RE: Abortion is morally wrong
June 20, 2014 at 10:01 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2014 at 10:19 pm by GrandizerII.)
(June 20, 2014 at 7:19 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Esquilax, I will attempt to address your arguments in this post.
I believe what a human fits firmly in with genetics. In fact, I believe this is all it comes down too. Enter my Domesticus Marsus example: A being who thinks, behaves and looks exactly like us but has a different genetic history and evolved from different organisms on a different planet. This organism though functionally equivalent, is not a human being. You state that under your definition certain things would be considered human beings that clearly are not. Can you site any examples besides a human corpse? I think this example is an ineffective argument because it is incoherent. A corspse is a *dead* human being. You cant kill something that is already dead. In the case of fetuses, the nature of it being alive is assumed. As for narrow arguments, I am using Modus ponens as my argument structure. Simply, if P, Q. P ergo Q. If fetuses are human beings than abortion is wrong. Fetuses are human beings therefore abortion is wrong.
In regards to the car crash example, it was an illustration showing where the blame should directly lie in regards to Thomsons article. Which ties into this principle.
If one puts another in a situation without their consent, that situation can not be worse than they would have been in otherwise, and that consent to put someone in a dependent situation, includes the responsibility of caring for that person.
This means that:
If causing someone to exist and then killing that person, does more harm than not causing such a person to exist, abortion is not permissible.
Also,
If one consents to a situation where another is dependent upon them, and that it would have been otherwise true that the person was not dependent upon them, the person consenting is obligated to provide for the other.
Furthermore, I shall quote you, "We do not prevent other humans from seeking to mitigate the consequences of their actions." Of course we do when by mitigating their they commit a morally impermissible act.
Lisa, thanks so much for joining the discussion! I believe there is an inherent difference between a zygote and a toenail cell. One is a part of a human being while the other is an actual human being. As Dr. Dianne Irving puts it, "the issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings - they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would simply rot. They would not grow as human embryos or human fetuses who are human beings."
And Dr. C. Ward Fisher, "Let’s frame the issue: in human sexual reproduction, when conception [or fertilization] occurs
the continuum of life is initiated. There must be a moment of time at which the time continuum of life begins.
For all these reasons among others, I believe the strength of my argument stands...Biologically, then,first contact
is the event from which all else will follow. There is no point beyond that at which development is suspended or held in abeyance." Stated similarly in Alexander Prus' metaphysical principle, if an organism who once existed has never died than this organism still exists. There i biological continuity between me and my fetus and since I am a human it follows that so is a fetus. This genetically complete, whole, human organism directing its own growth and genetic future in an unbreaking chain of growth is nothing like that of a toenail cell that can be harnessed and experimented with to clone a human being. My definition does not rest on potentialities but actualities and ontology.
Kindest Regards,
All of this is just a massive red herring, Arthur. We're not just simply discussing whether a fetus is this or that. Rather, whether the rights of a fetus should trump the rights of a person who may not want to have it residing within her body, and taking advantage of it, for nine months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Ah, I missed this one the first time round:
Quote:If one puts another in a situation without their consent, that situation can not be worse than they would have been in otherwise, and that consent to put someone in a dependent situation, includes the responsibility of caring for that person.
This means that:
If causing someone to exist and then killing that person, does more harm than not causing such a person to exist, abortion is not permissible.
Also,
If one consents to a situation where another is dependent upon them, and that it would have been otherwise true that the person was not dependent upon them, the person consenting is obligated to provide for the other.
I strongly disagree. Even if the woman caused the existence of a fetus, she is not obliged to carry it in her body for nine months. As long as the fetus depends on her for survival, the fetus also puts her at a risk of suffering and even dying because of it. So the fetus is actually responsible for her suffering. And if that's the case, then the fetus should not have the right to do so, and should be aborted if the woman so wishes.