In class while discussing Kant this past week, we came up on the topic of abortion. Many of the ideas were that
abortion was acceptable because a fetus is not able to think rationally, so it
wasn’t human being. But the mother (who would be doing the aborting) was rational
enough to make a decision for her unborn baby. I do not feel as though this is
a good argument. There are lots of humans in this world who we do not consider
to be rational thinkers but killing them would be a felony offence. Infants and mentally handicap people, for
example, are not necessarily rational thinkers.
But it would be illegal to cause harm to either one of these categories
of people. Regardless of their rationality they are still human and deserve a
chance at life. Fetuses will one day grow to be rational thinkers, but now they
are not but in MY opinion they are still human. Since I feel that they are
still human it would go against the maxim of one shouldn’t kill humans. For pro-choice people there are different
reasons why they can believe the way they do but the idea of rational thinking
should not be put in as one of the main arguments for it.
We also talked about the issue of being a permanent
vegetable. Deciding on whether or not to pulling the plug is iffy to me. On one hand they are basically dead. The only
thing keeping them alive is a machine. That’s not living. They are also not
rational people and unlike the fetuses they no longer have a chance at becoming
a rational being. That is the rational part of my. But the more emotional part
of me would have a very hard time pulling the plug. I would still see them as
human. That seems like really illogical thinking I know, but I just couldn’t imagine
having to pull the plug on anyone one, regardless of how lifeless they may
already be.
This is just my opinion on how I feel that rational thinking
shouldn’t be one of the main contributors on if someone is human or not. I feel
that fetuses and the mentally handicap are just two examples of how this
characteristic wouldn’t work on everyone. (ps. I didn’t mean for this to come
off as bashing someone else’s beliefs if it came off that way.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCassandra,
ReplyDeleteI agree with opinion that it is not okay to abort babies because the fetus is not “rationale” or human. As you stated, there are several people such as young children and handicapped individuals that would not be classified as rational but are still classified as human. I have a problem with the fact that fetuses, young children, and handicapped individuals are even classifies as irrational. Who decides what is classified as rationale or irrational? The definition of rational is “having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense.” Rational can be defined but everyone opinions of what is rationale may vary. For example, I think it is irrational to spend $400 on shoes, have 10 children, or smoke marijuana but someone else may think it is perfectly rational to do all of the above.
I can also agree and relate to your struggle of whether or not it is acceptable to pull the plug on a human in a permanently vegetable state. My mom has told my sisters and I several times that she would want us to pull the plug on her but if it came down to it, I do not think I could do it. In fact, I do not think I could pull the plug on any one not even my worst enemy. Seeing their physical body, I would not be able to wrap my head around the idea that are no longer consciously there. There is no absolute way to be sure they are not consciously there anymore or will not come back therefore pulling the plug would be the same as murdering an individual.
When considering the categorical imperative, there are a few reasons why I think abortion would be a morally permissible action.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, there is this question of rational actors. You argue that fetuses are in fact human but not rational actors. Fetuses, especially within the first few months of pregnancy when most abortions are done, have none of the essential qualities of being human. They do not respond to stimuli and they have no reasoning capability (babies have recognition skills and memory, fetuses do not). So when willing a universal maxim, the thing one would be willing is, "In the instance when a pregnancy is not wanted, a fetus can be aborted." That is a completely rational thing to will that would not end with an irrational world.
Secondly if we do accept the fact that fetuses are 'potential humans', we still can will the morality of abortion. Granting a fetus the status of 'potential human' does not change the fact that it is not a human yet, however the woman pregnant with the fetus is a human. She is a rational moral agent (unlike the fetus). We could look at it as a dilemma -again, assuming that one believes abortion is immoral- and think what universal ethic must be prioritized. Should the rational good will of a moral agent be prioritized over the potential human fetus? Yes, I think that her will is much more important than the not yet formed will of the fetus.