Philosophy Discussion Forums

I don't think opposing abortion is the same as opposing the decision to abstain from having children. That would be to confuse "being" with the "possibility of becoming". A existing blastocyst or embryo is destroyed in the case of abortion but, in deciding not to have children, nothing is destroyed. Rather something is prevented from coming into being. However, both do prevent birth.

Depending on the circumstances, I think both are acceptable means of birth control. Blastocysts and embryos don't have personhood - they don't have what it takes neurologically to be persons and so we are not morally required to accord them the same suite of rights normally associated with fully fledged persons.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑October 7th, 2024, 6:15 am I don't think opposing abortion is the same as opposing the decision to abstain from having children. That would be to confuse "being" with the "possibility of becoming". A existing blastocyst or embryo is destroyed in the case of abortion but, in deciding not to have children, nothing is destroyed. Rather something is prevented from coming into being. However, both do prevent birth.

Depending on the circumstances, I think both are acceptable means of birth control. Blastocysts and embryos don't have personhood - they don't have what it takes neurologically to be persons and so we are not morally required to accord them the same suite of rights normally associated with fully fledged persons.

A non-conscious set of cells doesn't have a stake in what happens to them, it doesn't matter to them.  That's the work the term ''personhood'' is doing here to give persons Rights.

As for Potential Persons, that's tricky. If that non-conscious set of cells has the potential for conscious experience in the future, that's a grey area which I don't know how to make a moral judgement about.  Certainly not to legislate about someone else's judgement. 

But if we do try to live by the rule of thumb that Potential conscious people deserve moral consideration in the way that Actual conscious beings do, then we are effectively murdering Potential People when we abort, use contraception, and any moment we're not actively procreating from the moment we become fertile to menopause/impotence.  It's untenable in practice.


That's also the  where the logic of 'every sperm is sacred' takes us, and it sounds like hell. 

And a stretch from ''Go forth and multiply''in Genesis to -
Contraception and masturbation are  sinful because they're not  for  procreation within man-woman marriage.  

I wonder how many Christian pro-lifers have actually lived up to that themselves, or used laughable 'workarounds' to stick to technical passes.

It's a girl! ... maybe.

Does it make sense to grant a blastocyst personhood? Some may believe there's a human soul in there. Nope, just DNA, proteins and fluid.

Lol. A picture tells a thousand words, Sy Borg.

What Gertie said about mattering is spot on, too.

Gertie wrote: ↑October 7th, 2024, 9:45 am
But if we do try to live by the rule of thumb that Potential conscious people deserve moral consideration in the way that Actual conscious beings do, then we are effectively murdering Potential People when we abort, use contraception, and any moment we're not actively procreating from the moment we become fertile to menopause/impotence.  It's untenable in practice.

That's also the  where the logic of 'every sperm is sacred' takes us, and it sounds like hell. 

Some real philosophical reasoning here.

But note that you're asserting an equivalence between acting and failing to act. Equating taking a life with not saving a life (or in this case not "creating" a life).

And that's a common feature of consequentialist ethics. If you believe that morality is reducible to making the choice with the net best consequences, then which choice is active or passive doesn't feature.

If an international aid charity saves a life with every £x of donations they receive then by spending £x on anything else you are "effectively murdering" the person whose life would have been saved.

By your logic, we are all murderers many times over.