ππ’πͺ πππ‘ π¬π’π¨ ππ π£π₯π’-πππ’πππ ππ‘π ππ’π₯ ππ‘ππ ππ π₯ππππ§π¦? ππ’πͺ πππ‘ π¬π’π¨ ππ’π‘ππ’π‘π π§ππ ππππππ‘π π’π "ππ¨π ππ‘ ππππππ¦" ππ¨π§ π‘π’π§ π§ππ ππππππ‘π π’π ππ‘ππ πππ¦?
Let’s start by getting the second question out of the way. Abortion involves embryos or foetuses, not babies. The killing of babies is called infanticide, and few if any people condone it. The reason why many “Pro-Life” people keep insisting on the term “babies” is either that they have little understanding of embryology, or because they know that referring to foetuses as “babies” produces a more emotional response. I’d rather stick to facts.
With that out of the way, let’s address the first question. As I said in more detail here, it only makes sense to speak of granting rights to individuals to whom those rights matter. For a right to be both possible and matter, the individual to whom the right is granted must be capable of having an experiential welfare that may fare better or worse. Without the capacity of experience, at least a rudimentary one, whatever happens does not matter to the one at the receiving end of the action. One cannot harm that which cannot be harmed.
To have any kind of experience, one must necessarily have a sufficiently developed brain (or an analogous natural or artificial organ if it is ever discovered or created). The ability to have mental experiences is what gives a body the capacity to have desires as well as the capacity of feeling pleasure and pain. Without a sufficiently developed brain, any desire (even that of willing the avoidance of pain) is impossible. It is the brain that makes it possible for an individual to experience pleasure and pain, and to have the will to seek the former and try to avoid the latter. It is also the brain that gives a body a personal identity that necessarily includes experience.
Now, with a little thinking, anyone would deduce that if the above is true, then both humans and non-human animals only experience the world if or when they obtain a sufficiently developed brain that makes any kind of experience possible. To claim that all human life deserves protection without exception (but not all, or even no non-human life does) just because it is human simply begs the question: Why is this so?
The interests view, logically extended to include non-human animals, necessarily leads to the recognition that all and only beings who have interests and have the capacity to experience may rationally be given moral consideration. Things or bodies with only the potential of becoming experiential beings don’t. People who give all sentient beings equal moral consideration simply argue that one must never harm sentient beings unless absolutely necessary, and that harming them may only be morally permissible if there are sufficient reasons that might override the protection of those beings’ rights, such as self-defense or the preservation of one’s life or health. Human and non-human foetuses don’t have interests so they cannot be harmed. The Pro-Choice view is therefore consistent with the animal rights view and vice-versa.
The “Pro-Life” view, on the other hand, to be rationally consistent, must explain why it would be immoral to terminate a life that has no interests (since it cannot experience anything), and somehow moral to harm or terminate another life that has interests and experiences, just because it is not human. I have yet to meet one such argument that does not rely on prejudice.
Oh, and by the way, the picture I chose to accompany this write-up shows an embryo of a horse. Deduce from this fact anything you wish.
πππ‘π: ππ¦ ππ’ππππ π βπππ ππ ππ’π π‘ π‘π π βππ€ π‘βππ‘ π‘βπ ππππππ πππβπ‘π π£πππ€ ππ ππππ ππ π‘πππ‘ π€ππ‘β π‘βπ πππ-πβππππ π£πππ€. πΈπ₯πππ’πππππ ππ π‘βπ ππππππ πππβπ‘π π£πππ€ π€ππ’ππ πππππ π πππππ¦ π‘πππ ππ’πβ ππππ π‘πππ πππ π ππππ. πβπππ πππ πππππ‘π¦ ππ πππππ ππ£πππππππ πππ πππ¦πππ πππ‘ππππ π‘ππ ππ π‘βπ πππ‘π‘ππ.
First published on Facebook on 23 December 2022.
Comments
Post a Comment