Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

politicophile · 04-30-2006, 12:39 PM

Forgive my somewhat redundant comments, but I feel the need to crystalize a few points:

People, including mothers and fetuses, have a right to life. I offer no proof for this statement: it is simply wrong to kill human beings, with exceptions built in such as self-defense, war, etc. One can argue about legitimate exceptions, but I'm not sure how to interpret an outright rejection of the principle that you should not kill humans.

People, including mothers and fetuses, have a right to autonomous decision. Because the fetus is totally unable to communicate, it is not possible for it to express its will. It is certainly possible that fetuses and even infants do not have any will to speak of. The mother, however, sometimes wills the destruction of the fetal life.

Fetuses are human beings... in the genetic sense. They contain a complete human genetic code that will automatically construct a human body within the confines of the womb. It does not necessarily follow, however, that this physical human being has the same rights as a morally significant human being.

Without offering an argument (again), I claim that it is wrong to murder healthy infants. If you disagree with me on this point, I will do my best to respond with a logical condemnation of infanticide.

The question: is there a morally significant difference between an infant human being and a third trimester fetus human being? My answer is that I have yet to find one. I do not deny the possibility that a meaningful difference exists, but I have not discovered one yet.

The second question: is there a morally significant difference between a third trimester fetus human being and a first/second trimester fetus human being? The obvious answer: viability!

Humans that are not yet able to live outside the womb have less moral worth than humans who can survive. An interesting claim, to be sure. It is hardly self-evident.

Suppose one were able to construct an oversized artificial womb. Further suppose that a middle-aged man contracted a terrible physical disease that caused his lungs to deteriorate until they were (like a premature fetus') unable to function properly outside the womb. Naturally, the man is put in the artificial womb and is then able to receive nutrients and oxygen through an artificial umbilical cord. Does the man lose moral worth when he is put in the artificial womb?

I believe:
1. that it is not possible to make a morally significant distinction between fetuses with the same moral rights as infants and those who do not.
2. that it is not possible to make a morally significant distinction between late-term fetuses and infants.
3. that infants should not be actively murdered.

Unsupported premise: A mother does not have the right to kill her newborn child even if that child will cause a significant amount of inconvenience to the mother.

Unsupported premise 2: two beings with the same moral worth should be afforded equal treatment in the same circumstances.

Conclusion: It is not moral for a mother to abort her fetus unless the fetus threatens the mother's life or health.

My post grows too long, so I will close by saying that, although I believe essentially all acts of abortion to be the immoral killings of morally significant human beings, the social consequences of banning abortions are too great. It is preferable to allow women to safely terminate the lives of the fetuses, rather than forcing them to seek back-alley abortions that risk the lives of mothers as well as those of fetuses.

As Bill Clinton once said: Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. - The goal of the government should be to reduce the number of abortions being performed to the greatest possible degree.

04-30-2006, 12:39 PM	#146 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Forgive my somewhat redundant comments, but I feel the need to crystalize a few points: People, including mothers and fetuses, have a right to life. I offer no proof for this statement: it is simply wrong to kill human beings, with exceptions built in such as self-defense, war, etc. One can argue about legitimate exceptions, but I'm not sure how to interpret an outright rejection of the principle that you should not kill humans. People, including mothers and fetuses, have a right to autonomous decision. Because the fetus is totally unable to communicate, it is not possible for it to express its will. It is certainly possible that fetuses and even infants do not have any will to speak of. The mother, however, sometimes wills the destruction of the fetal life. Fetuses are human beings... in the genetic sense. They contain a complete human genetic code that will automatically construct a human body within the confines of the womb. It does not necessarily follow, however, that this physical human being has the same rights as a morally significant human being. Without offering an argument (again), I claim that it is wrong to murder healthy infants. If you disagree with me on this point, I will do my best to respond with a logical condemnation of infanticide. The question: is there a morally significant difference between an infant human being and a third trimester fetus human being? My answer is that I have yet to find one. I do not deny the possibility that a meaningful difference exists, but I have not discovered one yet. The second question: is there a morally significant difference between a third trimester fetus human being and a first/second trimester fetus human being? The obvious answer: viability! Humans that are not yet able to live outside the womb have less moral worth than humans who can survive. An interesting claim, to be sure. It is hardly self-evident. Suppose one were able to construct an oversized artificial womb. Further suppose that a middle-aged man contracted a terrible physical disease that caused his lungs to deteriorate until they were (like a premature fetus') unable to function properly outside the womb. Naturally, the man is put in the artificial womb and is then able to receive nutrients and oxygen through an artificial umbilical cord. Does the man lose moral worth when he is put in the artificial womb? I believe: 1. that it is not possible to make a morally significant distinction between fetuses with the same moral rights as infants and those who do not. 2. that it is not possible to make a morally significant distinction between late-term fetuses and infants. 3. that infants should not be actively murdered. Unsupported premise: A mother does not have the right to kill her newborn child even if that child will cause a significant amount of inconvenience to the mother. Unsupported premise 2: two beings with the same moral worth should be afforded equal treatment in the same circumstances. Conclusion: It is not moral for a mother to abort her fetus unless the fetus threatens the mother's life or health. My post grows too long, so I will close by saying that, although I believe essentially all acts of abortion to be the immoral killings of morally significant human beings, the social consequences of banning abortions are too great. It is preferable to allow women to safely terminate the lives of the fetuses, rather than forcing them to seek back-alley abortions that risk the lives of mothers as well as those of fetuses. As Bill Clinton once said: Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. - The goal of the government should be to reduce the number of abortions being performed to the greatest possible degree. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty