In order to determine if abortion is evil or not, we need to understand what exactly makes murder evil, or what exactly separates acceptable killing of life from unacceptable killing of life. What attribute(s) exactly makes persons valuable, as opposed to life killing of which is not criminalised?
I've voted being able to biologically survive independently of another person because there wasn't the option to vote for being born. Even if a foetus could survive if it were born, if it still hasn't been born then it isn't a person. That's how the law stands at the moment and it really can't stand any other way without causing huge complications to society. The voters of Mississippi realised that, which is why the referendum to give personhood status to unborn human entities failed. Such referendums are a shocking waste of tax payers money and if I lived in Mississippi I'd be very pissed off about it.
So you would be OK with killing of a 9 month old baby identical in almost all attributes to a newborn just because it has not passed through the birth canal yet? I did not include specific birth option intentionally - it is not an inherent internal attribute (quality) of the fetus/child, it is just a location of it. Biological dependency is indeed the most close option relevant for birth.
Yes. What's more, they are legal. Location is everything when it is inside the body of a person. The fact we are not inside the body of a person is what makes us a person.
Errors in the poll: 1. Implied assumption that "value" and "being a person/human being/baby" are the same thing. They're not. A non-person can still have value. 2. Implied assumption that there has to be a sharp dividing line for "value". There isn't. There's only a bright dividing line -- birth -- for defining a person. I believe what everyone believes -- that zygotes have almost no value, but that the value of the zygote/embryo/fetus grows gradually as it grows.
1. By "value" in context of the poll I meant being valuable as persons are, to the point of having rights, and that killing should be criminalised by law as murder (since thats what person is). Non-personal things have value only as property - they have value because some person considers them valuable, not inherent value. 2. I never implied the dividing line has to be sharp. In fact, the appearance of mind (brain waves) takes cca one month (from 20th to 24th week). There only needs to be a sharp distinction in the end states of such dividing line (otherwise it would not be a dividing line at all).
Usually not, late-term abortions are often illegal. This would not be the case if location inside of another person was of primary significance.
There are some restrictions placed on late term abortions, but they're never illegal and nor should they be.
I will just point out that you CAN kill other persons if it is for preserving your life or health. So even if the fetus was a person from conception, it would not threaten abortions, even late term abortions done for medical reasons. It also means medical late term abortions do not imply that such fetus cannot be a person in any way. Only allowing late term abortions for non-medical reasons would imply that, but that is indeed restricted. Why is it even restricted if such fetus is not a person?
Abortions - especially late term abortions - are threatened now, even when the foetus isn't a person. As a sop to Cerberus, I think. They are unnecessary. Late term abortions are rare, not because of the law, but because they're seldom needed or required. Canada has no restrictions on abortion. That's how it should be.
Is the such the case with late term abortions needed for medical reasons (to save life or health of the mother)?
There is no agreed standard by which the 'use' of a human being is to be judged, because human beings are not 'for' anything: all humans are therefore neither equal nor unequal, and we should not waste our time with silly questions.
By value I dont mean "use" value, obviously. I mean the intrinsic value we attribute to persons. Or do you think persons have no value and should not be protected by laws? This question is crucial for the abortion debate, its not a silly question. In fact, all other abortion questions only dance around this elephant in the room.
I wouldn't discuss whether sheep had intrinsic value either: a sheep has value to a lamb, a butcher, a meat eater, vegetation and so on, but they are different. Once born, I believe that all animals have rights of some sort, but that is nothing to do with anything 'intrinsic': we have no means to judge.
You are after some abstract statement, but as far as I can see, people are valuable for innumerable reasons, depending on the kind of person doing the valuing. A capitalist, for instance, is rather like a butcher weighing meat; a politician cares about influence; a mother is full of hopes and fears, and has devoted huge amounts of attention; an anti-choice politician wants to force a birth and then forget about the usually disastrous results; a teacher is fascinated by the potentialities of this new person; a revolutionary hopes for a new cadre who will help liberate humanity; an abbot hopes for a new dedicatee. I could go on and on. I don't think it as simple as you want to make it. I would never make a human being suffer, because I owe that to my own honour and sensitivity. That would mean I'd not wish birth on many - since that seems to be the issue we are addressing.
If being born is what makes you a person, then being born is what makes you valuble. If your value decreases during life, well, that is another thing. I don't know what I should vote for. I don't understand the options, probably because they are written in such a way that only a college graduate would understand.
If we were to poll people and ask them what they value about being human other than the having of material goods, I think we would find that the following would rank highly. Love, Friendship/Relationship, Joy/Lack of Suffering, Accomplishment, Honor and so forth. Feel free to add to the list but what we quickly find is that most, if not all of the things most folks value about their own humanity requires cognitive ability. It is cognitive ability that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom and from a single celled zygote.
No it is not. Whether pregnancy in question could result in damage to health or death or not is an objective medical fact, not subjective opinion.
I agree with you here in a technical manner. Values are inherently subjective, and thus cannot be intrinsic. I think the word intrinsic in this type of discussion, however, is only meant to communicate a sort of moral argument where these rights outlined (whatever they may be) should be treated as intrinsic and very difficult to "remove". Just my thoughts...
