Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

The Ethics of Abortion

Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 2:06:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Thoughts from the Hill!! Abortion v1.1
The Fool: I was answering a question related to abortion and it got me thinking about it. This is what I got out of those thoughts.

Who's Fooling who?
Rights of any sort are manmade conceptions at best. Prolife argues for a right to live. Prochoice argues for a right to choose. The problem is that the pro-life position tends to be faith based, which is subjective at best. While the Pro-choice is selfish and relies on other Rights as support, however it is Rights that are particularly that which under question. As in should we or should we not alter the wright in favour of emerging life. So the Pro-life position amounts to an appeal to tradition by simply referring what the Right are already.

A P1 The Question is independent of on Pro-life or Pro-choice explanations.

Rights can't be shown to have any more reality then any subjectively based shared conception. We all share concepts of Unicorns. But they don't exist anymore than ideas our created from our imagination, regardless if we define them as existing unicorns, or Natural Unicorns, or necessary Unicorns or necessarily as part of their essential nature. It is irrational to think come into existence by definition. No matter whom we are or how much we declare it so. The fact remains the same.

A P1 Rights are Human made conceptions, which can be changed as easy as they are made up.

C1(B P1) Therefore the question is why should we or should we not change them.

I want to know ‘Y'!................. (The letter Y) ;)

Life is always continuous. Life goes from one living thing to another. As far as we know. Creationism is not a rational explanation, but neither are random happenings in evolution. Listen to a Fool now but believe me later on. Random always has, always is, and always will, be a false answer for anything. Whether in science or not its complete NONSENSE!! Just ask a Scientist how he knows something is random, and watch him not answer the question without appealing to ignorance. Creationism and Random life are both hasty generalizations in a rush to a have an answer. But the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know yet. That doesn't mean we won't know in the future.

B P2 ergo, Life is continuous

Trees are considered living, so is bacteria, and insects and such. We use trees for wood, and we have no problem killing bacteria and insects without a second thought. The reason for this is sentience. We define what counts as part of the moral community is live which is sentient. Aka life which is conscious and can feel pain.

B P3 ergo, only sentient life is considered a part of the moral community.

C2(C P1) Therefore the moral question can only be answered by our knowledge of Sentient life.

Our best sense of such knowledge is scientific, cognitive science in particular. In such Cognitive science the brain shows certain patterns when we feel pain. But such patterns depend on a necessary set of developments in the brain. And this is awhile after conception. So we should consider the fetus as part of the moral community, at that time.

C P2 To the best of our knowledge sentience develops at a later stage of development of the fetus after conceptualization

C P3 However to caution on the side of error, it should be made a standard deviation before the normal time for such a development to take place.

C3 Abortion should be justified one standard deviation, before the normal time the necessary development take place.

Straight from the Hill! ;)

The Fool: Some people don't like that. But I want to know 'Y'!!!!!!!! ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL