I am happy Roe v. Wae was overturned and that states can now legislate openly against abortion. Since this is thanks to two or three Supreme Court Judges nominated by Donald Trump, naturally a kind of backlash would be to re-promote a video from before his election (the video is from September 2016, his election from November). It has been done. By linking and telling my comments, I repromote it some more, unfortunately, but I think marginally compared to what it will already be getting:
Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About | Glenn Cohen | Big Think
18th Sept. 2016 | Big Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ezS5vQ1j_E
2:00 If so and so is living and a human being, it's a person.
Fine.
2:20 Peter Singer is what used to be called a heretic.
- berkah
- Most of the pro-choice arguments can be used to justify infanticide as well (unwanted babies shouldn't exist, foster homes are overrun, etc.). There isn't much difference between a late term fetus and an infant other than where it happens to be located. So we are becoming painfully close to justifying infanticide. Autonomy of the mother is an argument toward justifying the removal of a fetus, not killing it.
The fact we also mercilessly kill other animals with consciousness and feelings is not a sufficient reason to also do so to human babies.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @berkah I don't think the "other animals" can be considered to have rational consciousness, but thank you for the point!
The parallel is spermatozoon and ovum, not a fetus.
Spermatozoa and ova are not persons. The fertilised egg is.
That doesn't mean pills meant to inhibit ova are (within this question) licit, since they also inhibit the fertilised egg from nesting and thereby kill it, kill something which looks different from, but is, a human person.
4:01 Brain dead people are persons and should not be killed for extracting organs.
5:05 No, the woman carrying the fetus does not have the right to stop that gestation, even if it will result in the death of a person.
The one possible exception is, if it were the sole means of saving her own life.
5:54 Jarvis' analogy is a counterfactual.
In her "analogy" the person would be dialysis machine for the other, not during nine months, but during the remaining life of the violinist.
Whatever incommodity you have with the physical arrangement, in gestation it will cease at birth, but with her "analogy" the physical discomfort would cease only by death of the violinist.
Also, the "analogy" one would be hooked up to a stranger already grown up and already having his ways.
Gestation also tends to hook a woman up in a life long way with a thitherto stranger, but one who can in fact be stranger no longer, for he's of the woman, and for the woman has the occasion to raise him.
- Jack Willson
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
"In her "analogy" the person would be dialysis machine for the other, not during nine months, but during the remaining life of the violinist."
Hmm... that's interesting to think about. Then now, lets say that giving a birth to a child will result not in death, but a permanent/lifelong injury for the mother that will never recover, will the parallel then be equal? And if so, would abortion be justified or not? And why?
You have stated on the top comment that abortion is only justified when either life is at stake either the mother or the baby must be chosen. But what if one will get a lifelong injury?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jack Willson Some would consider that an occasion, I wouldn't. I am even iffy for breaking off the pregnancy or otherwise saving the mother's life in ways that would result in indirect killing of the child, since the mother is an adult who can prepare for a Christians death, the child is as yest unbaptised.
Angelo Kelly's mother Barbara Ann did the right choice (in her case it wasn't breaking off the pregnancy, but taking chemotherapy that would have saved her life, after gestation, the chemotherapy came too late).
I am not sure it has always been just a choice in Christian countries.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jack Willson "You have stated on the top comment that abortion is only justified when either life is at stake either the mother or the baby must be chosen."
Depends on what you consider "abortion." Only extraction of live fetus (with already dead one there is no issue) and then not doing anything to kill it. Only that would be justified.
Definitely a friendlier atmosphere to the unborn than at Planned Parenthood.
It can be mentioned after these my comments, that when I converted, Roman Catholic bioethics was not imposed on me as a surprise or sth I was pushed to take along the way, it was one of the major attractions, expecially compared to mainstream Lutherans, what I was leaving, who did not even back then want to stand up against abortion. I could have gone Free Synod or I could have gone Roman Catholic, I could not have stayed indefinitely after finding out that kind of compromises in the Swedish Church./HGL
No comments:
Post a Comment