The Philosophy of the Abortion Debate | Prof. Angela Knobel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 кві 2022
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Prof. Knobel's presentation slides can be found here: tinyurl.com/2p8as75m
This lecture was given on March 24, 2022 at Texas State University.
About the speaker:
Angela Knobel is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Dallas. She received her doctorate in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame in 2004. From 2004 to 2020, she taught philosophy at her alma mater, the Catholic University of America. Her work focuses primarily on Aquinas’ theory of infused virtue, virtue ethics and applied ethics. Her book Aquinas and the Infused Moral Virtues is forthcoming from the University of Notre Dame Press.
Subscribe to our channel here:
ua-cam.com/users/TheThomisti...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📚 The talk discusses the philosophical questions surrounding the abortion debate.
00:46 🤔 The emotional and deep disagreements around abortion make rational discussion challenging.
01:30 🧠 Philosophers on both sides agree on key questions about abortion, though they disagree on answers.
02:12 💡 Understanding the questions in the abortion debate fosters better understanding of differing views.
09:44 🚶♀️ The two main philosophical questions in the abortion debate are personhood and bodily rights.
11:22 🧩 Support for abortion may stem from a variety of reasons, while opposition often involves both questions.
13:53 🧠 Personhood is a key issue, with different philosophers defining it based on characteristics like rational agency.
17:36 🐟 Rational agency is used to determine moral value, leading to varying evaluations of different beings.
22:00 💔 Some views on personhood result in morally significant shifts for the elderly, disabled, and very young.
23:26 🐕 An alternative view of personhood considers rationality as a norm, which affects moral value.
25:29 🤔 Different views on moral value: Rationality as normative vs. present capacity for rationality.
27:05 🤝 Moral value tied to rational ability vs. value based on kind of being.
29:13 💔 Personhood vs. bodily rights: Personhood's complexity vs. rights imposition dilemma.
31:40 🎻 Violinist thought experiment: Unplugging analogy to abortion, right to life defined.
35:39 🌱 Unjust deprivation vs. prior agreement: Obligations based on agreement vs. humanity.
38:00 🤝 Contractual vs. social justice: Obligations rooted in agreement vs. inherent humanity.
39:11 🤔 Philosophical questions at heart: Personhood and obligations in abortion debate.
41:44 💡 Self-scrutiny and open-mindedness: Examining and evaluating our beliefs.
45:11 ❓ Utilitarian dilemma: Quantity vs. inherent value in moral decision-making.
51:06 🌱 Philosophical history and debates: Soul development, abortion views, and morality.
51:47 🧐 Aquinas' theory of delayed harmonization suggests that a rational soul only fits into sufficiently developed matter, impacting the abortion debate.
53:15 📚 Aquinas and others held views about delayed harmonization, where matter needs to develop before receiving a rational soul, but this doesn't automatically support abortion.
54:25 🚫 Interfering with life generation is a key concern on the Catholic view, even if delayed harmonization suggests matter's gradual development for a rational soul.
55:10 🤔 Some argue that matter is already suited to receive the form of rational nature at conception, challenging the need for delayed harmonization.
56:04 🤝 Discussion on whether actions involving a pre-rational soul are "bad" or "evil" and differing perspectives on Aquinas' theory.
57:33 🙅♀️ The speaker disagrees with Aquinas' view and believes that matter is fitting for a rational soul from the moment of fertilization.
58:18 🌍 Distinguishing the philosophical and social questions about abortion, including prudential considerations for policy decisions.
01:00:24 ⚖️ Acknowledging complexities in comparing maternal death rates in countries with different access to healthcare and resources.
01:01:32 💬 The speaker emphasizes the distinction between philosophical morality and practical consequences, maintaining that actions can be wrong regardless of outcomes.
01:02:15 🚫 Personal conviction against abortion remains unchanged, even if societal factors suggest otherwise.
01:02:42 👥 Consideration of moral responsibility for enabling abortion, distinguishing between formal and material cooperation.
01:03:12 🔀 Discussion on the distinction between formal and material cooperation, using examples like selling gas to illustrate moral complexities.
Made with HARPA AI
To be fair to Aristotle and Aquinas, they didn't have the biological and, more specifically, embryological knowledge that we have today. I'm sure if they did, they would've formed different conclusions about when we receive a rational soul.
"Thou Shalt Not Murder". Millenia later and after hundreds of millions of deliberate murders we are debating whether or not it's okay to murder. It's a difficult question! Not to God it's not.
Thou shalt not judge either. That’s Gods job for only He is perfect.
@@patriciavalencia2674 lol how about u actually read a Bible.
@@patriciavalencia2674 “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” John 7:24.
It's not that simple
The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
Leave your Bible garbage out of human rights.
Let me preface this by saying, I tend to think that most abortions are questionable morally. However, I am wondering if a certain argument can be made that would justify it. The idea is that nearly every society believes that war is justified under certain circumstances. One of the circumstance is the case that the opponent threatens or actually does force economic hardship on the society. Another circumstance is the case that the opponent restricts the freedom, or freedom of choice, of the society. You can see where I'm going with this.
It would seem that adoption would almost always be a possibility for those who would consider abortion, but one may foresee the possibility of significant very unpleasant social consequences of carrying the fetus to term, or, again, may realize that one cannot provide for the fetus sufficiently until term. There are undoubtedly other considerations. In short, let's assume that there is a good argument for not choosing to participate in an adoption.
Then could the "war" arguments not work in the case of abortion? The fundamental arguments for war when applied to abortion sound crass or worse to many. But war is considered much worse than abortion in its effects. So if one can justify something so terrible with such arguments, why cannot one justify something of lesser consequence, generally, with the same or at least similar arguments?
Great! Exposure or the irrational down hill illogical premise or the pro choice position. When it comes down to it their view has nothing but contradicting, inconsistent, illogical claims. And IF they hold to their view it exposes their evil view
Would the violinist argument make more sense as a comparison to pregnancy if the man signed a document in the past which compelled him to attach himself to the body of the violinist, fully knowing what the consequences of signing the document.?
Vegan sometimes-pro-choice is the only correct position. What’s your objection?
A box of embryos vs a child being saved.
For me, the developed child takes presidency at a moment of sudden danger. The reason being is the child is not distinct according to “Personhood” from the embryos but distinct according to its developed likeness that is immediately evident to the senses. In that moment, one will natural be inclined towards the object that impresses upon the senses more firmly. And since likeness begets a stronger inclination it would probably happen that anyone in that situation would be inclined towards the child and not the embryos.
Thought experiments like this always leave you unsatisfied.
I agree they can be unsatisfactory sometimes but I think it establishes further that there is a difference between embryos and a developed child. Obviously they are developmentally different, but we can also realize their difference on an instinctual level like you laid out. Though I don’t know where I stand on abortion exactly, I still find this thought experiment interesting.
Not only for he develop child but any living person at any age. The ones outside of normalcy and our culture and characteristics so on and forever BUT in a time where woman can be free and enjoy her sexuality at the same time avoiding pregnancy one must wonder why taking the pill and using condom is not as addressed as “ baby murder”.
@@RoyGBiv-lc8tv There are few things I'd confidently assert on abortion, but the failure of embryo rescue arguments is an exception. I think David B. Hershenov's paper: "What Must Pro‐Lifers Believe About the Moral Status of Embryos?" comfortably refutes the argument as presented by its most popular advocates.
@@patriciavalencia2674 Why would anyone address condom use as "baby murder"? No such stance follows from any pro-life position, neither does it follow from any kind of contraceptive "pill", unless such a drug kills an already existing organism that's been concieved.
Its just a terrible analogy to begin with. Something in the analogy necessarily has to die. Given abortion, 99% of the time nothing has to die. That alone should disqualify the analogy from being analyzed any fruther without good reason as to how it actually is analagous.
Ben Shapiro has a great response to this thought experiment. The best point, by my lights, is that the analogy to abortion fails. Saving the kid doesn’t imply the embryos have no worth & therefore abortion is fine. Likewise, when an abortion occurs there isn’t anyone in the other room with a kid saying have the abortion or the kid dies. The speaker kind of touched on the embryos still having value in her response but I would have found it more effective if she stressed how the thought experiment has little to no application to the abortion issue.
That misses the point of the thought experiment. The point is whether we really believe that frozen embryos are persons. If we would save 1 little girl over 1,000 frozen embryos, it's hard to believe that those embryos are actually persons. And you can take it even farther and say that you would kill 1,000 frozen embryos over 1 little girl. It is not an analogy to abortion. It is an intuition pump, so to speak. Laypeople may use it in the former way, but professional philosophers, such as Rob Lovering, use it in the latter way.
@@Dailishusband The analogy fails because it doesn't support the pro-choice position, there are triage cases in everyday life where lack of resources cause firefighters or medical professionals to choose between which human or which class of humans to save. No determination about personhood is being made, it's just be the most practical decision given their resources to choose between different people.
@@moderncaleb3923 I want to clarify something first. I am staunchly pro-life. That said, your response still misses the point. Talk of resources or pragmatics is talk of extrinsic properties. But if we hold all extrinsic properties equal, and we still think that it would clearly be better to kill 1,000 frozen embryos than just 1 five-year-old girl, it seems that our intuitions are pointing toward the fact that frozen embryos are not persons.
@@Dailishusband To claim that you'd rather save an infant over multiple embryos, and then leap straight to the conclusion that embryos aren't persons is ethically dubious. If we were to truly offset all of the extrinsic factors that might be distracting us from deciphering moral status between an infant and an embryo, we need to render the five-year-old frozen, unconscious, in need of burdensome assistance from other human beings in order to survive, etc. in like manner to the embryos so that irrelevant extrinsic factors are eliminated. The infant's painful death, or terrified state of mind, are sure to offset people's decision when confronted with this though experiment. But we would never assume that saving a conscious patient in a burning building over an anesthetized patient means therefore that anesthetized patients cease to be persons the moment they go into surgery.
@@moderncaleb3923 We wouldn't be at all justified in concluding that the anesthetized patients aren't persons since we have a big difference there. But if there were no difference, if all extrinsic factors were held constant, and we chose 1 being of group x over 1,000 beings of group y, it would seem like evidence against the claim that members of group y are persons. It's not conclusive - as I said, I'm pro-life, and I hold to the substance view of persons - but it is evidence against my view.
So many MEN "debating" below; so little time. FACT, FELLAS: A woman will or will not have an abortion without your "input," as it were. Men in certain Third World countries have discovered this fact and have now begun caging those pesky women for the duration of their pregnancies. This would appear to be the only "option" available to you, which (so far) is illegal in the United States. But who knows, anything's possible once reason and commons sense have been tossed out the window in favor of a frozen embryo. The obsessive fetishizing of women's sexuality has always struck me as the biggest unacknowledged elephant in that boy's club known as the Catholic Church
Do you have obligation to help others that you "didn't sign up for?" Even at great cost to yourself. No.
However, that is not an accurate description of pregnancy. If it was consented sex between 2 people. You did "sign up for it." By taking part in the act of baby making, you can't say you didn't sign up for making a baby.
The violinist argument only works for cases of Rape. In that case many pro lifers will grant some amnesty.
I'm disappointed with how off base this lecture was. Especially when you say things like "a person's right not to be burdened" I literally laughed out loud.
The only relevant question is where is the precise moment where a fetus becomes a person with human rights. Since that is a line that cannot be drawn because of the issues of identity and circular definitions of words defining themselves, pro life is the only CONSISTENT position. Completely independent of religious ideology. Honestly I don't know where religion comes into the argument.
This "philosopher" said embryos have a "shelf life" and are "dying." News flash, so do all humans.
*Mic drop*
You think that "the only relevant question is where is the precise moment where a fetus becomes a person with human rights", implying that you think abortion is wrong because it ends a human life. The hidden premise in that is that it is always wrong to end a human life, and if abortion ends a human life, it is wrong. The issue is that we as humans don't always consider it wrong to end a human life. When we pull the plug on a person who is in the hospital in a coma or what have you, we don't consider that immoral. When someone chooses to die on their own terms with dignity in cases of consensual euthanasia, we don't consider that immoral. That means that the fact that a life is human's doesn't determine whether or not we think it is moral to end, there's something else there that we have to look into. If you look at a lot of current philosophical works on the morality of death, you will see that most philosophers argue that death is bad and killing is wrong because deprives the victim of a valuable future (called the Deprivation Account). Take what you will from that, but the "personhood" argument is not really very accepted in current philosophical academia.
But as for your view that the violinist argument only works in cases of non-consensual sex:
Extending the violinist thought experiment, what if there were roving bands of music lovers who patrolled the streets in vans past 6pm looking to kidnap people to hook up to musicians. Every time you go out past 6pm, you are taking on a risk that you might be kidnapped and hooked up to a musician. Is going out after 6pm "signing up" to be hooked up to a musician? And would it then be immoral to disconnect yourself? Even if you went outside past 6pm with self-defense protection (i.e. using birth control)?
In your view, consenting to going outside past 6pm is consenting to getting hooked up to a musician, and therefore would make it immoral to disconnect yourself from the musician if you ever found yourself in that predicament. If we are going to say that consenting to sex is "signing up" for pregnancy (never-mind the fact that consent isn't either an enthusiastic yes or a firm no, there's a grey area there, and it would force us to draw a line in that grey area because we are potentially talking about killing prenatal humans) and that abortion in a case of consensual sex is always immoral, we would be saying that in order to avoid the situation of getting an abortion, people should ONLY have sex for procreation; in this violinist example, in order to avoid the situation of disconnecting yourself from and killing the violinist, you should NEVER go outside past 6pm.
It is not absolutely necessary that anyone go outside past 6pm, just like it is not absolutely necessary that anyone have sex for reasons beyond procreation. But if you think that consenting to sex means you are consenting to pregnancy, and that therefore abortion in cases of consensual sex is immoral, then you must also think that in the thought experiment, going outside past 6pm means you are consenting to being hooked up to the violinist, and that therefore it is immoral to unhook yourself.
Is consent to sex consent to pregnancy ?
If God is against abortion, why does He practice miscarriages ?
God isn’t the cause of miscarriages. Miscarriages are a form of natural evil, for the Catholic Thomistic God cannot cause evil, so therefore he can’t cause miscarriages,
@@matthewmayuiers But God - the all powerful - the all knowing - did not know that it would happen and could not fix it ? I am not sure that god is an innocent bystander in this universe.
@@matthewmayuiers It seems to me that many people seem to conveniently forget that everything is contingent upon God, including evil. God created Satan. God created evil humans. God created Hitler, Genghis khan and Tlacaelel. God created psychopaths, dictators and serial killers. God also created volcanos, earthquakes and tsunamis. God created smallpox, malaria and cholera. God is killing unborn babies. Why ?
@@philipcoriolis6614 God’s aren’t real and even if he did, he’s worthless
For the same reason God is not evil for allowing any of us to die.