N
noname223
Angelic
- Aug 18, 2020
- 4,993
I am completely pro-choice concerning abortion. But there seem to be two pretty popular arguments. One is abortion fosters racism and eugenics inter alia because many poor people use that right. Personally I don't know whether this is factually true but even if it was I don't find it convincing.
But the second one is more in my mind currently. A writer I like had a mixed opinion on abortion. I only paraphrase it I don't want to research the detailed words which were used. ( changed my opinion but it might be not perfect this quote though)
He said due to the fact science cannot give a precise definition of life we have have to be careful. Due to the fact we have no exact definition when life begins we should decide against abortion because we cannot say for sure whether something is a human being or not. ("There is irresolvable doubt on this question.
But when there is irresolvable doubt about something I have neither the legal nor the moral right to tell another person what to do about it epecially if that person feels he or she is not in doubt. ")
So it basically an argument anti-abortion but not putting it into law. It is up to the individual.
I was curious what science says when life begins. I found this interesting article. I recommend it.
Here are some interesting quotes.
"Medical professionals and bioethicists caution that both the beginning and end of life are complicated biological processes that are not defined by a single identifiable moment — and are ill suited to the political arena.
"Unfortunately, biological occurrences are not events, they are processes," said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.
Moreover, asking doctors "What is life?" or "What is death?" may miss the point, said Magnus: "Medicine can answer the question 'When does a biological organism cease to exist?' But they can't answer the question 'When does a person begin or end?' because those are metaphysical issues."
Ben Sarbey, a doctoral candidate in Duke University's department of philosophy who studies medical ethics, echoed that perspective, recounting the Paradox of the Heap, a thought experiment that involves placing grains of sand one on top of the next. The philosophical quandary is this: At what point do those grains of sand become something more — a heap?
"We're going to have a rough time placing a dividing line that this counts as a person and this does not count as a person," he said. "Many things count as life — a sperm counts as life, a person in a persistent vegetative state counts as life — but does that constitute a person that we should be protecting?""
So I don't have very much sophisticated so say about it. But I don't agree with this argument in case there are doubts we should decide against abortion. It sounds ridiculous when we really take it literally. Is sperm already human life? I mean some insane people would probably argument in favor of that. The morning after pill would also have to be seen as murder.
Maybe I should add why I called it the best argument pro-life on abortion. Probably because I consider most of the other arguments as even less convincing.
But the second one is more in my mind currently. A writer I like had a mixed opinion on abortion. I only paraphrase it I don't want to research the detailed words which were used. ( changed my opinion but it might be not perfect this quote though)
He said due to the fact science cannot give a precise definition of life we have have to be careful. Due to the fact we have no exact definition when life begins we should decide against abortion because we cannot say for sure whether something is a human being or not. ("There is irresolvable doubt on this question.
But when there is irresolvable doubt about something I have neither the legal nor the moral right to tell another person what to do about it epecially if that person feels he or she is not in doubt. ")
So it basically an argument anti-abortion but not putting it into law. It is up to the individual.
I was curious what science says when life begins. I found this interesting article. I recommend it.
When does life begin? As state laws define it, science, politics and religion clash
For decades, the U.S. medical system has adhered to a legally recognized standard for death, one embraced by most states. Why is a uniform standard for the start of human life proving so elusive?
www.npr.org
Here are some interesting quotes.
"Medical professionals and bioethicists caution that both the beginning and end of life are complicated biological processes that are not defined by a single identifiable moment — and are ill suited to the political arena.
"Unfortunately, biological occurrences are not events, they are processes," said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.
Moreover, asking doctors "What is life?" or "What is death?" may miss the point, said Magnus: "Medicine can answer the question 'When does a biological organism cease to exist?' But they can't answer the question 'When does a person begin or end?' because those are metaphysical issues."
Ben Sarbey, a doctoral candidate in Duke University's department of philosophy who studies medical ethics, echoed that perspective, recounting the Paradox of the Heap, a thought experiment that involves placing grains of sand one on top of the next. The philosophical quandary is this: At what point do those grains of sand become something more — a heap?
"We're going to have a rough time placing a dividing line that this counts as a person and this does not count as a person," he said. "Many things count as life — a sperm counts as life, a person in a persistent vegetative state counts as life — but does that constitute a person that we should be protecting?""
So I don't have very much sophisticated so say about it. But I don't agree with this argument in case there are doubts we should decide against abortion. It sounds ridiculous when we really take it literally. Is sperm already human life? I mean some insane people would probably argument in favor of that. The morning after pill would also have to be seen as murder.
Maybe I should add why I called it the best argument pro-life on abortion. Probably because I consider most of the other arguments as even less convincing.