Is abortion wrong?

I wonder though, Helical Vim, why do you attach so much value to that uniqueness? You say that abortion denies that low chance for a specific genetic design to occur, but do you also agree that people can abort without necessarily denying that chance, but just not value it as much as you do?

A specific genetic design simply refers to a specific individual. Lets take your genetic structure as an example. If we went back in time and had you re-conceived, the chances of your exact structure re appearing again to create the exact same person that you are are so small that it just cannot happen. Sure the person would be almost exactly like you, but it would not BE you. Do you get the gist of what I am saying here?

That is why I would have preferred being aborted. Who wants to have my genetic structure?

That is why I would have preferred being aborted. Who wants to have my genetic structure?

The billions of people who failed to be conceived? The people who are disabled and have no chance of leading a relatively normal life? People who are suffering and cannot lead the same lifestyle as you but so desperately yearn for it? Seriously think before you post.

people can abort without necessarily denying that chance

Aborting is denying that chance without question.

Actually could you rephrase what you have said? I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are asking of me.

EDIT: Therefore judging by what I've been saying, it seems that I am against all forms of abortion. Foreign and domestic /end humour. People should have considered the options beforehand and attempted to view their chances of having a successful "average" or above child. Also, if the person doesn't come out feeling pain constantly then in my opinion that is better (no constant suffering) than not existing at all and never being able to ever again.

Hello Vim.

The phrase genetic design is a very poor and incorrect way of describing a human being unless it is planned and executed in a lab, and as far as I know this is illegal and impossible at this time.

To oppose abortion on the grounds that some possible human will not exist seems to me a real stretch of logic, seeing we have passed the 7 billion mark.

Regards, John.

That is why I would have preferred being aborted. Who wants to have my genetic structure?

The billions of people who failed to be conceived? The people who are disabled and have no chance of leading a relatively normal life? People who are suffering and cannot lead the same lifestyle as you but so desperately yearn for it? Seriously think before you post.

And who says that I am not suffering much more than them? Nobody would want my genetic structure.

Heliocentricism had a huge scientific consensus, too. Thanks God for the ones who were persecuted for challenging it.

-- Updated August 3rd, 2012, 6:47 am to add the following --

Whoops ... I meant geocentricism, of course.

Well you lose points there, because neither of them are at the centre of the universe.

Hello Vim.

The phrase genetic design is a very poor and incorrect way of describing a human being unless it is planned and executed in a lab, and as far as I know this is illegal and impossible at this time.

To oppose abortion on the grounds that some possible human will not exist seems to me a real stretch of logic, seeing we have passed the 7 billion mark.

Regards, John.

I'm sure I added somewhere or was going to that not being able to abort places greater emphasis on whether having a child is worth the risk or not. Teenage pregnancy is a fine example of this. Pleasure first, child's life second. This should be reversed as it does not do the child any justice.

Also, instead of attacking my "very poor" choice of words, why don't you provide one that is more suitable?

I have thought about it and still am. The reason why I'm not stating an opinion on this yet is because I haven't thought about it enough to do so. I'm still at a point where my standpoint is constantly being made to vacillate by new elements I hadn't yet taken into consideration. But can you finally make the link with abortion so that I can at least have a feeling that we're going somewhere with this? What is your standpoint on abortion?

You appear to have the idea that human consciousness, or the potential for, deserves special consideration. If that is your only consideration what about the those who have little or no human consciousness. I watched a carer in the company of young man who had less conscious ability than a dog. He resembled a human in physical appearance but it was a shell that had no ability to communicate or reason. If this lost human deserves life what about the pig or the cow who has equal or even more ability. We can not determine what we secure by some strange idea that the potential to be conscious deserves special treatment. If you do then you must exterminate all those who fall below that potential.

True and that's what makes abortion such a difficult issue (to me, at least). You try to come up with a specific set of criteria a being has to fulfill in order to have a right to life, but it seems like this inevitably leads to questionable conclusions you can't avoid without becoming incoherent (like protecting cows as much as human beings).

My starting point is protecting the right to live of born people, like I've already stated (pretty much) and so I take all the criteria that can apply to born people as the requirements for deserving life, which happen to be criteria animals can correspond to too, as you said, and that's also that which makes it so that my opinion with regards to animal rights rests on shaky ground.

But then again, I would really like you to answer this time: you said that a zygote could not be as valuable as a 25 weeks old fetus. You are thus the one who seemed to have found a way out, so can you explain the reasoning you base that standpoint on?

I do not have to explain my reasoning. I am realist who understands that this life is far from perfect in so many ways. A child born with disabilities is not a necessity. A mother forced to conceive by an arogant husband. A child's innocence abused. Rape. A moments stupidity should not effect the rest of a womens life.

I have explained, with your reasoning, a foetus capable of conscious awareness deserve to be safeguarded indicates all those who do not reach that ability would necessarily be exterminated. Is that what you recommend?

You appear to place the human species above other species because it more intelligent or it is capable of conscious awareness. So do you have a scale of reference where you make decision on what deserves life and what does not?

I do not have to explain my reasoning.

Yes you do. Otherwise you cannot be countered and so we cannot proceed in a dialectical manner. No I'm not comparing this statement to the rest of your post which does explain some of your reasoning, I'm simply making a point that no one here should ever say that as it gives the wrong impression.

we cannot proceed in a dialectical manner.

I was not aware of what dialectical meant. So I looked it up in an online oxford dictionary, and it mentions about the logical discussion of ideas and opinions. How can logic come into an incredibly sensitive topic as abortion?

I was not aware of what dialectical meant. So I looked it up in an online oxford dictionary, and it mentions about the logical discussion of ideas and opinions. How can logic come into an incredibly sensitive topic as abortion?

Let me explain for you Bermudj. The definition refers to "logical discussion" which means that you will need to provide a valid argument explaining your idea/belief whatever.

I'm talking about the way you explain your ideas about abortion, not using logic as an answer to abortion.

di·a·lec·tic/ˌdīəˈlektik/ Noun: - The art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions or facts.

phi·los·o·phy/fəˈläsəfē/ Noun: The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.

Combine the definitions of both and you have a study of existence (I will use existence as a term that refers to literally everything) through the use of logic.


• All men are mortal. (Premise) - A premise is statement or proposition.

• Socrates is a man. (Premise)

• Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion) - The summing-up of an argument via inference from the premises.

Men = M (middle term)

Mortal = P (predicate)

Socrates = S (subject)

If (M = P) and (S = M) then (S = P) [yes I am not using the correct symbols here I know]

So what can we infer from the above is that if you do not use the logical method Socrates, Plato and Aristotle perfected (to mention a few) then your argument is really groundless. Otherwise we could say any old thing (which some people appear to do). It doesn't mean you must follow the exact formula above, it means that in a wall of text it needs to be there. Two paragraphs could be the premises with the conclusion only being two sentences. The way you conduct an argument has no bearing on what you believe in concerning the subject of that argument.

You all do this inherently/subconsciously but if you don't study the process, you can get ripped apart by people who have studied the process. Also, on a forum such as this you don't want to get too distracted by statistics as this isn't a place where we take things too seriously in my opinion.

I do not have to explain my reasoning. I am realist who understands that this life is far from perfect in so many ways. A child born with disabilities is not a necessity. A mother forced to conceive by an arogant husband. A child's innocence abused. Rape. A moments stupidity should not effect the rest of a womens life.

I have explained, with your reasoning, a foetus capable of conscious awareness deserve to be safeguarded indicates all those who do not reach that ability would necessarily be exterminated. Is that what you recommend?

You appear to place the human species above other species because it more intelligent or it is capable of conscious awareness. So do you have a scale of reference where you make decision on what deserves life and what does not?

You do not have to explain your reasoning? Do you realize we're talking philosophy here, which means we have to be ready to put our own reasoning and that of others to the test? You are even the one who made me that remark a couple of posts ago if I remember well and now your behavior seems to totally contradict your words.

You are a realist who understands life's imperfections, you say. Firstly "perfection" is a subjective concept, so when using such words I'd like you to elaborate on them. Secondly, what was your point in stating this? Is that your way of denouncing a lack of realism on my part? In which case, can you explain what is making you think I have this lack?

A child with a disability is not a necessity? What does that mean? A "necessity" for what? What was the point behind the list of calamities that followed that statement? A women shouldn't pay her whole life for a moment of stupidity, you say, but here you are again stating opinions with no back up. I'm afraid that is not going to help us reach something with this debate.

Then you ask me if I have a scale of reference for determining whether something deserves life or not when I have said in my previous post that protecting born people's right to life is my starting point. All the criteria living, born people can fulfill has been my reference up until now, even though I acknowledge that this way of thinking leads to problematic conclusions I yet haven't found a way to counter whilst remaining coherent (namely, the issues you bring up with the consciousness argument). In other words, I'm stuck here. We're stuck and in need of another standpoint, another reasoning that could lead us out. That's also why I urge you to explain your reasoning - so that we can go somewhere with this.

I was not aware of what dialectical meant. So I looked it up in an online oxford dictionary, and it mentions about the logical discussion of ideas and opinions. How can logic come into an incredibly sensitive topic as abortion?

.... di·a·lec·tic/ˌdīəˈlektik/ Noun: - The art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions or facts.

...

This caused me huge amount of concern, being an art, not a science. It gives me the impression of being based on a gift, trickery, illusiory. It does not sound to me as a well grounded manner to investigate a truth.