The Immorality of Abortion Advocates

 

Liz Harman, a professor at Princeton, is interviewed by James Franco, the movie actor, and his friend Eliot Michaelson, a lecturer at the department of philosophy at King’s College London. Harman explains that there’s nothing wrong about “early abortion” because some fetuses have no moral standing.

Which fetuses have no moral standing? Why, aborted fetuses. Why? Because they have no future. Why do they have no future? Because they are aborted. Therefore, it’s ok to abort them.

On the other hand, some other fetuses, like fetal James Franco, that aren’t aborted do have moral status. Fetal James Franco had moral status due to his future. He had a future because his mother didn’t abort him. So aborting him would have been wrong. However, Professor Harman explains, had his mother aborted him, he would not have had any moral standing. So it would have been ok to abort him.

She’s not saying, she helpfully adds, in case you are getting confused, that abortion is ok because the mother had an abortion on the one hand, and that abortion is not ok on the other hand because the mother didn’t have an abortion. No, not at all.

I’ve no idea, frankly, what James Franco’s political opinions are, but judging from his facial expressions, I think he’s not thoroughly convinced by the professor’s arguments. Are you?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 36 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Profile photo of Western Chauvinist Member

    I just watched it for the second time — this time with the sound off. It’s pretty hilarious. Give it a try. Watch the hosts for the slow blinks, the scowls, and, near the end, the eye shift, as if to say, “this woman couldn’t reason her way out of a wet paper uterus.” Even their smiles seem to suggest, “we’re non-threatening; we just want to institutionalize you.”

    Aren’t Peter’s kids at Princeton? I hope he can get his money back.

    • #1
    • August 12, 2017 at 3:56 pm
    • Like3 likes
  2. Profile photo of katievs Member

    By her logic, is it okay to kill someone, because by killing them, you eliminate the future that gives their existence value? Or not?

    Does having a consciously experienced PAST confer the kind of value that makes killing you a crime? Because every killing of course abolishes that individual’s future.

    If it’s past experience that confers value, is it absolute value? Or is it relative? (So, like, are people with more experience or better experiences worth more than people with less or bad conscious experience?)

    Is ontological value just nothing in her eyes?

    I’m asking sincerely. (I mean I’m sincere about wanting to understand the logic of this Princeton prof.)

    • #2
    • August 12, 2017 at 4:00 pm
    • Like7 likes
  3. Profile photo of Scott Wilmot Member

    This looks like deja vu all over again. Our friend @brianwatt has already posted on this on the Main Feed.

    But these morons are so stupid I guess it’s good to post it again for those who missed it the first time.

    • #3
    • August 12, 2017 at 4:08 pm
    • Like4 likes
  4. Profile photo of Scott Wilmot Member

    katievs (View Comment):
    By her logic, is it okay to kill someone, because by killing them, you eliminate the future that gives their existence value? Or not?

    Does having a consciously experienced PAST confer the kind of value that makes killing you a crime? Because every killing of course abolishes that individual’s future.

    If it’s past experience that confers value, is it absolute value? Or is it relative? (So, like, are people with more experience or better experiences worth more than people with less or bad conscious experience?)

    Is ontological value just nothing in her eyes?

    I’m asking sincerely. (I mean I’m sincere about wanting to understand the logic of this Princeton prof.)

    I commented on Brian’s post to look at the guy in the grey sweater because it looked like his head was about to explode. Your questions make my head explode because of the idiocy of these people. Now, I’m no philosopher, but I can see she has no logic. How does one talk to them?

    • #4
    • August 12, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    • Like4 likes
  5. Profile photo of Scott Wilmot Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Aren’t Peter’s kids at Princeton?

    Dartmouth?

    • #5
    • August 12, 2017 at 4:13 pm
    • Like1 like
  6. Profile photo of MLH Member
    MLH

    And who says that Franco isn’t a good actor?

    So, a fetus whose mother decides to have an abortion is amoral?

    • #6
    • August 12, 2017 at 4:25 pm
    • LikeLike
  7. Profile photo of Skyler Member

    Elliot. Oh, HE’S the guy that wears all those goofy Brooks Brothers fashions. I was wondering who it was.

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    I just watched it for the second time — this time with the sound off. It’s pretty hilarious. Give it a try.

    I enjoyed watching without sound as @westernchauvinist recommends.

    That woman is a morally vacant as I can imagine. I think she has no status.

    • #7
    • August 12, 2017 at 5:00 pm
    • Like2 likes
  8. Profile photo of Joseph Stanko Member

    Schrodinger’s Fetus? He might or might not have moral status; we won’t know which until we kill him.

    • #8
    • August 12, 2017 at 7:32 pm
    • Like11 likes
  9. Profile photo of Valiuth Member

    katievs (View Comment):
    By her logic, is it okay to kill someone, because by killing them, you eliminate the future that gives their existence value? Or not?

    Does having a consciously experienced PAST confer the kind of value that makes killing you a crime? Because every killing of course abolishes that individual’s future.

    If it’s past experience that confers value, is it absolute value? Or is it relative? (So, like, are people with more experience or better experiences worth more than people with less or bad conscious experience?)

    Is ontological value just nothing in her eyes?

    I’m asking sincerely. (I mean I’m sincere about wanting to understand the logic of this Princeton prof.)

    Your back! Or maybe you were never gone but just laying low. Good to see you around again.

    Your questions are good. I am willing to bet she has not really thought her position through. Because after all she defends against the claim that her argument is circular by simply saying she doesn’t think that, and then proceeding to make a circular argument.

    The question I would pose to her is this. Does anyone intending to kill the fetus negate its worth, assuming they can credibly carry out their intention? After all just because the mother and father want to keep the fetus, doesn’t mean it will have a future, even without any other human intervention natural causes may result in the death of the fetus. Any death of the fetus negates its claim to worth.

    • #9
    • August 12, 2017 at 10:15 pm
    • Like2 likes
  10. Profile photo of Jerry Holisky Member

    Proof positive that God has a sense of humor.

    And say what you want about James Franco and his career but I’m not sure how many people on the planet could have so deftly added a heaping helping of hilarity to the abortion debate, which is usually a dismal mix of moral and intellectual preening between people talking entirely different languages.

    But here’s the real “punch line” to the story. The webpage of Princeton’s Department of Philosophy has a post, complete with photo and link, promoting this appearance of Prof. Harman’s on Franco’s Philosophy Time series. Either the good professor posted it and is too intellectually dim to be embarrassed by her performance, or a PR flack for the school posted it in the ordinary course of promoting faculty appearances. (Does the old saw “All publicity is good publicity” really apply to academia too?)

    So in a real test of Princeton’s academic self-awareness and capacity for institutional embarrassment, I wonder: How long before the Philosophy Department removes this post? What say you all, fellow Ricochetti? (A) By the end of the coming week? (B) Sometime during Fall Term? or (C) Never.

    • #10
    • August 13, 2017 at 5:44 am
    • Like4 likes
  11. Profile photo of Skyler Member

    Skyler (View Comment):
    Elliot. Oh, HE’S the guy that wears all those goofy Brooks Brothers fashions. I was wondering who it was.

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    I just watched it for the second time — this time with the sound off. It’s pretty hilarious. Give it a try.

    I enjoyed watching without sound as @westernchauvinist recommends.

    That woman is a morally vacant as I can imagine. I think she has no status.

    Wow, I just watched this again with the sound this time, and I have to say that the captions simply did not do justice to the intellectual vacuity of this woman.

    I’ve long believed that philosophy is no longer the Great Conversation taking place over generations. Philosophers have become, since at least the moronic ramblings of Descartes, a group of people who like to hear themselves talk and nothing more.

    This brainless, and morally vacant, vocal frying, up-talking moron should be bagging groceries, not working as a university professor. She is completely unaware of how foolish and circular her logic is.

    • #11
    • August 13, 2017 at 6:15 am
    • Like4 likes
  12. Profile photo of katievs Member

    Valiuth (View Comment

    …. I am willing to bet she has not really thought her position through. Because after all she defends against the claim that her argument is circular by simply saying she doesn’t think that, and then proceeding to make a circular argument.

    The question I would pose to her is this. Does anyone intending to kill the fetus negate its worth, assuming they can credibly carry out their intention? After all just because the mother and father want to keep the fetus, doesn’t mean it will have a future, even without any other human intervention natural causes may result in the death of the fetus. Any death of the fetus negates its claim to worth.

    Great point. I suppose she would claim that the fact that the parents want the baby means that the baby has worth. But that’s rather thin grounds for a legal prohibition of forced abortions, isn’t it?

    I mean, why shouldn’t the state’s interest (e.g. in protecting the environment from overpopulation) trump the parents’ desire for their fetus to have a future?

    I can’t see how it could be true that she hasn’t thought her position through, though. She’s a Princeton Professor agreeing to be interviewed on the subject.

    My guess is that spending all her time with people who agree with her, she’s not used to having her arguments challenged. I can’t imagine she’s ever given the thinking on the other side serious consideration. It’s very embarrassing.

    • #12
    • August 13, 2017 at 6:25 am
    • Like7 likes
  13. Profile photo of Ed G. Member

    As a pro lifer, I readily admit that there are sticky wickets on both sides of the question. What always astounds me, though, is the high percentage of pro-abortionists who fail to simply acknowledge the central question: when are we human and when are we invested in full human rights? In this video at least Harman sees the crux; unfortunately instead of actually addressing it with consistent and reasonable premises backed by logic, science, and theology she launches into a circular (despite her objection) justification of her preferred conclusion. I like the animated overlays, and if added by Franco and his crew then it’s heartening that there may be hope for our movement and perhaps even for conservatism. Perhaps even Hollywood people eventually see through foundations built on quicksand?

    • #13
    • August 13, 2017 at 9:58 am
    • Like2 likes
  14. Profile photo of Western Chauvinist Member

    I will grant her this: As the culture currently stands, whether you have a future or not often depends on whether your mother (or someone else with power over you) believes you have moral worth or not. Some of us believe that’s a very bad trend.

    • #14
    • August 13, 2017 at 10:14 am
    • Like4 likes
  15. Profile photo of katievs Member

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    …when are we human and when are we invested in full human rights?

    Doesn’t it belong to concept of human rights as such that they’re not granted to us by other human beings but endowed by our Creator?

    They come with the fact of being human.

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    ….unfortunately instead of actually addressing it with consistent and reasonable premises backed by logic, science, and theology

    At the risk of sounding nit-picky, please don’t forget philosophy! When we’re talking about non-empirical things (such as the moral value of a fetus) with reference to public policy in a pluralistic society, the main thing wanted is sound philosophy, not science or theology.

    • #15
    • August 13, 2017 at 11:12 am
    • Like2 likes
  16. Profile photo of Ed G. Member

    katievs (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    …when are we human and when are we invested in full human rights?

    Doesn’t it belong to concept of human rights as such that they’re not granted to us by other human beings but endowed by our Creator?

    They come with the fact of being human.

    …..

    No argument from me, but I can acknowledge that this is only one way of looking at it. Even if you accept that God endows us with rights, the question remains: at what point does he so endow us? I suspect my answer is the same as yours, but there are other rational answers. I’m not trying to start an abortion discussion; I thought we were discussing the discussion.

    • #16
    • August 13, 2017 at 11:20 am
    • LikeLike
  17. Profile photo of Ed G. Member

    katievs (View Comment):

    …..

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    ….unfortunately instead of actually addressing it with consistent and reasonable premises backed by logic, science, and theology

    At the risk of sounding nit-picky, please don’t forget philosophy! When we’re talking about non-empirical things (such as the moral value of a fetus) with reference to public policy in a pluralistic society, the main thing wanted is sound philosophy, not science or theology.

    Of course you are correct. I meant “logic” to cover that ground. Sound philosophy is subjective, though, being entirely dependent on unprovable givens or axioms or preferences. Even monstrous things can qualify as “sound” in the sense that it’s coherent according to the givens.

    • #17
    • August 13, 2017 at 11:25 am
    • LikeLike
  18. Profile photo of katievs Member

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Of course you are correct. I meant “logic” to cover that ground. Sound philosophy is subjective, though, being entirely dependent on unprovable givens or axioms or preferences. Even monstrous things can qualify as “sound” in the sense that it’s coherent according to the givens.

    Ed! How can you say such things? Sound philosophy subjective?! based on preferences?!

    As for its being based on “unprovable axioms,” so is all knowledge, after all.

    And logic doesn’t cover metaphysics or ethics, which are mainly what’s needed for settling questions like these, no? (I’m sorry again. I can’t help it.)

    As for when God endows human beings with rights, I don’t doubt we agree. But personally, I can’t see any rational alternatives to the notion that He endows them at the moment of creation. It belongs to the concept of rights that they’re not something added after, but rather something inherent in.

    The idea that there could be human beings without human rights doesn’t seem rational to me at all. It seems inane.

    • #18
    • August 13, 2017 at 11:42 am
    • Like1 like
  19. Profile photo of Ed G. Member

    katievs (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Of course you are correct. I meant “logic” to cover that ground. Sound philosophy is subjective, though, being entirely dependent on unprovable givens or axioms or preferences. Even monstrous things can qualify as “sound” in the sense that it’s coherent according to the givens.

    Ed! How can you say such things? Sound philosophy subjective?! based on preferences?!

    As for its being based on “unprovable axioms,” so is all knowledge, after all.

    …..

    True. It’s inconvenient and confusing to me, but yes I think it’s true. And if one can’t prove the underlying axiom and there are competing axioms then “subjective” becomes a reasonable description.

    • #19
    • August 13, 2017 at 11:50 am
    • LikeLike
  20. Profile photo of Ed G. Member

    katievs (View Comment):

    …..

    The idea that there could be human beings without human rights doesn’t seem rational to me at all. It seems inane.

    Well therein lies the deep differences, right? Many pro-abortionists don’t view a fetus as a human being. And they base it on philosophy informed by what we have learned about human development, consciousness, etc. Others view the fetus as human in the sense of dna, but think that there is some other quality on which “humanity” (or whichever other slippery word you want to substitute for the crux of the difference) rests.

    • #20
    • August 13, 2017 at 11:55 am
    • LikeLike
  21. Profile photo of katievs Member

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    katievs (View Comment):

    …..

    The idea that there could be human beings without human rights doesn’t seem rational to me at all. It seems inane.

    Well therein lies the deep differences, right? Many pro-abortionists don’t view a fetus as a human being. And they base it on philosophy informed by what we have learned about human development, consciousness, etc. Others view the fetus as human in the sense of dna, but think that there is some other quality on which “humanity” (or whichever other slippery word you want to substitute for the crux of the difference) rests.

    My objection is to your claim that there are sticky wickets on both sides of the issue and your suggestion that there are perfectly rational alternatives to the idea that human rights are endowed by the creator at the moment of creation.

    It’s emphatically not rational to hold both that human rights are inherent in every human being and that some human beings don’t have rights.

    Nor is it rational to posit that the natural offspring of the reproductive act of a human male and a human female might be something other than a human being.

    I know that some people hold such views, but the fact that they are popularly held (and even publicly defended by highly paid professors at elite universities!) doesn’t mean they’re rational.

    I think pro-lifers shouldn’t be shy of pointing out that that if the value of human beings rests on consciousness, say, then, strictly speaking, there’s no such thing as human rights, only the rights of the conscious.

    • #21
    • August 13, 2017 at 12:17 pm
    • Like2 likes
  22. Profile photo of Ed G. Member

    katievs (View Comment):

    …..

    My objection is to your claim that there are sticky wickets on both sides of the issue and your suggestion that there are perfectly rational alternatives to the idea that human rights are endowed by the creator at the moment of creation.

    It’s emphatically not rational to hold both that human rights are inherent in every human being and that some human beings don’t have rights.

    Nor is it rational to posit that the natural offspring of the reproductive act of a human male and a human female might be something other than a human being.

    I know that some people hold such views, but the fact that they are popularly held (and even publicly defended by highly paid professors at elite universities!) doesn’t mean they’re rational.

    I think pro-lifers shouldn’t be shy of pointing out that that if the value of human beings rests on consciousness, say, then, strictly speaking, there’s no such thing as human rights, only the rights of the conscious.

    Ok. As I say, I agree with you.

    But I also think there are all kinds of givens which rationally lead to abortion being no big deal. As I say, I don’t share those givens. But unless you can “prove” that your givens are more worthy, then practically speaking we’re left with a difference of opinion regarding a rather fundamental question. I’m not afraid of this situation, and I’m not afraid of legislating morality in this way. We need guidelines and the democratic process is probably one of the least worst systems for establishing them.

    • #22
    • August 13, 2017 at 12:33 pm
    • LikeLike
  23. Profile photo of katievs Member

    It’s not about proving so much as persuading.

    One of the ways the left wins is by insinuating relativism everywhere—pretending that there are equally sound arguments on both sides—no need to actually examine those arguments—it all boils down to a matter of opinion or religious doctrine, or “whose truth?” Or they pretend that the fact that something can’t be proved means it isn’t true. (Can we prove that all men are equal? Can we prove that a circle isn’t a square? Can we prove that the sky is blue? Can we prove that responsibility implies freedom?…)

    If we concede on that point, we’ve conceded our main ground of advantage, viz. the intelligibility of objective reality and the capacity of human reason to grasp it.

    If you (or anyone else) has a rational argument in favor of the claim that a fetus isn’t a human being or that some human beings don’t have rights or that only conscious beings have rights or whatever, then I say let’s have it. Let’s examine it and see whether it holds up against counterarguments.

    I think we all agree that this professor’s arguments in favor of abortion are utterly specious. I’m wondering why we would grant that other arguments in favor of abortion are just as rational as arguments against it.

    • #23
    • August 13, 2017 at 2:55 pm
    • Like1 like
  24. Profile photo of Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux Post author

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):
    This looks like deja vu all over again. Our friend brianwatt has already posted on this on the Main Feed.

    But these morons are so stupid I guess it’s good to post it again for those who missed it the first time.

    I think this post was published by accident. I wrote it and then realized Brian had already written a post about it. So, I wasn’t going to publish it, but I guess it did get published (obviously). Sorry for the repost!

    • #24
    • August 13, 2017 at 4:38 pm
    • Like1 like
  25. Profile photo of Joseph Stanko Member

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    As a pro lifer, I readily admit that there are sticky wickets on both sides of the question

    I think the “sticky wickets” on the pro-life side boil down to emotion, to the fact that people just don’t like the conclusions that consistent, logical reasoning yields. For instance, if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, you’d have to have a heart of stone to deny the heroic sacrifice asking her to bring the child to term entails. Even in less extreme circumstances, it’s not hard to sympathize with the plight of an unwed college student who “accidentally” becomes pregnant, throwing her life plans into disarray.

    So we do what humans have always excelled at: we rationalize. We throw logic to the wind and construct arguments that will yield the results we want.

    I suspect that’s why this woman can present “arguments” like this and still hold a professorship: people like her conclusion, therefore they want her argument to be correct, so they will overlook the flaws, congratulate her, and give her tenure.

    • #25
    • August 13, 2017 at 5:34 pm
    • Like4 likes
  26. Profile photo of Joe P Member

    katievs (View Comment):
    By her logic, is it okay to kill someone, because by killing them, you eliminate the future that gives their existence value? Or not?

    No, because they may already posses “moral standing.” I assume she believes from her argument that when “moral standing” is granted, it cannot be trivially revoked.

    The ways to test that would be to ask about murder, the death penalty and euthanasia, and see what other premises that are unstated shake loose from this circular mess.

    • #26
    • August 13, 2017 at 11:09 pm
    • Like1 like
  27. Profile photo of Joseph Stanko Member

    Joe P (View Comment):

    katievs (View Comment):
    By her logic, is it okay to kill someone, because by killing them, you eliminate the future that gives their existence value? Or not?

    No, because they may already posses “moral standing.” I assume she believes from her argument that when “moral standing” is granted, it cannot be trivially revoked.

    The ways to test that would be to ask about murder, the death penalty and euthanasia, and see what other premises that are unstated shake loose from this circular mess.

    Well at the beginning she does mention something about the fetus having never been conscious nor had any experiences. From this I’m extrapolating that she thinks that once one has had conscious experiences, one acquires moral standing. This leaves open the question of whether the unconscious (such as those in a coma) have lost moral standing, though perhaps they still possess it by virtue of already having had some experiences? Unclear.

    • #27
    • August 13, 2017 at 11:21 pm
    • Like1 like
  28. Profile photo of Skyler Member

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Joe P (View Comment):

    katievs (View Comment):
    By her logic, is it okay to kill someone, because by killing them, you eliminate the future that gives their existence value? Or not?

    No, because they may already posses “moral standing.” I assume she believes from her argument that when “moral standing” is granted, it cannot be trivially revoked.

    The ways to test that would be to ask about murder, the death penalty and euthanasia, and see what other premises that are unstated shake loose from this circular mess.

    Well at the beginning she does mention something about the fetus having never been conscious nor had any experiences. From this I’m extrapolating that she thinks that once one has had conscious experiences, one acquires moral standing. This leaves open the question of whether the unconscious (such as those in a coma) have lost moral standing, though perhaps they still possess it by virtue of already having had some experiences? Unclear.

    No, it would be unfair to say that. She’s pretty clear that the moral status cannot be removed.

    However, if someone . . . Well, saying someone is not quite fair to her either. Imagine a clump of cells grows without every having consciousness. That clump of cells might look very much like what you or I might call a person, but to her this clump of cells has no consciousness and therefore she would say the clump of cells is not a person. But clump of cells is too difficult to keep writing, so let’s just cheat and call the clump of cells a person. Imagine a person is born and never attains consciousness. For some reason this person is born in a coma and never comes out of the coma, though he develops into what you and I might call a fully adult, comatose man. By her morally vacant philosophy, you can just cut pieces of him off and flush him down the toilet bit by bit because he has no moral status.

    • #28
    • August 14, 2017 at 3:36 am
    • Like1 like
  29. Profile photo of katievs Member

    Human rights are inherent in human beings.

    So the central question in the abortion debate is (or should be) when is a human being formed. Modern science has answered that question with overwhelming certainty. An absolutely unique and irrepeatable human individual is formed at the moment of conception.

    For the purposes of law, as I understand it, the concept of person has mainly do with accountability. A person is a responsible moral agent.

    An unconscious person remains a human being ontologically and in terms of moral worth, but can’t be deemed a responsible moral agent.

    In other words, it’s one thing to use a term like “moral standing” when we’re speaking of agency, not when we’re speaking of inherent value.

    In response to Joe P: I get that she (like practically all defenders of abortion) would like to draw a distinction between killing fetuses and killing post-birth human beings, but I don’t see how her underlying logic allows such a distinction—at least not solidly.

    She seems to be saying that a person’s moral worth comes from conscious experiences. But what could be more ephemeral than those? And what constitutes experience? When does it begin? When does it end?

    And what is the justification for the claim that that’s when we become valuable? Why should it be so? And why should it be binding morally?

    I mean, why couldn’t the standard of consciousness-confers-value be continually amended (as it is already by people like Peter Singer—another Princeton prof) to allow for infanticide and euthanasia for anyone whose powers of consciousness are damaged or impaired?

    I agree with Joseph in thinking that the purpose of the “arguments” and distinctions of abortion defenders seems to be all about rationalizing an otherwise too abhorrent practice.

    • #29
    • August 14, 2017 at 7:38 am
    • Like1 like
  30. Profile photo of Western Chauvinist Member

    katievs (View Comment):
    Human rights are inherent in human beings.

    So the central question in the abortion debate is (or should be) when is a human being formed. Modern science has answered that question with overwhelming certainty. An absolutely unique and irrepeatable human individual is formed at the moment of conception.

    For the purposes of law, as I understand it, the concept of person has mainly do with accountability. A person is a responsible moral agent.

    An unconscious person remains a human being ontologically and in terms of moral worth, but can’t be deemed a responsible moral agent.

    In other words, it’s one thing to use a term like “moral standing” when we’re speaking of agency, not when we’re speaking of inherent value.

    In response to Joe P: I get that she (like practically all defenders of abortion) would like to draw a distinction between killing fetuses and killing post-birth human beings, but I don’t see how her underlying logic allows such a distinction—at least not solidly.

    She seems to be saying that a person’s moral worth comes from conscious experiences. But what could be more ephemeral than those? And what constitutes experience? When does it begin? When does it end?

    And what is the justification for the claim that that’s when we become valuable? Why should it be so? And why should it be binding morally?

    I mean, why couldn’t the standard of consciousness-confers-value be continually amended (as it is already by people like Peter Singer—another Princeton prof) to allow for infanticide and euthanasia for anyone whose powers of consciousness are damaged or impaired?

    I agree with Joseph in thinking that the purpose of the “arguments” and distinctions of abortion defenders seems to be all about rationalizing an otherwise too abhorrent practice.

    I don’t think they do ontology at Princeton anymore. 😉

    Good to see you, Katie.

    • #30
    • August 14, 2017 at 8:13 am
    • Like2 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2