Defense of the abortion/Discussion about Ethics

[Nonatheist]

l am aware of that

 

[Nonatheist]

It’s an analogy, 'human is abducted by a society of music lovers, he is linked to a violnist by a machine, violinist has a kidney complication, and only way for him to survive is to be connected to him with that machine for 9 months.
Conclusion is that he has a right to his body, even if other person need it to survive, this is than applied to abortion

 

[Dolphin]

The violin situation seems like a random act (if the stranger wants to help and attach himself he can, or if not he won’t). But being pregnant for 9 months isn’t a random act since it resulted from deliberately having sex, and specifically without a contraceptive or something. There was a choice in that situation. The aftermath comes from the choice.

Rape is obviously different as the choice was taken away (and so we will discuss this separately). But how does the above case excluding rape make sense when there was a choice made? We do live in a world with consequences for our actions.

 

[Nonatheist]

As one who philosopher who’s name l can’t remember pointed out, ‘person consented to have sex, not get pregnant’, you can climb a three, but that doesn’t mean that you consented to fall from it.
It will also raise a question if doctors should be allowed to decline to help you by saying 'You accepted risks, so now bare your consequences ’

 

[Freddy]

Nonatheist:

Yeah, my bad.
l stand by that, pain is one of the musts of being sentient.
And a newborn only has that, so if you remove pain, following my logic rat would be worth more.

Would you put a third trimester abortion on the same moral level as killing a newborn?

There would have to be a very good reason indeed for either. And I think any reasonable person would consider there to be a difference in each case. Which is the point I think has been skipped over too lightly in this conversation.

I think any reasonable person would consider a termination 4 weeks before birth to be more distressing and almost impossible to be morally justified (excepting extreme medical necessity) then if it were done at 4 weeks after conception.

That obviously indicates how we view the differences between (what is technically termed) a zygote and a foetus (effectively a fully grown baby at week 36).

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

l would say that once a being obtains a personhood, temporary states that reduce it don’t affect it, as their personhood is never lost but just temporary suspended.

Logically how is that possible because it isn’t evident?

So l think that sentience based approuch is the least arbitrary one

But you are willing to give value to a sleeping person who is not sentient based on something else.

 

[Dolphin]

you can climb a three, but that doesn’t mean that you consented to fall from it.

Kind of like “you play with fire you are gonna get burned.” If we are resting the abortion of millions of babies (whether you consider this murder or not) on the logic of “I chose to swim in the strong rapids, it’s not my fault I drowned” then wow, it doesn’t get much lower than that.

 

[Freddy]

Nonatheist:

you can climb a three, but that doesn’t mean that you consented to fall from it.

Kind of like _“you play with fire you are gonna get burned.” _ If we are resting the abortion of millions of babies (whether you consider this murder or not) on the logic of “I chose to swim in the strong rapids, it’s not my fault I drowned” then wow, it doesn’t get much lower than that.

But there are some religious views that reject the use of any devices that would help prevent you from drowning.

Baltic condom crossing

Riga - Three Latvians landed in a small village near the Estonian border late on Tuesday, completing a 100 km journey across …

www.irishtimes.com

 

[Dolphin]

Are you speaking of contraceptives?

 

[Nonatheist]

l don’t have any specific argument on this, but my core idea is that sleeping can be excused because of that fact that it’s only a temporary reduction in personhood. If personhood existed in the past and will exist in the future, than person would retain that moral value of personhood, as it was never lost to begin with.

 

[Nonatheist]

However, l realised that this the biggest problem in my argument, so l will have to think more of it.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

l don’t have any specific argument on this, but my core idea is that sleeping can be excused because of that fact that it’s only a temporary reduction in personhood.

The fetus is also in this state.

If personhood existed in the past and will exist in the future, than person would retain that moral value of personhood, as it was never lost to begin with.

But personhood was lost because they aren’t sentient. The past is irrelevant because it no longer affects the present or future.

 

[Nonatheist]

No, fetus never had nor experienced a personhood.
The moral status personhood give them isnt lost, because the reduction in personhood is known to be temporary.
Reduction and not even getting personhood is a big difference l think.

On the second point, we have to agree to disagree.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

No, fetus never had nor experienced a personhood.
The moral status personhood give them isnt lost, because the reduction in personhood is known to be temporary.
Reduction and not even getting personhood is a big difference l thin

The person used to be a fetus too , so why can’t that past apply to them too?

 

[Nonatheist]

Person used to be fetus too, but fetus never used to be a person.
When human was a fetus, they didn’t have personhood.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Person used to be fetus too, but fetus never used to be a person.
When human was a fetus, they didn’t have personhood.

Then the past would apply on the human and they are no longer a oerson.

 

[Nonatheist]

Yes. Although when human being gets personhood is mostly arbitrary, it’s always after birth.
Fetus is just one of the stages of human development, but it’s not the stage that has any moral significance under my view.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Yes. Although when human being gets personhood is mostly arbitrary, it’s always after birth.
Fetus is just one of the stages of human development, but it’s not the stage that has any moral significance under my view.

I meant the human is not a person.

 

[Nonatheist]

Yeah, l missunderstood you.
Please clerify, how does the past make someone not a person?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Please clerify, how does the past make someone not a person?

Because in the past they weren’t a person. I also said that what happens in the past is irrelevant if it doesn’t affect the present or future and you disagreed so logically this ensues.