The fact remains that the level of consciousness of a being doesn't appear to be much of a factor when deciding whether killing is acceptable. |
Not so much "level" of consciousness but it's existence at all. We don't slaughter animals for the fun of it, we do it for food. If not for food, we probably wouldn't be killing them, there's no reason. Perhaps some would kill for fun, but many find that to be inhumane. For example, most would agree on not killing dogs/cats/apes/monkeys etc. unless they're out of control. We recognize them as beings with a certain level of intelligence, understanding, and emotions. So unless we're killing for food, I'd assume people in general wouldn't be for just running around and killing animals.
If there's a person in a permanent coma or vegetative state, we can pull the plug on them. Why? Because nobody is home in there. There's no longer a consciousness. No emotions, no thoughts, no understanding, etc..
"She could have had an abortion" is exactly the same argument pro-life people use. "She could have used contraception". |
Yes, but the difference in this case is that she could have either had an abortion or afterwards she could give it up for adoption. However, once you find out you're pregnant, the only option if you don't want to go through it is an abortion.
Sure, the pregnancy could have been avoided, but there's always other reasons. Perhaps she wanted the baby thinking the guy would help support her but ditched, now she can't afford that child.
Moreover, the fetus, again, is alive but not like us. We could say bacteria is alive, but we kill it all the time. Plants are alive, and we cut down forest after forest. What's the difference if not for intelligence, consciousness, and all the other mentioned things?
Finally, what if the baby was born with a condition that was undetected during pregnancy, and if it had been detected the doctor would have recommended an abortion? |
So something like mental retardation. I think that's a different discussion, we are talking about quality of life now. Again, the argument usually centers around whether a fetus is a human being. I think it should be the parent's decision on what to do depending on the defect.
You can look back to the story of the man with his brother in his stomach. Would it be better to leave him in there or kill him through surgical removal? If a fetus is a human being to someone who's pro-life, then they'd have to either compromise on a "human's" life and say it's alright to kill them (which is the loophole I like to use since they've established the right to life isn't some immovable object) or find some way to basically say no surgery without saying it because they know that's pretty dumb. They recognize that what's in there is barely human, it doesn't think or do anything, which is basically the state a fetus is in, but they wont concede that.