Possibly but we're talking about abortion (just heading off a potential tangent ).

Although it does illustrate my point; when suffering is taken into account, the ethical position changes for example the potential pain and suffering by both parties, if abortions are unavailable, against potential pain and suffering by both parties, if abortion's are available.

 

If abortion is outlawed then the potential for a lot of pain and suffering exists, for both parties.

 

An aborted fetus has no potential for any suffering.

I agree

An aborted fetus has no potential for any suffering.

You mean a dead one?

 

Killing people isn't ethical.

If I defended you and killed your attacker, are my actions unethical?

 

Your statements are too wide.

You mean a dead one?

 

If it's aborted, then when it was alive it didn't suffer and since it's no longer alive there's no potential for suffering.

 

If I defended you and killed your attacker, are my actions unethical?

Your statements are too wide.

 

 

Since we are talking about abortion and in the context of the question I replied too, my statement seem adequate to me.

 

If it's aborted, then when it was alive it didn't suffer and since it's no longer alive there's no potential for suffering.

 

 

 

Since we are talking about abortion and in the context of the question I replied too, my statement seem adequate to me.

So, a foetus has no potential for suffering in the third trimester?

So, a foetus has no potential for suffering in the third trimester?

Abortions in third trimester are extremely uncommon, and usually done due to extreme health risk to the mother. Your question is hardly a fair one.

Abortions in third trimester are extremely uncommon, and usually done due to extreme health risk to the mother. Your question is hardly a fair one.

But he made no distinction. This is what I mean about his statements being too wide; they need to be more focused and nuanced. This is a very delicate subject with lots of potholes, as I'm sure you'll agree. In a subject like this, one can't make the assumption that what one says is clear. Gestational development is a continuum and the line between non-personhood and personhood is extremely fuzzy.

Edited February 27, 20178 yr by StringJunky

So, a foetus has no potential for suffering in the third trimester?

 

From my previous posts:

 

when you look at the issue ethically/logically and both parties potential for suffering is considered, the currant legal position is (largely) correct.

 

 

limitations is a different question.

 

But he made no distinction. This is what I mean about his statements being too wide; they need to be more focused and nuanced. This is a very delicate subject with lots of potholes, as I'm sure you'll agree. In a subject like this, one can't make the assumption that what one says is clear. Gestational development is a continuum and the line between non-personhood and personhood is extremely fuzzy.

 

All of which has been covered in this thread, by myself and others