Does Frankness or Evasiveness Best Promote Abortion?
Should cushion-y language be used, or defiant boldness?
posted over 1 year ago
Three new developments have been occurring regarding the 'evolution,' so to speak, of abortion activism. The developments concern some fundamental philosophical-moral questions that are being recast, or at least seem to be worthy of reconsidering by people who consider themselves Pro Choice.
The first development is the Canadian story of a woman who gave birth to a child, strangled it to death, and threw it over a fence into another property. She was charged with murder, but the conviction was overturned and she was instead convicted of infanticide, and last we heard, there was a possibility that she could be charged for littering.
The question this brings up is: If it is morally acceptable to destroy life inside the womb, is it morally acceptable to destroy life outside of the womb, as long as it is done for the same reasons? If not, why should it not be acceptable?
The second development is the news of the second-smallest child ever born, at 9.5 ounces, at 24 weeks of gestation. In the United States, it is legal to abort children at this age, and later.
The question this brings up is: As a "Pro-Choice"er, do you consider the human which was born, up to the moment before their birth, to be a "child/baby," or "fetus" or "parasite" or "blob of cells?" Please justify your reasoning.
The third development is the most significant from a philosophical-ethical standpoint. A prominent 'abortion rights' advocate, Merle Hoffman, has written a memoir in which she rejects the claim that if we accept that the unborn fetus is a human person, that that will undermine abortion rights because women will think twice about whether to have an abortion. Instead, she argues, that rather than promote the claim that the unborn is "just a mass of tissue," she believes abortion will be better served by a bold admission that yes, it is a life, yes, it is a person, and YET, it is morally justifiable to destroy that life for women's liberty--nay, it is morally superior.
The question that this raises is, how will pro-choice students and faculty at UMBC respond to this? There are two main options in how to justify an abortion. The former was to deny the humanity, or if not the humanity, then the personality, of the unborn. But Merle Hoffman calls for abortion supporters to cast off this mantle of traditional morality and to instead assert boldly that abortion for the cause of women's liberty is always moral, no matter the consequences.
Links to the 3 developments are in order, below:
Development 1
Development 2
Development 3
Please be respectful as you discuss this issue below. This is a passionate subject for many people, and though people feel strongly about it, there is no need for harassment, bullying, deceit or violence.
This is an Honors Institution. Make us proud.
The first development is the Canadian story of a woman who gave birth to a child, strangled it to death, and threw it over a fence into another property. She was charged with murder, but the conviction was overturned and she was instead convicted of infanticide, and last we heard, there was a possibility that she could be charged for littering.
The question this brings up is: If it is morally acceptable to destroy life inside the womb, is it morally acceptable to destroy life outside of the womb, as long as it is done for the same reasons? If not, why should it not be acceptable?
The second development is the news of the second-smallest child ever born, at 9.5 ounces, at 24 weeks of gestation. In the United States, it is legal to abort children at this age, and later.
The question this brings up is: As a "Pro-Choice"er, do you consider the human which was born, up to the moment before their birth, to be a "child/baby," or "fetus" or "parasite" or "blob of cells?" Please justify your reasoning.
The third development is the most significant from a philosophical-ethical standpoint. A prominent 'abortion rights' advocate, Merle Hoffman, has written a memoir in which she rejects the claim that if we accept that the unborn fetus is a human person, that that will undermine abortion rights because women will think twice about whether to have an abortion. Instead, she argues, that rather than promote the claim that the unborn is "just a mass of tissue," she believes abortion will be better served by a bold admission that yes, it is a life, yes, it is a person, and YET, it is morally justifiable to destroy that life for women's liberty--nay, it is morally superior.
The question that this raises is, how will pro-choice students and faculty at UMBC respond to this? There are two main options in how to justify an abortion. The former was to deny the humanity, or if not the humanity, then the personality, of the unborn. But Merle Hoffman calls for abortion supporters to cast off this mantle of traditional morality and to instead assert boldly that abortion for the cause of women's liberty is always moral, no matter the consequences.
Links to the 3 developments are in order, below:
Development 1
Development 2
Development 3
Please be respectful as you discuss this issue below. This is a passionate subject for many people, and though people feel strongly about it, there is no need for harassment, bullying, deceit or violence.
This is an Honors Institution. Make us proud.
(edited over 1 year ago)
Comments (100)
Log In to read and post comments.