Defense of the abortion/Discussion about Ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nonatheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
l don’t think newborns have personhood.

That being said, when human is born, it stops being psychically attached to a mother. So there would almost never be a good reason to kill a baby, while abortion would result in great benefits to the mother.
l am generally not in favor of third trimester abortions, although they are very small portion of total abortion count
 
l said more moral worth. If a being has the ability to reason, l think that being has more moral worth than beings that can’t. That doesn’t mean that those beings don’t have any moral worth.

Also, no killing is ever moral. Killing can only ever be morally permissible. It will never be moral to kill someone.
 
The organism at conception is the same organism twenty-five years later. It’s simply a stage of development. A human being is a human being. The intentional killing of an innocent human being is always an action contrary to a human being’s nature.

Where the violinist analogy goes wrong is the relationship. The relationship between a parent and dependent child is a natural, moral obligation, one that entails ordinary and reasonable duties to raise that child to an age of majority. No such relationship exists between violinist and host, nor is the attachment of violinist to host by any means ordinary or reasonable. Pregnancy is an ordinary function of a female body. The body is ordered to this end, and indeed it is a natural end of all animal life. Again, there is no such analogy between the violinist and host.
 
Nonatheist said:
Also, no killing is ever moral. Killing can only ever be morally permissible. It will never be moral to kill someone.
Click to expand...
Yet are you not arguing that it is morally permissable to kill the unborn because they are not persons? Why don’t the unborn have moral worth?
 
It both is and isn’t the same. Their genetics are the same, but l don’t place any moral worth on that.
Person 25 years later can think, feel pain, reason and understand death. After conception, if the cells are destroyed it would be like the person never existed, while if 25 year old dies it would be a death of a person.

l have to reject the second part, as l don’t like taking any sort of ethical philosophy from nature,
The distinction you are making seems arbitrary to me.
 
One natural function of the normal female body is to protect itself from harm by expelling the contents of the womb when there’s an issue, but many women fight against this anyway to bring their babies into the world.
 
Their moral worth is almost non-existent, as they have non of the characteristics that give someone a moral worth.
Third trimester fetus would have some moral worth, as it can feel pain and interact with the world to some extent, though it’s moral worth is still very minimal.
That’s why l am not in favor of third trimester abortions, at least on the moral level
 
Can you please define then what personhood is? Is a five year old a person? A mentally handicapped adult?
 
Only beings that have those traits are braindead animals and bugs. So, it’s would be morally permissible to kill such beings. Though, not killing them would still be a more moral option, that’s my intuitive opinion,
 
l think l defined it in an earlier post. But l will again, to me personhood is the highest form of sentience that includes the uniquely human ability to reason and have complex thoughts, as well as all other characteristics of sentience(self awareness, ability to feel pain and understanding death).

5 year old would be a person yes, as it has all characteristics of a personhood.
Depends how handicapped, even the most handicapped people have at least some of the characteristics of personhood. l
 
Last edited:
l didn’t change the definition. Feeling as a sense of touch and the ability to feel pain are not the same.
Bugs feel when they touch the ground, they however don’t feel pain as humans and other animals do.

l think that’s a self evident statement, humans have the ability to see right from wrong, to think of abstract concepts and to think rationally, no animal beside us has shown to have those traits.
Although animals are very much capable of emotions, they are mostly driven by primal instincts .
 
Nonatheist said:
didn’t change the definition. Feeling as a sense of touch and the ability to feel pain are not the same.
Click to expand...
What system of the human body is respinsible for these?
Nonatheist said:
Bugs feel when they touch the ground, they however don’t feel pain as humans and other animals do.
Click to expand...
What science do you have that says an insect does not feel pain.
Nonatheist said:
l think that’s a self evident statement, humans have the ability to see right from wrong, to think of abstract concepts and to think rationally, no animal beside us has shown to have those traits.
Click to expand...
No animal besides us?
 
Nonatheist said:
Only beings that have those traits are braindead animals and bugs. So, it’s would be morally permissible to kill such beings. Though, not killing them would still be a more moral option, that’s my intuitive opinion,
Click to expand...
Now we are getting somewhere. Now what is reason?
 
Nervous system and brain to my knowlage. To feel pain, more complex nervous system is needed.

It’s commonly understood fact, brain and nervous system of a bug is not nearly as complex as that of humans and other animals. Bugs do feel the damage to their body, but it can hardly be called a pain,
as pain cannot exist without suffering. l don’t think that science is finished on this topic however

Yes.
 
As the ability to reason?

l don’t think there is a real definition, it’s one of those things everyone knows, but don’t know how to put into words.
 
Nonatheist said:
Nervous system and brain to my knowlage. To feel pain, more complex nervous system is needed.
Click to expand...
Ok so you would like to distinguish animals/ humans / person hood/ fetushood by how complex an existing nervous system is?
Nonatheist said:
It’s commonly understood fact, brain and nervous system of a bug is not nearly as complex as that of humans and other animals. Bugs do feel the damage to their body, but it can hardly be called a pain,
as pain cannot exist without suffering. l don’t think that science is finished on this topic however
Click to expand...
Again show proof, scientific studies insects do not feel pain.

www.sciencedaily.com

Insects feel persistent pain after injury, evidence suggests

Scientists have known insects experience something like pain, but new research provides compelling evidence suggesting that insects also experience chronic pain that lasts long after an initial injury has healed.
www.sciencedaily.com

www.studyfinds.org

Do bugs feel pain? Scientists finally solve age-old mystery

If you've ever wondered whether bugs feel pain when you attempt to kill them, a new study is the first to prove that not only do insects feel an injury, but they suffer from chronic pain after recovering from one.
www.studyfinds.org www.studyfinds.org
 
Last edited:
Leek said:
One natural function of the normal female body is to protect itself from harm by expelling the contents of the womb when there’s an issue, but many women fight against this anyway to bring their babies into the world.
Click to expand...
There’s no moral evil associated with a miscarriage. Miscarriage is also not the end of pregnancy, nor what a healthy pregnancy proceeds to. As you noted, it occurs when there’s an issue. Medical treatment to try to restore healthy function is totally appropriate. Living things try to attain homeostasis and have functions to do so, but those functions can miss the mark, and medicine can fill those gaps. A parent’s duty to care for their child is also a higher end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top