Uvic Abortion Debate Oct 21st '09 Part 7 of 10

On October 21st 2009 a debate took place at 3:30pm on the Uvic Campus. The debate featured Philosophy professor Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge, one of Canadas top bioethicists, and Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR).

Unfortunately, the only recording device I had was an iPhone, and because of my seating position the audio may be hard to hear at times, and I could not capture the slides each presenter used.

Also, at the end of part 2 and beginning of part 3 Gray plays a graphic video, that I didn't capture. It probably wasn't youtube friendly anyway. Even though it's mostly silent during the duration of that clip, I left that part in so we could listen to the few reactions people had.

After a quick google search I found links to the graphic video. It turns out it was two videos put together and shortened for the presentation. Please exercise caution before clicking these links as they are extremely graphic.
Part 1 http://tinyurl.com/yleljue
Part 2 http://tinyurl.com/yl8538a

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Abortion
• Atheist
• uvic
• education
• bioethics
• eike-henner
• kluge
• stephanie
• gray
• pro-life
• pro-choice
• rationality
• reason
• philosophy

[mamabritts]

this mans main argument is based on a human ability to determine when it has a soul.

To him, killing a dog and killing a child "without person hood" is the same. This is exactly the dangerous thought pattern that supported slavery.

[Brooks148]

Actually, he's talking about our ability to determine when the fetus has cognitive ability, not a soul. Ethics grants lifeforms person hood at a certain level of cognitive ability.

Killing a dog and aborting a fetus is not the same as the dog has a higher level of cognitive ability. If you watch part 10 he actually talks about how some animals are considered persons from an ethical standpoint.

[LoveStruckTonight]

If a person develops dementia which affects cognitive ability, do we then get to have the "choice" to terminate that "person's" life because they are no longer at a certain level of cognitive ability?

[TheHardout2005]

"You cannot have rights if you cannot choose."

I call BS.

This means that animals have no rights, and that even born babies and toddlers have none. This is morally repugnant.

Furthermore, the statement defeats itself. One cannot have the right to choose if one does not first own the right to live in the first place. Logically, some rights have to take precedence over others and the right to life has to be considered a first principle. First principles cannot be overridden by second principles.

[bahramf]

@mamabritts Not at all mamabritts. Persons are persons before they are aware they have "souls" (exist). Consciousness precedes self-consciousness. Go back to grade 8 biology class.

[smike06]

Amen, Brooks.

This is ethics at its best.