Pro choice or pro life?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
You could say the same when it is outside the womb though 
Indeed, see below.
Original post by Polysexual Nymph
Your logic can be extrapolated to justify legalising infanticide or to euthanise any person in comatose (but not yet brain dead).
You seem to be appealing to undesirable consequences here, but I would argue that you've not demonstrated that these consequences are a bad thing.
In the vast majority of cases, a newborn infant is obviously loved and cherished by its parents, so infanticide in all of these cases would be a terrible thing.
But, the fact does remain that newborn infants have no sense of themselves as existing over time, due to their lack of self-awareness, so killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a normal human being.
So infanticide, in certain, limited circumstances, would be justifiable in my view. If two parents and their newborn infant were on a desert island, for instance, and they didn't have enough resources to feed themselves and their baby, it would be justifiable to kill the baby (letting their baby simply die of starvation would be more inhumane).
Real-life examples include infants born with severe disabilities which would seriously impact on their quality of life, who have been allowed to die (by switching off life-support) due to the wishes of the parents. In my view, there's no distinction between allowing someone to die and actively killing them, so I would argue that doctors should be able to actively kill infants if their parents wish them to.
For comatose patients, it's more complicated, because most comatose patients have held - and could be said to continue to hold - a preference to continue to live. In my view, we need to move towards living wills being drafted, where people outline their wishes as to what they would want to happen to them in these circumstances. The preference to continue to live that they held before being comatose is an important reason against killing them. Furthermore, if people in wider society saw that people's wishes were not being respected, they may become more fearful about what would happen to them if they were ever in such a situation, so that's another important reason to take this question seriously. But, once again, we already turn off life-support for some in a persistent vegetative state, in some circumstances, for a variety of reasons; the family may wish it, for instance.
My problem with the standard pro-choice argument is that it presupposes a magical point at which the foetus suddenly becomes a human being or a living thing, at which point it's suddenly wrong to kill it. I don't think that the fact that a being is a member of the species Homo sapiens, or that it is living, is a morally relevant reason not to kill such a being.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Indeed, see below.
You seem to be appealing to undesirable consequences here, but I would argue that you've not demonstrated that these consequences are a bad thing.
In the vast majority of cases, a newborn infant is obviously loved and cherished by its parents, so infanticide in all of these cases would be a terrible thing.
But, the fact does remain that newborn infants have no sense of themselves as existing over time, due to their lack of self-awareness, so killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a normal human being.
So, infanticide, in certain, limited circumstances, would be justifiable in my view. If two parents and their newborn infant were on a desert island, for instance, and they didn't have enough resources to feed themselves and their baby, it would be justifiable to kill the baby and feed themselves (letting their baby simply die of starvation would be more inhumane).
Real-life examples include infants born with severe disabilities which would seriously impact on their quality of life, who have been allowed to die (by switching off life-support) due to the wishes of the parents. In my view, there's no distinction between allowing someone to die and actively killing them, so I would argue that doctors should be able to actively kill infants if their parents wish them to.
For comatose patients, it's more complicated, because most comatose patients have held - and could be said to continue to hold - a preference to continue to live. In my view, we need to move towards living wills being drafted, where people outline their wishes as to what they would want to happen to them in these circumstances. The preference to continue to live that they held before being comatose is an important reason against killing them. But, once again, we already turn off life-support for some in a persistent vegetative state, for a variety of reasons; the family may wish it, for instance.
You seem to be appealing to undesirable consequences here, but I would argue that you've not demonstrated that these consequences are a bad thing.
In the vast majority of cases, a newborn infant is obviously loved and cherished by its parents, so infanticide in all of these cases would be a terrible thing.
But, the fact does remain that newborn infants have no sense of themselves as existing over time, due to their lack of self-awareness, so killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a normal human being.
So, infanticide, in certain, limited circumstances, would be justifiable in my view. If two parents and their newborn infant were on a desert island, for instance, and they didn't have enough resources to feed themselves and their baby, it would be justifiable to kill the baby and feed themselves (letting their baby simply die of starvation would be more inhumane).
Real-life examples include infants born with severe disabilities which would seriously impact on their quality of life, who have been allowed to die (by switching off life-support) due to the wishes of the parents. In my view, there's no distinction between allowing someone to die and actively killing them, so I would argue that doctors should be able to actively kill infants if their parents wish them to.
For comatose patients, it's more complicated, because most comatose patients have held - and could be said to continue to hold - a preference to continue to live. In my view, we need to move towards living wills being drafted, where people outline their wishes as to what they would want to happen to them in these circumstances. The preference to continue to live that they held before being comatose is an important reason against killing them. But, once again, we already turn off life-support for some in a persistent vegetative state, for a variety of reasons; the family may wish it, for instance.
Ignoring the horror of cannibalising your own baby... I'm just checking you are consistent.
SO whist I agree with you I hope to god I never find myself in that situation or one like that. I'd probs go mad and kill myself.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Ignoring the horror of cannibalising your own baby... I'm just checking you are consistent.
Whoops, didn't mean to imply that they'd eat their baby, just that they could feed themselves with the resources on the island without having to feed the baby.
Consistency in ethics is indeed important, in my view.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
SO whist I agree with you I hope to god I never find myself in that situation or one like that. I'd probs go mad and kill myself.
Yes, same here.
Original post by viddy9
Whoops, didn't mean to imply that they'd eat their baby, just that they could feed themselves with the resources on the island without having to feed the baby.
Consistency in ethics is indeed important, in my view.
Yes, same here.
Consistency in ethics is indeed important, in my view.
Yes, same here.
But eating the dead baby is the more rational thing to do in that situation according to your logic. It just also goes against some of our most fundamental instincts and societal conditioning all based around gene propagation. Like, I'd rather kill myself in that situation.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
But eating the dead baby is the more rational thing to do in that situation according to your logic. It just also goes against some of our most fundamental instincts and societal conditioning all based around gene propagation. Like, I'd rather kill myself in that situation.
Yes, it would be permissible for them to also eat the dead baby. In real-life, there have been examples of similar circumstances, in which a number of people have been shipwrecked and in order to survive, they have had to kill one of the crew members and eat them in order to survive. It's clear to me that killing one person in order to survive is a better outcome than everyone dying instead.
Coming to think of it, though, while it would indeed be tempting to kill oneself, one would wonder what one's wife or partner would do in a such a circumstance, and whether she would be driven to suicide. In which case, you've got two or most likely three deaths instead of just the one. If we're concerned about the baby's death in the first place, and if killing oneself would also lead to the baby's death anyway, then on reflection I'm not sure whether I would kill myself.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by lilylf
completely pro-choice, its cruel to the mother and baby to bring a child into the world that they don't want, or cannot take care of.
So you would support the child being murdered so that the mother can live slightly more happily? If they don't want to take care of the child, they can put it up for adoption.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Trapz99
So you would support the child being murdered so that the mother can live slightly more happily? If they don't want to take care of the child, they can put it up for abortion.
What an unfortunate typing error.
Original post by Hydeman
What an unfortunate typing error.
Yeah I meant to say adoption.
Original post by Trapz99
So you would support the child being murdered so that the mother can live slightly more happily? If they don't want to take care of the child, they can put it up for abortion.
When an abortion is done its not a full grown baby, I don't consider it to be murder unless it was a fully developed baby. Second of all do you mean put it up for adoption? if so why do people think that is the answer. Sometimes people have really crappy lives in adoption and foster homes, there are already 1000's of kids in adoption who aren't being adopted.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
But eating the dead baby is the more rational thing to do in that situation according to your logic. It just also goes against some of our most fundamental instincts and societal conditioning all based around gene propagation. Like, I'd rather kill myself in that situation.
If you are talking about eating dead babies then you have a serious problem.
Original post by viddy9
In the vast majority of cases, a newborn infant is obviously loved and cherished by its parents, so infanticide in all of these cases would be a terrible thing.
But, the fact does remain that newborn infants have no sense of themselves as existing over time, due to their lack of self-awareness, so killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a normal human being.
In the vast majority of cases, a newborn infant is obviously loved and cherished by its parents, so infanticide in all of these cases would be a terrible thing.
But, the fact does remain that newborn infants have no sense of themselves as existing over time, due to their lack of self-awareness, so killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a normal human being.
You seem to contradict yourself - why are you not as unequivocal about killing infants as you are about killing foetuses?
The fact that something is loved grants them rights? That is not a serious argument.
Original post by Trapz99
If you are talking about eating dead babies then you have a serious problem.
I exist on a higher intellectual plain is all.
Spoiler
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Real-life examples include infants born with severe disabilities which would seriously impact on their quality of life, who have been allowed to die (by switching off life-support) due to the wishes of the parents. In my view, there's no distinction between allowing someone to die and actively killing them
This requires proof.
Surely we cannot attribute the same extent of moral responsibility to a bystander who refuses to intervene and someone who causes death by his own agency. One is made in the baby's best interest and the other is not; the motive is different and so the quality of moral agency is different.
Original post by lilylf
When an abortion is done its not a full grown baby, I don't consider it to be murder unless it was a fully developed baby. Second of all do you mean put it up for adoption? if so why do people think that is the answer. Sometimes people have really crappy lives in adoption and foster homes, there are already 1000's of kids in adoption who aren't being adopted.
It doesn't matter if it's a fully grown baby or not, just because it doesn't look like a baby yet doesn't mean that it should be killed. A new life has already been formed during conception. Killing this life is just as sinful as the murder of an adult human.
Yes I meant adoption. Your argument against adoption is invalid because the problem with adopted children having terrible lives can be solved if we had a better adoption system and better carers for those children, as well as providing incentives for people to adopt. This is what we should be trying to do- helping those children have as normal a life as possible- instead of killing them.
Can people please remember that a BABY is not being aborted? It's an embryo, literally just a bunch of cells. Anyone who cells the 'baby' feels pain obviously flopped biology, that's why you can't get an abortion (in most cases) after a certain number of weeks of the pregnancy (and yes i'm pro-choice)
I'm pro choice and always have been, even before I had an abortion. I am fine with abortion under any circumstance, its not my place to tell a woman what she can do or not do, just like I wouldn't let anyone dictate to me what I could or couldn't do with my own body.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Polysexual Nymph
You seem to contradict yourself - why are you not as unequivocal about killing infants as you are about killing foetuses?
My point is just that, in today's world, the likelihood of people wanting to kill their newborn infant is incredibly low. Why would they have went through the whole pregnancy in order to just do that, for example?
Ultimately, it's down to the parents in both cases - I was simply anticipating the objection of "why would anyone want to do that?".
Original post by Polysexual Nymph
The fact that something is loved grants them rights? That is not a serious argument.
A foetus should not be aborted unless the mother wishes for it to be aborted. In the cases in which mothers do not want to have an abortion, it is usually because they love the foetus. Similarly, when the parents of a newborn infant love and cherish their baby, they're obviously not going to want to kill it, so the fact that an infant is loved does indeed count as a reason not to kill it.
Strictly speaking, I don't believe in rights, and certainly not natural rights, which, as Jeremy Bentham put it, are nonsense on stilts. Rights are generally inviolable, whereas as we have seen, I don't believe that a being has rights that cannot be conceivably violated in at least some circumstances.
Morality should be based upon interests. A stone cannot be said to be have been harmed by being kicked down a road, because it has no capacity to feel pain or suffer, and therefore has no preference not to be kicked. A newborn infant or foetus, similarly, has no interest in continuing to live, so cannot be said to have been harmed by having been killed. Parents, by contrast, have a clear interest in their baby not being killed if they love and cherish it, so they are harmed if such a thing occurs.
Original post by Polysexual Nymph
Surely we cannot attribute the same extent of moral responsibility to a bystander who refuses to intervene and someone who causes death by his own agency. One is made in the baby's best interest and the other is not
I hold to a particularly demanding form of morality which does indeed state that someone who allows someone to die is just as responsible as someone who actively kills.
But, that's a separate question because in the real-life situations I mentioned, taking the baby off life support and actively killing it both have the same motives behind them, namely to prevent such a baby's miserable life continuing, and to give the parents some closure.
Original post by Trapz99
It doesn't matter if it's a fully grown baby or not, just because it doesn't look like a baby yet doesn't mean that it should be killed. A new life has already been formed during conception. Killing this life is just as sinful as the murder of an adult human.
Yes I meant adoption. Your argument against adoption is invalid because the problem with adopted children having terrible lives can be solved if we had a better adoption system and better carers for those children, as well as providing incentives for people to adopt. This is what we should be trying to do- helping those children have as normal a life as possible- instead of killing them.
Yes I meant adoption. Your argument against adoption is invalid because the problem with adopted children having terrible lives can be solved if we had a better adoption system and better carers for those children, as well as providing incentives for people to adopt. This is what we should be trying to do- helping those children have as normal a life as possible- instead of killing them.
Why is killing a human life automatically wrong? Also, the notion that life begins at conception is still highly controversial in the scientific community, but even if we grant that it does, why is it wrong? How can a foetus - who has no knowledge of its existence over time and which lacks self-awareness and the capacity to reason, and which is under sedation in the womb anyway - be said to be harmed by being aborted?
Is it that it has been prevented from coming into existence? If potential people are harmed by not coming into existence, then do you advocate for everyone having as many children as physically possible? Right now, millions upon millions of potential people are being prevented from coming into existence.
(edited 8 years ago)
Pro-choice, because I believe that every one should have autonomy in matters relating to their own body. I am OK with someone who chooses not to abort a child that they do not want for the reason that they believe that human life is precious. However, pro-lifers want other people to abide by their views - they are essentially bullies.
On a more personal note, I do not believe that human life itself has intrinsic value above the life of anything else, and so I reject pro-life on these grounds as well. I do accept that in a situation where I had to choose between the life of a dog and a human, I would choose the human. However, I am quite clear that this is down to my personal value system, and that I am not complying with some universal truth about the value of human life.
On a more personal note, I do not believe that human life itself has intrinsic value above the life of anything else, and so I reject pro-life on these grounds as well. I do accept that in a situation where I had to choose between the life of a dog and a human, I would choose the human. However, I am quite clear that this is down to my personal value system, and that I am not complying with some universal truth about the value of human life.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
