The debate "Abortion is murder." was started by
October 29, 2017, 8:33 pm.
52 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
neveralone posted 11 arguments, NJ150 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 3 arguments, Andronix posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, nate posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
neveralone, Muluken, Yanksxx21, sweetie, YoungVoicesof_Tomorrow, SirIntegra, jazzer_idos, M_Rose, NJ150, sological and 42 visitors agree.
Andronix, TARUN26, Tabu, AntiTHEIST, historybuff, nate and 16 visitors disagree.
fetal humanity aside, what do you think will be the result of banning abortions on the already barely funded and highly abusive orphanage and foster systems?
a fetus is a person. it is a developing human. they all come out the same, it's not like no one knows what it's going to be. it deserves the same chance at having a self sustaining life as anyone else. also, they can hear and feel after a few weeks. so they do have some self awareness.
a person who is asleep is a person. they are self aware and sentient. a fetus is neither of those things. therefore it is not a person and terminating it cannot be murder.
There is nothing else to say. The abortion process involves taking a foetus out of the womb in order to KILL it, stabbing with a needle or taking a pill. To say that you need to be a conscious being to have basic human rights is flawed and you get to see it if the SAME premise is applied in another situation; what if you're drugged when you are raped? The victim isn't conscious then...
1) if something isn't self aware we generally don't consider it to be sentient. if it isn't sentient then it isn't a person. if you think that we should treat non sentient life forms as people, you may want to stop eating steak. that would also be murder.
2) what you seem to be suggesting is to force women to go through a painful and in many cases dangerous process against their will because a clump of cells inside her might be a person. forgive me if I'm not willing to withhold people's fundamental rights, control over their own body, because you feel a fetus is a person.
First, why does self-awareness matter to defining humanity. It is admitably a preference for defining life, and with all preferences, is prone to error. And second, if more investigation is required to know what these concepts are, why use the definition. It seems contrary to the precautionary principle. Especially since the moral ramifications are murder.
for now it's certainly the best def. maybe we will see a push in research over this and be able to actually settle where it starts and ends and maybe where it goes if anywhere.
I define self awareness as something less transient. I specifically stayed away from #1 conscious because of its implications regarding sleeping. I feel self aware being can occasionally lose consciousness.
yes, we can't specifically point out where it kicks in. but technological limitations shouldn't affect definitions. the biggest flaw I think is that we can't determine self awareness without movement and communication... which I don't think should independent criteria but may be necessary just for our ability to notice awareness.
your point of self aware is good but we can't substantially figure out exactly what self awareness is or how to find out if a questionable being has it. so in the future with further push to answer these questions your opinion on this could very well be adopted.
personally the cognitive one seemed to be very "selective" in it's choices. I feel it can really take away personhood from people. like those in comas, and babies.
such are the flaws for social.
agreed on genetic.
I don't think you can entirely lose person hood but you can lose levels of it. certainly defining it would help clarify some points in our lives and make better future choices.
as to my view, I'm all for the cognitive view, but not all of it, just #5. If your self aware, you are worthy of consideration.
Oh man, so much to discuss lol.
I can't agree with the social definition at all. Not because of the criminal point (whole other can of worms) but because it means most homeless people aren't persons, as are people who lost all their loved ones in a disaster.
As for genetics, I think he overstated the flaws. instead of "has human dna" "living organism with human DNA". that will eliminate corpses and mouth cells. still leaves out any other animals, aliens, AI.
I don't think a criminal, no matter the crime ever becomes not a person. although they are subject to whatever penalty we decide, possibly including death. I just feel that they can loose rights, but not personhood. people can be monsters. that doesn't make them not people. that's just us trying to distance ourselves for our own sake. I guess that goes with your issue about granting/removing personhood. although I do feel we should at least try to define it.
well the one I most closely agree with would be social. though there are flaws in all them like he pointed out. like someone could be a mass murder/rapist and devoid of any morals but could have someone care about him and he gets to be a person. the next one I could kind of agree with is the gradient. now on that I can agree to a degree that people have different levels of person hood though I don't think age would be the deciding factor. what I find troubling though is the actual def. of person hood. particularly on the deserving part. should we as a society have such a power to just throw away people's ability to be a person or give it? that seems like a power I rather keep with God. for example I may disagree with heterosexuality but I believe they are still people but a hypothetical society could easily take away their right to person hood through a court or vote like they did to babies.
I'll check it out as soon as I can. it sounds interesting.
a link to crash course philosophy episode on "personhood"
been obsessed with this channel lately but this episode reminded me of our discussions on abortion and personhood.
It's a fun lecture. one of the analogies was who do you think is more of a person? humane superman with 0 human DNA, or lex luthor, a monster full of human DNA.
It's philosophy so no conclusions of political bias, just a discussion of what great minds said and how other great minds disagreed.
I haven't heard of it. I'll check it out.
make a trade-off. most people I know(idk about the world) hate all the bickering that happens in gov. if they make the arrangements to where we build the foundation (as quick and still being secure as possible) then put down the house but before doing so to public eyes first make a show off of the two parties finnally coming together and compromising and ending one of the biggest debates between the parties. both get to look good and they may actually get along. though I'm an optimist
sorry, I may have posed a question with no correct answer. am curious, but not trying to create a crisis lol.
then again, questions without proper answers are the essence of moral philosophy. (I believe)
do you watch "the good place"?
however, as I assume will be argued by real life republicans if such a bill were presented:
"well what of the children who are aborted in the mean time, we should build the house before the foundation!"
knowing full well the pro life are also anti social spending and may never implement the changes once the pro life agenda is complete, do you vote to wait? Even tho they are not wrong about the continued abortions despite their ulterior motives?
And this is what happens when basic theory hits real life and real people, lol. slight jab at groups that love to claim over simplified 2 factor logic as proof.
but regardless, what would you do? I would say wait for the greater long term good, but I'm also ambivalent to abortion, especially early. how would you vote in this situation?
so you would prefer we setup a foundation before building the house. something anyone should logically do and is agreeable. a child should be one of the best things in your life. they shouldn't be looked at as an inconvenience.
but it is human, objectively. It's DNA is 100% homo sapien.
what it isn't, imo, is a person, an individual. at least not until the upper levels of the brain activate.
As for the potential argument. It is valid. but it doesn't take priority over actual existing humans, especially when it comes to minors.
if we lived in a country that provided support to the mother that wouldn't force her to drop out and determine her entire life, AND/OR a foster system that wasnt entirely horrible, I would be more in support of an abortion ban.
A fetus should not be considered human.
by killing the seed did you not destroy a future tree? by killing the catipillar did you not destroy any chance of a butterfly?
if I go and tear down a construction site did I not just destroy a building? you can say it how u like but u are still always completely wiping away a life. wether it gets to the part where u decide it may now be deemed important or not. however long it might of been. it's now gone and it's by your (speaking generally) hand.
Hmmm, glad to see yalls opinions.
so a seed is a tree? a caterpillar is a butterfly?
just because something may one day become something else does not mean it always is. a seed may one day become a tree, that doesn't mean that destroying the seed makes you a lumberjack.
a fetus may one day become a person, terminating it doesn't make you a murderer.
potential energy is still energy is it not?
in order for it to be murder a fetus would have to be a person. since a fetus is not a person it cannot be murder.