44 Replies to “Phil 103–Liz Harman on abortion”

  1. I would argue against the premise that the future decides our moral values. There's so many examples you can came up to counter this notion.

  2. Princeton?! Seriously, this is the most ridiculous line of thinking I've literally EVER heard regarding the right to terminate a person's life? WOW. Just WOW.

  3. Just another inadequate academic imagining she has an important point of view. I hope she never has children.

  4. Why are there so many dislikes ? =__= This is not a video made by that crazy ass woman. Franco clearly wasn't sharing her views. Unless there's A LOT of SJWs down here ?

  5. It's ethical to terminate a fetus because it has no moral status.

    A fetus has no moral status because it has no future.

    It has no future because it will be aborted.

    It will be aborted because it's ethical because it has no moral status.

    It has no moral status because it has no future.

    Rinse and repeat. What a crock.

  6. "Moral status"? WTF does that even mean and what the hell could have possibly allowed that woman to become a university professor? SMH

  7. Scarily, I actually understand what she's saying… basically she's taking a predeterminism status that we have no control over destiny; it's not that she's justifying abortion it's that she's saying that an abortion is simply us effectively playing into the "mechanisms of destiny" or the hand of fate.

    I completely disagree with her… but I understand her.

  8. This is the most ridiculous thing… What about those who survived abortion? Do they now have no moral status for life? Asinine

  9. What!! She's a professor? What on earth does she teach….that is honestly the most embarrassingly stupid thing I've ever heard from a pro choice point of view!!

  10. Having miscarried a child, this makes me even more sick, furious, and disgusted than it already would have. She's basically saying that my baby, and millions of others like her just didn't matter and had ZERO moral value and that's infuriating. And all the babies that have been aborted had moral value too. Every single one of them.

  11. I have watched this several times trying to convince myself that she didn't mean or believe this. Barbarity hides its face behind a mask of philosophy.

  12. Translation:
    You've got moral status if (and when) your mother feels like it.
    You lack moral status if (and when) your mother feels like it.
    Therefore, Moral status is managed by the mother's feelings.
    A similar narcissistic, elastic definition of moral status is popular among death row inmates.

  13. "But what I think is actually, among early fetuses, there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and when you, Elliot, were an early fetus, all of us, we already did have moral status THEN, but we had moral status in virtue of our futures, in virtue of the fact that we were the beginning stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die, in early in pregnancy, either due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that's a very different kind of entity. That's something that doesn't have a future as a person, and doesn't have moral status." – Elizabeth Harman Associate Professor of Philosophy and the University Center for Human Values

    So the morality of abortion is decided on whether or not a decision has been made to abort? Let me guess. This is determined solely by the woman, not like say, a man deciding that he doesn't want this random "entity" and trying to secretly induce an abortion. The fetus doesn't have moral status because someone chose to deny its future. How is that also not valid according to this logic? Why are people legally charged, prosecuted, and convicted for Fetal Homicide? If the life of any fetus ended prematurely, for any reason whatsoever, that fetus never actually had any moral status. The ultimate get out of jail free card for an entire gender of people who are forced with biologically determined physical constraints and consequences from behavior, but wish to live lives without any constraints, accountability, or responsibility whatsoever.

    How does this not also apply to infants post-birth? Why not anyone? All so that this woman and other extreme narcissistic women like her can avoid responsibility and accountability. Nothing is stated by her about the supposed health of the woman. The usual pretense used to legitimize the killing of fetuses. A fetus is merely unwanted, for any reason whatsoever, make a choice to kill it, suddenly that fetus is separated into a separate class of human being, it merely is an "entity" now, without moral status, simply because a decision was made, for whatever reason, to deny it a future.

    How about applying this logic to drug using mothers, or people with family histories of severe criminal or psychological problems? Why doesn't the State have the ultimate right to determine if cull out the offspring of each woman that is determine likely to bear fetuses that are likely to either not have futures, or have futures that are a detriment to the State and the social/civil fabric of society? The State would be determining the future of each fetus, and far more "scientifically" than this so called "Professor" is doing, and their very choice to deny the future of a fetus is in itself the justification for the supposed moral legitimacy of their act to deny it.

    I am no fancy Associate Professor of Philosophy and the University Center for Human Values like Elizabeth Harman, but isn't that circular logic? All she did was deny what is the very logic that she used to legitimize abortion, and then pretend that her explanation was in some way not just restating the very thing she says that she wasn't stating. And what does that say about Princeton itself and their supposed respect or support for "Human Value". This professor is a dumpster fire of a human being. Without empathy, humanity, or remorse. I pity any children that this woman might have. If her toddler becomes tedious, simply decide it has no future, then smother it. The toddler never had moral status to begin with, because at some point, for whatever reason, she determined to smother it. Remember everyone, there is nothing about its current state that would make it any part of the "moral community", it has no experiences. Snuff it out on a whim. It's ok because Elizabeth Harman Associate Professor of Philosophy and the University Center for Human Values thinks it's ok!

  14. James Franco: Meth head rapist POS, no wonder he is so hype for abortions, little piss ant dick muncher. Princeton got some stupid ass professors as well, what a waste of money.

  15. Ironically, abortion in Europe is FAR more restrictive and regulated than abortion in the USA.
    Liberals love Europe but it seems they do not want to emulate that.

  16. So the moral status of a person is conditioned to the opinion and acceptance of another person?

    Sadly, the father cannot morally decide neither, but he has to pay if she decides to have the baby. So even if abortion is "accepted" it is still unfair and wrong in other levels.

  17. It sounds like I'm saying abortion is only okay when you have one, but really what I'm saying is that abortion is okay as long as you get one.This lady is a perfect example of our failing educational systems and should not be able to mold minds in any extent.

  18. So by aborting you are not allowing the fetus (small child) to have moral status.

    So she admits to his earlier assertion, that being by aborting you remove the moral status…

    You cant say in one statement that we are not removing, but then say later on that by allowing the birth that now the moral status has been given.

    Once again, the argument comes to this. Abortion only has no moral violation because we have decided who has value and who does not. This is the violently arrogant idea that we have some ability to decide who has value. Its a rejection of who God says people are, and an elevation of self to be the arbiter of what is right, what is wrong, who is valid, and who is not.

    How sickening. This woman needs the gospel.

  19. Well, she has no moral status now. If she ever needed help from me, she would be turned away in a split second.

  20. A person has moral status up to the point they start doing mental gymnastics in order to condone immorality. I think this is the correct way to look at it.

  21. Circular reasoning has holes.. the wise have now become fools atleast at princeton. like slavery, unborn babies are seen as property and not people. Abortion through all stages is a disgusting act and the pictures I've seen is horrific. Infanticide.

  22. Someone obviously dropped this woman on her head when she was a baby. No moral status? What kind of absurd crap is that? Every zygote, embryo, fetus, pre-born baby is destined to become a HUMAN because it already is a human! Quit trying to justify murdering unborn children by saying somehow they don't "count". You are sickening.

  23. I'm pro choice and see this bitch is going so far out on a limb to justify her sick beliefs. To her morality is just an idea to play with, she doesn't live by any moral standard clearly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *