Wow -- politicophile. I truly respect your rational/moralistic proof, and I actually stopped to read the entire thing because of the clarity of purpose it exhibited I agree with it for the most part, but our line of rationale diverges very early --
Quote:
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.
|
Agreed. I fear, however, that our definitions of human being are different.
Quote:
|
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.
|
And this, precisely, is where our opinions differ. You've clearly identified the very reason that I refuse to accept that fetuses are
morally significant human beings. While I acknowledge and agree that they have human DNA (so does sperm, mind you -- and they aren't human beings), I define human being in a much more specific sense. You yourself clearly note that fetues are unable to communicate it's will or make an autonomous decision. Furthermore, you establish that it's unlikely they even have a will, and I agree. I define a
morally significant human being as someone who can (a) make an autonomous decision, (b) communicate that decision.
A fetus can do neither a nor b, so I do not consider it a
morally significant human being. You seemed to address this later with your response:
Quote:
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?
|
Yes. I wholeheartedly and earnestly believe that this being deserves less moral consideration than someone who contributes to human society in a symbiotic (rather than parasitic) manner. This is not to say that he is worthless -- only that on the scale of moral judgement, a living-breathing- "I can interact with" human deserves far more consideration than a shell of a being hooked to machines and artificial life preservation devices.
Quote:
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.
|
And with this, I totally agree. It's simultaneously responsible and compromising, without actively condoning.