Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/11/02 5:59pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Touchy subjects" on 12/ 2/02 6:59pm
>>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?
Various philosophical reasons could be given, some you would flatly reject. Being made in God's image, for example, and having some argument flow from there.
Yet it may be much simpler than that. It could be an irreducible truth. That is, a truth that cannot be further reduced into other axioms to support it. A possible example: can you prove the law of noncontradiction? Probably not. It is nonetheless objectively true, however. Another possible example, can you prove that homicide is morally wrong? Perhaps not, but it is nonetheless objectively true. Unfortunately, it does not necessarily have to be the case that all irreducible truths are so easily perceived or agreed upon. Perhaps it lies also with the value of a human life, though that can understandably be disputable.
>>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.
It is perhaps easier to recognize than to define. I am a person. You are a person. Murdering you is an unethical act. Murdering me is an unethical act. There may be instances in which recognizing something as a person is fuzzy. Yet persons exist. Unjustified murder of persons is objectively unethical. Thus, if an unborn child is a person, killing the unborn child for the purposes of birth control is unethical.
>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.
I'm speaking from a standpoint where the immorality of homicide is an axiom, a given. Few would dispute that terminating pregnancy justifies homicide, even if we can't think of a proof demonstrating why it is wrong. You believe, as I do, that homicide is morally wrong, even if you can't precisely explain why.
>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.
And I compliment you on your effort.
>>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.
We have to be careful on what we call “biases.” True, it may not be proven. But it is possible to rationally accept beliefs without proof or evidence.
>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?
See my above comments. Nonetheless, I do agree that these are very good questions to be asking. I myself have asked these questions on more than one occasion.
>>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.
Right after this I say: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)?
>I don't really see how feeling pain is all that
>important.
Well, consider what we have here. The ability to feel pain implies sentience, and sentience implies life. It is my belief that killing a sentient human being for the purposes of birth control is an unethical act, and I am unable to see any point of view that would dictate otherwise.
I invite anyone else to help me on this matter.
>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.
Understandable.
>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.
Quite correct. I would like to point out, however, that there exists the possibility of these “biases” being correct, even if we can’t explain why (though I suppose you are already aware of this possibility).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 