Abortion

[Seditious]

So does that make ethical to 'put-down' your newborn? If a newborn isnt life, am I?

 

If you have ever read philospher Peter Singer's works, they basically encapsulate my own views.

 

According to Singer, some humans are non-persons, while some non-human animals are persons. The key is not nature or species membership, but consciousness. A pre-conscious human cannot suffer as much as a conscious horse. In dealing with animals, we care only about their quality of life. We put a horse that has broken its leg out of its misery as quickly as possible. This merciful act spares the animal an untold amount of needless suffering. If we look upon human animals in the same fashion, our opposition to killing those who are suffering will begin to dissolve. The "quality-of-life" ethic has a tangible correlative when it relates to suffering; the "sanctity-of-life" seemingly relates to a mere vapor.

 

Here is where Singer picks up his detractors. According to this avant garde thinker, unborn babies or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to be killed than a mature pig. Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:

 

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.

 

There are much better representations of his philosphy, but I was unable to find any google, and I really don't want to sit here and search all day.

[Aardvark]

If you have ever read philospher Peter Singer's works, they basically encapsulate my own views.

 

I'm aware of Peter Singers views.

 

Are you serious in that you agree with him or are you just trying to provoke an argument?

[Seditious]

I'm aware of Peter Singers views.

 

Are you serious in that you agree with him or are you just trying to provoke an argument?

 

I know that some consider his views contraversial' date=' but no, I'm not trolling to provoke any arguments. I view human life virtually the same way, and I don't consider a mere fetus, which has no capacity to engage in the things that you and I can (self awareness is a major factor for me. How can you consider a fetus a "life" when it isn't developed enough to have [i']anything[/i] resembling self awareness?).

 

This is simply my opinion, and I'm certainlty entitled to it, as are the people who genuinely believe in "a higher power," something I consider utterly absurd. This is one of the only rational arguments I can think of for why anyone would honestly believe that an embryo has the same rights as a fully developed human being.

[Aardvark]

Would it be fair to say that you place a value on life according to the degree of intellectual development? Or am i over simplifying?

[john5746]

I don't consider a fetus to be "alive" until it is born. And I hate to sound like such a cold-hearted bitch' date=' I'm really not, but I don't really consider a newborn to be a "life" either.[/quote']

 

I agree with some of your opinions, but please don't have children.

[Seditious]

Would it be fair to say that you place a value on life according to the degree of intellectual development? Or am i over simplifying?

 

That's a major oversimplification of my personal views, as I don't believe that at all. I think I see where you're going with this, and no, I don't hold any "elitistish" only-the-intelligent-should-be-permitted-to-live kind of views, but I do believe that self awareness is a critical factor in determining whether or not a fetus has a right to live. I don't think a fetus is entitled to that right.

[Seditious]

I agree with some of your opinions, but please don't have children.

 

Eventually, I think I would like to have one. But only one...

[Aardvark]

That's a major oversimplification of my personal views, as I don't believe that at all. I think I see where you're going with this, and no, I don't hold any "elitistish" only-the-intelligent-should-be-permitted-to-live kind of views, but I do believe that self awareness is a critical factor in determining whether or not a fetus has a right to live. I don't think a fetus is entitled to that right.

 

Actually, i not 'going' anywhere with this, i'm trying to understand your viewpoint.

 

Singers view quite clearly states that he believes that the degree of intellectual development in an organism is the objective measurement of its 'value'. Which is why he would consider the suffering of an intelligent chimpanzee to be more important than that of a retarded human being.

 

If you don't actually believe that, then what do you believe?

[Seditious]

Actually' date=' i not 'going' anywhere with this, i'm trying to understand your viewpoint.

 

Singers view quite clearly states that he believes that the degree of intellectual development in an organism is the objective measurement of its 'value'. Which is why he would consider the suffering of an intelligent chimpanzee to be more important than that of a retarded human being.

 

If you don't actually believe that, then what do you believe?[/quote']

 

Singers views are not that a life is deemed valuable based on its "intellectual developement," but rather that a life is deemed worthy of rights when it is capable of the rudimentary finctions most humans enjoy. The most important one, in my opinion, is self awareness, which fetus's and some of the mentally disabled lack.

 

And can I ask what your stance on abortion is?

[Sayonara]

That's a major oversimplification of my personal views, as I don't believe that at all. I think I see where you're going with this, and no, I don't hold any "elitistish" only-the-intelligent-should-be-permitted-to-live kind of views, but I do believe that self awareness is a critical factor in determining whether or not a fetus has a right to live. I don't think a fetus is entitled to that right.

Is the fact that a foetus has a time-dependent requirement that forces it to be "not self-aware" not a factor in your reasoning?

 

It seems a little like shooting someone at the start of an exam because they haven't had their paper marked yet. Granted that analogy is a touch affective, but it was the best I could come up with for this scenario.

[Mart]

Is the fact that a foetus has a time-dependent requirement that forces it to be "not self-aware" not a factor in your reasoning?

 

Is it a fact? Can you cite studies?

[Sayonara]

The other two scenarios are (a) one in which a foetus is self-aware for the duration of its existence as a foetus, which I don't need to evidence, or (b) one in which the foetus is not yet self-aware because it's just being lazy, which is just stupid.

[syntax252]

One important distinction is the six month fetus requires the mother' date=' or other medical equipment to continue living.

 

[/quote']

 

But a 3 month old baby requires care too. If nobody fed it and kept it warm it would die. Kids are not viable until they are able to fend for themselves, which is what, 5,6,7 years old?

[In My Memory]

Is the fact that a foetus has a time-dependent requirement that forces it to be "not self-aware" not a factor in your reasoning?

 

It seems a little like shooting someone at the start of an exam because they haven't had their paper marked yet. Granted that analogy is a touch affective' date=' but it was the best I could come up with for this scenario.[/quote']

What do you mean by "time-dependent requirement"?

 

The other two scenarios are (a) one in which a foetus is self-aware for the duration of its existence as a foetus, which I don't need to evidence, or (b) one in which the foetus is not yet self-aware because it's just being lazy, which is just stupid.

© the brain structures of the fetus are too underdeveloped to facilitate self-awareness.

[Sayonara]

What do you mean by "time-dependent requirement"?

This:

© the brain structures of the fetus are too underdeveloped to facilitate self-awareness.

 

Hurrah!

[john5746]

But a 3 month old baby requires care too. If nobody fed it and kept it warm it would die. Kids are not viable until they are able to fend for themselves, which is what, 5,6,7 years old?

 

Some need care their entire lives. If you could "beam" the fetus out of the womb with no damage/danger to the woman, into another womb, then I would equate this to a 3 month old baby situation.

 

I don't think you should kill a 3 month old baby when there are people who will take care of the baby. Same with any sick person who needs care.

[Seditious]

Is the fact that a foetus has a time-dependent requirement that forces it to be "not self-aware" not a factor in your reasoning?

 

It seems a little like shooting someone at the start of an exam because they haven't had their paper marked yet. Granted that analogy is a touch affective' date=' but it was the best I could come up with for this scenario.[/quote']

 

No, the fact that self-awareness comes only through time is not a factor at all, I couldn't care less about the time it takes for the fetus to become self-aware. But it isn't self-aware as a fetus, that's indisputable. That is what I care about. The fact that it lacks the rudimentary capacities, like self-awareness, that make us human mean that its not entitled to the same rights as you or I, in my opinion.

[Mart]

No, the fact that self-awareness comes only through time is not a factor at all, I couldn't care less about the time it takes for the fetus to become self-aware. But it isn't self-aware as a fetus, that's indisputable. That is what I care about. The fact that it lacks the rudimentary capacities, like self-awareness, that make us human[/i'] mean that its not entitled to the same rights as you or I, in my opinion.

 

So are there degrees of self-awareness? Or is it an all or nothing thing?

[syntax252]

Some need care their entire lives. If you could "beam" the fetus out of the womb with no damage/danger to the woman' date=' into another womb, then I would equate this to a 3 month old baby situation.

 

I don't think you should kill a 3 month old baby when there are people who will take care of the baby. Same with any sick person who needs care.[/quote']

 

Me too.

 

But who pays for that care?

[syntax252]

No, the fact that self-awareness comes only through time is not a factor at all, I couldn't care less about the time it takes for the fetus to become self-aware. But it isn't self-aware as a fetus, that's indisputable. That is what I care about. The fact that it lacks the rudimentary capacities, like self-awareness, that make us human[/i'] mean that its not entitled to the same rights as you or I, in my opinion.

 

There are people in a coma who are not self aware too.

[Sayonara]

No, the fact that self-awareness comes only through time is not a factor at all, I couldn't care less about the time it takes for the fetus to become self-aware. But it isn't self-aware as a fetus, that's indisputable. That is what I care about. The fact that it lacks the rudimentary capacities, like self-awareness, that make us human[/i'] mean that its not entitled to the same rights as you or I, in my opinion.

Good lord. Someone actually answered a question in a direct and meaningful fashion.

 

Cheers.

[Seditious]

Good lord. Someone actually answered a question in a direct and meaningful fashion.

 

Cheers.

 

Is that a pretty uncommon thing around here? *glances around fearfully*

[Sayonara]

Not so much, but over the past two days it seems everyone I have discussed things with has been playing Twisty Turny Odd Replies.

[Seditious]

Not so much, but over the past two days it seems everyone I have discussed things with has been playing Twisty Turny Odd Replies.

 

Hmmm.... *raises her eyebrow*

 

[Aardvark]

Singers views are not that a life is deemed valuable based on its "intellectual developement," but rather that a life is deemed worthy of rights[/i'] when it is capable of the rudimentary finctions most humans enjoy. The most important one, in my opinion, is self awareness, which fetus's and some of the mentally disabled lack.

 

A slight difference of semantics. A high degree of intellectual development is required to achieve self awareness, ergo the rights an individual enjoys under this system of ethics is judged by the degree of intellectual development.

 

 

Personally i find this system of ethics rather dubious. How do we define self awareness, or even degrees of self awareness and why is self awareness so important in itself? It seems rather vague and arbitrary to me. Perhaps you can answer my concerns?

 

And can I ask what your stance on abortion is?

 

Certainly, my view is that abortion is a minefield of conflicting 'rights' which makes it impossible for me to honestly completely agree with the positions of either the 'right to lifers' or the 'pro-choicers'. I think anyone who claims to have the final answer, as in, all abortions are fine, or all abortions are wrong, is being by definition absurd.

 

Admitting that the rigid application of logic has failed i turn to my emotional, irrational response (i have a healthy trust in my instincts) and pragmatism.

 

My basic instincts impell me to be protective of the weak and defenceless. My pragmatism tells me that forcing women to bear children they don't want is unacceptable. Therefore abortion should be legal to the end of the 1st Trimester. Moral and practical support should be provided for vunerable women who might otherwise find themselves tempted by abortion out of hardship. Adoption services should be encouraged, just because the natural Mother is unable to care for the baby doesn't necessarily mean that it could not have a loving home.

 

I consider partial birth abortion to be murder. The abortionist and the Mother should go to prison for a very long time.

 

As you can see, i make no claims of certainty for my stance on abortion, i'm not a zealot on the matter and like to think i have a moderately open mind. Abortion is a very complex moral matter and i don't believe in simple easy answers.