CuriousLord
Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
My friend, I would encourage you to consider a point. In the debate over abortion, we can all pretty much agree that abortion is killing the collection of cells in question. It's often asked, "Is wrong?", which leads to, "Is it murder?", which leads to, "Are these cells human?"
I'd like to point out that the foundation of morality seems to care very little for actual human DNA- so long as it's something we can empathize with. If it's a human-like android, or a humaniod alien, or something of the sort, and not overly dissimilar from human beings, it's likely a human might come to see the violation of the parameters one might require of such a being as to consider it "alive" as an act of murder.
My point being, it's empathy that we look for to determine the rights of things outside ourselves- how much does this thing remind of of ourselves? The question of morality truly comes to be the extent to which one can empathize with the subject in question. In this case, abortion is moreso murder in the eyes of those who do not see themselves as far removed from a collection of cells after conception.
Implications:
-Those who are younger, or otherwise feel closer to this stage, such as children, are more likely to find abortion are murder.
-Those who might adopt a secondary sense of empathy, such as a new mother, who sees herself in her child, in addition to any selfless feelings, might then relate the subject of abortion as being similar to her child. So, a newborn's mother is likely to be against abortion.
-Those who recongize themself in other things more readily, are, in general, more likely to empathize, including with the cells in question.
-Empathy may be overriden by greater empathy, such as for self (identity). While one might assign some value to the cells in question, if it is more strongly in their own interests, or at least, when weighted with their respective empathetic values, one would be liable to neglect concern for abortion.
Such as, even people who are fond of other people are more likely to chose getting $1 themselves than some random stranger that they'll never meet getting $2. While they might otherwise say, "Sure, give him $2", they'd not do so at the cost of a dollar to themself. This is seen, constantly, in extravagent spending on self instead of donations to charity.
This applies to this subject in that, while one might empathize with a child, one weighs its self-interests, excluding and outside of empathetic concerns, against such empathetic concerns. While one might otherwise wish a child well, should this child be in surificent determent to this one's own motivations, this one is likely to opt against the child.
In any case, my point is that, it's not so much if the embryo is human, but if people can relate to the embryo as being like themself, and therefore sharing in rights.
(Alternatively, rights can be assigned through coercion. Such as, enforced law. This is not addressed here; still, embryos, lacking strength, are not truly able to coerce others into illegalizing abortion. Therefore, this is more of a moot point with regards to the subject.)
|
RE: Pro-lifers. Put up or Shut up. - 
Profile
. Young people have a lot to give their own UMs, such as youthful vigor, play, the ability to keep up with them, and the increased likelihood to be around for the grandbabies... older parents have good qualities too. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread