An Argument Against Abortion

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
HJCarden
Posts: 137
Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by HJCarden »

Steve3007 wrote: March 11th, 2021, 12:34 pm
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".
That 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.

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.
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.
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by BobS »

HJCarden wrote: March 9th, 2021, 10:38 pm If I told my spouse that I will cheat on her, but I haven't yet, is she justified in divorcing me?
I missed this one the first time around.

The answer is yes.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Alias »

HJCarden wrote: March 11th, 2021, 5:50 pm 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.
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.
I do not think that my statements must lead to absurdity, otherwise I would not argue for them.
You haven't argued them. All you've done was repeat your belief without responding to any of the objections or questions.

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?
HJCarden
Posts: 137
Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by HJCarden »

Alias wrote: March 11th, 2021, 9:41 pm
HJCarden wrote: March 11th, 2021, 5:50 pm 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.
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.
I do not think that my statements must lead to absurdity, otherwise I would not argue for them.
You haven't argued them. All you've done was repeat your belief without responding to any of the objections or questions.

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?
I have defended my beliefs and given rationale for them. I do not know what you missed.

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.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Alias »

HJCarden wrote: March 11th, 2021, 9:46 pm To respond to your points
1. Repeatedly I said that my argument does not concern these cases.
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?
2. All conscious human life is worth preserving to the best of our ability.
Okay, but you've been advocating here for not-yet-conscious human life.
Is it your position that the lives of all not-human conscious entities are not worth preserving?
3. It has no relation as far as the scope of my argument is concerned.
The killing of conscious, viable humans by any means and methods other than abortion are beyond the scope of your argument.
No one else brought this up.
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.
4. I cannot divine which would chose their life over oblivion.
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.
I think what is fair is to give them a shot,
In a fair world, it would be. This, in case you have not noticed, is not a fair world.
and if they don't like it, a stoic suicide is always an option.
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.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by BobS »

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.
HJCarden wrote: March 11th, 2021, 11:02 am In a sense, I think a consenting and knowledgeable mother forfeits her right to be the only moral agent in the scenario when a child is conceived.
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.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by LuckyR »

HJCarden wrote: March 11th, 2021, 10:42 am
LuckyR wrote: March 10th, 2021, 1:54 pm
HJCarden wrote: March 10th, 2021, 10:53 am
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?)
My 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.
That (the maternal interest subservient to the fetal) is one opinion, but should abortion be illegal?
I do not think the government should outlaw abortion. I just believe it is immoral.
That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that IMO encompasses the majority of the population's feelings.
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Steve3007 »

HJCarden 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=379860#p379860
viewtopic.php?p=379861#p379861
viewtopic.php?p=379862#p379862
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by NickGaspar »

HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm
-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.
-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.
-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.
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!
-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.
- "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.
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...
- From the moment an egg is fertilized, barring any mishaps, there is not confusion as to what it will become.
- 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.
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 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 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.
-"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?"
-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.
-"Since this person is unconscious, does it matter what their conscious will was? "
-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.
-"I believe our treatment of the dead hints that we know a person's conscious will can extend beyond their consciousness. "
- 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 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. "
-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?
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!
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.
-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.
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.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by NickGaspar »

HJCarden wrote: March 11th, 2021, 9:46 pm
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).
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021