An Argument Against Abortion

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Alias »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 9th, 2021, 8:19 am Human-performed abortions are a recent development.
Not really. Hippocrates put it in his oath for physicians. Midwives were prosecuted as witches throughout the Christian dark ages - which haven't necessarily ended yet. Yes, the mother did very often die - but given the treatment of unwed mothers and their babies, it wasn't that big a gamble. Other societies dealt with unwanted children after birth - killing them outright, or putting them in a designated place to be found by childless women or jackals. Overpopulation and poorly timed births are not a new problem.

Reliable, safe contraception, however, is relatively new. That is, available in the west since the middle of the 20th century. Yet outlawed by most of those same countries for decades, and is still made difficult in many US states.
Why have the anti-abortion factions not been advocating for sex education and birth control information and prevention for all? Seems to me so much more "moral" (also way cheaper and easier and less painful) to avoid unwanted pregnancies than to terminate them.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Gertie »

HJ

The foetus doesn't have a conscious will. So your claim actually rests on the potential for the foetus to become a person with a conscious will, who would have made the choice to be born.


Once you get into the realm of potential people's wishes, it's not rational to draw an arbitrary line at conception. You also have to consider contraception which prevents the birth of a person with a conscious will. In fact every moment we are not trying to make a baby is preventing the birth of a potential person who may subsequently wish to have been born.


That's a more difficult ''argument from potential personhood'' to make tho, because people realise it would be a huge burden on them, on society as a whole, and probably unsustainable. So we draw lines on the rights of potential persons' future possible wishes and rights. We don't treat it as a deciding factor, and neither do you here. We pick a moment when we consider this ought to come into play, as you are doing by picking conception. And try to see what would justify the right moment.


So if you are using this ''argument from potential personhood'', the burden for you is to justify the point which you claim it becomes the over-riding factor in terms of either morality, pragmatism, law or whatever basis you're arguing from. It looks like you're arguing on the basis of morality here, which gives you the burden of explaining why moral consideration of potential persons kicks in at conception. Which you do here -

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. From the moment an egg is fertilized, barring any mishaps, there is not confusion as to what it will become. 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.

But your argument is that the conscious will of a person begins when an unconscious sperm interacts with an unconscious egg. This is not true. A fertilised egg has neither consciousness nor has will. You say yourself the egg isn't conscious. You fall back on that being the moment a potential identifiable individual life is created instead. Which requires its own justification for choosing that moment, if as you say, the fertilised egg isn't conscious.


So this argument fails imo. Try it as a syllogism or similar summary, and it will be clearer where the problems lie.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Steve3007 »

Scott wrote:However, it seems to me the fallacy in the argument of the OP is that, if the pregnancy is terminated, then there is no future conscious will.
HJCarden wrote:This is my argument in essence. We can predict with 99.99% accuracy that if the fetus is born then they would like to stay alive. Saying that if the pregnancy is terminated there will be no conscious will is obvious but NOT terminating the pregnancy is what I am arguing for. My argument is that IF the pregnancy was not terminated THEN the person would almost certainly want to be alive.
The point is that you're arguing for not terminating the pregnancy on the basis that a future conscious will desires, in the future, to stay alive. But if there is no future conscious will then the argument collapses.

If you're going to argue on the basis of potential future conscious will then you'll quickly find yourself in a reductio ad absurdum. For example, to be consistent, you'll have to argue that because I have the potential to have a child 10 years from now, and if I do the child will desire to live, then I have the obligation to have a child 10 years from now.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Steve3007 »

Gertie wrote:Once you get into the realm of potential people's wishes, it's not rational to draw an arbitrary line at conception. You also have to consider contraception which prevents the birth of a person with a conscious will. In fact every moment we are not trying to make a baby is preventing the birth of a potential person who may subsequently wish to have been born.
Exactly.
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by BobS »

LuckyR wrote: March 9th, 2021, 4:08 am Any discussion of abortion that ignores the issue of the mother's autonomy, is at best incomplete, but more likely is intentionally misleading.
Although I'm certainly not in the camp that campaigns against abortion, I have to disagree with this statement

Fine points aside, the unbreachable divide between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps is that the former consider the lives of fetuses to be sacred, the latter do not. Once you consider a fetus's life to be sacred, the mother's autonomy becomes pretty much irrelevant, just as her autonomy isn't a consideration in deciding whether she should be allowed to kill her one-year old.

As I see it, that makes compromise between the two camps impossible, but it doesn't render the pro-lifer's ignoring the mother's autonomy disingenuous.

But aside from the sanctity of life argument, every other other argument that I've ever coming from the "pro-life" camp (such as the one that started this thread) reminds me of the various logical "proofs" of the existence of God. They're all pathetically weak (to put it mildly), but religious types keep presenting them because of their emotional investment in the issue, logic be damned.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by LuckyR »

HJCarden wrote: March 9th, 2021, 11:02 am
LuckyR wrote: March 9th, 2021, 4:08 am Any discussion of abortion that ignores the issue of the mother's autonomy, is at best incomplete, but more likely is intentionally misleading.
I have presented one argument for believing that abortion is immoral. Do all arguments need to be entirely comprehensive of the issue that they discuss? If you would like me to modify my argument to include the mother's autonomy, I can do so quickly: I believe that if the mother decides to abort a fetus (assuming she consented to the conception of the pregnancy/was informed of the possibility that sex can lead to pregnancy) than the mother's autonomy is being placed against the autonomy of the fetus. In this case it is then the mother using her autonomy to violate the autonomy (which will exist otherwise) of the fetus. This is the strong overpowering the weak. To enumerate the reasons why this is immoral is an entirely different subject.
Uummm... yeah, pretty much if you want to be taken seriously.

Considering one perspective in a situation that has competing interests as the crux of the issue... well, I stand by my original posting.

Given these competing yet independent issues, it is intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge that both perspectives can have moral and immoral elements. Thus identifying a morally troubling aspect on one side of the conflict proves nothing until the opposing side is evaluated.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by LuckyR »

BobS wrote: March 9th, 2021, 1:18 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 9th, 2021, 4:08 am Any discussion of abortion that ignores the issue of the mother's autonomy, is at best incomplete, but more likely is intentionally misleading.
Although I'm certainly not in the camp that campaigns against abortion, I have to disagree with this statement

Fine points aside, the unbreachable divide between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps is that the former consider the lives of fetuses to be sacred, the latter do not. Once you consider a fetus's life to be sacred, the mother's autonomy becomes pretty much irrelevant, just as her autonomy isn't a consideration in deciding whether she should be allowed to kill her one-year old.

As I see it, that makes compromise between the two camps impossible, but it doesn't render the pro-lifer's ignoring the mother's autonomy disingenuous.

But aside from the sanctity of life argument, every other other argument that I've ever coming from the "pro-life" camp (such as the one that started this thread) reminds me of the various logical "proofs" of the existence of God. They're all pathetically weak (to put it mildly), but religious types keep presenting them because of their emotional investment in the issue, logic be damned.
Do they really? Have you ever been to a religious funeral for a miscarriage? No, the sacredness of fetuses was concocted as a posthoc rationalization after abortions were invented.
"As usual... it depends."
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Alias »

BobS wrote: March 9th, 2021, 1:18 pm
Fine points aside, the unbreachable divide between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps is that the former consider the lives of fetuses to be sacred, the latter do not. Once you consider a fetus's life to be sacred, the mother's autonomy becomes pretty much irrelevant, just as her autonomy isn't a consideration in deciding whether she should be allowed to kill her one-year old.
Why is a foetal life - no matter how blighted and sickly - sacred, but an adult life - no matter how strong and vital - not sacred?
You'd think, if all preverbal life were sacred, they'd all be vegan.
You'd think, if all human life were sacred, they'd be all be conscientious objectors, anti-war protestors, police reformers, campaigners against the death penalty and for universal disarmament, climate change and anti-pollution activists.
They don't seem very consistent in their notion of sacredness.
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by BobS »

LuckyR wrote: March 9th, 2021, 3:20 pm
BobS wrote: March 9th, 2021, 1:18 pm Fine points aside, the unbreachable divide between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps is that the former consider the lives of fetuses to be sacred, the latter do not.
Do they really? Have you ever been to a religious funeral for a miscarriage? No, the sacredness of fetuses was concocted as a posthoc rationalization after abortions were invented.
There's a lot of bad faith political manipulation that's gone on and continues to go on in the world of abortion. What set it all off was the deciding of Roe v. Wade at a time when the religious right was hunting around for an issue with which to mobilize the True Believers. People such as Jerry Falwell saw a horse that they could ride, and off they went.

But that said, I don't automatically assume the bad faith of everyone who opposes abortion. Who knows what goes on in the minds of others? All I know is that, atheist that I am, I have had and still have friendly relations (not really close, but friendly nevertheless) with born-again types who consider abortion sinful, and I have no reason to think that their feelings aren't genuine.

Now, exactly what theological distinctions, if any, they draw between fetuses and new born babies, I don't know. Maybe rigorous interrogation would turn up major contradictions, maybe not. It's just my observation that many religious opponents of abortion do in fact see abortion as being (a kind of) murder. Calling a killing "murder" implies an elevated status on the part of the "victim." Whether that status is seen as being exactly the same for a fetus and a new born baby is something beyond my knowledge or interest. I don't debate issues that are solely of theological interest; I merely note the positions that people adopt and the adverse consequences for political life.
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by BobS »

Alias wrote: March 9th, 2021, 3:34 pm They don't seem very consistent in their notion of sacredness.
They don't.

The connection between consistency and religion (or politics, or some other things) is sometimes random, sometimes absent. But that doesn't mean that many people don't sincerely hold certain beliefs, consistent or not.

My original point simply being that, given the existence of beliefs that are mutually adverse (pro-life vs. pro-choice), compromise is impossible.

It's more a topic for law, not philosophy (OK, maybe political philosophy), but it's always been my view that, notwithstanding my personal pro-choice viewpoint, Roe v. Wade has much to answer for in creating a significant part of the current, long-standing, and never-ending dysfunction in American politics. At the time Roe was decided, abortion was legal in some states (admittedly very few), and on the way to becoming legal in others, without the current scale of controversy. A small number of states, to be sure, but change was in the air. The availability of abortion of course wouldn't have been perfect, but matters would have gotten better in a number of places. What Roe did, by making abortion a Constitutional and therefore a national issue, was give the religiouszoids something political to run with -- permanently. The consequence being that abortion is never not going to be an issue on the American political stage, with all the dysfunction that brings.

Why did the religious right supported Donald Trump in such strong numbers? it wasn't because he said he like grabbing women's private parts. It was because of judicial appointments. And now there's a majority on the Supreme Court that's hostile to abortion, with only the extent to which they'll do something about it, in light of stare decisis, remaining to be seen.

No question, as the result of Roe v. Wade the U.S. is now a better place from the standpoint of abortion rights. I suggest that it's less so in some other areas, because of the consequent political dysfunction.

Just my two cents. Others may disagree.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Alias »

BobS wrote: March 9th, 2021, 4:47 pm The connection between consistency and religion (or politics, or some other things) is sometimes random, sometimes absent. But that doesn't mean that many people don't sincerely hold certain beliefs, consistent or not.
And when they present those beliefs in the form of an argument that they claim as a moral principle, it behooves the rest of us to point out the logical and philosophical flaws in those arguments, rather than simply accept them as unchangeable beliefs.

I'm aware of the history, but having piled wrong upon wrong doesn't make the result more acceptable.
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by BobS »

Alias wrote: March 9th, 2021, 5:00 pm
BobS wrote: March 9th, 2021, 4:47 pm The connection between consistency and religion (or politics, or some other things) is sometimes random, sometimes absent. But that doesn't mean that many people don't sincerely hold certain beliefs, consistent or not.
And when they present those beliefs in the form of an argument that they claim as a moral principle, it behooves the rest of us to point out the logical and philosophical flaws in those arguments, rather than simply accept them as unchangeable beliefs.

I'm aware of the history, but having piled wrong upon wrong doesn't make the result more acceptable.
I agree with both of your points. I think my original message in this thread is evidence of my inclination to contest the flaws in the pro-life camp's arguments. (The pro-choice camp comes up with its own howlers, but that's another story.)

But my comment about sincere belief came from a different direction. Remember, the current exchange resulted from my contesting the statement that a position that didn't take the mother's autonomy into account probably was intentionally misleading. I disagreed, because if your position is that the fetus's life is sacred, the issue of autonomy fades into insignificance. You then commented that the pro-choicers' position wasn't very consistent. My reply, pointing out that many beliefs, consistent or not, are sincere was made to reinforce my original point, the one that lead to the current exchange: that since many pro-choicer's belief in sanctity was sincere, there was less reason to think that they were being intentionally misleading by ignoring the mother's autonomy. That doesn't mean that they're consistent, that they're right, that they don't make many goofy arguments (such as the one that started this thread), that they're not a pain in the a** politically, etc. It doesn't mean a whole host of things. It just suggests that they're not being misleading on that particular point. That's all.

It would be better if the pro-lifers weren't sincere. Then one could try to find out what is was that was really troubling them, and try to work that one out politically. Probably an exercise in futility, but there you go.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Alias »

BobS wrote: March 9th, 2021, 6:23 pm But my comment about sincere belief came from a different direction.
Yes, I see where I was overlooking context.
It would be better if the pro-lifers weren't sincere. Then one could try to find out what is was that was really troubling them, and try to work that one out politically. Probably an exercise in futility, but there you go.
Many are sincere; many are barely even bothering to paint a thin pretense of sincerity on their misogyny.
I think that's far nearer the reason the mother's autonomy is not an issue to be considered: she's guilty by definition. The sacredness of life belief may be held sincerely, but it's often held loosely and with little considered conviction, which means it's potentially open to question.
Minds have changed ---
--- one can but live in hope and keep trying.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by LuckyR »

BobS wrote: March 9th, 2021, 4:11 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 9th, 2021, 3:20 pm
BobS wrote: March 9th, 2021, 1:18 pm Fine points aside, the unbreachable divide between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps is that the former consider the lives of fetuses to be sacred, the latter do not.
Do they really? Have you ever been to a religious funeral for a miscarriage? No, the sacredness of fetuses was concocted as a posthoc rationalization after abortions were invented.
There's a lot of bad faith political manipulation that's gone on and continues to go on in the world of abortion. What set it all off was the deciding of Roe v. Wade at a time when the religious right was hunting around for an issue with which to mobilize the True Believers. People such as Jerry Falwell saw a horse that they could ride, and off they went.

But that said, I don't automatically assume the bad faith of everyone who opposes abortion. Who knows what goes on in the minds of others? All I know is that, atheist that I am, I have had and still have friendly relations (not really close, but friendly nevertheless) with born-again types who consider abortion sinful, and I have no reason to think that their feelings aren't genuine.

Now, exactly what theological distinctions, if any, they draw between fetuses and new born babies, I don't know. Maybe rigorous interrogation would turn up major contradictions, maybe not. It's just my observation that many religious opponents of abortion do in fact see abortion as being (a kind of) murder. Calling a killing "murder" implies an elevated status on the part of the "victim." Whether that status is seen as being exactly the same for a fetus and a new born baby is something beyond my knowledge or interest. I don't debate issues that are solely of theological interest; I merely note the positions that people adopt and the adverse consequences for political life.
No doubt there are folks who put the rights of fetuses above that of women. We all agree there. I was commenting on the lack of internal consistancy of the "sacred at the moment of conception" concept that many parrot but few analyze.
"As usual... it depends."
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Alias »

?......analyze.....?
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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