To abort or not to abort

[Mudhammam]

Fine but that doesn't answer my question. There's nothing consistent as far as I can see in the position that "a future expectation of personhood" be regarded more sacred than the present sentience of a pig or a cow.

If I understand Heywood argument it's that a fetus, Like a person under Anaesthesia, hopefully WILL achieve full sentience, whereas a pig or a cow won't ever be more than a pig or a cow.

I'm just trying to understand the justification for elevating one over the other. I think a rational argument could be made, on the basis of a creature's conscious experience, their awareness, pain perception, etc. that would place the "sanctity of life" something like this: Humans > higher-level animals (chimps, dogs, pigs, whales) > mid-level animals (lizards, rats, etc.) > lower-level animals (ants, worms, bees, etc.) > "potential creatures or persons" i.e. unborn humans > unborn animals.

That's just a loose summary of where I would probably start in terms of evaluating the value of life. One would really need to take a closer look at each species to place them in their proper order of sanctity. I just don't see how prolifers typically view it as: humans > unborn humans > everything else (or unborn humans > everything else).

[pocaracas]

for motivations of convenience.

Remove this bit and you're ok in your definition.

[Mudhammam]

Fine but that doesn't answer my question. There's nothing consistent as far as I can see in the position that "a future expectation of personhood" be regarded more sacred than the present sentience of a pig or a cow.

If a lion kills and eats me, I don't think the lion is being evil. It is a predator and I am prey. I don't think I am evil when I eat cows or pigs because I am predator and they are prey. These types of actions are artifacts of ecology. Abortion is a deliberate conscious decision to prevent the existence of a person for motivations of convenience.

But I could easily make the argument that our ecology is such that your only reasons for eating pigs or cows stem from motivations of convenience.

[Heywood]

There is a moral obligation to take reasonable care of the unborn.

But you said

That does not mean we need to go out of our way to insure its survival.

I can see how you would view that as a bit of a contradiction. Going out of our way to insure the survival of a zygote would be like assuming for days after sex a posture conducive to implantation. Zygotes don't need our help to implant.

[Bad Wolf]

Heywood, i'm going to introduce a scenario that I've used before:
You are holding in your right hand, a 3 month old baby.
In your left, you are holding a petri dish containing a human zygote.
You have to drop one of them.
Which one do you drop?

I ask you this because, as you say, these two both have potential for consciousness and life. So you shouldn't be able to choose. That may be the answer you give but I don't think its the answer you would think.
You would drop the zygote, like everybody else, because you realise there is a difference.

[Heywood]

If a lion kills and eats me, I don't think the lion is being evil. It is a predator and I am prey. I don't think I am evil when I eat cows or pigs because I am predator and they are prey. These types of actions are artifacts of ecology. Abortion is a deliberate conscious decision to prevent the existence of a person for motivations of convenience.

But I could easily make the argument that our ecology is such that your only reasons for eating pigs or cows stem from motivations of convenience.

Maybe I will have to adopt veganism to be consistent with my views on abortion....something to think about.

[Brakeman]

Actually, I'm seeing if you conflate a and B, with C And D. Where C and d are actively killing and failing to protect a fetus

So to be clear, I YO

We DO have a moral duty to go out of our way to protect the child once born, but NOT before its born.

And actively destroying the child is wrong either before or after birth.

Is that what you're saying?

There is a moral obligation to take reasonable care of the unborn.

Don't be so "upidy!" We are animals, a heard of evolved beasts. Any "morals" or "social obligations" we have are simply innate and non-innate evolutionary conditionings that best protects the herd.

The "herd" or "human societal interests" are best served by establishing female equality and autonomy.

[Mudhammam]

But I could easily make the argument that our ecology is such that your only reasons for eating pigs or cows stem from motivations of convenience.

Maybe I will have to adopt veganism to be consistent with my views on abortion....something to think about.

That's where I'm at. I'm not a vegan or vegetarian either.

[Jacob(smooth)]

But you said

I can see how you would view that as a bit of a contradiction. Going out of our way to insure the survival of a zygote would be like assuming for days after sex a posture conducive to implantation. Zygotes don't need our help to implant.

I'm afraid I am a little bit lost, yes. One would not hesitate to assume a certain posture if it would increase the chances of a baby's survival were it to be unwell. If I read your argument correctly, you consider the potential of an entity the critical factor in what moral obligations one has towards it. So what I'm not getting is why you consider a zygote and a baby, who have the same potential, to be worthy of different degrees of intervention for their protection.

[Heywood]

Heywood, i'm going to introduce a scenario that I've used before:
You are holding in your right hand, a 3 month old baby.
In your left, you are holding a petri dish containing a human zygote.
You have to drop one of them.
Which one do you drop?

I ask you this because, as you say, these two both have potential for consciousness and life. So you shouldn't be able to choose. That may be the answer you give but I don't think its the answer you would think.
You would drop the zygote, like everybody else, because you realise there is a difference.

Why do I have to drop one?

If I can only save one, I save the 3 month old because I value the 3 month old more than I value the zygote.....but I do value both.