As a libertarian and naturalist, I believe that PARENTS should have primary say in the life-or-death status of their newborn or infant. With regard to an unborn fetus, embryo, or egg, I believe the MOTHER should have final say. With regard to an unborn sperm, they are a "dime a dozen" and have value only to their biological producers.If you are a naturalist, then how is it that you can say parents or anyone for that matter "should" or "should not" do this or that? Where does this "ethical view" come from? If natural/material things are all there is, then where does your sense of ought or ought not come from?Couldn't you really argue that each person is a "dime a dozen"? What value does any person have from a naturalist worldview?After birth, then and only then, should others step into the picture to "save" another's offspring. If the newborn/infant is unwanted by their parents or cannot be taken care of due to medical or sociological reasons, then the government or other interested parties can take over, if they have the will and resources. IMO, that is practical, as well as ethical.BTW, that Medical Ethics piece was an interesting read! Thanks for the reference.
So, you basically see them like property, not persons.What about the rights of the fetus/newborn/infant? Well, my ethical view is that when they are able to survive independently without harm to others, then they have full rights as "adults". As we probably agree, "minors" should not have full rights and should be protected when their "potential adult" status is likely to be realized (e.g., brain not in coma). Minors should be nurtured primarily by parents with the help of government or other agencies.So, you grow into rights? You must grow into a right to live? You are not valued as a member of society until you are "adult"?
OK. Can you please illustrate how that logic would flow?
People have used the follow criteria to argue that a fetus is not a person. 1) Level of development: They say a fetus is not developed enough to be a person. Sure, the unborn is not fully developed but neither is a toddler. Neither is a elementary-age kid. 2) Environment: Apparently location determines a person's value. The unborn is not a person until they drop about a foot. 3) Dependency/Viability: Apparently, because the unborn is dependent on it's mother, it's not a person. Sure, the unborn is more dependent than a toddler, but a toddler is more dependent than a teenager. Are adults that are dependent on others in order to live no longer a person or less of a person?So, in other words, if the unborn is not a person (and has no value and is not entitled to rights) compared to a toddler because of level of development, environment and dependency, you could make the same argument that a toddler is not a person (and has no value or rights) compared to an elementary-age kid, or that an elementary-age kid is not a person compared to a teenager, or a teenager compared to an adult.
I believe there are instances where the death penalty serves justice. [Post #233]
While I would tend to agree with you, at least in some circumstances, I would say your position – and that of Feser’s and the Catholic Church in general – is just a little inconsistent.
You apparently consider it expedient or a necessity to “terminate” one “person”, one “soul’s” connection to their body, through the death penalty, yet are unable to do likewise through abortions in the case of “persons” who are far less well-defined and viable. And, to boot, where in the first case the resources required to maintain those individuals are far less than those required in the second.
If you are so quick to begrudge the resources required to maintain if not redeem a few rapists and murderers then I wonder where you think they are supposed to come from to maintain the 800,000 who are aborted every year in the US alone. If “personhood” is such an absolute to you I would think that you would want to move heaven and earth to see that none are terminated for any reason.
Can't seem to respond to anything without it getting deleted. [Post #245]
I had been wondering about the cause for the missing posts, but sorry to hear it. I may disagree with your points and arguments but I figure you should have the right and opportunity to present them. Whoever is the cause of those deletions might want to reflect on something from John Stuart Mill that I quoted earlier but which bears repeating – particularly as some seem a little slow on the uptake:
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error ... We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.
And related to that, the general policy of post deletion here is decidedly problematic. Apart from the losses described above there is the loss of revenue to ABC – very little point posting here when there are many other on-line newspapers and media services which have greater traffic and more posts – which ultimately makes this venue uneconomic to maintain.