Actor James Franco PERPLEXED REACTION to Professor Discussing Murder [VIDEO]
The crux of abortion is discussed by so-called intellectuals by actor James Franco.
In a recent episode of his new YouTube series “Philosophy Time” (video below), actor James Franco and co-host Eliot Michaelson interviewed Princeton philosophy professor Elizabeth Harman. She offers an interesting and very telling discussion on the mind of Leftist intelligentsia.
According to Harman, there are two different kinds of fetuses: ones with a future and ones without. She then adds that the “moral status” of an early stage fetus, depends entirely on whether it has a “future.” No future, no moral status.
I find this statement incredibly ignorant, unless of course Professor Harman can determine the future. I can only surmise that the professor believes that a fetus has no idea of what it is, therefore taking its future has no consequences.
Trending: Kaepernick and His Inner-white Self
Andrew Kugle of the Washington Free Beacon provided a transcript of the exchange.
Professor Harman explains the murderer’s defense for aborting a child.
HARMAN: In some of my work I defend a liberal position about early abortion. I defend the view that there is nothing morally bad about early abortion. So, a lot of people think, “Well it’s permissible to have an abortion, but something bad happens when the fetus dies.” And I think if a fetus hasn’t ever been conscious, it hasn’t ever had any experiences, and we aborted it at that stage actually nothing morally bad happens. And this view might seem unattractive because it might seem that it dictates a cold attitude towards all early fetuses.
So as long as you haven’t had an “experience”, then you are not alive.
I find this tantamount to saying, if you haven’t had certain experiences, then one should die. For example, if you haven’t been to Paris, you haven’t lived.
As a point of fact, fetuses do have experiences. Their growth occurs quickly, thus fetuses experience much during the growth process. Just because we don’t remember our evolution, doesn’t mean it didn’t happened. Using her logic, why not legalize killing all two-year olds? I can’t recall a single thing from when I was two.
And what of experiences. I remember running a lot of miles to become a good runner. However, I would be hard pressed to tell you more than I know I ran a lot.
Next, I am curious as to what age a person stops remembering things that happened when they were five years old? Seven years old. And what of people who suffer from Alzheimer or other forms of dementia? Should they be killed for not remembering their experiences?
The professor continues, treading into a dangerous area.
She leaves little doubt that she is a eugenicist.
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 Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginning stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.
Is she saying that a “higher power”, ergo a woman determines the future of mankind? As if mothers know whether a child will become relevant in society?
In the exchange, fellow philosophy professor Michaelson asks,
“Why would we think that what’s actually going to happen to a fetus in the future is going to make this big difference between having some moral status and not?”
In other words, Michaelson challenges Harman, asking who are you to determine morality?
Franco, a blatant Leftist seems even more perplexed. He asks,
“Can’t you only judge that in hindsight?”
Harman explains that women control the world, as in who lives and who dies.
HARMAN: There is a real question of, how could we know? Well, often we do know. So often, if we know that a woman is planning to get an abortion, and we know that abortion is available to her, then we know that fetus is going to die—that it’s not the kind of thing like the fetuses that became us. It’s not something with moral status, in my view. Often we have reason to believe that a fetus is the beginning stage of a person. So, if we know that it’s that a woman is planning to continue her pregnancy, then we good reason to that her fetus is something with moral status something with this future as a person.
If a woman decides to have an abortion with an early fetus, just that act or that intention negates the “moral status” of that early fetus just because if she goes out and has an abortion, it’s pretty certain that it’s not going to become a person?
As you can see, Franco gets it. He understands that Professor Harman gives women the power over moral status. This makes women God. She offers the convoluted response that proves she has no idea what she’s saying. See if you can understand this.
Right, so it might look like on my view abortion is permissible because you had the abortion but that abortion wouldn’t have been permissible if you didn’t have the abortion. That’s not quite the view, for I think two different reasons. So one reason is that, um, even you have moral status — and in my view back when you were in early fetus you had moral status — but it’s not that aborting you would have been wrong because if your mother had chosen to abort her pregnancy, then it wouldn’t have been the case that you would have had moral status because you would have died as an early fetus, so she would have been aborting something that didn’t have moral status.
So it’s not — My view isn’t that if you do abort, abortion is OK but if you don’t abort, abortion would have been wrong. But what it turns out is that it’s a contingent matter that you have moral status you actually have moral status but you might not have counted morally at all if you had been aborted. You would have existed but you just would have had this really very short existence in which you wouldn’t have mattered morally.
So Harman takes the weakest among us, and removes the moral authority. She’s never questioned about a woman who first recognizes her baby, then decides later to abort it. Can you endow moral status, then arbitrarily take it away?
Ironically, people of her ilk fight tooth and nail to get murderers released from death row.