(September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.
Except, it is not eugenics. Eugenics have the specific meaning of improving the gene pool, which neither abortion nor euthanasia are concerned about. Ironically, those who would use abortion to eliminate homosexuals or for sex-selection are those who oppose abortion to begin with - therefore, granting human status to the unborn is not the way to forestall that since both have the same roots.
As for the "culling the inconvenient" argument goes, all societies have those inconvenient members. All modern societies also recognize the fact that while these members do have the right to live, what they don't have is the right live off another person. The right of the person to choose whether or not to support that another life is paramount. So, you don't have the right to force the relatives of the terminally ill or the retarded to keep paying for their continued existence and you don't have the right to force a woman to continue to sustain something that to all intents and purposes is a parasite. If and when such technology exists, you can come back and argue against abortion and in favor of transplanting the fetus into an artificial womb.
(September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.
Your hypocrisy lies in not affording the women the same choice. The choice of not having to sustain another human being simply because they don't choose to.
(September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.
So you are saying that even an accountant would have the "moral obligation" to give CPR or interfere with a robbery if he finds himself in that situation. And you rationalization for that is?
(September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.
No, they do. What they add to these two facts are 1) it should be capable of surviving in outside environment and 2) it should be born.
(September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.
We never do that when our own health and happiness is concerned. Letting the matters proceed naturally and without interference would require us not to treat any of the diseases or health problems we may come across. Why should we make an exception in this case?
(September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.
Oh, I agree. We are not deciding if they are worthy of living or not. Whether or not you are worthy of living would depend upon your life and your actions and the unborn clearly have neither. In fact, I'd say that no one, at the moment of their birth, is either worthy of living or worthy of dying - that's a chance that the parents are taking. What we do use those factors to decide is whether they are worth the trouble.
