I did believe myself to be consistent in my argument. I set out a starting point for when I believe that the will of another person should be considered, and provided a justification for such. I do not believe that my conclusion leads to absurdity. I do not think that my statements must lead to absurdity, otherwise I would not argue for them.Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 12:34 pmThat is an extraordinarily high priority and, as discussed in various previous posts starting with Scott (post #2), and going through various posters including me and Gertie, if followed consistently it leads to absurdity. And the fact that you've declared in the topic's title and opening post that you're seeking to make an argument and not merely express an isolated personal preference suggests that you value consistency, because consistency is what making arguments is about.HJCarden wrote:But I place such a high value on human life that I believe it clears a threshold (which sits where, I do not have an exact answer) which gives it priority in consideration even before it can be said to "exist".
If you did seek to simply express a preference, without wanting to present an argument, you could just say "I think it's wrong to abort single celled embryos" and leave it there.
An Argument Against Abortion
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
That's not how I remember it. I think you said the future will of an unborn, as-yet-unconscious foetus morally trumps the conscious, articulate will of the woman in whose womb it was conceived.
You haven't argued them. All you've done was repeat your belief without responding to any of the objections or questions.I do not think that my statements must lead to absurdity, otherwise I would not argue for them.
To reiterate:
- What about all the women who conceive under direct threat, societal coercion, disinformation or an absence of birth control options?
- Which conscious life is worth preserving and which is expendable?
- How does this moral position relate to - capital punishment - police brutality and - war?
- How do you tell which foetuses, knowing their future, would choose life over oblivion?
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
I have defended my beliefs and given rationale for them. I do not know what you missed.Alias wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 9:41 pmThat's not how I remember it. I think you said the future will of an unborn, as-yet-unconscious foetus morally trumps the conscious, articulate will of the woman in whose womb it was conceived.You haven't argued them. All you've done was repeat your belief without responding to any of the objections or questions.I do not think that my statements must lead to absurdity, otherwise I would not argue for them.
To reiterate:
- What about all the women who conceive under direct threat, societal coercion, disinformation or an absence of birth control options?
- Which conscious life is worth preserving and which is expendable?
- How does this moral position relate to - capital punishment - police brutality and - war?
- How do you tell which foetuses, knowing their future, would choose life over oblivion?
To respond to your points
1. Repeatedly I said that my argument does not concern these cases.
2. All conscious human life is worth preserving to the best of our ability.
3. It has no relation as far as the scope of my argument is concerned. No one else brought this up.
4. I cannot divine which would chose their life over oblivion. I think what is fair is to give them a shot, and if they don't like it, a stoic suicide is always an option.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
Yes, you did. But failed to explain why so many pregnancies are outside of your consideration.
Is it your position that it's morally okay to abort foetuses conceived by force, fraud or social coercion?
Okay, but you've been advocating here for not-yet-conscious human life.2. All conscious human life is worth preserving to the best of our ability.
Is it your position that the lives of all not-human conscious entities are not worth preserving?
The killing of conscious, viable humans by any means and methods other than abortion are beyond the scope of your argument.3. It has no relation as far as the scope of my argument is concerned.
And I have asked it at least twice. I have also explained that your moral stance on abortions should be based in a comprehensive principle regarding the preservation of life, if it is to be coherent and consistent.No one else brought this up.
I didn't think you could. Yet you presume that they would all choose to be born, and that you speak for them more accurately and fairly than the mothers who carry them inside their bodies and are familiar with the actual circumstances of their life.4. I cannot divine which would chose their life over oblivion.
In a fair world, it would be. This, in case you have not noticed, is not a fair world.I think what is fair is to give them a shot,
No, not always. There are many others, more powerful than you, who think they can make better decisions about other people's lives than other people can make for themselves.and if they don't like it, a stoic suicide is always an option.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
HJCarden wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 10:51 am I think that (I must say it again, disbarring cases of rape/lack of sex education) that the mother's will ceases to be the ONLY will to be considered. I think that things with a high degree of moral import, like the will to live of another person, that are going to exist are just as important as things that do exist right now.
Allowing the mother’s will to be the only will to be considered in cases of rape and lack of sex education raises a issue.
In all cases, the morality question concerns two beings: (1) a woman who has an existing will, and (2) a fetus that has what you call a “conscious will”. Thus, consent and knowledge, or rape or poor education, the table has been set, as it were. If there’s been a rape, it’s already happened, so what you’re dealing with after conception is simply two beings who possess whatever properties they happen to have. Your basic position is that in the case of a “consenting and knowledgeable mother,” her will counts for nothing, and the fetus’s life counts for everything. How then does the fetus's life come to count for nothing just because the mother was raped or had a poor education? The fetus still exists, and, although I disagree, you think that it’s a being that has a “will” (of sorts) and therefore a moral right to exist. How does that right vanish depending upon what led to conception?
Also, saying that a consenting and knowledgeable mother “forfeits her right” sounds like it might be a useful concept for the purpose of, say, a contract issue, but I’m not seeing how you think it plays out in the case of the moral issue of whether it’s OK to terminate the fetus’s life. For example, are you judging the mother for her “misdeed” and holding that she’s therefore forfeited her moral standing? Sounds like it.
Another question arises because of your exception for the lack of sex education. Suppose the mother was exposed only to a poorly taught sex education course. Or suppose she was too dim to understand what was being said. Is an abortion immoral or not in such cases? How about the case of a mother with incredibly poor judgment, whether due to low EI or IQ or both? Or, suppose she’s really neurotic, with no impulse control. Additional scenarios can be posed, but the important point is that a number of factors seem to be floating around, and I’m wondering what your process is for mixing, matching and weighing all these factors and then coming out with such a firm, universal moral judgment.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that IMO encompasses the majority of the population's feelings.HJCarden wrote: ↑March 11th, 2021, 10:42 amI do not think the government should outlaw abortion. I just believe it is immoral.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 10th, 2021, 1:54 pmThat (the maternal interest subservient to the fetal) is one opinion, but should abortion be illegal?HJCarden wrote: ↑March 10th, 2021, 10:53 amMy argument implied that I believe the right of the fetus begins at conception, because that is a fair moment, from whence onwards, that one can will their existence and their life. I think that the maternal view is relevant up until that very moment. Discounting cases of rape or when a mother is not educated enough to know the results of unprotected sex, then the mother's view takes precedence. After conception, she is then exerting her will OVER the will of another being that has the right to will their existence from that point onwards.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 10th, 2021, 4:14 am
So since you're not lobbying to make abortion illegal, is your point that when considering the issue of abortion from the fetal perspective, that it starts being a moral concern at conception, but that you choose not to consider the maternal view in this debate format, although you realize it too is an important issue (just one you choose to not address here?)
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
viewtopic.php?p=379860#p379860HJCarden wrote:I did believe myself to be consistent in my argument. I set out a starting point for when I believe that the will of another person should be considered, and provided a justification for such. I do not believe that my conclusion leads to absurdity. I do not think that my statements must lead to absurdity, otherwise I would not argue for them.
viewtopic.php?p=379861#p379861
viewtopic.php?p=379862#p379862
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
-In order to make a moral evaluation of a act, you first need to define morality and the criteria used behind a moral judgment. In our Secular Societies, we define morality(a moral act) as an act that promotes the well being of our societies and their individual members.
According to Situational Ethics(Criterion of our Punitive Justice) and the basic Criterion of morality that allows us to make objective moral judgements (Well being), abortion alone can not be evaluate as a moral or immoral act.
On the other hand, grading special rights on the expense of bodily authority rights of others is unethical(against their well being ) and Illegal!. Nobody has the right to survive on the expense of other people's biology. i.e. We don't force people to donate blood or organs and we don't force fathers to donate his kidneys or their heart to their children with serious organ failures.
Grading special rights in democratic societies is an illegal act and unethical even if children were born at the age of 12 with full conscious abilities. Consciousness or person-hood doesn't give the right to violate the rights and well being of other members of the society.
Moreover, we know from the late 90's research that unwanted children rise the percentage of teenage and adult crime in our societies(this means people are murdered and abused because of anti abortion policies). A series of abortion bills during the 80-90s in the US caused a huge drop in teenage crime rates the following 12-18 years.(Freeconomics, Robert Sapolsky work etc).
It appears that "wanting a kid plays a huge role in his future personality and behavior", among other things of course.
So anti abortion bills are by definition unethical since they statistically affect the well being of parents kids and their societies.
-Science is HOW we inform our Philosophy. It is how we demarcate good philosophy from pseudo philosophy. IF....I say IF for you or me , consciousness is a basic criterion of what we see as"murder", then a. all meat eaters are murderers by definition and or b. we conclusively know that a fetus doesn't have the "hardware" to be aware of its emotions, let alone to be able to consciously reason them in to feelings! The science is clear and the terminology informative.-I think that if abortion is wrong, it must be wrong from the moment of conception, otherwise the argument becomes stuck in a quagmire of medical terminology and arguments about subjective conscious experiences.
So for me, trying to exclude scientific knowledge that is undermines a specific criterion...is not reasonable or philosophically correct.
But since you don't adopt this criterion lets address the one you accept!
- "Person" is a far more complex and muddy concept that is specifically used on postnatal humans! But independent of what you or anyone decides to mean by that word, a woman is, without a doubt, a person and has rights that can't and shouldn't be violated by any other person under any excuse or condition.-While I do allow that there is a large portion of a pregnancy in which the fetus is not conscious, I do not think this matters, as I believe that at conception is the moment where the conscious will of a person begins.
A pregnancy is a process during which a fetus uses the body of an other person to survive. An abortion is the termination of this process when the person doesn't give the permission for others to use her body. The pregnancy is terminated and the fetus dies, like any other human person that lacks basic biological autonomy.
This is what the US national heath system does when it denies care to poor people with compromised biological autonomy, but we don't find its moral dimensions philosophically interesting...
- First of all you are ignoring the fact that 70% fertilized eggs "die" within the first weeks(this is what happens during the period known as"trying" to get pregnant). Secondly you are also ignoring that in 2010 (US latest figures) out of 6.2 million pregnancies only 4 million had a live birth outcome.- From the moment an egg is fertilized, barring any mishaps, there is not confusion as to what it will become.
So "what it will become" of a pregnancy is far from guaranteed or know.!
But again, that is not a relevant argument. We know that fertilized human eggs, if everything goes will produce a human baby. The real issue here is if we have the right to tell other people(persons) what they should do with their bodies and their health and surrender their bodily rights?
-That process takes place in other persons' bodies. These persons have the right to decide whether they are willing to offer their body and put it in a long period of huge stress and risk their health and life. Its not our call, no matter if this process enables the procreation of our species.-"That is the process by which life is created, so while it might be "just a clump of cells" for a while, if the pregnancy continues without any problems, a child will be produced at the end. This child is born, hopefully lives a good full life and dies. "
-That argument doesn't really favors your position. People decide about their own bodies and organs. We can not force them to donate their organs just because other people need them to survive. This is the same logic behind bodily autonomy rights.-"The crux of my argument stems from how we treat people after death. Why do people write wills, why do we ask whether people want to be organ donors or not?"
-Now you are changing your criterion. But yes it does matter even if they are not conscious anymore. When they were conscious they expressed their wishes regarding their belongings. A fetus was never conscious (irrelevant in my opinion) and never expressed any wishes on things it didn't own. Even important biological functions for its survival are not its own.-"Since this person is unconscious, does it matter what their conscious will was? "
- a fetus is not a person, it never experienced any conscious states and even if it did, its will to survive doesn't justify the violation of other person's bodily autonomy. It has the same rights with every other organism that can't sustain its existence on its own.-"I believe our treatment of the dead hints that we know a person's conscious will can extend beyond their consciousness. "
-So its ok for you to tell and force people what to do with their bodies, risk their health and life during pregnancy, force a good percentage of unwanted kids to have an miserable life and existence while making other people's lives miserable too, maybe take their own lives as you said,some of them because they can not have an abortion,....just because you arbitrarily declared a fetus to be a person or because you find some kind of secret (anthropocentric) value in the process?-"I think its safe to assume (referencing statistics on teen suicide, which is probably around the age where a person can first start contemplating their will to live) that most people prefer to be alive as early in their life as they can grasp that their life is something they can will to exist or to not exist. In the same way that I hope people will respect the wishes of my will, I would expect that they respect with an even higher standard my wishes for my own life. "
This is not what morality is for.
We make moral judgments because we are interested in identifying which acts will affect our well being negative...not a hypothetical scenario on the potentials of a fertilized egg!
-Well that is an argument from emotion, a logical fallacy that doesn't take in to account any facts in its attempt to support its premises.I am unsure whether this is a new argument or not, but the genesis of my idea was that I personally, would have been pretty ticked off had I been aborted, and from there I derived this justification of that sentiment.
First of all with "ifs" we don't reconstruct models of reality so our evaluations are hypothetical and irrelevant to the facts. Well they can only be relevant to how "we feel"...but how we feel about something is not how we make our moral judgments. Secondly I accept your preference for you to exist, but your preference only exists because you DO exist. As I said your hypothetical "scenario" can not be used in a moral argument.
In my opinion, Abortion is morally neutral, based on personal decision and family planning of course, since a fetus is not yet a member of a society or an autonomous organism. Abortion is a small "drop" in the wasteful process of what we know as human procreation and our Economical and Health Care Systems are the real "immoral thugs" of our actions and I wish people gave up this "abortion" talk and focus on thing that really affect our well being!
On the other hand fighting against abortion is definitely an immoral act since it has consequences on all the members involved and the society it self.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
1. Repeatedly I said that my argument does not concern these cases.
-So are you advocating for Situational ethics ? Do you think that Abortion is ok but under specific conditions it can be immoral? If so then can you list the conditions?
2. All conscious human life is worth preserving to the best of our ability.
-In 2010 I had a bike accident and I was unconscious for 3 weeks. As an unconscious human life for that short period..do you think that my worth changed? Is the current population of the earth (+7billion) an effort to the best of our ability to preserve conscious human life? IF so, how is it linked and morally undermined by Abortion? ( I am addressing the abstract concept of conscious human life to be clear).
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023