|
Why don't more pro-lifers kill abortion doctors? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| r5a |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
because they are the heroes that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt them, because they can take it. Because they are not heroes. They are the silent guardians, the watchful protectors, the dark knights. |
OH GOD YES. |
|
|
| diggerz |
wait a second, I love Jesus he's one of my favourite Jews. I'm just upset no one recognized the track.
;) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Lira, what you have to understand is, monotheists believe in absolutes. There is no compromise. The point of view you're thinking from is that of moral relativism. So now, can you understand the uncompromising position of most pro-lifers? |
I'm not sure I can be considered a moral relativist, because I do consider abortion (and murder in general) inherently wrong, regardless of one's culture.
But, regarding the last question, I don't think I can understand the uncompromising position of religious people in general, but I'm young, I may get to understand it someday :)
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Okay, then why not use any force short of lethal force to stop him?
Cut off his hands or something and prevent him from doing any more abortions, right? |
Like I had previously said, unless you attack the arguments, your efforts won't be nearly as effective. If anything, you'll just lose any legitimacy your argument might have had, and it will come to show that your arguments are so weak you actually have to enforce them through violence and fear. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Like I had previously said, unless you attack the arguments, your efforts won't be nearly as effective. If anything, you'll just lose any legitimacy your argument might have had, and it will come to show that your arguments are so weak you actually have to enforce them through violence and fear. |
This is a weak reply, IMO.
The whole point of the "abortion is murder" spiel is that an abortion doctor on the loose should appall and alarm us as much as a serial killer on the loose. And yet the vast majority of pro-lifers don't respond in anything like the same way to the two situations. If the police refused to catch a serial killer, they wouldn't lobby to stop his killing or sing hymns at him or simply hold up a bunch of signs. Yet that's how they respond to abortionists. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
This is a weak reply, IMO.
The whole point of the "abortion is murder" spiel is that an abortion doctor on the loose should appall and alarm us as much as a serial killer on the loose. And yet the vast majority of pro-lifers don't respond in anything like the same way to the two situations. |
If you read my reply to Krypton, I didn't even treat "abortion" and "murder" as being similar events (I included "abortion" in spite of my previous use of "murder" in that sentence), because of some differences in their nature.
A serial killer will most likely shoot people at random, and the dead were already included in a social context, so there will be some kind of protest - after all, who's to say that you're not next? An abortion doctor, however, will only abort foetuses, whose existence is known only by non-foetuses, and these "non-foetuses" are safe from being themselves aborted as they're "out".
See where I'm getting at? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If you read my reply to Krypton, I didn't even treat "abortion" and "murder" as being similar events (I included "abortion" in spite of my previous use of "murder" in that sentence), because of some differences in their nature.
A serial killer will most likely shoot people at random, and the dead were already included in a social context, so there will be some kind of protest - after all, who's to say that you're not next? An abortion doctor, however, will only abort foetuses, whose existence is known only by non-foetuses, and these "non-foetuses" are safe from being themselves aborted as they're "out".
See where I'm getting at? |
No, not really.
You seem to be going in the direction of saying that abortion isn't actually as serious as murder, which goes against what a lot of pro-lifers say they believe and thus isn't really relevant to the argument. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
No, not really.
You seem to be going in the direction of saying that abortion isn't actually as serious as murder, which goes against what a lot of pro-lifers say they believe and thus isn't really relevant to the argument. |
I guess I should draw the distinction more clearly then.
I. Basic assumptions
As you said in the first post, abortion can be considered morally equivalent to murder, and I hold such view. But, realistically, I must admit that if there's a difference in how people deal with abortion and murder, then it must be a culturally distinct event for them. So, before taking any of the following stances:
(i) Abortion is wrong because p;
(ii) Abortion is okay because q;
I think it would be wise to analyse the consequences of the following questions:
(i.a) What if p? Does it follow from p that abortion is wrong?
(i.b) What it ¬p? Does it not follow from p that abortion is wrong (i.e. it follows that abortion is wrong)?
(ii.a) What if q? Does it follow from q that abortion is right?
(ii.b) What if ¬q? Does it not follow from p that abortion is right (i.e. it follows that abortion is wrong)?
First of all, I'm taking for granted that we all consider murder wrong, which is how we got ourselves into this mess anyway. Also - here comes the counter-intuitive bit - I'm not just comparing (abortion is murder) and (abortion is not murder). If I did so, I could just say Abortion is right because p and Abortion is wrong because ¬p . The definition of foetus is not commensurable among these claims: you can see the very same fact and have different interpretations, as different values are at stake. In that sense pro-choicers (?) don't even see foetuses the way a pro-lifer does. A foetus, to a pro-choicer, is just an unconscious biological matter, not unlike a thumb, even though this definition gets a bit more complicated after the nervous system enters the scene - for the sake of our discussion, let's just focus on the pre-conscious stages, shall we? That same foetus, to a pro-lifer, is much like a human being, either because God said so (a claim I personally can't buy), or because it is a potential human being, as all of us have been foetuses at some stage of our lives. If you drop any of these distinctions, and consider the claims as being simply opposites, it becomes too simplistic a view, reason why people can't even argue about this issue and it becomes a pointless theological debate, when the problem lies not on this issue.
Alrighty then, let's get back to the real world :D
II. What follows from these assumptions?
So, if p refers to the belief that a foetus is a human being, and q refers to the belief that a foetus is an unconscious biological matter, what do we have?
Well, if p is considered true, and the foetus is seen as a potential human being, then, yes, abortion is wrong. However, if q is considered true, and the foetus is seen just as a biological matter, then, yes, abortion is acceptable. There you have it: the standard stance of both pro-lifers and pro-choice. Now, how do we get out of here? And how can we even define what's moral (and what isn't) in this mess? Time to untie the knot.
Once we look at ¬p, we have to face a nasty problem. If a foetus is not a potential human being (i.e. it does not follow that a human being can come out of a foetus), how is it that people, at earlier stages of their lives, are foetuses? ¬p is necessarily false. What follows from this? That, if you kill a potential adult (i.e. a child), you're taking someone's life. If you kill a potential elder (i.e. an adult), you're taking someone's life. If you kill a foetus (which is a potential human being under this perspective) you're... yes, taking someone's life.
Now, things don't look any less complicated for pro-choicers if you start from ¬q. If foetuses are not some sort of biological matter, well, what are they? - that's the question a standard pro-choicer might ask. But notice that absence of the word just, which is essential to a distinction between us and, let's say, our thumb. If you rephrase this question and ask: If foetuses are not just some sort of biological matter, well, what are they? Well, following from this, we may say that they're not just biological matter, but a special kind of biological matter that isn't much different from us.
Pro-choice 1 (q) x (p, ¬p, ¬q) 3 Pro-life
III. What does that have to do with being morally equivalent but culturally distinct again?
After burning a couple of neurons, I hope I was able to show that abortion ought to be seen as murder, because:
i) If pro-lifers are right, and abortion is morally equivalent to murder (and, murder is wrong), then it would entail that abortion is wrong, full stop. If, however, pro-lifers are wrong, you can't really say anything bad happened: a baby is born, bla-bla-bla, and even if the family is somewhat disfunctional, (s)he can give life a try.
ii) If, however, pro-choicers have truth on their side, and abortion is not morally equivalent to murder, there's no point in debating. But, if they are wrong, and this is the real kicker, the consequences are much more problematic. Culturally, abortion is being seen as different from murder when, in reality, it may not be the case. It's like a genocide... except, it is a genocide condoned by part of the population. What you have to fight, therefore, is not the genocide itself, but the culture that condones such act.
IV. Why!?
Because it's about time we played on the safe side and stopped being so egocentric. Hume, as I recall it, pointed out the fact that when a community serves no utility for us, we may as well regard them as worthless. That's how the Church, for example, came to consider native americans as non-humans. Religious people were wrong back then and pro-lifers may be wrong as well. Furthermore, Daniel Dennett puts forth in his Kinds of Minds that, if we're to choose between two sides, we'd better play on the safe side when it comes to consciousness. Otherwise, We'd be better off being solipsist pricks.
Phew, it's been a while since I last wrote such a long post :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Well, if p is considered true, and the foetus is seen as a potential human being, then, yes, abortion is wrong. |
I don't think that anyone would deny that a fetus is a potential human being. Even a simple fertilized egg is a "potential human being."
But I would deny that potential human beings deserve the same protection as actual human beings. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I don't think that anyone would deny that a fetus is a potential human being. Even a simple fertilized egg is a "potential human being."
But I would deny that potential human beings deserve the same protection as actual human beings. |
Well, the police seem to think otherwise. They charge people who've killed pregnant women with TWO counts of murder. Like Scott Peterson. They charged him with two counts of murder for killing his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson. So, in my opinion, the laws are hypocritical. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, the police seem to think otherwise. They charge people who've killed pregnant women with TWO counts of murder. Like Scott Peterson. They charged him with two counts of murder for killing his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson. So, in my opinion, the laws are hypocritical. |
Laci Petersen was seven and a half months pregnant. When a baby is that far along, I think it's reasonable to consider it a person, since it has a body and brain that are close to complete and functional. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I don't think that anyone would deny that a fetus is a potential human being. Even a simple fertilized egg is a "potential human being."
But I would deny that potential human beings deserve the same protection as actual human beings. |
I guess this is your turn now: why don't they deserve the same protection? Just because they aren't born yet? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I guess this is your turn now: why don't they deserve the same protection? Just because they aren't born yet? |
No: it's because they aren't even fully human yet. In the sense that matters to my moral reasoning (being a feeling and thinking being), early-term fetuses are not even close to fully human. |
|
|
|
|
