04 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeAccording to Bennett's beliefs, of course not. That person (being, whatever semantic distinction we want to make), if it has the capacity for suffering, self-awareness and rationality should not be aborted. These are clear, testable and decisive criteria. Homosexuality does not come into the decision.
BBarr, is it morally acceptable to perform abortion on a human being (no person according to bbarr's definitions) if it has been established ( and that will undoubtedly be possible in the future) that the human being in question will be a homosexual person ?
04 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by kyngjI'm talking about a human being in the womb that has not yet reached the status of personhood.
According to Bennett's beliefs, of course not. That person (being, whatever semantic distinction we want to make), if it has the capacity for suffering, self-awareness and rationality should not be aborted. These are clear, testable and decisive criteria. Homosexuality does not come into the decision.
What are your own personal views on this matter, Kyngj ?
04 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt is not moral to perform the abortion because they will be homosexual, but it is as moral to perform the abotion on a homosexual as a heterosexual if there is some reason that is legitimate (and not to do with sexual orientation) for doing it.
BBarr, is it morally acceptable to perform abortion on a human being (no person according to bbarr's definitions) if it has been established ( and that will undoubtedly be possible in the future) that the human being in question will be a homosexual person ?
Of course, since such a thing is at present impossible, I have to restrain myself from reiterating your disdain for the hypothetical that you expressed to me before.
05 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeAlthough the abortion itelf is morally permissible, because it harms no person, the attitudes involved in such a decision may be subject to critique on rational grounds. Is the decision to have an abortion based solely on the determination that the human oranism in question will turn out to be a homesexual person? If so, then the decision to have the abortion will be based upon discriminatory beliefs, and those beliefs will be irrational. Those beliefs will not be immoral, because the mere having of those beliefs does not involve treating any person as less valuable than any other, nor does the having of such beliefs involve treating a person as a mere means to some other ends. If those beliefs are acted upon, however, the acting agent will have thereby acted immorally. Believing homosexuals to be sinful, evil, non-persons, lesser persons, not deserving of respect, etc. is irrational. Treating homosexual persons as mere means, objects, non-persons or lesser persons, etc. is immoral. The case you've described is an instance of the having of irrational (and disgusting) beliefs, but since no person was harmed by the abortion, no immoral act was committed.
BBarr, is it morally acceptable to perform abortion on a human being (no person according to bbarr's definitions) if it has been established ( and that will undoubtedly be possible in the future) that the human being in question will be a homosexual person ?
05 Feb 04
Originally posted by bbarrSo, just to clarify: prior to the fetus attaining personhood, what level of justification would you deem sufficient for an abortion to be morally permissible?
Although the abortion itelf is morally permissible, because it harms no person, the attitudes involved in such a decision may be subject to critique on rational grounds. Is the decision to have an abortion based solely on the determination that the human oranism in question will turn out to be a homesexual person? If so, then the decision to have the abortion ...[text shortened]... sgusting) beliefs, but since no person was harmed by the abortion, no immoral act was committed.
05 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolytePrior to the fetus developing the capacity to suffer, it doesn't matter if the woman has an abortion because she lost a bet. No harm, no foul.
So, just to clarify: prior to the fetus attaining personhood, what level of justification would you deem sufficient for an abortion to be morally permissible?
- Joined
- 27 Nov 03
- Moves
- 115811
05 Feb 04
Originally posted by AcolyteI can't remember at how many weeks old the foetus can be classified as a human being and not a clump of cells (6-8 weeks rings a bell), but I'm not sure if you can do tests on a foetus that young to determine genetic deficiencies (such as MS, spina biffada etc). However, if I knew my unborn child was unlucky enough to have such afflictions, I would consider abortion. What kind of life could the kid have?
So, just to clarify: prior to the fetus attaining personhood, what level of justification would you deem sufficient for an abortion to be morally permissible?
06 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by stephenwaleWould you still perform abortion if the child would have obtained personhood according to bbarr's definition ?
I can't remember at how many weeks old the foetus can be classified as a human being and not a clump of cells (6-8 weeks rings a bell), but I'm not sure if you can do tests on a foetus that young to determine genetic deficiencies (suc ...[text shortened]... I would consider abortion. What kind of life could the kid have?
- Joined
- 27 Nov 03
- Moves
- 115811
06 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf , according to the obstetrics specialists, the child's life, when born, would be one of painful suffering, yes I would. In Britain euthanasia is illegal, but we hear of sufferers of these diseases travelling to foreign countries to die legally due to the pain they are in.
Would you still perform abortion if the child would have obtained personhood according to bbarr's definition ?
06 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by stephenwaleTo which countries are they travelling ?
If , according to the obstetrics specialists, the child's life, when born, would be one of painful suffering, yes I would. In Britain euthanasia is illegal, but we hear of sufferers of these diseases travelling to foreign countries to die legally due to the pain they are in.