What is the relevancy of this question? Most
Posted on: September 6, 2024 at 23:40:17 CT
TigerMatt MISS
Posts:
87367
Member For:
25.64 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
people would be outraged.
But this question has nothing to do with morality or immorality of abortion. Feelings aren’t always grounded in rationality nor do they always need to be.
Ponder these scenarios.
1) 50 year old goes into cardiac arrest, and due to lack of oxygen before paramedics are able to restart his heart he suffers brain damage leaving him in a permanent state of unconsciousness. Body survives on life support. The family recognizes who this person was does not exist. They instruct doctors to remove life support.
Generally there is zero moral outrage over ending life support.
2) Woman is 10 weeks pregnant (80% of abortions are within first 10 weeks). The absolute earliest the first glimmer of consciousness can happen is around 24-26 weeks. The fetus is not conscious. It can be argued that the fetus is not yet a person. The fetus is on life support provided by the mother’s body. The mother gets an abortion and the fetus dies. Many people have moral outrage over this.
Reality, is in both cases, consciousness does not exist. In both cases, the decision was made by others to end the life. The difference is perceived potentiality. In the case of the first, potential for consciousness does not exist. In the second case consciousness does not exist, but potentiality does.
Does ending potentiality make the action immoral?
Edited by TigerMatt at 23:42:12 on 09/06/24