Opinions on abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

I must admit that I don't really understand what's so different about killing a zygote and killing an egg. Yes, one is a different being. So what? Having the potential to be a person in the future doesn't grant you extra rights. I certainly don't care that something is "human", which seems to be one step away from caring that someone is "white".

If you bemoan when someone takes a drug which means an embryo fails to implant, then you should also bemoan when you swallow and drop thousands of bacteria into a pit of acid.

The issue with murder isn't "killing is always wrong". Death is a fact of life, particularly for cells. Cells cannot think, and they can't "feel" remotely the same way that we do. We have no qualms about killing cells when it is convenient for us (if we're itchy, for example). We shouldn't change our mind about that just because the cells are a human embryo. Beings, capable of thought and feeling, are infinitely more worthy of ethical consideration than collections of cells.

Long story short, this is not a person:

That's fine, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting you and that those were your views rather than those of a hypothetical person.



Yes, thank you.

Let's say intelligent aliens land on Earth. They are extremely peaceful and keen to integrate. They quickly learn our languages, and in conversation are indistinguishable from people, but biologically they're very different and interbreeding is impossible. Would you consider their lives as important as human lives?

Thanks for answering. Apologies for taking so long to acknowledge and reply.

I'm not sure what your position is Walrus, I was amused by your introduction of moral vegetarianism into the abortion argument. To counter such an idea, I think we'll have to go far beyond the abortion argument, but hey it might be fun. Shall we tackle your newly invented racism (specism?) first? You already noted that by applying such a world view, killing a newborn would be no different than killing a pig, so, it's time for a hypothetical.

A ravenous chimp is about to eat a human child of approximately similar intellectual and emotional capability. You are looking at this event through the scope of a loaded sniper rifle. What's the moral course? Do you intervene? They are more or less equal beings according to your entry into this thread. Surely you won't save the child since you've said that would be something akin to racism... Yes the child has the potential to be more than the chimp will ever be, but at this present moment, they are, according to your statements, equal beings and neither deserves extra rights compared to the other.

Why shouldn't the human child be saved from the chimp---especially if the chimp is not harmed in the process?

It would be hard to foresee the opposite situation---where a ravenous human baby is aching to eat a chimp. If that situation was to occur, I would feel tempted to save the chimp from being eaten.

Can you please clarify? I don't understand what you mean by 'chimp'.

Fine I'll simplify it. A chimp and human child of equal mental development are trapped a box by a mad scientist called Mikah. Mikah presents you with two buttons. Press one and the child dies, press the other and the chimp dies, press neither and both die. Choose. Before you say kill Mikah, that is not an option in this thought experiment.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee

If I'm understanding you correctly then, you'd be in support of methods 1 & 2, you would question 3 & 4 based on the potential for prevention of implantation, and would oppose 5 on the same level as a D&C or other medical procedure designed to evict a uterine tenant?

I know there's a lot of "gotcha" going on in this thread, as it's a contentious topic, but I'm not trying to set you up in any sort of ontological bear-trap. It's difficult to find an opportunity to discuss something like this without tempers flaring. I know masking and mirroring behaviors aren't universal coping strategies for the neurodiverse, but I believe many of us employ them; I mirror almost constantly and often without conscious intent. For that reason, I prize others who can veer toward the hyper-rational side of things, as that's how I function when I'm not around others and I think more clearly this way. I suppose I should try to be better at not mirroring in a text-based environment, but I'll admit to a nasty streak of temperament that enjoys that...I just try to rise above it.

It seems what we're arriving at here is the question of conflicting rights, would you agree?

I know what chimp means. Asking kraftiekortie what HE meant by it in context of abortion.

I don't think kraftie was talking about chimps in the context of abortions. Just referring to Mad Scientist Mikah's thought experiment regarding the relative value of newborn chimpanzee and human lives.

Yes, as you described them, though I'm no expert on the chemistry of some of these drugs.



Sorry, it's been one of those threads. My thought experiment is mainly aimed at The_Walrus.

Nor am I. There's actually disagreement on the function of IUDs, with some doctors maintaining they're purely prophylactic and others saying they interfere with implantation.

It seems likely that a discussion of embryology would just be a rehash of opinions already stated, so I don't see much sense delving into the question of zygote vs. embryo vs. fetus. From a scientific standpoint they're clearly defined and differ from one another. Your stand seems to be that from a moral/ethical standpoint they don't, or shouldn't, differ - that human life, as defined by a distinct genetic code, is a person and should have equal protection under the law. Is that a correct statement?

The law protects people equally, therefore any man or woman could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Even though I'm not an advocate for abortion. Illegalizing abortion isn't a viable option. Women will use more crude methods which can cause serious harm or potentially be life-threathening. More baby killing, homeless kids, unstable/ irresponsible parents who can't take care of the kid etc.

Last edited by Yo El on 25 Jan 2018, 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Abortion is wrong,
But so is a lot of things,
So we should allow it on the merit society is already screwed,

I'd save the child on the basis of enlightened self-interest.

How would anybody die based upon pressing a button?

Perhaps, one could overcome "evil Mikah" (without killing him), and the dismantle that evil thing. Or just take the electrodes or whatever off both the person and the chimp.

In answer to the above question: Yes, I was talking about the relative worth of a chimp and a human's life.