Are we talking past each other on abortion? What is your understanding of the issues?

Simply state what you think are the underlying arguments in the abortion debate.

Tags: abortion, abortion ad nauseum

Views: 283

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Some quick ones I have to go soon.

1) Is a foetus a human being? Yes see biology. Singer and Boonin have no problem with this.

2) Is a foetus a person? Yes but I'm doing my own novel work on this and haven't published

3) Is there equivilence between human being and person? Yes with qualifications along the lines of brain death etc From my work a normal Homo Sapiens is a person by definition.

4) What are the rights, if any, of a foetus? 1st 2 points we should in our moral judgment be consistent and non arbitrary and treat like things alike.

I use this and the no relevant dividing line argument -regardless of the personhood justification- if we are to give equal moral rights to ourselves and non person infants we should to be consistent prima facie give equal moral rights to all normal -non brain dead- prenatals.

BTW Technically I’m not Pro-Life but a wannabe secular Jainist.

5) What are the rights of a pregnant woman? As above + bodily autonomy all things being equal.

6a) If a foetus has rights, are they equivilent to those of a pregnant woman? Basic rights yes.

6b) If they are equivilent, does that equivilence result in an unjust trumping of one's rights over the other's?

Depends for whom, if a entity has equal moral consideration and a moral agent has placed that entity in a state of dependence it is owed compensation. Compensation is useless to the dead so the only relevant compensation to a foetus is continued existence in the offending party’s body & that overrides bodily autonomy in a similar fashion that IMO an attackers basic right to life or freedom from harm are abrogated to a relevant degree when relating to self defence.
Have to run.
I OWE a fetus compensation for having come into existence within the lining of my uterus? Pull the other one, it's get bells on!
Thank you.
Second that.
There are different uses of the term human being in the lit. Many -and I'm one of them- use it as a member of the species Homo Sapiens not to signify a human cogntive person.
A simple definition is a member of the species Homo sapiens.

OK, I can see why that, on the outside, looks simple. Now define "species". Which of the 13 or so widely variant species definitions are you using?
Tooley raises the question what is important in deciding when a thing is a person, the capacity or the actualisation? As far as I'm concerned you are what you can do not hat you are currently doing and my own work expands on this from a Teleological/Ontological perspective.
A person is any being that possesses self-awareness or is a rational being.

So, are the fundamentalist religious not people then? =P

@Stephen Moore ..A person has self awareness, until that it is a potential person.

I disagree I improve on the latent or nature argument some conservative philosophers use but I'm in a bind I cannot go into how I get there as I'm talking it over with someone who I hope to act as a informal supervisor. What I could do is discuss the overall flaws of using personal identity to ground identity concerning memory and psychological continuity. BTW are you one of those who think he was never a foetus?
Yes. The body was once a foetus, but not I. There was no "I" at that time.

Thank you. I would think that as atheists we would be able to grasp this: We begin at birth and end at brain death. There is no after life and no before life, either. (Or at least, not a damn bit of evidence.)
So do I take it you don't think much of Singers Potentiality fallacy? If you aren't that thing that has those capacities that grounds those rights you cannot have those rights . Appears quite clear cut to me and I have no problem with it. I'll read what else you have to say but as given the importance of having those capacities for personhood to ground those rights you had better have something else up your sleave. I think Tooley is quite correct here and something Warren is quite aware of.

BTW what sort of protection are you talking about for the human foetus that isn't clear?

& Singer would at least argue one cannot or shouldn't be speciest?


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service