Defense of the abortion/Discussion about Ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nonatheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s only one part of it.
As more complex the nervous system is, the more pain one being experience.
Brain is another thing, as more complex brain leads to higher sentience.

l can as well concede my point there, although l will need to take a deeper look.
That fact that insects can feel pain doesn’t impact my argument, l would just place insects further up on the scale
 
Did you read my links on recent studies of insects feeling pain
Nonatheist said:
That’s only one part of it.
As more complex the nervous system is, the more pain one being experience.
Brain is another thing, as more complex brain leads to higher sentience.
Click to expand...
you will have to provide proof for this also.
 
Last edited:
Nonatheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you can say one thing has it, but another doesn’t you must be able to come up with a definition.
 
Nonatheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
And given enough time it’d be like that 25 year old never existed. Or do we only value people who leave a mark on the world, even though it all fades eventually? More remains the same between the two than just the genetics. It is the same thing, the same organism. Different (as there is a difference between a person at six years old and fifteen, and fifteen and thirty, and thirty and seventy-five), but the same.

Moral worth isn’t attached to “things” in the way you speak. It is in regards to deliberate actions made with knowledge, and it remains contrary to human nature to deliberately and knowingly kill other innocent humans. Stage of development is irrelevant.
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.
Click to expand...
The distinction between (a) parent and minor child and (b) adult and unrelated adult is more arbitrary than the manifestation of arbitrary properties? Natures are the only real, observable basis upon which we can evaluate ethics, and humans are not just a ghosts-in-machines, but biological organisms.
 
Last edited:
Most of it, l don’t have time to read the entire study.

l would regard those two as common knowlage.

Both follow, humans have the most complex brains and the most complex nervous system. Humans are the most intelligent animals, and have the highest capacty to feel pain.
 
It’s a strictly human experience, it’s same with thinking.
Reason would be the ability to think, to use logic and the ability to judge a certain situation.
It’s borderline impossible to explain, l really don’t know what’s the point of you asking for it, when you clearly agree with me on this.
 
Nonatheist said:
Most of it, l don’t have time to read the entire study.

l would regard those two as common knowlage.

Both follow, humans have the most complex brains and the most complex nervous system. Humans are the most intelligent animals, and have the highest capacty to feel pain.
Click to expand...
You really have to start backing up your science claims. You seem to want to go down a tack of no pain, no feel , no self awareness = no personhood.

Yet when we flesh this out a bit more we find supporting evidence is not being presented
 
Science has shown a 6 wk fetus will try to avoid / shrink away from an intrusion into the womb such as an abortionist implement. or a medical procedure. If that is not self awareness/ preservation, instinct to avoid potential hazards, i dont know what is.
 
Last edited:
That language is nice but it seems really distant when you are in a crisis situation. I remember a neonatologist explaining what the changes are for a 23 week birth, next day a student doctor casually mentions “if you keep bleeding like this we’ll have to terminate you pregnancy”, my jaw drops to the floor because to me it sounded like they would kill my baby but really it just means induce labor and do what they could. Who gets to decide how much risk a mother takes on? I fought on for weeks on antibiotics, bed rest, I had those options.
 
Both 6 and 90 year old person are sentient, embryos aren’t. Both are persons, embryos aren’t.
That 25 year old existed, they had memories, experiences, emotions and mix
Fetus doesn’t share any of those things.

l don’t speculate on human nature, also going against human nature would only be immoral if you believe in natural law theory, which l don’t, Those naturalistic ways to look at morality always run into is/ought problem.
 
l also reject the idea that human life is superior just because it’s human, and l made a thought experiment for that.

‘Alians came down on earth, they don’t look anything like humans but are through testing and observation found to live and form a societies very similar to that of humans, being able to communicate in a language unknown to us, and also are shown to be highly sentient, on the similar level of humans’
Now, would we assign them with same moral rights as we do with humans?
 
l don’t know how you can ask for this in good faith,
do you want a proof that more complex brain= higher intelligence?

Yes, if you don’t have those things you are not even sentient, let a lone a person.
 
Leek said:
That language is nice but it seems really distant when you are in a crisis situation. I remember a neonatologist explaining what the changes are for a 23 week birth, next day a student doctor casually mentions “if you keep bleeding like this we’ll have to terminate you pregnancy”, my jaw drops to the floor because to me it sounded like they would kill my baby but really it just means induce labor and do what they could. Who gets to decide how much risk a mother takes on? I fought on for weeks on antibiotics, bed rest, I had those options.
Click to expand...
I’m very sorry you had to go through that.

A person is not morally obliged to pursue unreasonable or extraordinary measures. What is reasonable and ordinary is not always obvious and can be complex. Figuring that out is a job for ethicists and moral theologians. Now, one doesn’t always have an ethicist or moral theologian around, of course, so we have to rely on our consciences to make decisions when they must be made urgently and in the moment.

Sometimes there isn’t a morally wrong choice, meaning a choice that is contrary to your human nature. Sometimes both choices are neutral, or good. They may each even have very likely negative consequences, but achieving those negative consequences aren’t the intended purpose of the action. These types of cases can come down to personal conscience and/or be prudential decisions.
 
That’s not true to my knowlage.
l heard that from later periods of the development, but even that is not a settled science.
Also, even if all that is true, bugs do that, even more.
Self awareness is something even a newborn baby doesn’t have, only few animals do in fact.
 
Nonatheist said:
Both 6 and 90 year old person are sentient, embryos aren’t. Both are persons, embryos aren’t.
That 25 year old existed, they had memories, experiences, emotions and mix
Fetus doesn’t share any of those things.
Click to expand...
What makes any of those things valuable, in your opinion? And harming creatures with such things wrong? To be clear, I’m curious not so much about your conclusion but how you got there.
Those naturalistic ways to look at morality always run into is/ought problem.
Click to expand...
If you’re a naturalist they do. The Aristotlean approach doesn’t have an issue resolving the so-called is-ought gap.
 
Last edited:
l think pain,suffering and death are bad things, That’s set in stone. Now l look at who can experience pain and horrors of death the most.
That’s where sentience come into play. More more sentient being is, the more pain it experiences and it’s more aware of death.

Are you refering to Aristotlean or Thomistic natural law, as they have differences?
Maybe not, because they have unique definition of goodness and badness, which are quite different than mine or modern view on it.
Also, l reject reductionism that is used in both philosophies
 
Women don’t go through with pregnancy for something that doesn’t have value, at the same time a relationship between mother and child takes time to develop. Self defence is the default mode to finding out you’re pregnant, lower the threat level enough (either before or after pregnancy) and a woman can begin to see herself as a Mom ready to go into battle.
 
There are women who don’t want or can’t afford to care for a child, those are the most common reasons for abortion
If women doesn’t want a child, it’s cruel to me to have to force her to suffer for something she doesn’t want.
l would prefer that all women who can’t take care of a child but want to, be given resources to do so.
Sadly, that’s not happening in most of the world. Also, women has to legally pay a lot of money for the medical debt.
 
Last edited:
Nonatheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is all just your opinion. I would argue that my opinion, one of non-discrimination regardless of one’s level of development, should be the default and trump yours.
Nonatheist said:
Only beings that have those traits are braindead animals and bugs.
Click to expand...
Embryos and fetuses are not brain-dead. They respond to external stimulation, something the brain-dead cannot do. Fetal Behavioural Responses to Maternal Voice and Touch
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top