Abortion///cont.

[ok doser]

Which he already has. Now what?

abortion is the ending of a human life

according to the declaration of independence,:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

denial of life is denial of that "unalienable right"

 

[quip]

Probably the infant.

Probably?!

It would be morally unconscionable not to.

Because most people irrationally believe that the unborn aren't human beings, but just "blobs of tissue."

So, do you now concede this statement? "They [the unborn] have an equal right to life.
Why? Because their right to life comes from an equal source - the fact that they are both human."

Or are you still emotionally clinging to it? Yea or Nay?

 

[quip]

Do you understand the absolute irrelevance of your hypothetical yet?

Don't leave me hanging Oz....

 

[WizardofOz]

Don't leave me hanging Oz....

Will you save the 11-day-old infant or the 100-year-old woman from the burning building?

 

[quip]

Will you save the 11-day-old infant or the 100-year-old woman from the burning building?

It's a draw, emotional tug of a crying infant notwithstanding.

Unlike the hypothetical:

Using utilitarian logic and of course assuming every thing equal, my moral duty would be to do the most good. That is, to save the 100 embryos over a single infant's life.

Yet, my (and no less yours and jester's) moral intuition goes for the 11-day-old infant...every time.

Something's amiss Oz!

 

[Town Heretic]

I contend that fetus and mother aren't quite as equal to you outside the abortion scenario.
Let's try a hypothetical:

We have an in vitro lab on fire. In this burning lab we have 100 human embryos in a cart of vials waiting for implantation into their human host. Also, we have an 11-day-old infant in this same burning lab.

Now, you can only save one from the flames. Which one would you save?

Which one would the vast majority of people save?

Why do you think this is the case?

Most people would save the 11 day old infant. The more something looks and responds as we do the more we identify with it. The more literal or metaphorical points of contact the harder it becomes to lose the sense of humanity attaching, which is why people who are instructed in how to respond to a kidnapper are always told to insinuate their humanity, connect it to the person who has shown a willingness to subordinate that recognition to something else, an idea or desire. It's human nature. The more alien and/or removed the easier it becomes to make the wrong choice, or the choice predicated on a lesser thing, which is why the ovens of Auschwitz don't begin until you've dehumanized the Jew.

 

[glassjester]

Or are you still emotionally clinging to it? Yea or Nay?

I am not emotionally clinging to it. I rationally state it.

 

[glassjester]

Yet, my (and no less yours and jester's) moral intuition goes for the 11-day-old infant...every time.

Most people would save the 11 day old infant. The more something looks and responds as we do the more we identify with it.

Right. Quip is confusing the idea of what most people would do, with what should be done.

 

[ok doser]

... assuming every thing equal ...

you don't do that, quip

you assign a different value to life depending on the degree of development

 

[ok doser]

Right. Quip is confusing the idea of what most people would do, with what should be done.

how about a drug addicted mother of three vs a severely deformed 11 day old?

 

[glassjester]

how about a drug addicted mother of three vs a severely deformed 11 day old?

I don't know. Coin toss?

 

[glassjester]

how about a drug addicted mother of three vs a severely deformed 11 day old?

What about every chimpanzee on Earth, or one junkie with aids?

 

[ok doser]

I don't know. Coin toss?

the point being that there's too many qualifiers unstated to determine

could the mother kick her habit and provide good care for her children?

is the infant suffering from a genetic disorder that will kill him in six months?


i'm amused by the fact that quip started down this bunny trail after his hissy fit the other day about sticking to the terms of Roe v wade :chuckle:

 

[quip]

Most people would save the 11 day old infant. The more something looks and responds as we do the more we identify with it. The more literal or metaphorical points of contact the harder it becomes to lose the sense of humanity attaching, which is why people who are instructed in how to respond to a kidnapper are always told to insinuate their humanity, connect it to the person who has shown a willingness to subordinate that recognition to something else, an idea or desire. It's human nature. The more alien and/or removed the easier it becomes to make the wrong choice, or the choice predicated on a lesser thing, which is why the ovens of Auschwitz don't begin until you've dehumanized the Jew.

Though, moral intuition in choosing the infant is not dehumanizing the fetus in any such manner. Rather, morally equating the two (unequivocally so) brings about the opposite...one must first hyper-humanize the fetus, no less, in the face of ostensible intuitive reaction otherwise.

 

[glassjester]

the point being that there's too many qualifiers unstated to determine

Yeah, I was wondering about the odds of survival for the embryos, and how many of them are guaranteed to be placed in a uterus.

As for the chimp scenario - I would save the junkie.

 

[glassjester]

Though, moral intuition in choosing the infant is not dehumanizing the fetus in any such manner. Rather, morally equating the two (unequivocally so) brings about the opposite...one must first hyper-humanize the fetus, no less, in the face of ostensible intuitive reaction otherwise.

I thought we were sticking to logic and reason. Didn't you insist that we avoid emotional appeals? Why the emphasis on intuition?

 

[Town Heretic]

Though, moral intuition in choosing the infant is not dehumanizing the fetus in any such manner.

If we act as though 100 infants hidden to us are less valuable than one we can hold we have dehumanized the 100 through an abstraction, a distance created by the mirage of senses against our better reason.

 

[quip]

Right. Quip is confusing the idea of what most people would do, with what should be done.

If reason and intuition fail to discern equality, by what means "should" abortion be prohibited.....subjective emotional ones?

 

[quip]

I thought we were sticking to logic and reason. Didn't you insist that we avoid emotional appeals? Why the emphasis on intuition?

Because it's strongly emphasized in the pro-life position. What greater method than to show its failures by way of?

 

[glassjester]

If reason and intuition fail to discern equality, by what means "should" abortion be prohibited.....subjective emotional ones?

Reason did not fail, Quip.