The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

[Global Skeptic]

Okay, let us try this one.

God has created the universe in an orderly manner.
God has given man free will.
The moment the sperm meets the egg we shouldn't do anything to stop that process, because that is murder.

Now let me clarify what some married couples do. They are pro-life, but they accept not having sex so that they avoid that the process start at all, unless they want to. Alternatively they use contraception. But in both case they use free will to choose not to start the process at all. In other words by avoiding having sex which could start this process, they choose not to allow the possibility of the process to start at all.

 

[Leonel]

Not everybody follows religion.

 

[El_Machinae]

To assert, though, that something can be so fundamentally flawed that it is less deserving to be is something I cannot follow. He's been generous(thank you El Mac) in assumption, but he's incorrect when he assumes my disagreement with that argument is a "quiver of consternation." It's close to full blown antipathy.

Yeah, we'll disagree. To me, fetal selection is thematically the same as embryo selection for IVF and sperm selection. I think intentionally creating a sentience that you would not be willing to switch places with (i.e, it's worse than what you willingly accept) violates the Golden Rule.

I don't see a metaphysical difference between terminating a fetus and terminating a sperm when it comes to the idea of "killing a specific potential". Any specific fetus WAS a specific sperm and egg. Killing any has the same result

Once the transition to sentience occurs, however, it's an entirely new metaphysical concept.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, we'll disagree. To me, fetal selection is thematically the same as embryo selection for IVF and sperm selection. I think intentionally creating a sentience that you would not be willing to switch places with (i.e, it's worse than what you willingly accept) violates the Golden Rule.

I don't see a metaphysical difference between terminating a fetus and terminating a sperm when it comes to the idea of "killing a specific potential". Any specific fetus WAS a specific sperm and egg. Killing any has the same result

Once the transition to sentience occurs, however, it's an entirely new metaphysical concept.

Well, if we really want to break it down, even fetal selection/embryo selection/abortion/sperm eggs/all that are merely symptomatic. The conversation comes up in this thread because it's the most hands-on everyday application.

My problem isn't really in the sperm, egg, or the fetus. It's in the willingness to make a conscious decision to weigh the being of one human experience as more worthy of being than another. The Golden Rule, while pretty good most of the time, has almost no egalitarian application here. I wouldn't trade places with the congenitally blind. My assessment of the value of their experience is not valid. An Olympian would unlikely trade places with me. Their assessment of the value of my experience is not valid. These are merely examples, and pretty rough ones.

 

[RobAnybody]

Okay, let us try this one.

God has created the universe in an orderly manner.
God has given man free will.
The moment the sperm meets the egg we shouldn't do anything to stop that process, because that is murder.

Bad premise leads to illogical conclusion: (1) has not been established. (2) does not logically follow from (1). (3) does not logically follow from (2). Conclusion is rejected.

An Olympian would unlikely trade places with me.

Indeed. From what I've heard, McKayla is not impressed.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Bad premise leads to illogical conclusion: (1) has not been established. (2) does not logically follow from (1). (3) does not logically follow from (2). Conclusion is rejected.

Hi RobAnybody.

This has nothing to do with the usual distinction between left and right in politics, religion and atheism, science and non-science, skepticism/critical thinking and the lack here of.
In the generalized sense it takes place so:
Someone: We need to establish truth and the rest follows.
A hardcore global skeptic like me: No.

Now you and I go meta-cognitive on that and unravel the words as they connect to reality as such.
We - In the end all of humanity.
Need - Something this someone feels is important.
To establish truth - To figure out by using our brains how reality works.
And the rest follows - Then we are home, free home.
No - Reality works, as can be observed for some cases of false, wrong, illogical and what not, despite, however false, wrong, illogical and what not at least some claims appear to be. Including this one.

In other words sometimes it may be that however illogical something is, it still works. If that is so, then it is true that reality works at least in some cases for this kind of thinking.

 

[Traitorfish]

What's a "hardcore global sceptic", anyway?

 

[Global Skeptic]

What's a "hardcore global sceptic", anyway?

"I know one thing, that I know nothing" - attributed to Socrates.

So since I know nothing, I don't know truth. In everyday live I accept truth as a belief, but for the purpose of such debates as this, which involves knowledge, logic and truth, I know nothing; i.e I only deal in false etc.

 

[Borachio]

Then your position, like Socrates', is inescapably paradoxical.

 

[Traitorfish]

"I know one thing, that I know nothing" - attributed to Socrates.
So since I know nothing, I don't know truth. In everyday live I accept truth as a belief, but for the purpose of such debates as this, which involves knowledge, logic and truth, I know nothing; i.e I only deal in false etc.

That doesn't really clarify things. Is your scepticism philosophical, i.e. a rejection of the possibility of knowledge, or methodological, i.e. a rejection of truth-claims which have not been rigorously demonstrated? (Socrates was arguably the latter, but was very much not the former.) And, in either case, what distinguishes a "global" sceptic from I suppose a "non-global" sceptic?


(Also, I've just realised that Americans spell it "skeptic", which to me makes it look like they're talking about some forgotten Egyptian deity. How about that? )

 

[El_Machinae]

My problem isn't really in the sperm, egg, or the fetus. It's in the willingness to make a conscious decision to weigh the being of one human experience as more worthy of being than another. The Golden Rule, while pretty good most of the time, has almost no egalitarian application here. I wouldn't trade places with the congenitally blind. My assessment of the value of their experience is not valid. An Olympian would unlikely trade places with me. Their assessment of the value of my experience is not valid. These are merely examples, and pretty rough ones.

Your two examples aren't really counter-points at all, because you're not creating the blind person or the Olympian. The Golden Rule is about what you do to others, not the value of other lives.

And, imo, we make decisions regarding our unborn's life decisions every time we use a prophylactic. That specific (unique) set of sperm is deemed unworthy to exist at that time. I might choose another time to let another one live.

 

[Farm Boy]

If the decision pertains to a fetus who will be blind(or anything else), any qualification on worthiness to exist by necessity implicates the quality of existence for those who are blind. It's a "but for" decision that I am primarily concerned with. Such as, "But for the genes that cause blindness, this fetus would be brought to term." And I agree, I'm not operating off the Golden Rule here.

Perhaps, since my issue is with the conscious decision rather than the sperm itself, perhaps I would also distinguish between stepping on an anthill that is in your way and specifically selecting one to crush underfoot. Examples are poor this week, I don't have much time to post today. :/ I'll need to think more.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, see, I don't think the fetus consented to being born blind in a world full of visioned people. It would be me forcing a blind fetus into personhood, ostensibly for my own aggrandization. If I wouldn't do it to myself, I shouldn't do it to another.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good point. I think it's an area where the golden rule does apply. And unfortunately will be used wrongly by someone in the near future.

 

[Borachio]

Ooops! Strident militant otherwise-abled manifesto in danger of making itself visible, through the last few posts.

I'm all in favour, myself. But I wouldn't like to argue the case.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ooops! Strident militant otherwise-abled manifesto in danger of making itself visible, through the last few posts.

I'm all in favour, myself. But I wouldn't like to argue the case.

I didn't follow.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, see, I don't think the fetus consented to being born blind in a world full of visioned people. It would be me forcing a blind fetus into personhood, ostensibly for my own aggrandization. If I wouldn't do it to myself, I shouldn't do it to another.

Perhaps if you could fix the blindness, that is one decision. But that isn't really what we are talking about. If termination is the option then what we are doing, essentially, is looking at all those who are congenitally blind and saying - this world would be better if a different, sighted, person existed instead of you.

 

[Borachio]

^^Oh, I'm sorry. Must be my mistake. I thought you were bringing up the issue of the worth of people despite any "defect" they might have. Mind you, I don't want to go down this road anyway.

I should learn to keep my mouth shut.

 

[Farm Boy]

I kind of am, yes. I wouldn't label myself as particularly militant typically.

 

[Borachio]

No perhaps not. You seem eminently sensible to me. I was thinking of the Deaf Community in particular. I mean, in a sense I agree with them, but they can go too far, in denying their deaf children any right to medical intervention to possibly improve their condition. A bit like Jehovah's Witnesses in some ways.