Horror of Abortion!

Post Reply New Topic

I have many opinions on this matter but I will bring them up in debate if necessary: Until then, I will express my beliefs on the importance of personhood being valued over humanity in ethics and my justifications for this belief.

I define a person as a sapient being, or a being with the ability to act with rational judgement. Not all humans can do this: A human in a vegetative state is incapable of acting with rational judgement, thus said human is not sapient and thus not a person, to give but one example.

Personhood being given primacy over humanity has many advantages: All are treated according to merit as opposed to birth, giving highly intelligent animals as well as hypothetical extraterrestrials a chance to be treated according to their intelligence alongside the majority of humans. In addition, it establishes a system of valuing being's minds over their bodies and therefore valuing the intelligence of a being over said being's relation to oneself.

To me, with my guideline-based teleological ethics, an abortion is just another action and is only as good or as bad as its result. Thus, aborting a genius is far worse than aborting a human with a profound mental handicap. But, as one cannot decide the worth of an unborn human within reason beyond the obvious (if they are severely physically deformed, for example), it makes the most sense to take a guideline-based approach to abortion. Using probability logic, we can see that, if all one knows is that a woman is pregnant and nothing else about the unborn human (universally so until the Industrial Revolution at the earliest), we should thus allow an abortion if only for the facts that humanity is dominated by NTs who are in most cases easily replaced, that denying a woman an abortion is almost certainly more likely to do far more harm to a little over half the world population than the good caused by every single genius, person of extreme virtue and savant being born (which is impossible without significant, and as yet unfeasible, human genetic engineering, due to the fact of miscarriages and of said person's situation in birth) would counteract. Thus, as a flexible guideline, I believe that abortion should be allowed on demand at all stages of pregnancy.

Finally, as nurture is so important to the development of young humans, there is no reason to think that even our most superb people would have developed into Steven Hawking or Shen Kuo without their environment and visa versa for the most wicked. Thus, what we should really be focusing on is increasing prosperity for all people so as to benefit all people.

Thank of all the thing's those aborted fetuses, could have done if they where given the chance to be born

Two can play at that game!

It wouldn't be a game if only one person is playing

Indeed, some already have.

Have you read my post?

That is true but it's a game with no true winner.

I suppose you have ignored my post either because you cannot understand my arguments nor can you give a sound rebuttal.

I did read your post but my views still havent changed I would not waste your time trying to change them its a lost cause.

Why does every question you ever ask me sound like one that would come from a political commissar? Surely you can work out the fundamental distinction between that which does naturally and that which is killed. Also, it seems rather ignorant that you put this forward, especially considering that Gedrene has already dealt with this objection enough.



What you do not seem to appreciate is that this fact is not something that supports your case at all. Claiming it for your own demonstrates my point. My position is that we ought to exercise restraint when it comes to fundamental matters of life. Your position is based on an assertion of hubris towards a very sensitive and important subject. The misplaced condescension which you put forward towards opponents of your view, one shared it seems by many on this forum, demonstrates amply that our position is the correct one. The lack of restraint combined with the lack of humility proves unequivocally that man is just not equipped to answer such questions and as such we ought to exercise our most effective response; restraint.

I agree with you 91 all their arguements sound too political also I am not pro life

Why do your comments sound like something a Church-approved Theologian or Catholic Inquisitor would say?



Naturally, huh? You do know that having sex causes the sperm to die, so it is a direct result of the human persons' actions? Furthermore, with cancer we spend millions of dollars in R&D to develop better treatment, real effort was put forth to development a treatment for diabetes, and natural deaths are still mourned. Maybe I'm rusty on Catholic practice, but I don't ever recall candle vigils lit after two people have sex to commemorate the victims.



I am not under the obligation to read every post ever written in this thread, particularly when under time constraints. I'm pretty sure that your claims of him "dealing" with it are bluster, though.



Non-essentialism generally disadvantages absolutist positions and most Fetus Fetishist position tend to be rather absolutist in regards to when a cluster of cells gets rights and privileges enjoyed by actual people.



Do you realize that your pretentious talk of "condescension from the other side" makes you condescending yourself?

• Great sample size for your generalizations.
• Do you endorse veganism because we must show "restraint" over the possibility that shrimp have person-like consciousness or the chance that God, just to mess with you, put rational souls in them?
• Indeed, legislators must practice emotional restraint and not let pictures of embryos or fetuses compel them into restricting the reproductive rights of people.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 18 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.

You start a political thread and want apolitical arguments?

Regardless, 91's responses seem too intellectually dishonest and theologically doctrinaire to be the tad bit interesting.

It''s more then just a political issue Lad.

You do realize, boy, that I provided numerous moral arguments as well, and am treating personhood as an ethical as opposed to legal question, right?

moral arguments that support abortion