- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,383
- Reaction score
- 717
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
“The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right."
I've been reading a lot of things Peter Singer has written on when life begins and a lot of it really makes sense.
Certainly accurate. Pro-choice people need to have the courage to stand up for the rights to terminate parenthood postpartum. We can't go on having a gaping logical inconsistency within the pro-choice movement for anti-choicers to attack. We need to be willing to fight for the rights of people with infants who feel they cannot go forward with raising offspring. We need to be unapologetic about it and tell people who object to it to mind their own business or be willing to adopt every unwanted infant if they don't like it. Ultimately, it's about not letting people impose their beliefs on other people. Think it's wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant? Then don't euthanize your infant. Live your life by your own religious morals but don't impose your beliefs on others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_SingerIn Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences...Singer (also) argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."
I had to look him up to find out who he was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Interesting position and I think I've seen something similar argued within this Forum subsection in reference to the brain-dead being maintained on life-support.
I am Pro-Choice, and agree that the problem is determining at what point a fetus achieves personhood. My understanding is that sometime after the 20th week a typical viable fetus has developed a central nervous system and a rudimentary brain. IMO it is around this point in development that we can begin to access "personhood," which he defines as: a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure...self-awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
However, a newborn baby can feel pain and pleasure and has a basic awareness of self and other. While it can be argued it is not self-aware as we tend to think (i.e. recognizes that others can actually see it and exist separately from it) it is clearly a "person" at this point worthy of nurturing and protecting.
I would say that at least Singer, and you, have the guts to say what is actually going on.I've been reading a lot of things Peter Singer has written on when life begins and a lot of it really makes sense.
Certainly accurate. Pro-choice people need to have the courage to stand up for the rights to terminate parenthood postpartum. We can't go on having a gaping logical inconsistency within the pro-choice movement for anti-choicers to attack. We need to be willing to fight for the rights of people with infants who feel they cannot go forward with raising offspring. We need to be unapologetic about it and tell people who object to it to mind their own business or be willing to adopt every unwanted infant if they don't like it. Ultimately, it's about not letting people impose their beliefs on other people. Think it's wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant? Then don't euthanize your infant. Live your life by your own religious morals but don't impose your beliefs on others.
I had to look him up to find out who he was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Interesting position and I think I've seen something similar argued within this Forum subsection in reference to the brain-dead being maintained on life-support.
I am Pro-Choice, and agree that the problem is determining at what point a fetus achieves personhood. My understanding is that sometime after the 20th week a typical viable fetus has developed a central nervous system and a rudimentary brain. IMO it is around this point in development that we can begin to access "personhood," which he defines as: a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure...self-awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
However, a newborn baby can feel pain and pleasure and has a basic awareness of self and other. While it can be argued it is not self-aware as we tend to think (i.e. recognizes that others can actually see it and exist separately from it) it is clearly a "person" at this point worthy of nurturing and protecting.
This deal is getting worse all the time. I really don't think that most pro-choice people would support their logic going into the born state though.
I've been reading a lot of things Peter Singer has written on when life begins and a lot of it really makes sense.
Certainly accurate. Pro-choice people need to have the courage to stand up for the rights to terminate parenthood postpartum. We can't go on having a gaping logical inconsistency within the pro-choice movement for anti-choicers to attack. We need to be willing to fight for the rights of people with infants who feel they cannot go forward with raising offspring. We need to be unapologetic about it and tell people who object to it to mind their own business or be willing to adopt every unwanted infant if they don't like it. Ultimately, it's about not letting people impose their beliefs on other people. Think it's wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant? Then don't euthanize your infant. Live your life by your own religious morals but don't impose your beliefs on others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?