Utilitarian Justification for Abortion

[AllieBaba]

Of course it can, if that's the view of the constituents the lawmakers represent.

Just because religion plays strongly into morality, you can't ban "morality" from the state because it also is a Christian value.

And if an understanding of self and a moral compass are what are required to be considered viable human beings, we might as well just euthanize every person who is currently housed in the mental institutions and prisons right now. Along with all those on life support or who are mentally deficient.

Which is of course where all this is leading.

Meanwhile, kindly explain to me, if there is such a necessity for the state to ignore the rights of babies, why is it that all the federal health programs are geared towards women who are pregnant and the unborn...which actually qualify as "people" in certain medical programs administered by the state? And why is it that it is considered double murder to kill a pregnant woman..

Can't have it both ways, folks.

 

[eots]

these are not chicken eggs these are are small very delicate human children
to say anything else and your only lying to yourself...its a fuciking horror show
if you can so easily support it you can at least look at the reality of it


Abortion pictures, partial birth abortion photos, aborted babies


CBR / Abortion Pictures - Page Two

 

[AllieBaba]

People who don't value human life, period, are going to find absolutely no value in unborn children.

 

[Ravi]

My miswording; sorry. No, the soul cannot be destroyed, but killing the life prevents the soul from experiencing that life, and life is sacred.

Okay, that sounds more logical even though I haven't heard that argument either. So I'm guessing they wouldn't approve of the fast track to heaven theory?

 

[Agnapostate]

Of course it can, if that's the view of the constituents the lawmakers represent.

Just because religion plays strongly into morality, you can't ban "morality" from the state because it also is a Christian value.

No, I mentioned the case of this view being explicitly based on a religious tenet. Since the judicial system is so influential when it comes to interpretations of law, and whether or not those interpretations violate the Establishment Clause, they would be likely to reject an explicitly religious tenet that has no basis in secular ethics. Even legislators from the most scarlet red districts are likely to at least pretend that there's some ethical justification for their position outside of religion.

And if an understanding of self and a moral compass are what are required to be considered viable human beings, we might as well just euthanize every person who is currently housed in the mental institutions and prisons right now. Along with all those on life support or who are mentally deficient.

Which is of course where all this is leading.

I said nothing of "viable human beings," but was referring to personhood. This does not provide a rationale for euthanizing those with standard mental disabilities, as many can still derive enjoyment from their lives. But yes, it ought to be permissible to euthanize those who lack self-awareness and are in a coma or persistent vegetative state unless they have articulated a prior objection to this. If they have said nothing one way or the other, it ought to be permissible to euthanize them because it makes little difference to them if they are euthanized in a day or in twenty years, whereas it could make a substantial difference to those who would benefit from the resources otherwise diverted to coma patients, and perhaps even their organs if they are harvested.

Meanwhile, kindly explain to me, if there is such a necessity for the state to ignore the rights of babies, why is it that all the federal health programs are geared towards women who are pregnant and the unborn...which actually qualify as "people" in certain medical programs administered by the state? And why is it that it is considered double murder to kill a pregnant woman..

Can't have it both ways, folks.

This is a descriptive observation, not a prescriptive recommendation. The fact that the state currently has a definition of personhood that would seem to include fetuses in some sense does not mean that that definition is ethically sound, just as the state's definition of Dred Scott as a nonperson was not ethically sound.

 

[Agnapostate]

Okay, that sounds more logical even though I haven't heard that argument either. So I'm guessing they wouldn't approve of the fast track to heaven theory?

There's really no reason why they shouldn't, since fetuses and very young infants are by definition sinless beings.

 

[Steerpike]

Then I should be curious if they're willing to admit that religion is the basis for their beliefs on the matter.

I don't know.

Most of the people I know who are pro-life will tell you plainly that it stems ultimately from religious beliefs.

The reason there can be no resolution in the abortion debate is that the two sides have vastly different underlying fundamental assumptions, and there is no real way to reconcile the two.

 

[eots]

I don't know.

Most of the people I know who are pro-life will tell you plainly that it stems ultimately from religious beliefs.

The reason there can be no resolution in the abortion debate is that the two sides have vastly different underlying fundamental assumptions, and there is no real way to reconcile the two.

you mean like thou shall not kill...

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't know.

Most of the people I know who are pro-life will tell you plainly that it stems ultimately from religious beliefs.

The reason there can be no resolution in the abortion debate is that the two sides have vastly different underlying fundamental assumptions, and there is no real way to reconcile the two.

Then I wonder whether they would openly declare this should they attempt to make it a matter of public policy, considering the potential unconstitutionality of that view.

you mean like thou shall not kill...

God didn't seem to take that to heart when he killed David and Bathsheba's infant while in Bathsheba's womb.

 

[Steerpike]

you mean like thou shall not kill...

No, because you're already one step beyond the fundamentally different premise. Thou shalt no kill refers to "people," obviously, and the fundamentally different starting position for both sides concerns whether a fetus is a "person." For people who believe it is not, thou shalt not kill obviously won't have any applicability. For people who believe a fetus IS a person, it will have a great deal of applicability.

 

[Steerpike]

My miswording; sorry. No, the soul cannot be destroyed, but killing the life prevents the soul from experiencing that life, and life is sacred.

Although I suppose one might argue that (assuming the pro-lifers are correct) by killing the 'life' this early on you assure the soul a place in heaven because the soul is still innocent. Whereas if you let the soul live its entire life you run the risk that it will become damned

 

[eots]

so this does not look like a person to you ?

 

[Agnapostate]

so this does not look like a person to you ?

Personhood is not determined by physical appearance.

 

[eots]

how about brain activity and dreams baby's at this stage ..can dream

 

[Steerpike]

Personhood is not determined by physical appearance.

True. The picture is meant to be emotionally inflammatory, and like most emotional/inflammatory arguments it doesn't make for a very good argument.

And further, even if one agreed that by the stage shown in the picture, there is a 'person,' it doesn't come close to getting you back to the point of conception, which is where the pro-life argument leads.

A photograph of a single cell doesn't have much emotional value, however.

 

[Steerpike]

how about brain activity and dreams baby's at this stage ..can dream

What stage is that, Eots? I am curious and can't tell by looking.

 

[Agnapostate]

how about brain activity and dreams baby's at this stage ..can dream

Is that so? If a being is self-aware and possesses the capacity to form preferences and desires about its future, it is a person. Something along these lines has been accepted as criteria for personhood by Enlightenment philosophers.

 

[eots]

True. The picture is meant to be emotionally inflammatory, and like most emotional/inflammatory arguments it doesn't make for a very good argument.

And further, even if one agreed that by the stage shown in the picture, there is a 'person,' it doesn't come close to getting you back to the point of conception, which is where the pro-life argument leads.

A photograph of a single cell doesn't have much emotional value, however.

.

36.6% of abortions (under 9 weeks) occur when an unborn child's heart is beating, brain waves are detected and ultrasounds have shown them waving their arms and legs, and a further 49.5% of abortions (9 - 12 weeks) occur when the child also has fingerprints, urinates, squints, swallows, wrinkles its forehead, sleeps, wakes and exercises, and that 9.6% of abortions (13 - 16 weeks) occur when the child also has fine hair, is eight to ten inches long and can hear, and, finally;

- that 4.4% of abortions (16 weeks to full-term), occur when the unborn child can also be startled by a sudden noise, and could survive, with proper care, outside the mother's womb.

 

[Agnapostate]

.

36.6% of abortions (under 9 weeks) occur when an unborn child's heart is beating, brain waves are detected and ultrasounds have shown them waving their arms and legs, and a further 49.5% of abortions (9 - 12 weeks) occur when the child also has fingerprints, urinates, squints, swallows, wrinkles its forehead, sleeps, wakes and exercises, and that 9.6% of abortions (13 - 16 weeks) occur when the child also has fine hair, is eight to ten inches long and can hear, and, finally;

- that 4.4% of abortions (16 weeks to full-term), occur when the unborn child can also be startled by a sudden noise, and could survive, with proper care, outside the mother's womb.

Only the last statistic is partially relevant, and the others do not constitute any semblance of personhood.

 

[eots]

What stage is that, Eots? I am curious and can't tell by looking.

this child was 16 weeks in the womb ..after that they look like new born's