WasatchMan Posted September 21, 2014 Author Share Posted September 21, 2014 I don't think anyone is deliberately using language as a form of manipulation here. At the very least, it was not my intention. I agree, and don't think it is deliberate (I tried to think of a better word than manipulation myself, but couldn't). I just think it is an important distinction to be clear about because the premise completely changes the calculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I can see that there may be an argument that a fetus is a person Then you should provide that argument instead of saying you see the potential for it. I would say that the definition of terms would be in order. Such as person is something that both possesses consciousness as well as the capacity for reason; that is the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate principled ideals, compare behavior to ideals, and consider consequences. I think the question is how much this applies. For example, we do not allow children to enter into contracts. They're not a person, though they will become one in time. We understand it would be immoral to murder a child for this reason. A fetus is not capable of life outside the mother. While it likely possesses the same eventuality I've just mentioned, it is by definition a part of the woman's body and therefore her property. Being pregnant can cause a huge strain on the woman's body (up to and including death), making it more akin to a parasite than a human being. To conclude that abortion is immoral is internally inconsistent for this reason as it is the infliction of an unchosen positive obligation, which is unethical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I'm confused, how does full dependency negate individual identity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted September 21, 2014 Author Share Posted September 21, 2014 [i can see that there may be an argument that a fetus is a person] Then you should provide that argument instead of saying you see the potential for it. You misunderstand me, I don't think a fetus is a person. I was just trying to point out that fetuses were being referred to as "persons" and "babies" (and "children" for that matter) without anyone making the argument, or saying that they assume, a fetus is a person. I worded it the way I did to facilitate discussion, not to say I actually see the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts