| Subject: Touchy subjects |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/ 2/02 6:59pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "My two cents." on 12/ 1/02 11:27pm
>For some reason I thought I’d put my two cents in.
Glad you did.
>I think all or most of us would agree that to kill a
>human person simply for existing is unethical. To
>kill a human child to avoid the responsibilities of
>parenthood is also unethical.
Yes, I'd agree with that. You may have noted that I said in an earlier post that I personally think it is wrong to have an abortion just for the sake of convenience or birth control. Simply the effects that terminating a pregnancy has on the woman involved (both physical and psychological) are probably justification enough to believe that without even considering the other issues at hand. Now, although I do believe it to be unethical, it is more difficult for me to offer solid, objective reasons that an abortion shouldn't be performed for whatever reason. I know that I, as a human, am biased by evolution to see human life as special.
In light of this, I think it's healthy to step back and look at our decisions about life in general. When do we perform animal abortions? Well, for various reasons, but often just for convenience. Why is it okay to euthanize little kittens but not humans? Why is human life intrinsically worth more than feline life? Humans are already vastly overpopulating the world. Arguing from a world perspective, what reasons could you give an objective alien party for allowing more humans to be born and less kittens?
I'm being completely serious here, by the way. Although it's natural for us to esteem human life higher than animal life (since we're humans), I don't see objective reasons why this should be so.
>I also think that most or all of us would agree on
>these two statements. If an unborn child is not a
>person, than “killing” it for purposes of birth
>control would not be unethical. If an unborn child
>is a person, then killing the unborn child for
>the purposes of birth control is unethical.
Well, the whole idea of "person" is very vague, I think. What is a person? If you have a severely retarded human who can't even eat without help and an intelligent dog which can perform all kinds of helpful acts, which one is more valuable? Is such a human a "person" just because he's past the "embryo" stage?
>What seems to be the disputable point in abortion
>boils down to this basic question: at which point does
>personhood begin? The primary candidates for this
>are: conception, birth, and somewhere in between.
I don't think that's the point at all. I think the heart of the issue lies even further back until I see some sort of objective reasons to esteem personhood. As a human, I would naturally agree with you, but I'm trying to think outside my human biases as simply a citizen of the universe.
>The reason for prohibiting abortion should the unborn
>child be a person is not to “keep all life alive as
>long as possible,” rather it would be the same reasons
>homicide is outlawed today. I think, and correct me
>if I’m wrong at this, that to terminate a pregnancy is
>not sufficient reason to kill a human person. Of
>course, whether or not an unborn child is a person is
>the disputable point.
Again, I agree with you, but I think I agree because of my natural human biases, and not because of something that has been proven to me. If I saw someone try to kill a human baby, I would want to stop them. I feel the same way, although not as strongly, if I see someone try to kill a cat or dog. I feel even less strongly about killing wasps, and so on. I think the more life seems like something that I can view as life (for example, your points about feeling pain), the more I can identify with it. But why is it okay for me to kill a wasp just because it's annoying me?
>I probably shouldn’t be asking this question, but I am
>very curious.
>
>At the 9th week, an unborn child (the fetus) is
>capable of feeling pain. It is for this reason that I
>consider abortion of a fetus (though not necessarily
>embryo or zygote) to be unethical (when done for
>purposes of birth control), but I suppose that even
>this fact being sufficient justification is
>disputable. The reason I bring this up is that I
>cannot see any point of view that would dictate
>otherwise.
I don't really see how feeling pain is all that important. Again, we euthanize animals that can obviously feel pain simply because they aren't convenient to have around. Why are humans different?
>My question of great curiosity is this: when advancing
>along human development (starting from a zygote to a
>full grown adult), the point is reached where the
>(human) being is capable of feeling pain, why wouldn’t
>this be sufficient reason to outlaw the killing of
>this being (when the reason is for purposes of birth
>control)?
These issues are very murky, which is why I usually stay out of these talks altogether. I guess since it's one of the few discussions taking place on the board now, I have gotten involved. But I really don't have much more to say except this:
1) I agree with you. I don't think abortions should be performed for convenience or as a birth control method.
2) I'm not sure why I believe that, and I can't offer any objective reasons to treat human life differently than we treat other animal life.
3) I (and you) may have some inherent biases by virtue of being human that are so deeply ingrained, they simply seem like absolute moral truths.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 