ShieldWife
Marchioness
I thought about making this thread from an abortion discussion in the politics subforum.
If one believes that a fetus is nothing but a chump of flesh in the mother’s body, then there is obviously no justification for regulating abortion. If a fetus is a human life then abortion is murder and we are actively engaged in the greatest mass murder in the history of human, far surpassing any authoritarian ideology you could care to name. If that is the case, abortion must be outlawed in nearly every case including for victims of rape and child molestation.
A high percentage of people take a more moderate approach than the above dichotomy, suggesting that they place some human value on a fetus but not the value of a full human life. People who would allow abortions in the case of rape or first trimester abortions would fall into this category.
So my actual question extends beyond abortion. From the perspective or moral philosophy, is it possible or desirable to have a category of beings which are morally something in between human and animal. Whose lives cannot be taken with the same ear as animals, but whose lives still have some value and are entitled to some rights. Some could see this position as a slippery slope. For others, it should make sense because those traits which tend to be associated with the value of human life are very much lacking in some humans.
In practice, fetuses are treated as something in between human and animal. Attacking a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is a worse crime than not causing the miscarriage, but she can kill her fetus if she likes. Children general are considered humans and murdering a child is as severe a crime as murdering adults, but children aren’t entitled to the same rights as adults and in fact a parent can legally commit assault against a child. People with severe enough mental defects or damage aren’t entitled to a full range of rights and in some cases, people in comas or who are brain dead or close to it, can be killed or removed from life support under the right circumstances.
If some earlier species that was an intermediate step between human and ape still existed, like homoerectus, would such a creature be entitled to the same rights as a human? If not, could we treat it as nothing more than an animal?
If the value of a human life comes from the cognitive ability of individual humans or the moral capacity of individual humans, then many humans would not be entitled to human rights. Including fetuses who have no capacity for morality and limited cognitive ability. The same could be said for newborn infants, so that could be problematic.
Does anybody have any thoughts regarding this?
If one believes that a fetus is nothing but a chump of flesh in the mother’s body, then there is obviously no justification for regulating abortion. If a fetus is a human life then abortion is murder and we are actively engaged in the greatest mass murder in the history of human, far surpassing any authoritarian ideology you could care to name. If that is the case, abortion must be outlawed in nearly every case including for victims of rape and child molestation.
A high percentage of people take a more moderate approach than the above dichotomy, suggesting that they place some human value on a fetus but not the value of a full human life. People who would allow abortions in the case of rape or first trimester abortions would fall into this category.
So my actual question extends beyond abortion. From the perspective or moral philosophy, is it possible or desirable to have a category of beings which are morally something in between human and animal. Whose lives cannot be taken with the same ear as animals, but whose lives still have some value and are entitled to some rights. Some could see this position as a slippery slope. For others, it should make sense because those traits which tend to be associated with the value of human life are very much lacking in some humans.
In practice, fetuses are treated as something in between human and animal. Attacking a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is a worse crime than not causing the miscarriage, but she can kill her fetus if she likes. Children general are considered humans and murdering a child is as severe a crime as murdering adults, but children aren’t entitled to the same rights as adults and in fact a parent can legally commit assault against a child. People with severe enough mental defects or damage aren’t entitled to a full range of rights and in some cases, people in comas or who are brain dead or close to it, can be killed or removed from life support under the right circumstances.
If some earlier species that was an intermediate step between human and ape still existed, like homoerectus, would such a creature be entitled to the same rights as a human? If not, could we treat it as nothing more than an animal?
If the value of a human life comes from the cognitive ability of individual humans or the moral capacity of individual humans, then many humans would not be entitled to human rights. Including fetuses who have no capacity for morality and limited cognitive ability. The same could be said for newborn infants, so that could be problematic.
Does anybody have any thoughts regarding this?