Refuting a Pro-Abortion Argument

[BobCatholic]

I’m saying that all life that lacks the trait of sentience is morally irrelevant, human or not.

Why is sentience required for human rights to be acknowledged? If someone were to be temporarily unconscious, then game over?

Also, why are human rights only for the chosen?

 

[Oreoracle]

Why is sentience required for human rights to be acknowledged? If someone were to be temporarily unconscious, then game over?

Also, why are human rights only for the chosen?

Please stop asking me about rights; I never proposed any support of such. I’m a consequentialist. I’m not joking, look it up if you don’t know what it means.

If I became temporarily unconscious, killing me would prevent potential happiness, which would be wrong. While you might argue the same for the fetus, it would lead to an absurd conclusion, such as “fertile women have a moral obligation to have children.” Oh wait…Catholics sort of believe that.

 

[BobCatholic]

Please stop asking me about rights; I never proposed any support of such. I’m a consequentialist. I’m not joking, look it up if you don’t know what it means.

Interesting. So how do consequentialists view Hitler? Do they praise him for exterminating Jews and Catholics? Or condemn him for preventing all that happiness?

If I became temporarily unconscious, killing me would prevent potential happiness, which would be wrong. While you might argue the same for the fetus,

The fetus is already created and existing (just like you), thus your standard shows it is wrong since killing the fetus would prevent potential happiness. Thus abortion is wrong.

it would lead to an absurd conclusion, such as “fertile women have a moral obligation to have children.” Oh wait…Catholics sort of believe that.

Uh, no. We are to be open to life, we are not required to have 50 children.

We can’t speculate on “potential happiness” for children who don’t exist yet, so that “absurd conclusion” does not follow from the premises anyway.

 

[Oreoracle]

Interesting. So how do consequentialists view Hitler? Do they praise him for exterminating Jews and Catholics? Or condemn him for preventing all that happiness?

Consequentialism is not an ethical system, but rather a category of systems. Quite simply, Christians such as yourself are deontologists, meaning that they only consider the means of a sequence in their ethical considerations. Consequentialists believe that goodness is produced as an end, thus the end can sometimes justify the means.

The fetus is already created and existing (just like you), thus your standard shows it is wrong since killing the fetus would prevent potential happiness. Thus abortion is wrong.

The fetus is not yet capable of feeling happiness or suffering. Judging before the being becomes sentient is ridiculous. How about this: Every time a couple attempts to procreate, countless potential lives (sperm cells) are lost for the sake of creating one. Thus, procreation is wrong.

 

[BobCatholic]

Consequentialism is not an ethical system, but rather a category of systems. Quite simply, Christians such as yourself are deontologists, meaning that they only consider the means of a sequence in their ethical considerations. Consequentialists believe that goodness is produced as an end, thus the end can sometimes justify the means.

So, how would Consequentialists view Hitler then? My question was not answered.

The fetus is not yet capable of feeling happiness or suffering.

Pain receptors and the central nervous system are part of the earliest development of the baby according to science, so this statement is not true.

Judging before the being becomes sentient is ridiculous. How about this: Every time a couple attempts to procreate, countless potential lives (sperm cells) are lost for the sake of creating one. Thus, procreation is wrong.

A sperm cell is not a human being, does not have the full DNA of a human. A fetus, on the other hand, according to DNA is a full human being. Your argument is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[ljubim]

It is incredible how each new oreo post brings with it another baseless provocation. It reminds me of a complete stranger I met the other day at work who apparently just wanted to make me angry by insulting me. All I said was sorry… I’m not going to fight you.

Really, stop humoring oreoracle and let him find somebody else to argue with. Any attempt to keep convincing him of our opinion will just entertain him further.

Just let this thread die (for lack of a better word), I think dootiepo (the OP) has more than enough to make her point.

 

[Oreoracle]

So, how would Consequentialists view Hitler then? My question was not answered.

You’re not listening. It depends on how that particular consequentialist defines “good.” As a utilitarian, I think happiness is good and suffering is bad (and that’s all, really).

So yeah, I think Hitler was an evil man, as he clearly didn’t care that he caused suffering. I love how so many here think that only Christianity offers a negative view of Hitler. Do you all have that little faith in the rest of us? Do you spend it all on your god?

Pain receptors and the central nervous system are part of the earliest development of the baby according to science, so this statement is not true.

Feeling physical pain is not the same as suffering, nor is happiness pleasure. They’re emotions, one of the later developments of the fetus. If someone pricked my finger while I was asleep, no one would say I was suffering. If someone stimulated me to orgasm while I was asleep, no one would venture to say I was happy either.

A sperm cell is not a human being, does not have the full DNA of a human. A fetus, on the other hand, according to DNA is a full human being. Your argument is comparing apples to oranges.

We were talking about potential lives, not humans. I don’t believe being human gives me intrinsic value as you do. Stop making me out to be a Christian.

 

[st_lucy]

You’re not listening. It depends on how that particular consequentialist defines “good.” As a utilitarian, I think happiness is good and suffering is bad (and that’s all, really).

So yeah, I think Hitler was an evil man, as he clearly didn’t care that he caused suffering. I love how so many here think that only Christianity offers a negative view of Hitler. Do you all have that little faith in the rest of us? Do you spend it all on your god?

Feeling physical pain is not the same as suffering, nor is happiness pleasure. They’re emotions, one of the later developments of the fetus. If someone pricked my finger while I was asleep, no one would say I was suffering. If someone stimulated me to orgasm while I was asleep, no one would venture to say I was happy either.

We were talking about potential lives, not humans. I don’t believe being human gives me intrinsic value as you do. Stop making me out to be a Christian.

But my question is how do YOU no for certain that a fetus (baby) does not have these feelings?

 

[Oreoracle]

But my question is how do YOU no for certain that a fetus (baby) does not have these feelings?

You probably won’t be satisfied with this answer, but it’s because the scientists suggest that they don’t (due to the brain being one of the last parts to develop). Society falls apart if we don’t trust scientists with their fields…

But in case you’re not satisfied with that, consider this: how do you know a plant doesn’t have feelings? Again, the lack of brain development (or, in this instance, any brain at all) makes the assumption that they do not seem justified.

 

[st_lucy]

You probably won’t be satisfied with this answer, but it’s because the scientists suggest that they don’t (due to the brain being one of the last parts to develop). Society falls apart if we don’t trust scientists with their fields…

But in case you’re not satisfied with that, consider this: how do you know a plant doesn’t have feelings? Again, the lack of brain development (or, in this instance, any brain at all) makes the assumption that they do not seem justified.

There you are wrong. Science has proven that the brain is not the last parts to develop.

read here

The prenatal brain development starts when the baby is actually two to three weeks old. After she reaches the age of about four weeks, different sections of the baby’s brain begin to mature. The different sections function in different ways and the baby starts learning more things. At the seventh week, some hormonal works begin to start. Before the completion of this seventh week, the baby’s brain has no distinction of a male or female.

 

[Oreoracle]

Thank you for providing that, Lucy. However, according to bioethicist Peter Singer, whom I trust, the cerebral cortex is not sufficiently developed to register sensations of pain until 18 weeks of gestation. There is good reason to believe that he has done his homework on this subject.

 

[st_lucy]

Thank you for providing that, Lucy. However, according to bioethicist Peter Singer, whom I trust, the cerebral cortex is not sufficiently developed to register sensations of pain until 18 weeks of gestation. There is good reason to believe that he has done his homework on this subject.

Can you prove this to me (us) I have a hard time believing anything Singer says since he has a huge agenda. As a mother though I can tell you that when my children where still in the womb they sure did have the sensation of pain, sadness and happiness. Their behavior patterns started in the womb and where very unique and distinct from each other.

 

[Oreoracle]

Can you prove this to me (us) I have a hard time believing anything Singer says since he has a huge agenda. As a mother though I can tell you that when my children where still in the womb they sure did have the sensation of pain, sadness and happiness. Their behavior patterns started in the womb and where very unique and distinct from each other.

I concede that Singer does have an agenda (one that I agree with, but he’s biased nonetheless). I’ll try to find some sources, but all of this really doesn’t change the nature of my position. If I’m wrong, the only thing that will change in my opinion will be the amount of time a woman has to abort.

 

[st_lucy]

I concede that Singer does have an agenda (one that I agree with, but he’s biased nonetheless). I’ll try to find some sources, but all of this really doesn’t change the nature of my position. If I’m wrong, the only thing that will change in my opinion will be the amount of time a woman has to abort.

But why abort all what if you are wrong about that time also? Wouldn’t it always be better to be on the side of caution? If there is even the remotest chance of these little ones being alive wouldn’t you want to make sure they aren’t hurt? Science keeps find new evidence every day that makes us realize that these children can indeed feel what is going on around them. I feel that it is always safer to be on the side of caution, we don’t fire a gun at a moving bush because we think there might be a turkey hiding in it, because that turkey might just be your kid playing hide-n-seek. The same is true with abortion we should not pull apart a fetus because we think it might not be human, alive or whatever, because that fetus might just be all of the above.

Just some words to think about.

 

[fix]

I never said that I would be satisfied if I knew that I accepted error; I will obviously try to improve as the facts are revealed to me. But I feel that, even if I, or you, or anyone, possessed the truth, we should not scorn others for not likewise possessing it, nor should we simply say “You don’t know, so obey me, since I do know.” as the Church does. We can only encourage others’ development.

The Church does not force anyone. She proposes.

What should be forced, if needed, is the protection of innocent life. This used to be common sense.

 

[fix]

Consequentialism is not an ethical system, but rather a category of systems. Quite simply, Christians such as yourself are deontologists, meaning that they only consider the means of a sequence in their ethical considerations. Consequentialists believe that goodness is produced as an end, thus the end can sometimes justify the means.

Christians look at the intent, the means, and the end. If a good end is justified by an evil means, then anything goes. That means there is no objective moral order. It is all subjective.

 

[st_lucy]

I concede that Singer does have an agenda (one that I agree with, but he’s biased nonetheless). I’ll try to find some sources, but all of this really doesn’t change the nature of my position. If I’m wrong, the only thing that will change in my opinion will be the amount of time a woman has to abort.

I found some information about the prenatal brain.
Here

MONTH 2

BRAIN: The major structures of the brain begin to form, including the cerebral cortex. As the brain grows, the embryo’s head begins to look more human.

also from that sight;

Many people do not realize just how early a child’s brain begins to develop—and how long it continues to mature after birth. The process starts between the second and third week of fetal development, and it continues well into early adulthood.

and

The cerebral cortex begins to develop in the eighth week of embryonic growth but will continue to form during much of the prenatal period. The connections between neurons in the cerebral cortex continue to mature into early adulthood, and some experts say they never stop maturing.

Here are few more sites: here and here

I hope that helps.

 

[PoliSciProf]

A simple thought experiment: Suppose there was a person in a hospital who had no brain activity was totally unable to feel sensation and was completely dependent on intensive life support. As the OP suggested, such a person is “brain dead” for many “ethicists” who may recommend termination of life support. Now, imagine that I could say that this person will, with a very very high degree of certainty, recover in nine months and be able to function as normal. This outcome changes everything. I doubt if anyone would advocate “pulling the plug” if there were to be a good outcome after a few months of total dependency (well, maybe some euthanasia defenders might not since the life support might be deemed too costly for society). Likewise, what difference does it make if a bunch of cells shows no brain activity early in its development if in 9 months it will be a functioning human being? I have had many discussions about abortion with pro-choice advocates and I find this to be a good argument.

 

[BobCatholic]

You’re not listening. It depends on how that particular consequentialist defines “good.” As a utilitarian, I think happiness is good and suffering is bad (and that’s all, really).

OK, what about other consequentialists. What do they define as “good”?

So yeah, I think Hitler was an evil man, as he clearly didn’t care that he caused suffering. I love how so many here think that only Christianity offers a negative view of Hitler. Do you all have that little faith in the rest of us? Do you spend it all on your god?

Am I required to have faith in the “rest of us”? I’m humane, not a humanist

We were talking about potential lives, not humans. I don’t believe being human gives me intrinsic value as you do.

Well, if there is nothing intrinsic valuable about being human then we really cannot draw any firm lines morally. Murder is OK no matter what then. Rape is good, no matter what then. After all, nobody is being hurt (since human beings are nobody anyway)

Stop making me out to be a Christian.

I’m not. One doesn’t need to be a Christian to believe that human beings have worth (though we are the most famous religion that believes this!). One could be a simple loving person. One could be a Jew. One could be a humanist. Believing that human beings have worth is a belief not just for Christians alone.

 

[BobCatholic]

Thank you for providing that, Lucy. However, according to bioethicist Peter Singer, whom I trust, the cerebral cortex is not sufficiently developed to register sensations of pain until 18 weeks of gestation. There is good reason to believe that he has done his homework on this subject.

Peter Singer promotes the 30-day guarantee in morals. Give birth to a baby and if in 30 days you don’t want it, you can murder him/her on the spot without it being morally wrong, according to him.

I wonder why not 31 days. Why not 32 days. What magical thing takes place on the 31st day that turns the baby into a real human being?

Yup. He did his homework. Moloch would be proud.