It was off on a tangent. I thought the subjects sufficiently related to make the post. Abortion and euthanasia have much in common, and many differences too.
I understand. The two are related alright, and there was nothing terribly off-topic about your post, but I was just trying to guide the thread away from becoming a euthanasia thread. So long as we stick to the aspects of euthanasia that relate to abortion, this should work.
Another extreme example, but one that doesn't rely on physical defect of the neonate would be something like this:
In a region where starvation is commonplace, disease is rampant, and the birth of another child could threaten the existence of the entire family, abortion is not only logical but quite possibly necessary to prolong the existence of the mother, and any other children. Sadly this is not without precedent. There's documentation of thousands of neonates left to die in the snow in Russia and the satellite states of the former Soviet Union, often because the family as a whole would starve by trying to feed one more mouth. Abortion of a non-perceptive embryo seems to me a much less cruel resolution in this kind of extreme scenario.
The thing about this example is that it is a scenario where law, order and indeed society in general have broken down. While I could understand why somebody would have an abortion or leave a neonate to die rather than kill another child, I don't think that it is the kind of situation that laws are designed to cater for. You can imagine the outrage that would come from both so called pro-life and so-called pro-choice individuals if a law was passed allowing infanticide in times of extreme hardship.
Now I'm curious why you hold such strong prolife views? Are they theistic in nature? My experience has been that the majority of people who are prolife are either religious or they have been influenced by prolife propaganda (like the horrible pictures of fetuses being aborted) without really putting any thought into their position. I'm sure that doesn't characterize everyone. I don't want to make assumptions about your beliefs, so what influences have led you to take this position?
Cheryl I'm reluctant to talk about my own experiences too much in this thread, lest they become the subject. To answer your question briefly, I am religious, but that doesn't really tend to affect my opinion on legal matters. While I might think that even simulated child pornography is immoral, I have no desire to see it illegal. I am in favour of the legalisation of most recreational drugs. I am in favour of legalised prostitution. I am in favour of legalising euthanasia under certain circumstances. Were I a Hindu, I would have no objection to the legalisation of Hamburgers. I have no desire to impose my morality on anybody else than you do, though of course, I may be wrong.
You've laid out your prolife argument, but what do you know about the prochoice position? What do you think are the strongest prochoice arguments? What are the weakest? If you had to play devil's advocate and argue abortion from a prochoice point of view without giving away your biases, what arguments would you make?
The strongest pro-choice arguments I've encountered come from the like of Singer who (at least partially) follow through on the traditional arguments that regard certain the exhibition of certain characteristics as the criteria we should use to declare someone Alive. Singer believes that children should not be declared alive until some considerable time after birth (he regards a three year old as a gray-case). His system of ethics is relevantly coherent, but I'd not like to live in a society based on them!
Some quotes from him:
Those who defend women's rights to abortion often refer to themselves as 'pro-choice' rather than as 'pro-abortion'. In this way they seek to bypass the issue of the moral status of the foetus, and instead make the right to abortion a question of individual liberty. But it cannot simply be assumed that a woman's right to have an abortion is a question of individual liberty, for it must first be established that the aborted foetus is not a being worthy of protection. If the foetus is worthy of protection, then laws against abortion do not create 'victimless crimes' as laws against homosexual relations between consenting adults do. So the question of the moral status of the foetus cannot be avoided.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm
An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable
If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.
If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=2659
Now, I know that very few people who label themselves as pro-choice would agree with Singer when it comes to abortion, but I find that he - unlike most pro-choice advocates - follows the usual arguments through to their natural conclusion.
EDIT
misterpessimistic wrote:
I know I may be being bitchy a bit here, but Niall, you brought up other cases where we are inconsistent as respect to ending life by juxtaposing abortion of the fetus with "with terminal diseases, those of reduced intellectual capacity and the unconscious". Indie was totally within the crux of the converation by going in to euthanasia. I agree with his assessment as well. We need more doctors like Kavorkian to carry out euthanasia on those who chose it for reasons as mentioned above. There should be assisted euthanasia because letting people suffer is worse than death.
Maybe we should include other forms of termination with this discussion if you, Niall, feel that it all relates to the moral issue we are discussing.
Of course am still willing to discuss this. When have I ever run from a discussion (barring real life occurences and time constraints)?
Mr. P.
Sorry Nick. I didn't see your post before replying to Indie and Nadia. I've no problem discussing the other issues as they relate to abortion, but for practical reasons, I just think it's best if we try and focus on a single issue. Otherwise this topic could suddenly turn into a discussion of the benefits of democracy or speedos.