Jump to content

Baby murder vs. Abortion


Guest itchyworms00

Recommended Posts

Dak' date='

 

Of course a fetus is alive, its made of cells, it grows, metabolizes food for energy, and fits all the definitions of life.

 

Only thing is, "life" in isnt morally valuable, not by itself. We're obligated to respect a beings life because its continued existence is a prerequisite for the satisfaction of many other goods, like happiness and the pursuit of longterm goals.

 

But a fetus doesnt have any other moral characteristics, it doesnt have any mental or feeling capacities, so it doesnt have any characteristics (like the capacity to feel pain or see itself over time) that depends on its mental and feeling capacities... because of this, the continued existence of the fetus really doesnt protect anything at all, so its continued existence isnt a prerequisite for protecting any goods (because theres nothing to protect).

 

So the fetus is definitely alive, but it only has biological life and nothing else, it doesnt have a biographical life. Sperm and ova are alive as well, but fortunately "just being alive" doesnt matter, otherwise menstruating away perfectly healthy living eggs would be tantamount to murder, and accidentally scatching someone to draw blood kills perfectly healthy blood cells making you guilty of manslaughter.[/quote']

 

That was kind of my point ;)

 

I was trying to seperate human and human being, and also biologically alive with alive-like-we-are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should 'conscious experience' be a morally relevant quantity either?

 

:) Perhaps because, as thrashed out in other threads, The concensus opinion (not necessarilly mine) is that all moral values are relative. I had thought of a "joke" about Bascule's relative morals, but he might not see the funny side of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that contemporary primary religions don't traditionally recognize the souls of animals.

I think Jainism and other branches if Hinduism, as well as Buddhism definitely recognise the souls of animals. Some of them, like the Jains abstain from eating meat or harming animals for this reason.

 

Sorry if that annoyed you, I thought I should just inform you about that.

 

Regarding the subject of the post; I think this debate and others, is where we come across the true vagueness of our ideas about our morality and its subjectiveness. I think morals have helped preserve our civilizations, and to some extent, humanity, so I would speculate they may be the result of a selective pressure. But then I think it would be wrong to consider them exclusive to humans alone, taking into light other animals with developed cognitive functions and sophisticated social networks(pigs are an example).

 

Simplistically, perhaps our morals are configured in a way that best allows our survival.

 

I dont think I have a position either way in the case of abortion or in the wider subject of morality. I can only hypothesize reasons for morals being beneficial in accordance with our natural instincts and empathies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest itchyworms00
You must realize that most people that are pro-choice are more than certian that a fetus is very much not a baby' date=' and isn't even alive. Its basically an internal organ that, one day, could become an independant organism - but while its a fetus it certianly is not.

 

Why do you think it is "alive" anymore than one's appendix is alive?[/quote']

 

 

I don’t know what to think- I’m pro-life, but I feel sad for those who aren’t, even though they’ve committed a “crime.” I’m going to watch the episode of “30 Days” on the FX channel- it has to do with the issue of abortion:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ScUKhmD7c8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should 'conscious experience' be a morally relevant quantity either?

 

Because we can empathise with conscious entities, as empathy is the vicarious perception of conscious states. We do not ascribe moral relevance to objects incapible of consciousness because we cannot empathise with them.

 

Can you name something which is incapible of consciousciousness which is more worthy of moral status than a conscious entity, and if so, how would you justify that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a pasifistic ideology? a hospital?

 

I think it's arguable that preventing a benificial and pasifistic ideology, or destroying a hospital, is more morraly reprehensible than killing a human (mind, only because the effects will cause the death of more than one human)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a pasifistic ideology? a hospital?

 

I think it's arguable that preventing a benificial and pasifistic ideology' date=' or destroying a hospital, is more morraly reprehensible than killing a human (mind, only because the effects will cause the death of more than one human)[/quote']

 

Okay, please, no abstract concepts which vicariously benefit conscious entities here, kay?

 

I'm talking about physical objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jainism and other branches if Hinduism' date=' as well as Buddhism definitely recognise the souls of animals. Some of them, like the Jains abstain from eating meat or harming animals for this reason. Sorry if that annoyed you, I thought I should just inform you about that.

[/quote'] that largely depends on the branch; I don't know about jainism's variants, if there are any, but traditional, original therevada buddhism is very ambiguous about the soul's existence in the first place, and sometimes tends to lean towards its non-existance. Other variations on Buddhism aren't straight buddhism, but take pages from other relgions for ideas and principles and mix um up a bit.

 

Anyway, I was referring to those religions that hold the most sway around where I'm from (I tend to do that without thinking) which is basically a thousand versions of christianity.

 

Why should 'conscious experience' be a morally relevant quantity either?
I'd say it's an important factor in deciding whether or not a species experiences life in a way even remotely similar to the way that we do; consciously aware of things and themselves, capable of actual, though perhaps primitive thought, even possibly pain and suffering rather than a comparatively simple reactive existence. Maybe it is biased to what I'm familar with and able to be more empathic about, but it's the best I've got wihtout being able to actually experience being a cognitively simpler organism first hand.

 

What do you think is a morally relevant quantity? It's hard to build perspective into what you're thinking if you just make a quick bite at someone else's thoughts, especially when it comes to a concept as vague and broadly varied as morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should 'conscious experience' be a morally relevant quantity either?

 

Maybe it would be good to determine what a "successful" moral structure would look like (its traits and effects) and then determine if including the "conscious experience" as one of the morally relevant aspects makes it more successful.

 

While it is not drawn on indepth analysis of the above...I do go on the hunch that it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it's an important factor in deciding whether or not a species experiences life in a way even remotely similar to the way that we do

 

That is a very human centred viewpoint. Just because I cannot imagine being certain organisms doesn't make them any less worthy of life.

 

What do you think is a morally relevant quantity? It's hard to build perspective into what you're thinking if you just make a quick bite at someone else's thoughts' date=' especially when it comes to a concept as vague and broadly varied as morality.[/quote']

 

I think it is an ill-defined question. One can make it better defined, but it really comes down to which definition you choose. Personally I think there is nothing inconsistant with requiring the organism to be human before applying moral criteria. I am after all human, so I am not breaking any symmetry with this observation.

 

Maybe it would be good to determine what a "successful" moral structure would look like (its traits and effects) and then determine if including the "conscious experience" as one of the morally relevant aspects makes it more successful.

 

How do you define "successful"? I suspect you would regard a moral structure as successful only if it mirrored the preconceived ideas you already have. This is of course up to you, but then you cannot complain if someone else who has a different viewpoint throws out your moral structure when it doesn't fit their preconceptions. For example, the entire 'Your child or a chimpanzee' would make me reject IMM's moral axioms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very human centred viewpoint. Just because I cannot imagine being certain organisms doesn't make them any less worthy of life.
as I said myself, it's biased to what I can empathize with, I know that quite well. And it's not that I consider other organisms less deserving of life so much as that I recognize that certain species are more able to actively appreciate that life and experience some of the aspects of consciousness that make it (to me) worth living in the first place. All things lacking in an early stage fetus. Again, I know, biased. But not groundless.

 

Personally I think there is nothing inconsistant with requiring the organism to be human before applying moral criteria. I am after all human, so I am not breaking any symmetry with this observation.
I'm sorry, but I just think that answer seems extraordinarily shallow coming from a species that has the capacity to look beyond itself to the extent that we're capabable, especially a smart, rational one like you. All I wish to know is WHY that's morally relevant. Is it as simple that the human as a biological organism deserves it regardless if it's functional and aware, a mindless meat bag fed on tubes, or an undeveloped bundle of cells and tissues functionally similar to a baked potato. Is there some obscure reason that being human is relevant, or is it something spiritual? Or maybe something else entirely?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry' date=' but I just think that answer seems extraordinarily shallow coming from a species that has the capacity to look beyond itself to the extent that we're capabable, especially a smart, rational one like you.

[/quote']

 

I love you too.

 

All I wish to know is WHY that's morally relevant.

 

that is an unanswerable question since it is an axiom. It is impossible to logically derive why you have a particular axiom.

 

Is it as simple that the human as a biological organism deserves it regardless if it's functional and aware, a mindless meat bag fed on tubes, or an undeveloped bundle of cells and tissues functionally similar to a baked potato. Is there some obscure reason that being human is relevant, or is it something spiritual? Or maybe something else entirely?

 

What you are forgetting here is that it is me who is making my own moral decisions, and since I am a human being I can only (should only) look at these decisions from the point of view of a human being. I am not saying that other organisms are intrinsically worth less than a human being (I would have difficulty defining 'worth' anyway) - I am saying that I will favour human beings in my moral choices. I would expect an intelligent dog to similarly favour other dogs, and I am not offended by that thought - why should the dog be offended by mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know what to think- I’m pro-life, but I feel sad for those who aren’t, even though they’ve committed a “crime.”
I hope you're not saying that, by simply being pro-choice, a person has committed a crime. You say, "I don't know what to think" but you obviously think abortion is wrong and those who don't are criminals.

 

I haven't seen any reasoning from you so far on this, just judgement and conclusions. Care to elaborate a bit? You don't comment on any of the other posts but instead choose to watch a video to help you decide. What's up with that? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Whether or not the fetus is legally consider human is immaterial. The point is that it will be human at one point, and if you abort it, you are killing it.

 

What really makes me mad though is that 9 times out of 10 the women get an abortion simply because they were to stupid to use birth control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not the fetus is legally consider human is immaterial. The point is that it will be human at one point, and if you abort it, you are killing it.
By that logic any woman who miscarries needs to be investigated to determine if she was negligent, and could be tried for murder just because she, for instance, went horseback riding and fell.
What really makes me mad though is that 9 times out of 10 the women get an abortion simply because they were to stupid to use birth control.
Remember where you are. You can't make claims like that, even in GD, unless you're willing to back them up. Do you have any links or studies to support this claim?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you need to do is look at why murder is illegal. I can only think of three reasons: 1- i don't want you to kill me so i would like it to be illegal for you to do so. 2- killing somebody hurts those people that knew the recently deceased well. 3- ending a the existence of a self aware being is just plain unethical because it is self aware, simply being alive is not sufficient (does not apply to plants, insects and whatnot).

 

none of these things apply to destroying a fetus. therefore it is not murder so long as only the parents have the power to decide whether or not the fetus is destroyed because if not, condition 2 would be met.

 

that's how i see it anyways. maybe there's other reasons for why murder is illegal but i can't think of any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

itchyworm,

 

Its cultural for the most part, because most people really dont know anything about morality, they dont know what makes life valuable at all. Believe me, the people who object to abortion are just are morally naive as those who dont care at all, neither group has even the remotest handle of moral principles.

 

But at least I consider myself a moral-minded person with a good handle on moral principles, and I have objections to baby-murder that arent applicable to abortion. Babies are feeling beings with an experiential welfare, and they valuable enough to protect for just that much; but unborn fetuses dont have those characteristics (at least not before 24 weeks, when 99% of abortions occur). In fact, I dont think a 9-week-old fetus has any morally relevant characteristics in common with a 9-day-old infant, so I dont see the two are even remotely comparable.

 

I don’t think that the moment of birth carries any significance when it comes to the moral issue of taking the life of the fetus/infant. Compare the new born infant to the unborn a day before birth. Is it morally justifiable, no matter which stand we take, to differentiate between the two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally going with my earlier post then i would have to say that I agree with you Freethinker. even a new born baby would not meet any requirements for why murder is bad, just the same as the fetus, the fact it breaths air doesn't really change much. But once the baby is met by other family members and people start getting attached to it it could breach one of the reasons murder is illegal, so the baby would need to be killed while still in the hospital and making the rule that it is not murder until the baby is born is just easier i guess... anyways if doctors are the only ones that could do this then why would they wait for the baby to be born? ... maybe some unforeseen circumstances.. i guess i could see that actually.

 

although if someone were to kill the fetus without the parents' permission i think i would need to call that murder, or maybe not murder exactly but certainly some sort of crime, the severity depending on how old the fetus is because there is a decent chance i think in the earlier stages that the baby would miscarry anyways and the later it would be the more obvious it would be to the murderer what he's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally going with my earlier post then i would have to say that I agree with you Freethinker. even a new born baby would not meet any requirements for why murder is bad, just the same as the fetus, the fact it breaths air doesn't really change much. But once the baby is met by other family members and people start getting attached to it it could breach one of the reasons murder is illegal, so the baby would need to be killed while still in the hospital and making the rule that it is not murder until the baby is born is just easier i guess.

Don't parents generally get rather attached to their babies before they are born?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.