Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on May 25, 2009 at 4:46am

So I take it that you are Pro-Choice, I would then say all pre-natals are also your offspring and if you have a obligation to your post partum offspring -which is what children are- because you created them, you have a similar obligation to any prenatal offspring.

If you then favour the post partum over the prenatal you are then saying that a parent is justified in loving or resourcing any offspring differently for whatever reason they feel justified. So one could could ethically give most of your love resources to a boy but give less to a girl.

You will find many of the reasons used for caring of our children equally apply to all healthy prenatals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angie Jackson on May 25, 2009 at 7:31am

If you then favour the post partum over the prenatal you are then saying that a parent is justified in loving or resourcing any offspring differently for whatever reason they feel justified. So one could could ethically give most of your love resources to a boy but give less to a girl.

There's a logical leap there. Favoring live children over potential children, or prenatal offspring, is not equivalent to favoring a live boy child over a live girl child.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on May 25, 2009 at 8:12am

Not really. Why do mothers grieve for miscarriage? For the offspring/individual they had or the child they would have had?

Why in Australia do we have child destruction laws for assaults that lead to the death of the unborn and not just leave it as a plain assault or grievous bodily harm to the mother?

It seems they are if wanted but aren’t if not. Neither are persons so we seem to have a moral precept that can be applied arbitrarily.

That is why some call it Developmentalism which is a arbitrary bias just like sexism and racism.

As I’m trying to point out they are still offspring whether they are prenatal or post partum.

BTW Tooley is Pro-Choice and this fact is quite apparent to him the only difference is that he is consistent and thinks infanticide -using the current justifications for abortion- is also justified.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angie Jackson on May 26, 2009 at 7:35pm

Well I'm an ignorant American, so I can't answer the reasoning behind Aussie laws and don't know who Tooley is. I take it by your strong tone that you are NOT pro-choice? Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I think many women mourn abortions, whether they are natural (miscarriage) or medical. I was pro-life/anti-choice for most of my years. I had a miscarriage at 17. I cried, but also recognized that I *wasn't* prepared in any way to be a mother. I was seriously mentally ill and not at all stable. I had a successful pregnancy at 23 - barely.

My son and I both nearly died multiple times during pregnancy and my 98 hour delivery. Since becoming a single mother, I have become pro-choice. In part because I recognize that being a good mother and providing proper care takes tremendous mental/emotional stability and resources (like support, finances, friends and family to help out, healthcare, etc.). I am pro-choice in the sense that I would consider an abortion if my own birth control failed, because I do not want to risk leaving the child I already have orphaned and a ward of the state for the possible life of a potential child who has not been born. My "justifications for abortion" - not wanting to orphan my son - do not justify infanticide. This is not a failure on my part to be consistent. It is motivated entirely out of love for the only family I have in this world.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on May 26, 2009 at 8:24pm

Can you tell me of any situation outside of pregnancy where a person can use financial or health risks to take another moral entities life?

Funny given the demand for babies people like yourself forget there would be many well resourced families that would jump at the chance to take the baby.

Secondly I've told this to religious conservatives that they are hyprocrites for protesting against abortion but not resourcing single mothers or providing universal healthcare. You can take it from unless they are prepared to do so I'm quite prepared to allow continued abortions but with the proviso of consistency where infanticide is legal and men don't pay child support.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angie Jackson on May 26, 2009 at 8:28pm

Who do you owe back child-support to? Sorry, joke. But I can't agree with you that a fetus has equal value with a child; therefore, the "consistency" of abortion with infanticide fails. You described a fetus as a "moral entity" - I disagree with this assertion. Please provide backup support to your claim that unborn fetus IS a moral entity.

And are you suggesting in any way that:
1) the majority of oprhaned children in the US are NOT in foster care?
2) foster care isn't a recipe for abuse
3) that anyone else would be as good a mother to my son as I am?

Because I'm gonna have to agree on all three of those points

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on May 26, 2009 at 8:41pm

1.Children or babies from what I understand this is a large waiting list to adopt BABIES.
2.BTW since most abuse also occurs in the family or close relatives i suppose we could say foster care is no different than family care.
3.See above.

In the unit I did on parenting it was pointed out in principle since adopting parents get vetted natural parents should as well.

go to the poltics abortion thread and read through atleast the Abortion 101 post and then I'll take it from there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angie Jackson on May 27, 2009 at 2:10pm

No thanks. Your suggestion (without you know, FACTS to support it) that "foster care is no different" in terms of abuse proportions ends this discussion for me. Suggesting in anyway that my son would be equally cared for in the foster system is ludicrous. And I'm not suggesting I would place an infant up for adoption. My point was that if I were to die attempting to carry a second child to term (which is highly likely given my health difficulties) that my CHILD (not baby) would be orphaned.

Permalink Reply by vjack on May 25, 2009 at 5:15am

On the first question, I'm curious how you have established that we do have such an ethical responsibility? On the second question, I would say no, we are not obliged to treat different offspring the same and avoid differential resource allocation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on May 25, 2009 at 5:58am

I'm just happy to run what I think is a reasonable common intuition that many people and parents have that they have a moral obligation to care for their children. If you think rather that the only reason most people care for their children is due to legality pls say so.

We could look at ideas of fairness, responsibility, duty of care etc underlying that, is that what you would like?

2nd Q, NP if your common intuition is that in fact you can treat offspring differently –all things being equal- that is fine. I’m treating this as experimental philosophy so if you would be happy that equality isn’t important in the treatment of offspring and that you could say buy a birthday gift for one son but never consider doing the same your other children so be it.

In other worlds you have no problem with parental Favouritism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vjack on May 25, 2009 at 12:32pm

In that case, I would return to the first and second questions with the concept of kin selection. If we perceive an ethical duty, I'd suggest that kin selection is at the root. On the second question in particular, I am not thinking in terms of buying one child a birthday present and not the other. I am thinking of sending the brighter child to college assuming one can only afford to send one. Framed as broader resource allocation, I view this type of decision making as perfectly natural and appropriate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on May 25, 2009 at 6:42pm

For me evolutionary forces plus social game theory like interaction is at the basis of morality but these forces can also lead to infanticide notwithstanding kin selection.

Put simply if we are using kin selection the prenatal are just as much our kin as the post partum.

Q2 I did qualify using Cēterīs paribus- all things being equal. If you have very sick kid in the family it isn’t unusual that this individual will get more attention and resources. This doesn’t mean the parent is being unethical.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page