Reddit reviews Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice
We found 3 Reddit comments about Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
Well, I am most persuaded by an argument that I sort of concocted myself. I largely agree with the philosophy of Schopenhauer, and so for a time I tried to determine what his position would be on abortion, since he never explicitly wrote on the topic and it wasn't a big issue in the 19th century. I concluded that he would likely be opposed to it, given certain of his claims and the fact that, despite being non-religious himself, he held many positions that would be considered "conservative" today.
One claim he makes, for example, is that it is wrong to forcibly deny the will of another to live, except in cases of self-defense. A human embryo or fetus naturally wills to live and so it is wrong to destroy it. The abortionist may counter by saying that the word "another" refers to a person, and a human embryo or fetus is not a person. But here Schopenhauer would be able to respond by saying that the will of the human embryo/fetus being aborted is its own distinct Platonic Idea, such that to abort it is to destroy an individual person.
One upshot to this argument is that it avoids all the debates about whether fetuses can feel pain, are suitably conscious, etc. My argument references not physical but metaphysical harm, as it were. The fetus's will is being harmed when aborted, if not its physical body. Even if one does not buy into Schopenhauer's metaphysics, I have noticed that similar arguments have been made, as in the following book (whose author speaks of the "substance" of a human being instead of Platonic Ideas, though they function much the same):
https://www.amazon.com/Defending-Life-Against-Abortion-Choice/dp/0521691354/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496942073&sr=1-4
I also agree with the other arguments presented in this thread.
You're really not grasping my point. The argument was that parents have no duty to their offspring because the offspring are essentially parasitic. I merely pointed out that the relationship between parents and children is unique because it is the only one where the actions of a person actually cause another person to exist, even if that was not their intent. This is, of course, not my argument, but that of Francis Beckwith http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Life-Against-Abortion-Choice/dp/0521691354
Re: nonconsentual sex, once you accept the notion that unborn children are persons, the only justifiable reason to abort is to protect the life of the mother if it is in imminent danger.
Yes, I was not familiar with the idea. This is exactly what was said:
> I largely agree with the philosophy of Schopenhauer, and so for a time I tried to determine what his position would be on abortion, since he never explicitly wrote on the topic and it wasn't a big issue in the 19th century. I concluded that he would likely be opposed to it, given certain of his claims and the fact that, despite being non-religious himself, he held many positions that would be considered "conservative" today.
>One claim he makes, for example, is that it is wrong to forcibly deny the will of another to live, except in cases of self-defense. A human embryo or fetus naturally wills to live and so it is wrong to destroy it. The abortionist may counter by saying that the word "another" refers to a person, and a human embryo or fetus is not a person. But here Schopenhauer would be able to respond by saying that the will of the human embryo/fetus being aborted is its own distinct Platonic Idea, such that to abort it is to destroy an individual person.
>One upshot to this argument is that it avoids all the debates about whether fetuses can feel pain, are suitably conscious, etc. My argument references not physical but metaphysical harm, as it were. The fetus's will is being harmed when aborted, if not its physical body. Even if one does not buy into Schopenhauer's metaphysics, I have noticed that similar arguments have been made, as in the following book (whose author speaks of the "substance" of a human being instead of Platonic Ideas, though they function much the same):
>https://www.amazon.com/Defending-Life-Against-Abortion-Choice/dp/0521691354/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496942073&sr=1-4