Why is abortion harmful?

[Genesis315]

But they don’t display any qualities that we normally associate with the human person, like reason, fear, love, faith, etc.

If a human being is defined by displaying reason, fear, love, and faith, then we have a whole lot of non-persons outside the womb too, such as people with mental disabilities. Denying personhood to human beings never ends well for the most vulnerable and needy among us.

But that is why they are usually deemed non-persons–they are considered a drain on other individuals and society and so there is a desire to see them eliminated for the greater material benefit of a society or individuals. This is the justification for abortion and other historical instances of eliminating the unwanted needy. Making them non-persons helps assuage the conscience I guess.

Just as we can say a human being has two arms, this does not deny the humanity to someone born with only one–we can understand what a person is, even if the person’s final form is not yet completed or is impeded for some reason (like a person with a missing limb).

 

[goout]

I tried this argument that if we value consciousness then it implies we can lose or gain value. However what usually respond with is “acknowledging that mental states
are what make people valuable does not require any moral ranking of those mental states. What matters is that you have experiences, not what those experiences are.”

To give you a better definition mental states would be thoughts, desires, dispositions, and other facets of your mental life.

So if a person is truly confused about who is human, what should the default position be?
Even hunters in the woods know the answer to that ethical non-dilemma.

None of these pro-abort arguments have any substance. They all boil down to the willingness to dehumanize others and subject them to the “will to power”.

 

[goout]

Oh I understand your position as I used to be pro-life. However, you can’t compare a fully sentient human being with someone who’s black or Jewish , or Muslim, or handicapped, or old. No comparison there.

I fixed that for ya.
(Of course, the knee jerk rebuttal is to hinge the value of a human being on comparative sentience, but you know the moral dead end of subjecting human life to subjective judgments…you do right?)

 

[1ke]

I recommend you get the book Randy Alcorn’s book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, Expanded and Updated edition. Available via Amazon or library loan.

 

[goout]

I’m sorry, I just have to laugh. What was the purpose? This is emberazzing. Are you not emberazzed?

Yes, it really is. I hope laughter makes it all better for you.
You’re in ethical bed with racists and genociders (hey I coined a new word!!)

 

[goout]

Awesome for you. A little novacaine makes it all go away. Sure.

 

[goout]

I’m gonna stop joking before I get suspended for a month again

I’m shocked that someone with such substantive arguments would get suspended from a discussion blog.

 

[goout]

So seriously, how do you separate your philosophy from that which justifies genocide and racism, both of which deny obvious humanity.

 

[goout]

Easy! One is about reproductive rights and the other is about the destruction of actual human life.

Not what I asked.
You responded with a non sequitur about reproductive rights. Can you answer my question?

 

[goout]

It’s a hard one for sure.

 

[goout]

Because…one philosophy allows me to kill human beings who are black, and the other philosophy allows me to kill human beings who are small.
Does that help?

Because black people are not persons. So THAT’s what you’re trying to say.
Got it.

 

[goout]

Can blacks be 3/5 of a person?
Is that in your bag of gratuitousness?

 

[goout]

Why is it wrong to deny black people personhood but not small people?

 

[goout]

No, a small human is someone with dwarfism. An unborn ‘child’ isn’t a person in the first place because it can’t feel, hear, think, reason, fear, love, or do anything that humans are capable of doing. A black person is a person with black skin. It’s sad the lengths y’all go through to justify having control over a woman’s body.

That same barbarous blather is applied in any case of racism or genocide.
You are in bad company and you should reconsider.

 

[Genesis315]

I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think there’s anything you can compare a fetus, embryo, or zygote to that makes sense. A mentally disabled person is just a person with impaired faculties as opposed to something that’s dependent on another being for survival.

I don’t know if you know anyone with impaired faculties (either present at birth or acquired after) but they tend to be absolutely dependent on others for survival. Sometimes this is an individual, like a parent, and sometimes it devolves to the community. And really, unless you’re some sort of hardcore survivalist, we are all dependent on other human beings for survival. It is the point of human society. We are all responsible for each other and as a society, our laws forbid abandonment of children and other vulnerable groups and we provide the means to feed, shelter, etc. the poor and mentally disabled.

But children are a drain on people’s lives. That’s not to say that some people will welcome them, but others just don’t want them. Why should they be forced to go through a pregnant they didn’t ask for?

If we can justify killing someone for that, then we can justify killing the poor and disabled out of utero–which I hope you agree is monstrous. In utero, there are no other communal means to provide the needy directly with support (though we can and should help support the mother), but afterward there are if needed. Again, we see a societal obligation to care for those who cannot survive without it–and sometimes this obligation devolves disproportionately to different people either justly or sometimes sadly due itself to some injustice --but one injustice cannot merit another injustice against an innocent person.

 

[whatistrue]

Why should they be forced to go through a pregnant they didn’t ask for?

If you engage in sexual intercourse, then you should accept that it sometimes results in pregnancy. So in a way one could be said to have asked for it, or at least taken the risk. The case of rape is different in that sense, but then there is the question of whether it is just to inflict capital punishment on an innocent person in retribution for the crime of one of its parents.

I’m defining personhood by qualities that are usually associated with people, and are true in nearly all cases.

Which “two arms” is an example of.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Allow me to play the opposition. Studies show that the cerebral cortex the thing needed my our consciousness forms at 22 weeks. Even if I was to say they’re human they are not persons, therefore, it’s morally permissible to kill them.

Do you believe it’s morally permissible to kill a brain damaged person?

 

[whatistrue]

Where do you get your definition of personhood from and how do you justify it?

A person is a living human because unless all humans are persons, then any human can be said not to be one by some criterion or other.

 

[Eaglejet23]

No I would not but legally the person is already dead and some people could respond with he/she is already dead so what does it matter.

 

[Cruciferi]

Most importantly Gov, remember, they’re always right and you’re always wrong. You have to change, not them.