HJCarden wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 10:51 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 11:06 pm
HJCarden wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pmI have often heard the idea that a fetus is not conscious brought up in arguments concerning abortion, with this being used to justify the fetus as a "parasite" or not having a will of its own.
I'm pretty sure most arguments concerning the consciousness of a fetus have very little to do with "having a will" and other abstract notions of autonomy, and more to do with the level of suffering inflicted on the fetus, since it is the consciousness of pain that serves as a measure that triggers our empathic responses.
I agree that some arguments do deal with this, however I believe that the more stable grounding for my convictions is not in producing an empathetic response but rather a logical one, so I will not argue against points made counter to those that rely on ethos.
You're confusing the motivations that influence moral reasoning with the moral reasoning itself. The empathic responses may serve as a basis for our moral rules, but moral rules are prescriptive and convey a rational justification, therefore are moral arguments that can be dealt with logic. And if you choose to bypass them to focus on other arguments, you're actually avoiding important, relevant arguments on the issue. Add to that the fact that most concerns about consciousness of the fetus used in those arguments are not related to the abstract notions of autonomy you want to deal with.
HJCarden wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 10:51 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 11:06 pm
HJCarden wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm
While I do allow that there is a large portion of a pregnancy in which the fetus is not conscious, I do not think this matters, as I believe that at conception is the moment where the
conscious will of a person begins.
Besides your personal belief about this, what else can you offer that should be taken into account for the belief of others? I personally don't believe that there's a conscious will at the moment of conception, simply because I associate consciousness to the function of certain systems that are not yet developed in that initial stage. This latter assertion of yours is also at odds with your first assertion that the moment when the fetus is conscious is irrelevant to the moral issue.
To clarify my point, I believe that the moment that the systems that "come online" that we associate with consciousness are irrelevant to this argument.
You don't seem to realize the contradiction in which you have fallen and I already pointed out. You base your argument on your belief that "
at conception is the moment where the conscious will of a person begins...", making this the claim to be contested, and then you assert that the moment where the conscious will of a person begins is irrelevant to the argument. If it is irrelevant, why don't you leave it out of your argument?
HJCarden wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 10:51 pm
My point is that this clump of cells, uninhibited, will become a person like you and I who has wants and desires, feels pleasure and pain. I do not believe that the context of which this child is born into changes these fundamental aspects of personhood.
What you call "
fundamental aspects of personhood" are questionable. Those are also the basic aspects of a mollusk and any vertebrate. Let's leave out for now that all these point to basic feelings or emotions, which you said were not to be considered in the arguments. In any case, that says very little about what a clump of cell will become as a sentient individual living in the world, given that sentient experience precisely becomes relevant in social life. Not everyone will go through the same wants, desires, pleasures and pains. A child could be born to be a feral child, or an abused or neglected child, or a child suffering from an horrible illness, etc. In fact, things like these are among the concerns of people who consent abortion practices. If what a person will become is part of the equation to determine the ethical stance of abortion, then you would have to allow its justification on the basis that the potential person will likely suffer a miserable life.
HJCarden wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 10:51 pm
My point is meant to illustrate that we can conceive that our conscious will extends beyond our consciousness.
That conception is possible, but is completely contingent and relative to a cultural system. It is not a universal necessary or innate belief. It does not illustrate that people in fact must conceive conscious will extending beyond the time of death.
HJCarden wrote: ↑March 9th, 2021, 10:51 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 11:06 pm
HJCarden wrote: ↑March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm
Therefore, I believe it is correct to assume that from the moment a person's life becomes possible (fertilization/conception/what have you) there is incredibly small reason to believe that person would will their life to be ended, which makes abortion a violation of their conscious will, despite it pre-dating consciousness.
There's no good reason to attribute "conscious will" to an embryo.
This comment misses the entire point of my argument that I was making. I readily admit that the embryo has no conscious will in it yet, but my argument is meant to show that this should be irrelevant.
I'm afraid your entire point is a blatant contradiction. You actually claimed that the presence of conscious will was the key part of your argument:
"
abortion is wrong because it violates the conscious will of a person..." <-- perhaps you wanted to say that abortion is wrong because it prevents the possibility of producing a person with conscious will, but there are many things that could prevent this potential being to come into this world, including abstinence from sex.
"I believe that at conception is the moment where the conscious will of a person begins..." <-- perhaps you meant that conception is the moment where the possibility of having a person with conscious will begins, but you have failed to show why not allowing a potential to become a reality is morally wrong.