Defense of the abortion/Discussion about Ethics

[Elf01]

Reason would be the ability to think, to use logic and the ability to judge a certain situation.

So you would say a newborn baby does not have the ability to reason then?

 

[Nonatheist]

l mean, that’s fine. But you l don’t see how that view explains moral worth at all.
In the end it sounds like ‘Humans have moral worth because they are humans’.
l mean, why would you value human embryo more than an adult dolphin or chimpanzee(two smartest and most sentient beings after humans).

l have to look deeper into that study later, though even if true, those actions are not conscience but are based on insticts and/or reflexes, which would make the fetus on similar level as a less sentient mammals.

 

[Nonatheist]

Of course, that’s undeniable.

 

[Leek]

Forcing will backfire anyway, it’s just perceived as another threat. But taking some of those threats away, will change some minds.

 

[Nonatheist]

What do you mean

 

[blackforest]

In the end it sounds like ‘Humans have moral worth because they are humans’.

Indeed. It’s the concept of acceptance and non-discrimination. Saying that it is OK to kill others based on their abilities or level of development is the height of bigotry.

those actions are not conscience but are based on insticts and/or reflexes, which would make the fetus on similar level as a less sentient mammals.

Most abortions involve inserting a tiny cannula into a woman and sucking in an embryo, who is crushed and dismembered in the process.

Is it OK to treat less human creatures in this matter? Puppies? Kittens? Rabbits?

 

[Nonatheist]

Oh no, it’s worse discrimination possible. You are discriminating against all non-human animals.
l discrimination.based on how much one being can suffer, as suffering is bad.
Grown chimpanzee, is in every way worth more than a human embryo, except that they share the same species.
Which l find to be very arbitrary difference.
Grown chimpanzee can suffer(both physically and emotionally), can experience pain on the same level as humans, has a family connection, it’s intelligent, self-aware and knows what death is.

 

[Nonatheist]

No, because
1.Puppies, Kittens and Rabbits are more sentient than an embryo.
2. If there was a Puppy, Kitten and a Rabbit inside a women, and only way to remove it was to kill it, than yes.

 

[Elf01]

Of course, that’s undeniable.

OK. Lets define self awareness now.

 

[blackforest]

Sentience is an arbitrary criteria. You’re using your personal feelings and prejudices to discriminate against others.

 

[Nonatheist]

Self-awareness would be ability to recognize yourself and your existence.

 

[Nonatheist]

Sentience is everything but arbitrary, it’s set in stone.
Though sentience usually comes into degrees.
One animal may be more sentient than the other.

 

[blackforest]

Sentience is everything but arbitrary, it’s set in stone.

Your opinion about it is quite relative.

 

[Nonatheist]

Sentience is a philosophical term, not scientific one.
But what makes sentience is set in stone.
There is no disagreement on what sentience is.

 

[blackforest]

You have an opinion that it’s OK to kill others based on level of sentience. I have yet to hear you provide a substantial defense of that opinion.

 

[Elf01]

Self-awareness would be ability to recognize yourself and your existence.

Would you say that a newborn is self aware?

 

[Nonatheist]

It’s MORE morally permissible to kill certain animals rather than others. It’s never okey just to kill any animal for no reason.
Why is it more wrong to kill a dog rather than a bug? Because dog can suffer much more than a bug, dogs also are quite aware of death.
Moral worth based on sentience is most objective and philosophically sound way to determine it,
system you propose is humans have moral worth just because they are humans, and other animals don’t because they aren’t.

With your view, killing a dog and a bug would be the same, as both are not humans

 

[Nonatheist]

No, from what l know babies get that ability at about 18 months after birth.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

To expand and clarify on moral acts, in Catholic thinking all human acts in the concrete are objectively moral acts, i.e., either good or evil, and never neutral. The actor’s culpability for an evil act may be mitigated by ignorance, emotions, coercion, etc. but the act remains objectively evil.

To the OP’s topic, Catholic also believe that one must act according to their conscience. However, the state of of one’s conscience must be one of certainty. The example often given is the hunter’s decision to shoot upon seeing the bush rustle. He is uncertain whether the rustle was caused by a deer or another hunter. Such a person would have a doubtful conscience , and one morally cannot act with such doubts.

The OP’s uncertainty about the humanity of the fetus prohibits the killing of that life, ceteris paribus.

 

[blackforest]

You’re introducing speciesism into the equation. Despite being vegan, I do not endorse that perspective. Abortion is about human rights and whether it’s OK to kill other humans. A position of non-discrimination would hold that humans hold intrinsic worth regardless of their size, their abilities, or their address. A position of discrimination holds that human life is based on satisfying certain subjective prejudices, yours being the level of sentience.