abortion terminology

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks. Yeah, that and I only put it in my posts a few times in any thread. Gets monotonous otherwise.

The "potential person" argument is pretty weak.

I think you can put your mind at ease about there being a slippery slope past conception. I've never heard of anyone who thinks menstruation is murder...


So friendless 2 year olds are fair game?

How do you feel about the whole Caylee Anthony thing?

Glad you're back, Ancalagon... I've been hoping you would answer my question, perhaps

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2207016.html#2207016

Explain why.
Aside from imposing religion, pro-lifers tend to get confused between 'potential' and 'existing'.

The "potential person" argument makes menstruation murder, which is obviously not the case. The pro-life argument (if I am not mistaken) is that a developing fetus is indeed a person, and not just a potential person. I have heard pro-lifers support this on the basis that the fetus has a full human genome and is thus distinct from either parent. (Aside: this fact is why the mother's immune system acts wacky during pregnancy, and often kills the fetus because the immune system recognizes it as non-self) An individual unfertilized egg is derived wholly from the mother, containing only her DNA, and so would be considered a part of the mother, and there is no crime when an egg is disposed of. But at the point of conception, two people's DNA combines to form a new person's genome, and it is here where pro-lifers say we can clearly demarcate the creation of a new person.

Premise 1: Developing fetuses are individual humans.
Premise 2: Killing humans is wrong.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong.

Since no one is likely to contest Premise 2 and the logic is valid, the debate has to move to contesting Premise 1. It honestly just becomes a game of definitions. If you accept pro-life definitions, you are compelled to accept pro-life conclusions, and similarly if you accept pro-choice definitions, you are compelled to accept their conclusions. But who has the more correct definitions?

Given that shadowgirl hasn't weighed in on this topic again, and that the discussion has gotten a lot more specific since she wrote this, it's difficult to say without assuming things. Assuming that she meant that in a strictly literal sense, though, I would disagree with it.

Have you READ the old testament??

Yep.

I've always had a question - that will probably remain forever unanswered - about this mess (if it would be strictly a philosophical or moral problem people could debate endlessly without doing much about it - it's part of human nature).

But I feel that those who support it with its legal and political implication should think it through all the way. Not only would be helpful to be more clear regarding the punishment - since the more balanced or extreme opinions would also have an influence on other's position - but shouldn't we be more concerned about the future of these babies? The way the system works now I would feel like fighting - in many cases - for somebody's right to a miserable life of neglect and abuse. It's often the kind of childhood that scars and emotionally cripples people for life and if the mother herself cannot or will not take responsibility somebody should, and with abortion illegal that would be the state that makes the decision for her. After all, when abortion was made legal there were concrete actions regarding safety, health, training professionals and so on. Apart from some occasional empty political propaganda, I don't hear anybody coming with some coherent plan about what could be done. IMHO people who militate for laws against abortion should take full responsibility and try to construct or at least propose some solutions for the future of these children.

Well said.

It seems to me that those of the Christian and/or anti-choice persuasion have a hard time accepting that **** happens. They live in a mental reality they have constructed (or had constructed for them), where there actually are moral absolutes, good and evil, right and wrong. They refuse to see the realistic picture you describe because it contradicts this mental reality that is so key to their day-to-day life.

Instead of actually wanting a better world, they just want to "end" what they see as evil.

To me it's a really disgusting double-standard, but a rather astute reflection of human nature.

As in, carrying out a basic deontic moral theory no?

I'm going to point out once again that pro-life vs pro-choice is not dependent on religious persuasion. The pro-life arguments do not rely very heavily on religious ideas, and there's no reason why Christians must be pro-life. My own denomination has been officially pro-choice for nearly 40 years. In 1970 the Presbyterian Church (USA) released a statement that “the artificial or induced termination of a pregnancy is a matter of careful ethical decision of the patient…and therefore should not be restricted by law…” [emphasis mine] and this stance has yet to be reversed.

Well, they might see it as such, but I would disagree. I would also say viewing a highly complicated issue such as this in "deontic" terms is utterly absurd. For those who can't pull off a 2 minute google research session, deon is Greek for duty. So basically you're playing at absolutist moral theory which just doesn't play in the realm of intelligent and critical debate.

Um, since when did deontic moral theories not "play in the realm of intelligent and critical debates"? I mean, hey, Kant is known to induce comas, but he's usually considered a heavy hitter in philosophical debates, just for example.

I was referring to your statement in the context of this issue, not to the value of considering various moral theories in the philosophical realm.

When dealing with the issue of abortion, if you are bringing to the table "this is right, this is wrong", I don't really know where we can go with that, because it's utterly absurd.

Well, if deontological moral theories are valid, they are valid in all circumstances.


Perhaps it seems absurd to you, but deontoloical views typically seem absurd to those who do not share them.