FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

For me, at conception. Why? Prudence. Since I don't know, I believe that it should be respected at least from the earliest stages of its existence.

So do you view abortion more as negligence than murder, considering that you're not sure whether or not the embryo or fetus is morally valuable but--prudence demands--we treat it as such to avoid the possibility of infringing upon a human being's right to life?

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

For me, at conception. Why? Prudence. Since I don't know, I believe that it should be respected at least from the earliest stages of its existence.

So do you view abortion more as negligence than murder, considering that you're not sure whether or not the embryo or fetus is morally valuable but--prudence demands--we treat it as such to avoid the possibility of infringing upon a human being's right to life?

I still view it as murder, but out of pure fideism, from the teachings of the Church - as I still haven't found the time to fully study the question.

I'm in a similar boat. Often I find fideism to be a healthy default position for a skeptic insofar as it can preserve your sanity, and in my experience, stave off nihilistic thoughts. What do you think, among human beings regularly considered morally valuable, is a condition for their moral value?

RomanJoe wrote:

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

So do you view abortion more as negligence than murder, considering that you're not sure whether or not the embryo or fetus is morally valuable but--prudence demands--we treat it as such to avoid the possibility of infringing upon a human being's right to life?

I still view it as murder, but out of pure fideism, from the teachings of the Church - as I still haven't found the time to fully study the question.

I'm in a similar boat. Often I find fideism to be a healthy default position for a skeptic insofar as it can preserve your sanity, and in my experience, stave off nihilistic thoughts. What do you think, among human beings regularly considered morally valuable, is a condition for their moral value?

 
I don't think fideism would be the word, nor do I think fideism is exactly healthy. The way I see it, fideism is belief without any reason. Faith would be more appropriate - faith is belief in something on the basis of an authority; in case of religious faith, it's divine authority. If the person has reasons to believe in the authority, then by default they have reasons to believe in that which is taught by the authority, even if one cannot provide *independent* arguments for the position.

As far as your question goes, it is badly framed. A human being always has moral value by the mere fact that it is a human being. All human beings have intrinsic value. What you could ask is *when* human life begins. And I think the more plausible answer is at conception; it makes sense that the fertilized egg is already a substance different from both eggs and sperm; it already has its own distinct genetic code different from that of the parents's, etc. Hylemorphism also seems to make more sense with life beginning in conception.

John Haldane has a good article on abortion in his Reasonable Faith. Also check Cristopher Kaczor's book on abortion.