Is Apple's Argument Against Abortion Consistent with Other Ethical Stances?

[James R]

loseyourname:

Oh please, do you have an argument to present or are you just going to patronize us? What you've presented so far is an argument for veganism, not for abortion.

Actually, I don't think I've presented an argument for abortion in this thread. What I have done is to suggest that pro-life arguments against abortion are inadequate.

Here is a nice post I made earlier this year, that addresses all of these 'subtle nuances' that we pro-lifers are too stupid to understand. Maybe you can point out where my idiocy has prevented me from seeing what is so obvious to you genius pro-choicers. No one else really ever addressed what I posted, so it would be appreciated [snip]

I've seen the violinist argument before, and I do not necessarily agree it is a good argument for the pro-choice side. If you are interested in perceived flaws and the possible resolution of those difficulties from a pro-choice perspective, you could do worse than to read Peter Singer's articles on that particular example. To repeat his arguments here would take a little more time and effort than I wish to devote to this thread right now, so I'm not going to do it.

Do you have any of your own pro-life arguments, or do you just want to swap references with each other?

 

[Ki Man]

everybody who supported slavery was free
everybody who supports abbortion was born

 

[Smurf]

is that off a bumper sticker?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, at least we're being up front, now about the argument-from-bumper-sticker.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

[Adopts scouse accent] "Don't start all that again!"

 

[moving finger]

The argument is perfectly valid, but either premiss may be attacked. An opponent could argue either:

1. A fetus is not human, or not "fully human".

or

2. Not all humans have a right to life, or the same right to life.

Personally, I think (1) is silly. A fetus is genetically human, and nobody can really argue that, provided you define "human" as "having a complete set of human genes".

An embryo immediately after the moment of conception "has the right genes" - but does that make it human at that point? I could argue that it does not.

(2) is a perfectly valid argument, though. Most pro-lifers are not vegetarian. Why not? Why are they happy to eat a cow, but regard a human child as sacrosanct? It seems to me that many regard human life as inherently special, and accord special rights to humans just because humans are members of the species Homo sapiens. Cows do not have a special right to life, because they are of a different species. There appears to me to be no good ethical reason to make this distinction, but maybe you can think of one...

There is a good ethical reason to respect the right to life of all other human beings - if one did not do so, where would one draw the line? Would it be acceptable for me to walk into your home, kill you and eat you? No of course it would not.

The question that remains then is whether, given the above, it is then ethical for humans to kill other animals. And vegetarians have a point here.

MF

 

[James R]

An embryo immediately after the moment of conception "has the right genes" - but does that make it human at that point? I could argue that it does not.

Why not? You must be using a somewhat convoluted definition of "human being".

There is a good ethical reason to respect the right to life of all other human beings - if one did not do so, where would one draw the line? Would it be acceptable for me to walk into your home, kill you and eat you? No of course it would not.

This is the "do unto others as you would have done unto you" argument for morality, which is at least a starting point.

Why is it ok to eat animals, but not humans, in your opinion? Actually, don't bother answering if you don't want to. It's really a diversion from the current topic of conversation. The point here is that many pro-lifers are actually morally inconsistent, in that they shout about how there is a general "right to life", while at the same time they chow down on a hamburger, showing that in fact they only believe in a right to life in very specific circumstances.

 

[moving finger]

Why not? You must be using a somewhat convoluted definition of "human being".

I could argue the same of your definition

Why is it ok to eat animals, but not humans, in your opinion? Actually, don't bother answering if you don't want to.

I'd love to answer. I have not suggested that it is ok to eat animals. I specifically said in my post “The question that remains then is whether, given the above, it is then ethical for humans to kill other animals. And vegetarians have a point here.”

It's really a diversion from the current topic of conversation.

OK, but I was simply replying to your own argument in the same thread.

The point here is that many pro-lifers are actually morally inconsistent, in that they shout about how there is a general "right to life", while at the same time they chow down on a hamburger, showing that in fact they only believe in a right to life in very specific circumstances.

You may have a very valid point here

MF