12 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseDang! Reading through this post again, I realise I was pretty incoherent. 😳 WTF was I trying to say?!
If the unborn's value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to compare the value of born people to animals.
Bioethicist (I think he is currently professor of ethics in Princeton University) Peter Singer wrote in 1975 a book that was to become the banner of a new movement: Animal Liberation. Here's what Singer said: "It can no l ...[text shortened]... he whales; kill the human unborn children.
A rat is a pig is a dog is a unborn human child.
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by Halitoseand it sound like you guys are fresh from a class of "Singer-ethics"
If the unborn's value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to compare the value of born people to animals.
Bioethicist (I think he is currently professor of ethics in Princeton University) Peter Singer wrote in 1975 a book that was to become the banner of a new movement: Animal Liberation. Here's what Singer said: "It can no l ...[text shortened]... he whales; kill the human unborn children.
A rat is a pig is a dog is a unborn human child.
Well, indeed I did sit in on some Singer classes while I was an undergraduate at Princeton. Singer's hiring took place while I was a student there, and I recall that his appointment caused quite a stir, being that his views were and are considered controversial by some. Personally, I think he makes some good points, but I would not at all say that his views have helped shaped my own views concerning the abortion debate.
Truthfully, I am not sure why you bring up Singer's views on speciesism within the context of this debate. I am also not really sure what point you are trying to make (Honestly, I find the post confusing: if you could provide a succinct thesis statement that summarizes your point, I will tell you whether or not I agree with it and why).
Yes, I do think there are many conceivable instances in which nonhumans may be considered moral persons; moreover, I think that not all humans are moral persons. These are the two main reasons why I flat-out reject your criterion for personhood. Your criterion is "The Species Criterion," which states that all and only humans are moral persons. You keep referring to this as a "classical" definition of personhood, but I think "unfounded and dubious" would be a more accurate label. Please re-read Feinberg's thoughts on The Species Criterion for more clarification on why it fails to provide a coherent criterion for personhood.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseGreat post Halitulose! I agree with professor Singer and I think everyone can see the truth and logic in his ideas, but they are not all willing to accept this truth because it conflicts with with the foundation of all their ideas and beliefs.
If the unborn's value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to compare the value of born people to animals.
Bioethicist (I think he is currently professor of ethics in Princeton University) Peter Singer wrote in 1975 a book that was to become the banner of a new movement: Animal Liberation. Here's what Singer said: "It can no l ...[text shortened]... he whales; kill the human unborn children.
A rat is a pig is a dog is a unborn human child.
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo why should a human without personhood have no right to live and a human with personhood have this right?
[b]and it sound like you guys are fresh from a class of "Singer-ethics"
Well, indeed I did sit in on some Singer classes while I was an undergraduate at Princeton. Singer's hiring took place while I was a student there, and I recall that his appointment caused quite a stir, being that his views were and are considered controversial by some. Pe ...[text shortened]... Criterion for more clarification on why it fails to provide a coherent criterion for personhood.[/b]
This idea It is based on the same reasoning as hitler saying handicapped should not have the right to live because they are different or "inferior" to us!
It is a form of discrimination!
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardA human with personhood has interests -- things can get better or worse
So why should a human without personhood have no right to live and a human with personhood have this right?
This idea It is based on the same reasoning as hitler saying handicapped should not have the right to live because they are different or "inferior" to us!
It is a form of discrimination!
from its point of view.
A human without personhood (say, a braindead human) has no interests --
things cannot get worse from its point of view because it has no point of
view.
Nemesio
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioDoes a fetus not have interests? Can things not get far worse from his/her point of view?
A human with personhood has interests -- things can get better or worse
from its point of view.
A human without personhood (say, a braindead human) has no interests --
things cannot get worse from its point of view because it has no point of
view.
Nemesio
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by Nemesio"FROM ITS POINT OF VIEW"
A human with personhood has interests -- things can get better or worse
from its point of view.
A human without personhood (say, a braindead human) has no interests --
things cannot get worse from its point of view because it has no point of
view.
Nemesio
Yes but not from YOUR point of view, how many time do I have to say this?
If I travel back in time and abort your fetus it would have the same effect as if I would shoot you now....
A man in a coma has no interests AT THE MOMENT just like the fetus. The capacity for this just does not make a difference because they both lack the ability AT THE MOMENT.
An unborn human is not a static object and neither is a man in a coma.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardIf I travel back in time and abort your fetus it would have the same effect as if I would shoot you now....
"FROM ITS POINT OF VIEW"
Yes but not from YOUR point of view, how many time do I have to say this?
If I travel back in time and abort your fetus it would have the same effect as if I would shoot you now....
A man in a coma has no interests AT THE MOMENT just like the fetus. The capacity for this just does not make a difference because th ...[text shortened]... ability AT THE MOMENT.
An unborn human is not a static object and neither is a man in a coma.
Case 1: You just murdered person X.
Case 2: Some time ago, you aborted the young fetus that would otherwise have eventually become person X.
Case 1 and Case 2 have the "same effect" inasmuch as both cases bring about the state of affairs that person X does not exist at the present moment. However, the cases are otherwise very different. In Case 1, person X existed for some length of time, and then you murdered him so that he no longer exists. Case 1 is a clear example of immoral behavior on your part. In Case 2, because of your actions, person X never existed at all.* How is that immoral behavior on your part? Are you suggesting that it is morally wrong for one to take willful action that prevents a person from eventually coming into existence? If so, then how shall we punish the celibate, not to mention those who use effective birth control?
*For reasons already discussed, I am assuming here that the young fetus is not a person. If you disagree with that assumption, then what properties of the young fetus do you think suffice for personhood? None of the people in this thread who vehemently cry "Abortion is murder!" can seem to answer this question except to claim that all humans are persons just because.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI already told you that you are discriminating by taking away a young fetus right to life because it is not a "person" yet.
[b]If I travel back in time and abort your fetus it would have the same effect as if I would shoot you now....
Case 1: You just murdered person X.
Case 2: Some time ago, you aborted the young fetus that would otherwise have eventually become person X.
Case 1 and Case 2 have the "same effect" inasmuch as both cases bring about the state of aff ...[text shortened]... er!" can seem to answer this question except to claim that all humans are persons just because.[/b]
It is also absurd to say that ending a life that lasted 30 years is worse than endling a life that lasted for 3 weeks. It is the other way around.
I also pointed out in the other abortion tread that abolute morals do not exist they are made up by men and in your case they are made up to serve yourself at the cost of, a human life.
If you would tell me you will travel back in time and kill my fetus you can be sure that I will object to it.
AN UNBORN HUMAN IS NOT STATIC OBJECT is that so hard to grasp?
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello*For reasons already discussed, I am assuming here that the young fetus is not a person. If you disagree with that assumption, then what properties of the young fetus do you think suffice for personhood? None of the people in this thread who vehemently cry "Abortion is murder!" can seem to answer this question except to claim that all humans are persons just because.
[b]If I travel back in time and abort your fetus it would have the same effect as if I would shoot you now....
Case 1: You just murdered person X.
Case 2: Some time ago, you aborted the young fetus that would otherwise have eventually become person X.
Case 1 and Case 2 have the "same effect" inasmuch as both cases bring about the state of aff ...[text shortened]... er!" can seem to answer this question except to claim that all humans are persons just because.[/b]
So the right to abort/kill the fetus is the sliding scale of what is
personhood? We have the right to define what is and isn't worthy!
We have taken that upon ourselves to define personhood with our
definition, so we can agree with those claiming they want and should
be able to abort/kill a life you agree his human.
The killing is doing the same thing no matter what the time table was
as far as the length of life that person had is concern, it does the
same thing. The only difference between them is the sliding scale of
worth and personhood.
I guess with this type of reasoning, simply twisting the values a little
differently we can justify anything done to humans or anything else.
The worth of a human life isn't endowed by its creator here any more,
it is given by the people in power who can at will change your worth
by changing the variables used to define worth as they see it. No rights
given or recognized that cannot be changed by us when we think we
are the creators, and have the power to do what we will, any way we
will to do it! Our independence and worth have taken on different
meanings these days, the foundations are changing, how long we will
stand on this one will not be long, it cannot support us for long.
Kelly
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloLJ, I've tried to get the ideas into a more coherent line of thought:
[b]and it sound like you guys are fresh from a class of "Singer-ethics"
Well, indeed I did sit in on some Singer classes while I was an undergraduate at Princeton. Singer's hiring took place while I was a student there, and I recall that his appointment caused quite a stir, being that his views were and are considered controversial by some. Pe ...[text shortened]... Criterion for more clarification on why it fails to provide a coherent criterion for personhood.[/b]
Here's another quote from Peter Singer:
"When the life of an [born] infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if there are no 'extrinsic' reasons for keeping the infant alive -- like the feelings of the parents -- it is better that the child should be helped to die without further suffering.
[Practical Ethics, by Peter Singer, Page 184, second edition.]
I don't know what this looks like to you, but to me its an argument for the euthanasia of a handicapped child - infanticide. If an infant is born with a painful, but livable, disease, such as Haemophilia, and if this infant could be euthanized and replaced with a healthy infant, then Singer would be in favor of this position.
Statements such as these are probably what caused the "stir". Guess who were the main protestors against his appointment - not pro-lifers, but rather the disabilities rights group - Not Dead Yet.
http://www.mcil.org/mcil/news/ndynr14.htm
They took offence at Singer's books, which say it should be legal to deliberately kill disabled infants, as well as children and adults with severe cognitive disabilities, which might include people with Down Syndrome, mental retardation or even A.D.D.
The logic of moral reasoning often is that he who says A must say B. You and Nemesio have argued (quite eloquently let me add) for A; now Peter Singer says that A entails B and this B includes infanticide and euthanasia.
You will be surprised that Peter Singer is not the only one who holds to the "only the smart and the healthy and the big deserve to live" worldview; the abortionist Jim Newhall, cited by Maureen O'Hagan in Willamette Week, 3, May 1995 said the following: "Not everybody is meant to be born. I believe, for a baby, life begins when his mother wants him."
In R vs W the Supreme Court questioned whether the unborn had "meaningful lives". But meaningful to whom, and when? Is the fact that your life was not taken from you as an unborn meaningful to you now? If a mother wants her baby, his life is highly meaningful, which is why she mourns if there is a miscarriage. If the mother doesn't want her baby, then the life is not meaningful to her.
Does the worth of a human being depend upon whether others think his life is valuable? It is extremely dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are valuable. Think back in history: Black people, women, Indians, Jews and many others have been declared non-persons or persons whose lives are not meaningful. For whose benefit? That of the people in power who have declared for their own economic, political, or personal advantage who is meaningful and who isn't. Whites decided that blacks were non-persons - I can find the exact Supreme Court reference for you if you want; Males decided that women had fewer rights. And now finally the intellectual camp (with Singer at the helm) has decided that the incognitive and unitellectual don't have any rights.
Personhood is not something to be bestowed on living human beings, large or small, by an intellectual elite with vested interests in ridding society of undesirables. Personhood is an inherent value - a value that comes from being a member of the human race. This slippery logical and ethical slope is a very real one. A while ago, Belgium followed the Netherland by passing legislation, legalising Euthanasia. Once it is morally acceptable to kill unborn children, no one who is weak or vulnerable will be safe. If Singer has his way, infanticide should be a valid option for a child born with any defects. Suddenly (like Hitler) we are faced with the dilemma - do handicapped humans qualify as persons? How about the elderly? Or mentally insane? (throw in the Jews here) I can't remember if it was Watson or Crick who proposed mandatory euthanasia once you reach the ripe age of 50.
Once one concludes that a human life may not be worth living, then you open the floodgates - where this ever transparent line-in-the-sand will stop is anybody's guess.
Of course the eugenics program is not far below the surface once the plunge is taken.