RE: The abortion paradox
September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm
(This post was last modified: September 6, 2012 at 2:54 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Gender is irrelevant to the veracity of my argument because it goes far beyond the abortion debate. What a society believes about the humanity of the unborn effects its views about the retarded, the terminally ill, and criminals, among others. Abortion, like euthanasia, is a form of eugenics, a way to cull society of inconvenient populations. As our technology advances this tool becomes even more threatening. We could now abort those genetically predisposed to homosexuality, clinical depression, blue eyes, or use it for simple sex selection (some already do). Recognizing the humanity of the unborn forestalls moving into those areas.
Some of you have suggested that I am a hypocrite. Not one of you could volunteer for every cause that you care about. To demand that from me before allowing me to express my opinion is itself hypocritical. Each of us is called to the area in which we can make the most difference. For some that is working with crisis pregnancies. I myself am drawn to hospice work. Just because that isn’t where others volunteer their time and talents, I do not resent people that still express compassion for the terminally ill. It is offensive to suggest that my compassion in one area is false just because my charitable giving focuses on another source of human suffering.
Relative to moral obligations, my keywords, genkaus, are "greater or lesser extent". Your examples of doctors and cops are what I had in mind on the "greater extent" side of the scale. I do not consider moral obligations simple yes/no propositions, they depend heavily on the issue and the capacities/roles of the people involved.
"Quite a few assumptions here. You are assuming it has humanity to begin with. You are also assuming that whether someone deserves to live can be determined and quantified." -genkaus.
I consider the humanity of the fetus a matter of biology. It has a unique and human genetic structure and it's natural course of development is into a rational being. I find that most arguments to the contrary do not consider these two facts. I am however open to considering an alternate view. And I am not the one making a judgment between those who deserve to live and who does not. I am saying that by and large we should let matters proceed as they naturally would without interference. I argue against judging whether the inconvienience of children or the quality of the environment they are born into are factors in whether or not they are worthy of living.
Some of you have suggested that I am a hypocrite. Not one of you could volunteer for every cause that you care about. To demand that from me before allowing me to express my opinion is itself hypocritical. Each of us is called to the area in which we can make the most difference. For some that is working with crisis pregnancies. I myself am drawn to hospice work. Just because that isn’t where others volunteer their time and talents, I do not resent people that still express compassion for the terminally ill. It is offensive to suggest that my compassion in one area is false just because my charitable giving focuses on another source of human suffering.
Relative to moral obligations, my keywords, genkaus, are "greater or lesser extent". Your examples of doctors and cops are what I had in mind on the "greater extent" side of the scale. I do not consider moral obligations simple yes/no propositions, they depend heavily on the issue and the capacities/roles of the people involved.
"Quite a few assumptions here. You are assuming it has humanity to begin with. You are also assuming that whether someone deserves to live can be determined and quantified." -genkaus.
I consider the humanity of the fetus a matter of biology. It has a unique and human genetic structure and it's natural course of development is into a rational being. I find that most arguments to the contrary do not consider these two facts. I am however open to considering an alternate view. And I am not the one making a judgment between those who deserve to live and who does not. I am saying that by and large we should let matters proceed as they naturally would without interference. I argue against judging whether the inconvienience of children or the quality of the environment they are born into are factors in whether or not they are worthy of living.
