Peter Singer on abortion (moral, reject, choice, euthanasia, sex)

[michel]

Originally Posted by Storm

I've seen this general idea before.

My problem with it is that it raises the question of when a fetus becomes a person. Is an infant a person? A toddler? I seriously doubt he'd sanction the legalization of killing newborns based on the rationalization that they don't yet qualify as people.

As a theist, my own belief is that a fetus has a soul at the moment of conception......

I know that it is something that no atheist or even agnostic could accept as an answer, but it "works" for me; to me, the O/P argument is correct - in as far as :-
p1) It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
p2) A human fetus is an innocent human being
c1) Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.


I know that few will accept my views, but they are mine, nevertheless.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by michel

As a theist, my own belief is that a fetus has a soul at the moment of conception.......

Well - that is it, in a nutshell. The issue of aboriton ultimately boils down to when an individual believes that a fetus becomes a person.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

Well - that is it, in a nutshell. The issue of aboriton ultimately boils down to when an individual believes that a fetus becomes a person.

Not entirely. I consider a fetus a person from conception (though not due to the presence of a soul), but I'm still pro-choice because I consider abortion the lesser evil.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Storm

Not entirely. I consider a fetus a person from conception (though not due to the presence of a soul), but I'm still pro-choice because I consider abortion the lesser evil.

I was going to say something about this. I think part of the question is when the fetus becomes a person, but there is the part of the argument that is whether or not it is considered a person, is it sometimes acceptable to kill it anyway.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by michel

As a theist, my own belief is that a fetus has a soul at the moment of conception......

I know that it is something that no atheist or even agnostic could accept as an answer, but it "works" for me; to me, the O/P argument is correct - in as far as :-
p1) It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
p2) A human fetus is an innocent human being
c1) Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.


I know that few will accept my views, but they are mine, nevertheless.

actually the way you phrased it, with the inclusion of the soul is the major arguement of the religious in America. The problem for the religious though is that "the soul" is not seen as a valid arguement in a court of law, due to lack of evidence for its existence. So the equation as shown is addressed in religious circles with the implied idea of p2 being a human fetus is an innocent human being because it has a soul.

The united states as a country is on the fence with the abortion issue and it may be largely due to the high percentage of the ones who find merit in the equation, with the idea of a soul being the driving factor contrasted against the "pro-choice campaign resonating with a large percentage of the population.

I think, and this is just a theory that a lot of the anger over the issue, and why it gets emotional is the idea of fetus killing as infanticide but in a more subtle note the idea arguement is never really honestly addressed in American courts due to the idea of a soul not considered a valid legal arguement and thus becomes an issue never addressed.

I like the way Singer phrased the argument and thought it would be an interesting OP to use for the discussion rather than the traditional threads we have on here that boil down to "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" where each fail to address the other's arguement but campaign for their own. In the political game both are really well put together for gaining support from the people but the down-side is with the issue of soul not being addressed and "pro-choice" ignoring "pro-life's" central arguement nobody really has interacting dialog on the issue.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Storm

Not entirely. I consider a fetus a person from conception (though not due to the presence of a soul), but I'm still pro-choice because I consider abortion the lesser evil.

If we equate it to time value where

x= 9 months woman life adjusted by pregnancy
y= life expectancy of infant (say 75 years for arbitrary number)
z= probability of child being adopted or issued to the state (127,000 adoptions in 2001)

where we have 1.3 million abortions a year in the USA (give or take) does your idea of the lesser of two evils still hold? Just curious I tend to think in equations and noticed you don't so wanted to interject my formula into your idea and see what you produce.



footnote:

Abortion Statistics

Adoption Statistics

[Storm]

Originally Posted by robtex

If we equate it to time value where

x= 9 months woman life adjusted by pregnancy
y= life expectancy of infant (say 75 years for arbitrary number)
z= probability of child being adopted or issued to the state

where we have 1.3 million abortions a year in the USA (give or take) does your idea of the lesser of two evils still hold? Just curious I tend to think in equations and noticed you don't so wanted to interject my formula into your idea and see what you produce.



footnote:

Abortion Statistics

I do NOT think in equations, sorry. Math is not my forte.

And no, the amount of abortions does not change my opinion that it's the lesser evil.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Storm

I do NOT think in equations, sorry. Math is not my forte.

And no, the amount of abortions does not change my opinion that it's the lesser evil.

What drives you opinion to be for abortion than?

To the model is important because it shows a major issue not seen if abortion were made illegal. The model wouldn't hold up. The adoption rate is about 1/10 of the abortion rate. The state would have to take about 1.2 million new infants per year on the tax payers dime. In economics a term that applies is opportunity cost. The term is is used to describe, given finite $ what is given up in order to gain something.

For instance if I went to the store with 5 $ and I want to buy milk and orange juice but both call 4.5 $ if I buy milk my opportunity cost becomes orange juice.

Take that idea and apply it to 1.2 million new kids in the state's care per year times 10 years and one can see a serious problem.

Having said that I don't think one can ethically issue a legal sanction like make abortion illegal while seeing an issue like this and making no attempt to make adjustments for it. If the pro-life movement can't address this future and inevitable issue on the subject they have no business issuing the proclamation of "no abortions"

On a side note I reject p2 = a fetus is a human being, and thus the equation (because I don't believe in a soul) however accept the medical and biological definitions of a baby being a human which makes me reject Singer's infanticide arguement. I accept p1 as valid = it is wrong to kill an innocent human being and could change the equation to

p1 it is wrong to kill an innocent human being
p2 a baby is an innocent human being
c1 therefore infanticide is wrong

but relating that back to the original equation where baby is replaced with fetus with a non-belief in a soul I can say that a fetus does not equal a baby and therefore the two are not interchangeable in the equation but instead the baby has a greater right to life than the fetus.