Pro-choice friends

[Farsight001]

I hope you can understand why I won’t accept your dictionary claim on the basis of your say-so.

Which is why I pointed out that the dictionary was an OED - so you could check for yourself instead of just taking my word for it.

Again, I recognize that there is a somewhat complicated issue, and my view is there isn’t much difference. But the case is much clearer in the *early *stages of pregnancy: no sentience at all.

Not at all because sentience is an intrinsic trait, like being a parasite. A parasite is so by it’s nature. It is born a parasite, even if it doesn’t have a host yet. It lives as a parasite, even if it is between hosts, and it dies as a parasite - usually from too long without a host. Sentience is the same - an intrinsic trait that an entity either has or it doesn’t. It does not come into and out of being with development or change of said entity. It just is.

Furthermore, you have yet to establish any reason whatsoever that lack of sentience would justify killing anyway.

Again, I would recommend that people read this very concise summary: tere.org/assets/downloads/secondary/pdf_downloads/ALevel/PeterSingerAbortion.pdf

Singer philosophically argues that it is morally permissible to kill infants. No one should want any part of reasoning like that. Leave the sick minded people to the professionals with the white jackets and the pills.

Did you look at the link? You actually ask a difficult philosophical question. According to the traditional conception, persons are beings who:

I don’t get the impression he was trying to ask a philosophical question at all. It was more of what is the definition of the word. Philosophers can muse and apply meanings however they want. That doesn’t change a definition as the public (especially in this case, the lawmakers) see it. When in the court of law, one wants to define a word, they consult a legal dictionary, not a philosopher. Their definitions are their own, not the whole English-speaking world’s.

 

[IBombAtomically]

Hi spenselo, thank you for the link. I’m not interested in splitting hairs here, I’m not comfortable with the tone this thread has taken, and out of respect for the original poster maybe we should get back on topic.
…that said, a couple more observations:

1. Based on the link, I can assume you are pro-life after 30 weeks gestation, and possibly sooner?
2. If better technology proves sentience is present earlier in development (not to criticize, but the article is 20 yrs old) would you be open to changing your opinion of when abortion is right/wrong?

3.I agree it is a tricky topic, especially since our technology is limited and there are ethical considerations for performing tests (such as pain) on the unborn. I am wondering, assuming a fetus is akin to a rock, if the pro-choice side thinks there should be ethical standards in medical experimentation, and the reasons why or why not.

1. Singer has interesting thoughts, but we may not agree on whether he’s The source of an objective authority. Also, the “person” definition troubles me because there are too many openings to justify killing the disabled or our otherwise incapacitated brothers and sisters. “Person” to me means living human individual. Would you agree we’ve gotten in trouble in the past when we acknowledge someone as a “living human individual” yet withhold personhood status?
   Generally, “personhood” only gets complicated when we’re trying to justify subverting someone else.

Peace! And to the OP, sorry for further getting off topic on your thread, and I hope the previous discussion hasn’t caused anxiety. I think it’s really good that you and your friends were able to at least talk about this subject and remain on good terms with one another. It speaks to your gentleness in approaching the subject, which is always a good thing to have in your corner.

 

[DCNBILL]

What is the definition of a person?

Wouldn’t you agree that It seems irrational to believe it is OK to kill infants but not pigs?

When words stop having meaning then one can argue anything, anyway they like, without respect to the language or truth.

 

[Stephen168]

But it doesn’t follow that all humans are rational - namely, fetuses.

It does follow in the same way that you are given the status of a person (rational human) when you are a sleep. You aren’t at that moment, but you will be, so it is not just to take your life while you sleep. A broken chair is still a chair.

 

[Stephen168]

When words stop having meaning then one can argue anything, anyway they like, without respect to the language or truth.

 

[johnnyjones]

Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you.

Speak out for the unborn. Make them your friend (through trial).

 

[april32010]

If pigs are persons in Singer’s sense, then he’s consistent. But I’m not an expert on Singer: he is a very careful thinker and it would be worthwhile for you to study his writings.

utilitarian.net/singer/

An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.
Peter Singer

The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.
Peter Singer