tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post5753810560106706745..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: Responding to Philosophical Arguments Against the Pro-Life Position, Part II [Clinton Wilcox]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-86691401269197238412015-03-18T13:07:34.539-07:002015-03-18T13:07:34.539-07:00The motivation behind Marquis' view is that he...The motivation behind Marquis' view is that he's an organism. He happens to be a person now, but he wasn't always one. That's also why I'm pro-life. I find the idea that there was no 'me' until there was sufficiently sophisticated brain activity generated by my body to be completely ridiculous. So, if you kill me while I'm still a fetus, then you stole my future from me. If you prevent the gametes which formed me from joining and becoming an organism, then you didn't steal my future because I never existed. I'm an organism. You can make fun of the idea by saying that "the fertilized egg is sacred, having equal value as a 10-year old child," but I'm an atheist so 'sacred' doesn't enter into it. Moreover, from my perspective it's the personhood theory that's based on superstitious nonsense It's just a secular version of ensoulment with a nonmaterial spiritual entity replaced by a nonmaterial abstract entity. If more atheists could get over their dualism hangover they'd abandon the idea that THEY inhabit a meat suit and own the fact that they're the meat. Ergo, when someone says that a fetus is a mass of tissue, I say, that's what you and I both are.ockrazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07681138753527454144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-80508046991366250002014-09-24T15:31:15.127-07:002014-09-24T15:31:15.127-07:00The point you're missing (and the point some o...The point you're missing (and the point some other critics miss when they try to argue from this point of view that contraception would be immoral) is that sperm and eggs don't have a "future like ours." The future of the sperm and the egg is to contribute genetic material to the new human organism and then die. So no, contraception is not immoral because they are two non-human entities that do not have a "future like ours."Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-6690443142365567222014-09-24T15:29:53.152-07:002014-09-24T15:29:53.152-07:00It's not, strictly speaking, speciesist, becau...It's not, strictly speaking, speciesist, because if it could be established that animals have a "future like ours," or alien races, etc., then they count morally. So in that respect, it's not speciesist because it doesn't mean "a specifically human future." However, I disagree with the charge of speciesism, itself, so I don't find it a strength of the argument that it's *not* speciesist, since I don't think it's wrong to make a speciesist argument, that there's something inherently special about human beings that grants them unique value over and above animals. Why is racism and sexism wrong? It focuses on a surface difference that doesn't matter morally and ignores the one thing that *does*: we're all human beings, and being human matters in the moral equation.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-83365077297495781502014-09-24T11:40:14.380-07:002014-09-24T11:40:14.380-07:00Depriving someone of their future is an interestin...Depriving someone of their future is an interesting concept. Let us suppose that right after you were conceived, you were aborted. You'd have a right to be angry, because you wouldn't be here right now. But let us suppose that instead of killing you when you were a zygote, the split second before the sperm touched the egg, a doctor found a way to cause the egg to incinerate. Your future was just as effectively killed, and yet the Personhood argument gives you no recourse to claim a foul -- after all, it was only an egg the doctor killed. Right? So one second, the egg is completely worthless, but the next split second (after a sperm touches it), the fertilized egg is sacred, having equal value as a 10-year old child. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-82494280875714342932014-09-24T07:05:57.766-07:002014-09-24T07:05:57.766-07:00Regarding Speciesism:
Any system that values what...Regarding Speciesism:<br /><br />Any system that values what humans do best (rational thought and so forth) is speciesist. So, the Future Like Ours argument is also speciesist. <br /><br />Why not value great size which would mean Elephants are persons? Or flight, meaning birds are persons? It's because that would leave humans out of the equation... and we're the ones who get to make the rules. Yep, speciesism.Drew Hymernoreply@blogger.com