In my last article, I gave a discussion of various arguments against fetal personhood, including the Functionalist view. I presented a detailed analysis of why presently exercising self-awareness does not make one inherently valuable. This will be a follow-up to my last article, presenting a detailed analysis on whether the ability to feel pain or exhibit consciousness makes an entity inherently valuable, followed by a discussion on whether the unborn is actually harmed by being aborted.
A blog dedicated to defending human life, from fertilization to natural death, at an intellectual level.
Like what you read?
Official Comments Policy:
This is my blog and I reserve the right to delete any comments that don't abide by these rules and/or don't contribute to the overall intellectual atmosphere of the blog. I don't mind comments from people who disagree with me, as I am very much open to reconsidering or revising anything that I write.
1. No swearing or otherwise profane language.
2. No insults or otherwise abusive language, toward me or any other commenter.
3. No spamming or trolling.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Some More Appearances
Recently I made two more appearances on podcasts. First, I returned to the Razor Swift podcast to have a debate/discussion on abortion with pro-choice person Chet Gaines. I was definitely in debate mode, but he just wanted a discussion. So I do wish I had discussed more.
Arguments Against Fetal Personhood
In my previous article on Personhood, I explained that what makes us “persons” (if you must use the term) is our inherent nature as rational, moral agents. While I tend not to focus on personhood arguments unless the topic is broached by the other person, I can only see one reason for disqualifying the preborn from personhood: in order to justify killing them. Any definition for personhood given by a pro-choice advocate works equally well to disqualify some born people from that same status (most notably, infants). But most pro-choice people would not follow their definitions to the logical conclusion and support infanticide.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Ultimate Euphemism
This post is written as part of the Ask Them What They Mean by Choice Day, which is, itself, a response to the pro-choice event Blog for Choice Day. Today is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and its sister case Doe v. Bolton. On January 22nd, 1973, abortion was essentially legalized in the United States for all 40 weeks of pregnancy, for essentially any reason.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Personhood USA
So my recent article I wrote for the Secular Pro-Life blog on fetal personhood was picked up by Personhood USA and linked to on their blog.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Jill Stanek
Pro-life advocate Jill Stanek has blogged about two of my blog entries at Secular Pro-Life (which you can likewise find on this blog): my examinations of Frank Beckwith's Substance View, and Don Marquis' Future-Like-Ours arguments. You can find the buzz in question here.
Monday, January 7, 2013
On Personhood
It’s an uncontroversial fact of science that the preborn conceived of a human male and human female are human beings (biologically) from fertilization. But does this mean that just because they’re human beings we can’t kill them? There are times when it’s almost universally accepted that it’s acceptable to kill a human being, such as in self-defense. But what if they are innocent of any wrong-doing deserving of being killed? Science can show us that something is human (e.g. you, me, infants, the preborn, etc.), but it can’t show us whether it’s wrong to kill humans. That’s where philosophy steps in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)