|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
06-07-2008, 06:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Peter Singer on abortion
Taken from the book "Practical Ethics" ISBN 0-521-29720-6
notes taken from chapter 6 pages 106-126. Singer qualifies the conservative (footnote 1) arguement as such: 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. He faults the liberal (footnote 2) arguments labelled as follows: 1) Consequence of restrictive laws: which stipulates that if abortion is made illegal it will just go underground. He faults it for avoiding the issue of morality and instead substituting "we can't stop it so allow it." 2) The feminist arguement of "pro-choice" as failing to address premise number 2. 3) "not the laws business " which is a stipulation that government should mandate the issue as again failing to address p2. His argument for abortion is as follows. He states that all life is not sacred. He says the value of life is measurable by that life's ability to be conscious, ability to perceive the world around them, autonomy awareness ect. His direct quote is "My suggestion then, is that we accord the life of a fetus no greater value than the life of a non-human animal of greater rationality self consciousness awareness, capacity to feel ect. Since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person. " (page 118) He than goes on to qualify potential human life with this formula p1) it is wrong to kill a potential human being p2) a fetus is a potential human being c1) therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus He says that the new equation gives p2 more merit but at the detriment of p1. In that qualifying a potential life as equal to an existing life is harder to do. So his affirmation of abortion in the first conservative formula is the rejection of p2 ) a fetus is a human being and in the 2nd equation is his inability to find merit in p1 which says "it is wrong to kill a potential human being." thoughts? As a quick heads up if you aren't up on utilitarianism check out the footnote links and it can give you an idea of where Singer is coming from. footnotes 1: conservative arguement is his word choice to mean anti-abortion. footnote 2: liberal arguement is his word choice to mean pro-abortion. footnote 3: Home footnote 4 Utilitarianism : past, present and future footnote 5 Pleasure Principle footnote 6 Utility : Jeremy Bentham's definition 
|
|
#2
06-07-2008, 06:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Questions about my beliefs? Click here. We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly. 
|
|
#3
06-07-2008, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is wrong to kill civilians in war it is wrong to try to convert people to democracy by force thus killing them, it is wrong for Wall Street to drive up the cost of fuel and food desperately needed in the world to prevent starvation but.... I fail to see the argument of pro-life when there is so much more horror and destruction in the world.
|
|
#4
06-07-2008, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Look at you. You think you're something special, don't you? God's gift to the universe. Right? Well, you're wrong and it's starting to get on everybody's nerves.
|
|
#5
06-07-2008, 08:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Whoa! Seriously?
DO you have a source for this?
__________________
Questions about my beliefs? Click here. We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly.
|
|
#6
06-07-2008, 08:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A sperm and and egg are a potential human being.
I have sperm Women have eggs Therefore I should have sex with every woman I can or be guilty of mass murder.
__________________
All things change in a dynamic environment. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you. ~ Project 2501
|
|
#7
06-07-2008, 08:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
None of these arguments take the life of the mother or quality of life into consideration. There are more things to consider besides how sacred something might be.
__________________
All things change in a dynamic environment. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you. ~ Project 2501
|
|
#8
06-07-2008, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Look at you. You think you're something special, don't you? God's gift to the universe. Right? Well, you're wrong and it's starting to get on everybody's nerves.
|
|
#9
06-07-2008, 08:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, the almighty Wiki backs you up:
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [24]- and therefore "[s]imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.I have to agree with you. That's just evil.
__________________
Questions about my beliefs? Click here. We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly.
|
|
#10
06-07-2008, 09:52 PM
|
|
|
|
