Why I Am Pro-Life

[Slave]

Fair enough and I will back up my stated opinions, showing you my logic for your consideration.

Excellent! See, this is the kind of discussion I like to have.

Premise #1: The brain is where we experience reality.

Can we agree on that?

We can agree on your first premise.

Premise #2: We do not have moral obligations toward inanimate objects.

Understand, I'm not mocking you or anyone else here. I'm just going carefully step-by-step. With that in mind...

You can't be rude to a rock. You can't be cruel to a tree. You can't hurt a bacteria cell's feelings. The last two are technically "living" according to biology but we still can make these statements, right? Hold that thought for a premise I'll make later...

I'm venturing into philosophy here, I admit, but can we agree on this?

I can agree with this, yes.

Premise #3: Discussions of morals and ethics are discussions about our obligations toward one another as sentient beings.

I'm wading deeper into philosophy on this point but this is how I evaluate questions of morality. At this point, theists have in the past tried to cloud the issue. "Oh yeah, well what about animal rights? What about the needs of the many vs. the few? What about personal liberty vs. the needs for community order? C'mon, *snap, snap* answer them all quickly and satisfactorily or therefore Jesus!!!!"

There are a lot of questions we can explore on where lines can be drawn but the basic idea I'm trying to get across is that "morality" is about how we treat other beings.

Can we agree so far?

Agree on premise three.

Premise #4: Morality is not restricted to classification of species.

Throwing a kitten off a cliff for fun is often seen as wrongdoing, would you agree? Wanton cruelty toward other animals who don't have the same higher brain function but are nonetheless beings that appear to experience pain, fear and personal connection is often viewed as wrong. Now we can get bogged down into "is hunting for food immoral when you could be a vegan?" or "is experimenting on animals to find cures for human diseases wrong?" but my basic point is that we have moral consideration for non-humans.

Still with me?

Yes indeed.

Question: What's the distinction based on?

Why do we have moral obligations toward kittens and not trees? Or bacteria cells? All three are "alive", are they not?

Why do some people feel it's OK to pull the plug on a brain-dead chronically ill patient but not OK to execute a retarded person so they "won't be a burden"?

I have answered this already, but I will entertain the following:

Answer: the brain.

The brain is where we experience reality (premise 1). Morality is a a function of how we treat one another (premise 3). Morality does not extend to mindless beings or inanimate objects (premise 2). Assertions of species classification is irrelevant to our discussion (premise 4).

Hence, my assertion:
No brain = no being = no moral issue here = no rights to life

Discuss.

This is what I have a problem with:

No brain = no being = no moral issue here = no rights to life

You define what constitutes a being we should have moral considerations for, as something that has a brain. I do not. So my logic would follow as thus:

No brain = not self-aware, but can still be an entity = moral implications

It comes down to the classification of a fertilized egg, or blastocyst > zygote > embryo > fetus etc etc, as a human. Human and human being are not mutually exclusive terms.

The difference between a blastocyst and a fetus, likewise the difference between a fetus and a child, is time and energy. Technically speaking, you are no more evolved than your embryonic self. The same genetic coding is there, all that has changed is you have acquired nourishment to grow along the paths your genes set out for you, and time. Hence why the term 'unborn child' holds significance and isn't to be discarded simply due to the absence of a brain.

For example, although this is not strictly scientific in nature (I've already addressed the science), I will attack this from a different angle. When you see the following, what would you call it just from looking at it?:



Based on what criteria would you classify this as not human, or more specifically not a human being?

As for morality, I am a moral nihilist, all pleasantries aside. I do not believe in intrinsic morality, nor do I believe in objective morality. However, I can discern that which is a 'right' action to take or not based upon rationale. We condemn the unlawful killing of other human beings because we assign ourselves rights. The right to not be killed in my opinion, is one that I can agree to. We pick and choose what values our cultures assign to us and this is a value I believe we should uphold. It was when I began questioning morality and ethics regarding this issue, that I noticed my consideration for infant human life in it's growth stages within the womb, directly contradicted the rationale I applied to all other humans in all other stages of life.

If you consider that the brain and, more specifically, the level of functionality of the brain to be the cut off point, I can understand. However, for me, it is just not logically consistent.

As for animals and why species classification should not matter in how we treat other sentient life, there are a multitude of arguments for and against such a position. One such argument against this is that when we reproduce we do so to keep our genetics alive. Reproduction is a survival instinct. Killing animals for food is also a survival instinct. One which unfortunately has become corrupted with our expanding human population and subsequently increased demand for food, which leads to unethical meat industry practice to supply our demand. Do we need to eat meat? That is arguable, and can vary depending on which scientist/nutritionist/historian you talk to. It also varies according to the location of your ancestors and what food occurred naturally for them in their environment that they adapted to. There is no question though that meat provides key essential nutrients that no plant source can match, and that many humans without access to meat show up with nutritional deficiencies that even supplementation cannot resolve.

It is a complex matter when approached from a philosophical viewpoint (that all life should be considered morally), but within the framework of human rights, it isn't so complicated.