is abortion safe" and you will have access to any number of research papers that all say the same thing - 'abortion is a very safe procedure when conducted in a medical facility by a trained professional'.
of course every person who believes in democracy is technically pro choice whether they believe that abortion is murdering a human being or not so if you are defining pro choice as simply a person who supports a persons right to choose without government interference that will include most every person in every democracy . saying that a person who supports abortion is "pro choice" is like calling a person who supports war "pro freedom" its nothing but abortion propaganda to gain support dont be such a tool !There are plenty of pro-life pro-choicers, and vice versa.
I think this is an interesting position and I certainly respect it. But it does elicit some questions. If it is completely wrong to kill a fetus isn't it also wrong to create technology, infrastructure, procedures, and training courses to help people do exactly that? If it's wrong to kill a fetus then isn't it wrong for abortion clinics to exist?
its not a permanent state for an unborn baby though so unless the brain dead person your referring to is temporarily brain dead it cannot be compared to an unborn baby . to reason that its ok to kill a fetus because it is temporarily unconscious is like saying its ok to kill a person who is temporarily in a coma or who is temporarily brain dead . its a temporary condition that will be resolved in the near (if the plug isnt pulled)There is no such thing as recovery from being brain dead...it is a permanent state.
By what definition of "mind"? They have rudimentary "hardware" but there isn't a lot going on in there until quite late in the piece. "Thought" as we understand it requires neural connections, and neural pathways simply don't exist early on.
its not a permanent state for an unborn baby though so unless the brain dead person your referring to is temporarily brain dead it cannot be compared to an unborn baby . to reason that its ok to kill a fetus because it is temporarily unconscious is like saying its ok to kill a person who is temporarily in a coma or who is temporarily brain dead . its a temporary condition that will be resolved in the near (if the plug isnt pulled)
I find this line of reasoning to be a slippery slope.
Is it okay to kill severely mentally handicapped human beings? What about babies? Do babies have what we would call "thoughts"? Do newborns have a "mind". They have all the rudimentary hardware...but is it all up and functioning? What about people who had serious strokes? Spinal injuries? People in comas?
That's a messy definition if I've ever seen one. "Consciousness", "thought", and "mind" are about some of the most vague concepts we know of. Basing our morality off it seems like a horrible idea.
I would say that "thought" requires language. And "consciousness" requires the ability to form memories. Newborn infants have neither.
While I mostly agree with you, I wanted to add the following:Yea, I think it is one of the most interestingly complex moral questions. It is a classic moral dilemma between two things, neither of which seem particularly moral.
It seems completely wrong to force a women to carry an unwanted child to term. I am not going to support legislation which criminalizes or inhibits women from choosing to have an abortion.
It also seems completely wrong to kill a fetus. I am not going to support legislation which encourages women to get abortions rather than carry them to term.
Both are wrong.
However, I think it is possible to recognize the immorality of abortion while also recognizing that outlawing it or criminalizing it would have horrible side-effects and wouldn't really solve the problem. I think the best approach is to encourage women to choose not to get an abortion.
Being pro-choice means you want them to have a choice. It doesn't imply which option you want them to choose. I want women to have the choice. But I don't want them to have abortions.
Does that make sense? I hope I explained my position well.
so you are against abortion after it becomes a person or do you believe that abortion should be a womans "choice" anytime up until she gives birth at 9 months?By what definition of "mind"? They have rudimentary "hardware" but there isn't a lot going on in there until quite late in the piece. "Thought" as we understand it requires neural connections, and neural pathways simply don't exist early on.
Well, if a woman desires to get married and have children - - already . . . before she even meets the father of her children . . . she loves the children she so desires to have, though she does not know them in detail, yet. So, in her love they are alive even before she gets married . . . before they are conceived. So, for her who loves her children, they never are "it"; they are alive in her love, even before they are conceived in her.so at what age does "it" become a human being with a right to life?
Are you saying that newborn babies have no thoughts?
That is a very difficult question, and I would prefer not to base my morality upon it.
A viable baby is never in a state of being "brain dead"... I never compared it to anything. I was simply refuting the argument that someone could be in a "temporary brain dead" state. The argument is irrelevant...a brain dead person is dead and not a good comparison to anything alive.
i dont think that an unborn human being is an "it" but i was asking that question of a person who did think an unborn human was an "it" a thing a non person and asking them at what age then did they think this non person became a human being with rightsWell, if a woman desires to get married and have children - - already . . . before she even meets the father of her children . . . she loves the children she so desires to have, though she does not know them in detail, yet. So, in her love they are alive even before she gets married . . . before they are conceived. So, for her who loves her children, they never are "it"; they are alive in her love, even before they are conceived in her.
And even before God forms a child in a womb, He already knows the child and loves the child; so - - - for God, the child is never an "it". Now, Jenny, I am not saying you mean this by calling an unborn "it" . . . but I have been told how pedophiles in communicating with each other can refer to a child as "it", never in a personal way of "he" or "she". They talk about them as objects to use.
But in personal loving we see children as children, to love and care for them, not as objects to use or obstacles to keep us from the lives we want to live. But one reason certain people commit abortion is because they fear who their child will later become in their lives; in a way, they can killing that future person so he or she does not make the woman responsible for caring for her child and having responsibilities which keep her from doing things she wants to do. And there are women who feel their child will cause social problems with her family and maybe her boyfriend; so they are killing that future potential person, so he or she is not a problem like they suppose.
But love makes alive and love gives life. We all in sin were love-dead > Ephesians 2:1 > "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins," So, God makes us alive to love whoever He loves.
I understand that when the virgin Mary had Jesus conceived in her, He was Jesus in her as soon as He was conceived by the Holy Spirit > never was He an "it". In the Bible, as soon as a woman who wants a child finds that she is pregnant, already she understands that God has given her a child . . . even though the child has not been born.
And ones who love their unborn can feel very broken if they miscarry. They can feel they have lost a child whom already they love very tenderly and dearly. So, love makes us able to consider the unborn our children . . . to personally love our unborn. So, the question could be, are we alive?
Well, a thought is a conscious thing, and an unborn can be conscious. But if thoughts have words which one needs to learn . . . this might be a problem for an unborn. And if the child has not been taught anything to think about, I suppose the child might not be able to think.I do not believe morality depends on it but I have zero doubts that a newborn is capable of thought. It really isn't a difficult question at all. Babies are not born "brain dead".
Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:
First premises:
This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:
- One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
- Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
- Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).
It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:
- Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
- Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
- Therefore abortion is immoral.
"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."
This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.
Furthermore it is possible to assign harm in cases of abortion whereas it is not possible to assign harm in cases of contraception. In cases of abortion a fetus or zygote is harmed because it is deprived of future, human experiences. But what is harmed in cases of contraception? It cannot be a singular sperm because there's no reason to assign harm to a sperm and not an ovum. It cannot be assigned to a singular ovum because there is no reason to assign harm to an ovum and not a sperm. It cannot be assigned to a sperm and ovum together because the possibilities during conception are so large that we can never know which sperm will fertilize which ovum. There is no actual agent to assign harm to that is not arbitrary in cases of contraception.
"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."
This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.
"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."
Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.
Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?