-

“π—œπ—™ 𝗬𝗒𝗨π—₯ 𝗣𝗔π—₯π—˜π—‘π—§π—¦ 𝗛𝗔𝗗 𝗔𝗕𝗒π—₯π—§π—˜π—— 𝗬𝗒𝗨, 𝗬𝗒𝗨 π—ͺπ—’π—¨π—Ÿπ——π—‘’𝗧 π—•π—˜ π—›π—˜π—₯π—˜”. π—ͺπ—˜π—Ÿπ—Ÿ, 𝗗𝗨𝗛!
There could be good and bad arguments on both sides of the abortion “debate”. This is probably the worst, and I only mention it not to beat an easy target, but because it keeps constantly coming up in too many online message boards and on social media, which goes to show the intellectual level of the public debate. It goes something along the lines of: “If your parents had aborted you, you wouldn’t be here”. Well, duh!
By that same "argument", one would have to conclude the following:
1. One should never use contraception. Contraception would prevent the creation of anyone.
2. One should spend every possible moment having unprotected sex. Otherwise, millions of possible people would never become actual people.
Moreover, while abortion would have prevented Einstein from being born - a huge loss, it would also have prevented Hitler from being born - a huge gain.
Also, if your parents had engaged in intercourse even a couple of minutes before or after when they actually did, you still wouldn’t have been born. It would have been someone else instead, or even no one at all.
Finally, it cannot be repeated enough that any foetus prior to at least mid-term (when the brain starts to be sufficiently developed to experience anything), cannot even care whether it exists or not. If my parents had aborted "me", there wouldn't have been a "me" to care. It is only in hindsight that I can be grateful. Beings prior to having a sufficiently developed brain that gives them the potential to experience, cannot be harmed.
And yet, that statement keeps cropping up, probably thought of as a "gotcha" moment by the people who make it.
This is why human rights should never be decided by a public vote.




π‘‡π‘œ π‘Žπ‘›π‘¦π‘œπ‘›π‘’ π‘€π‘–π‘ β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘” π‘‘π‘œ π‘”π‘œ π‘šπ‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘’ 𝑖𝑛-π‘‘π‘’π‘π‘‘β„Ž π‘–π‘›π‘‘π‘œ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘žπ‘’π‘’π‘ π‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘› π‘œπ‘“ 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑦 π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘™π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘ 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑠, 𝐼 π‘€π‘œπ‘’π‘™π‘‘ π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘π‘œπ‘šπ‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘ π·π‘Žπ‘£π‘–π‘‘ π΅π‘œπ‘œπ‘›π‘–π‘›'𝑠 "π‘‡β„Žπ‘’ π‘π‘œπ‘›-𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑦 π‘ƒπ‘Ÿπ‘œπ‘π‘™π‘’π‘š & π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ πΈπ‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘π‘  π‘œπ‘“ πΉπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘ƒπ‘’π‘œπ‘π‘™π‘’". First published on Facebook on 22 December 2022.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

-
Image
EMBRYOS AND FOETUSES HAVE RIGHTS BECAUSE JOHN PACE SAYS SO Mr John Pace wrote a response to an article of mine  that was also published in an abridged version in The Times of Malta on January 16 (physical edition) but somehow did not make it to the online version. Apparently the editor chose “Life alone has no rights” as the heading, which, while factually true, is not the heading I submitted. This makes Mr Pace’s criticism of the title at best inconsequential, but I will address his concern (as well as the rest of his response) below. Mr Pace says that the “unbelievable title” is a “defiant disrespect of life inspired by another faith extolling the culture of death”. I suppose Mr Pace eats, and he eats plant or animal food that were once alive before they were killed to end up on his plate. So even though I did not choose the title myself, it is still factually true that life alone has no rights, otherwise Mr Pace would have to renounce eating any living beings or things. And...
Read more
-
Image
  WITHOUT CRITICAL THINKING RATIONAL DISCUSSION IS IMPOSSIBLE Nothing exposes the deficiency in critical thinking like many comments in online newspapers, where logical incoherence seems to be the order of the day. I will illustrate this with an example, without even the need of presenting the worst case. The example will show that deficiency in critical thinking makes rational discussion practically impossible, and hence demonstrate the urgency that critical thinking in education deserves. Replying to a comment in The Times of Malta , where Victor Laiviera, who is pro-choice, had suggested that “whether a person comes into existence at the moment of conception, when it acquires a brain or when it becomes viable are, in (his) opinion, secondary issues”, I had replied by saying that “here is where (the commenter and I) part ways. As pro-choice Kate Greasley convincingly argues in her book ‘Arguments about abortion’, the question of whether foetuses and embryos are ‘persons’ is ...
Read more
-
Suggested reading: Steven Pinker - How the Mind Works Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate Philip Ball - Unnatural: The Heretical Idea of Making People Dick Swaab - We Are Our Brains: From the Womb to Alzheimer's Derek Parfit - Reasons and Persons Thomas Nagel - Mortal Questions David Boonin - The Non-Identity Problem & the Ethics of Future People David Boonin - A Defense of Abortion Bonnie Steinbock - Life Before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses Nathan Nobis and Kristina Grob - Thinking Critically About Abortion: Why Most Abortions Aren't Wrong & Why All Abortions Should Be Legal Ann Furedi - The Moral Case for Abortion: A Defence of Reproductive Choice Kate Greasley - Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law Jeff McMahan - The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life Bonnie Steinbock and Paul T. Menzel - Bioethics: What Everyone Needs to Know
Read more