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

An Argument Against Abortion

Post by HJCarden »

I believe that abortion is morally wrong for a multitude of reasons, but in this post I will be arguing that abortion is wrong because it violates the conscious will of a person.

I have often heard the idea that a fetus is not conscious brought up in arguments concerning abortion, with this being used to justify the fetus as a "parasite" or not having a will of its own. I also think that deciding at what point in a pregnancy a fetus is conscious, alive, a real person or whatever is never going to provide satisfying results beyond those intended to produce an emotional response. 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.

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. This child is born, hopefully lives a good full life and dies.

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? Since this person is unconscious, does it matter what their conscious will was? I believe our treatment of the dead hints that we know a person's conscious will can extend beyond their consciousness.

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.

Therefore, I believe it is correct to assume that from the moment a person's life becomes possible (fertilization/conception/what have you) there is incredibly small reason to believe that person would will their life to be ended, which makes abortion a violation of their conscious will, despite it pre-dating consciousness.

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.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

If we can be 100% sure a person will come to be alive and conscious in the future, and can predict what their conscious will will be in that future, then the parallel to a dead person's past will seems to work.

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.

Thus, a better analogy might be the last will and testament written by a fictional character who it turns out never actually existed in the past or future.

I also presumably don't agree with the premise that it is 'immoral' (whatever that means) to disregard the conscious will of a dead person after their death.

A loosely related topic that puts similar concepts into a more legalistic context is my topic, Time and Consent.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
HJCarden
Posts: 137
Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by HJCarden »

Scott wrote: March 8th, 2021, 2:22 pm If we can be 100% sure a person will come to be alive and conscious in the future, and can predict what their conscious will will be in that future, then the parallel to a dead person's past will seems to work.

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.
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.
User avatar
Inquinsitive_mind
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: February 27th, 2021, 4:42 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Inquinsitive_mind »

I disagree with the argument that abortion is violating "the conscious will of a person". Your argument stems from the idea that eventually, later in life, the fetus would possibly want to stay alive. However, that will does not exist at the time that the mother is contemplating abortion. Although that will may exist in a conscious person at some point, it does not currently exist. A fetus would not be able to desire something that it does not know. The analogy used to compare someone with certain desires after death, i.e. organ donation, does not parallel the idea of abortion. In the organ donation scenario, that person was able to make an informed decision that they then formalized through a legal avenue. It is not the same thing, it is not even similar. Your desire to stay alive and your gratefulness that you were not aborted as a fetus is through experiences and knowledge that a fetus does not have.
User avatar
Inquinsitive_mind
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: February 27th, 2021, 4:42 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Inquinsitive_mind »

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.
[/quote]

Where did you derive the "99.99% accuracy that if the fetus is born then they would like to stay alive" statistic from? Considering that suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States and many more people contemplate suicide, this statistic seems very high... Furthermore, even if the statistic is accurate, this presentation of the data is misleading. It makes it seem as though there are very few exceptions to "will to live" when the reality is that over 100 Americans commit suicide daily and for every one of those suicides, there are approximately 25 attempts.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Count Lucanor »

HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm I believe that abortion is morally wrong for a multitude of reasons, but in this post I will be arguing that abortion is wrong because it violates the conscious will of a person.
For the sake of the argument, one might concede that abortion is morally wrong, but then one could also acknowledge the following:

- It is generally agreed that there's a spectrum of moral wrongness and that societies set limits of tolerance based on this spectrum. So it could be that abortion is morally wrong, but just as wrong as lying to your neighbor or cheating on your wife. I'm not saying it is, I'm just setting an example.

- Based on the above, just because abortion is morally wrong, doesn't mean it can be made illegal and punishable. There are tons of immoral acts which are not illegal.
HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pmI have often heard the idea that a fetus is not conscious brought up in arguments concerning abortion, with this being used to justify the fetus as a "parasite" or not having a will of its own.
I'm pretty sure most arguments concerning the consciousness of a fetus have very little to do with "having a will" and other abstract notions of autonomy, and more to do with the level of suffering inflicted on the fetus, since it is the consciousness of pain that serves as a measure that triggers our empathic responses.
HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm I also think that deciding at what point in a pregnancy a fetus is conscious, alive, a real person or whatever is never going to provide satisfying results beyond those intended to produce an emotional response. 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.
First, you cannot rule out emotions as elements that take part in the context of moral judgements. Surely, moral rules are rationally prescribed, but that doesn't mean emotional responses cannot be weighed in. Secondly, the complexities of the information to consider cannot be the justification for choosing a moral stance. If you're going to advance the notion that the moment of conception is the key aspect of the arguments for or against abortion, you must provide the appropriate justification in the context of the argument itself, in other words, how it is relevant to the point being advanced.
HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm 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.
Besides your personal belief about this, what else can you offer that should be taken into account for the belief of others? I personally don't believe that there's a conscious will at the moment of conception, simply because I associate consciousness to the function of certain systems that are not yet developed in that initial stage. This latter assertion of yours is also at odds with your first assertion that the moment when the fetus is conscious is irrelevant to the moral issue.
HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm 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. This child is born, hopefully lives a good full life and dies.
And so? It is questionable to assert that "there is not confusion as to what it will become". From a purely biological perspective, a small clump of cells called embryo will become a bigger clump of cells called fetus and later a much bigger clump of cells called a child. Nothing here gives a particular insight into what this life will become outside the womb. All value is inserted in the context of social life, which includes the mother and the whole cultural environment. It is there where "what one will become" obtains significance, but that includes the possibility of not becoming anything.
HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm 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? Since this person is unconscious, does it matter what their conscious will was? I believe our treatment of the dead hints that we know a person's conscious will can extend beyond their consciousness.
People can pay respect to their dead ones without having any belief about their consciousness being active after death. That may be your religious belief, and certainly the religious belief of many, but that doesn't make it an innate belief. Also, you are referring only to how some people treat some of the dead sometimes. And since the argument against abortion is always concerned with the value of life, perhaps it should be more important to see how people treat the living ones, which I'm afraid often doesn't make a good argument.
HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm
Therefore, I believe it is correct to assume that from the moment a person's life becomes possible (fertilization/conception/what have you) there is incredibly small reason to believe that person would will their life to be ended, which makes abortion a violation of their conscious will, despite it pre-dating consciousness.
There's no good reason to attribute "conscious will" to an embryo.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by BobS »

HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm
Perhaps an idle question, and you obviously don't have to answer: are you traditionally male, traditionally female or LGBTQ?
HJCarden wrote: I believe that abortion is morally wrong for a multitude of reasons, but in this post I will be arguing that abortion is wrong because it violates the conscious will of a person.
If one didn't read your entire message, this introductory comment would lead one to suppose that your claim was that abortion becomes wrong at the stage at which a fetus first develops the ability to make choices from among its desires, since "the will" is generally understood to refer to such a mechanism. The phrase "conscious will" entails a conscious fetus that can form intentions, broadly speaking, or desires, or have instincts, whatever, giving us a temporal sequence: conception, later consciousness, still later a will.

But your discussion seems to reject that temporal sequence, for at the very end you introduce the idea that abortion is wrong from the moment of conception because the "conscious will" already exists at that point, even though you concede that consciousness doesn't. As I point out at the end, the idea of a "conscious will" divorced from an existing consciousness is incoherent.
HJCarden wrote: I have often heard the idea that a fetus is not conscious brought up in arguments concerning abortion, with this being used to justify the fetus as a "parasite" or not having a will of its own.
That's a new one on me. I've never heard anyone refer to a fetus as a parasite, yet you say that you've often heard it. What were the contexts in which these assertions were made so frequently?

Referring to a fetus as a parasite seems rather extraordinary. My impression is that most people who support abortion rights would also take a dim view of anyone who assaulted a pregnant woman (one who intended to give birth) for the purpose of harming the fetus. A number of states have laws against that, laws that are entirely consistent with the constitutional right to have an abortion. People don't have the same attitude in the case of "parasites." ("Hey! You harmed my parasite, you bastard!" just sounds a bit off.)

Now, if what you heard was right-to-lifers castigating abortion rights advocates by claiming that the latter consider fetuses to be parasites, I could understand that. All sorts of accusations are thrown around in that arena.

But yes, if a fetus doesn't have consciousness, it logically follows that it doesn't have a "conscious will," the concept that you rely on for your ultimate conclusion. And since along the way you claim that the concept of consciousness can't ever lead to a satisfying result, it logically follows that neither can the concept of "conscious will."
HJCarden wrote: I also think that deciding at what point in a pregnancy a fetus is conscious, alive, a real person or whatever is never going to provide satisfying results beyond those intended to produce an emotional response.
Without having a great deal of knowledge in this area, my first supposition would be that the idea of consciousness can be (roughly) correlated to something factual, but I'm willing to be corrected on that point. If it can be, then the fact that you doubt ever getting what you consider "satisfying results" on the nature of consciousness may simply entail that that moral issue is a difficult one, perhaps insoluble, perhaps not, depending on further scientific developments.

But given the premise that morals apply when it comes to the issue of abortion, you put yourself in a tricky position when you suggest that an assertedly moral concern (e.g., consciousness) be abandoned as a relevant consideration because of practical difficulties. (I imagine that many other anti-abortion types would make tsk tsking sounds at this point.) Perhaps you can demonstrate that that is (or should be) so in this particular case, but you haven't done that here.

Or, perhaps, you may have unexpressed reasons that go beyond the practical for concluding that the question of consciousness isn't relevant to whether abortion is morally wrong. But whatever the basis for your conclusion, the conclusion itself automatically undermines the claim that you make at the end, that the "conscious will" is a relevant consideration.

As for whether fetuses are "alive" (as opposed to not being "viable" at the earlier stages of development), I'm not aware than anyone contests that general proposition. But if you want to get down to specifics, such as two seconds after conception? I'd have to say that I, for one, don't know but assume that that should be called life. It doesn't help that there's no general agreement on what "life" is, but if we consider plants to be alive, then it's fine with me to consider fetuses alive from the moment of conception. But what sort of moral principles, if any, we then establish regarding fetuses still remains to be seen.

As for whether a fetus is "real person", that strikes me as a conclusion that some might be inclined to use as emotional support for whatever conclusion they've already arrived at.

As for your assertion that certain concepts can't provide "satisfying results beyond those intended to produce an emotional response" and therefore must be abandoned, since you're the one making a case, the burden is on you to show that the concept that you rely on (the "conscious will") doesn't have the same defect. I don't see anywhere in your message that you've even tried to do that.
HJCarden wrote: 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.
All right, you've told us what to avoid: terminology and possible facts concerning consciousness. Aside from whether anyone cares to agree with that, tell us what you think we should consider. I warn you that if you posit an incoherent concept of a "conscious will that pre-dates consciousness," you'll have big trouble convincing many people. And I suspect that you won't convince anyone who doesn't already take marching orders on the subject from a particular religion.
HJCarden wrote: 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.
This is contradictory. How the heck can something be conscious (i.e., have a "conscious will") without being conscious? What can that possibly mean?
HJCarden wrote: 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. This child is born, hopefully lives a good full life and dies.
All of this seems quite mundane. I don't see how it sheds any light on your claim, especially since you've already rejected the relevance of matters such as the fact that a fetus is "alive."
HJCarden wrote: 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? Since this person is unconscious, does it matter what their conscious will was? I believe our treatment of the dead hints that we know a person's conscious will can extend beyond their consciousness.
People write wills because they care about their heirs and other people. The law enforces wills as part of the law's responsibility for providing order in certain social situations. None of that hints that it's not contradictory to talk about a "conscious will" that exists separate from "consciousness."
HJCarden wrote: 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.

Therefore, I believe it is correct to assume that from the moment a person's life becomes possible (fertilization/conception/what have you) there is incredibly small reason to believe that person would will their life to be ended, which makes abortion a violation of their conscious will, despite it pre-dating consciousness.
Well, you've already said that you "do allow that there is a large portion of a pregnancy in which the fetus is not conscious." Once you've made that concession, no talk of a "conscious will" is going to help. Your undefined concept of a "conscious will that pre-dates consciousness" simply makes no sense, because the very use of the word "conscious" in the phrase "conscious will" entails that consciousness must already have been established.

Also, your assertion that "there is incredibly small reason to believe that person would will their life to be ended" begs the question. For a fetus1 to will its life to be ended (or not ended) presupposes that it's capable of having thoughts on the issue, the thing that you're claiming, but not demonstrating, exists from the moment of conception. I'll go you a step further, and say that there's no reason, not just small reason, to believe that at the moment of conception a fetus would will anything regarding the ending of its life. But the reason is that it simply doesn't have a will.

Finally, even ignoring the logical connection between consciousness and the conscious will, given your rejection of consciousness as a consideration that's relevant to the morality of abortion, perhaps you could explain why your idea of a conscious will that pre-dates consciousness doesn't fail to be relevant for the same reason.

1 You used the word "person" instead of fetus, but I changed it back in light of your earlier rejection of terms such as "real person" because they're "never going to provide satisfying results beyond those intended to produce an emotional response."
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 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm I believe that abortion is morally wrong for a multitude of reasons, but in this post I will be arguing that abortion is wrong because it violates the conscious will of a person.
What's the precept that mandates the conscious will of a living person as the paramount arbiter of moral decisions?

Why "living person", but not living cow, goat, aardvark or snow leopard?

Yes, it's reasonable to assume that any living thing wants to stay alive - including the bacilli and insects and birds and fish we slaughter by the billions without a second's thought. Do all of these entities know what their life will be like? What they're surviving for? How much they're about to suffer? Mostly, no.
Except for old, sick, badly damaged humans who long for death that is denied to them by the same religious scruples that forbid the termination of a malformed foetus - and at the same time, sanction the death penalty for people who may or not be guilty of heinous crimes, but would prefer to live.
I have often heard the idea that a fetus is not conscious brought up in arguments concerning abortion, with this being used to justify the fetus as a "parasite" or not having a will of its own. I also think that deciding at what point in a pregnancy a fetus is conscious, alive, a real person or whatever is never going to provide satisfying results beyond those intended to produce an emotional response. 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.
It's already a quagmire of people with no skin in the game pronouncing what's moral and what isn't, without considering practical conditions or the rationale of their various righteous stands on various issues.

If you can lay out a coherent plan for which life is to be preserved by what means for what reasons, and empower every conscious living being to choose their own course, and level the field so that all women have equal opportunity to decide whether and when to become pregnant, and all pregnancies carried to term are safe and all babies born are properly supported and loved, then you get a say.
Just a say, mind, not the deciding vote.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by LuckyR »

Any discussion of abortion that ignores the issue of the mother's autonomy, is at best incomplete, but more likely is intentionally misleading.
"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 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.
I think whether we like it or not life is messy and we often have to make decisions based on what might seem like arbitrary dividing lines. Abortion is a classic example of a situation like that. I think you're effectively saying "I'm going to rush to one of the extremes because I don't like the mess". Some other people, for similar reasons, rush to the other extreme. I disagree with both. I don't think we can ignore the mess.
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? Since this person is unconscious, does it matter what their conscious will was? I believe our treatment of the dead hints that we know a person's conscious will can extend beyond their consciousness.
I disagree. I think it's because we consider the feelings of those left behind and recognize that a single person is part of a community/society/family.
Therefore, I believe it is correct to assume that from the moment a person's life becomes possible (fertilization/conception/what have you) there is incredibly small reason to believe that person would will their life to be ended, which makes abortion a violation of their conscious will, despite it pre-dating consciousness.
The possibility of future sentient life exists before that. Your argument could also be used to conclude that contraception and masturbation should also be regarded as immoral and/or illegal.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Sculptor1 »

Alias wrote: March 9th, 2021, 12:20 am If you can lay out a coherent plan for which life is to be preserved by what means for what reasons, and empower every conscious living being to choose their own course, and level the field so that all women have equal opportunity to decide whether and when to become pregnant, and all pregnancies carried to term are safe and all babies born are properly supported and loved, then you get a say.
Just a say, mind, not the deciding vote.
Not all pregnancies can be carried to full term.

No one knows about many natural abortions, miscarriages, and failures there are but the "estimated figure is that miscarriage happens in around 1 in 4 recognised pregnancies, with 85% of those happening in the first trimester (weeks 1 to 12). A 'late' miscarriage, which is much less common, may occur between weeks 13 to 24 of pregnancy."
Beyond 24 weeks there are still natural failures, dead births, and maternal fatalities.

So, whatever a woman might decide to do with her own body, it remains true that GOD IS THE BIGGEST ABORTIONIST on the planet.


As for childern getting the care, love and attention they need, I do not see the religious right on any personal crusades to adopt the world's millions of desperate children.
Until every child can be guarenteed a decent life why bring more unwanted children into the world?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

HJCarden wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:03 pm Therefore, I believe it is correct to assume that from the moment a person's life becomes possible (fertilization/conception/what have you) there is incredibly small reason to believe that person would will their life to be ended, which makes abortion a violation of their conscious will, despite it pre-dating consciousness.

My take on this is a little different. Human-performed abortions are a recent development. Only a few years ago, these abortions were not possible (without probably killing the mother too). But now they are. So who has the right to perform an abortion? Who has the right to decide that a developing life will be extinguished? In my views, only the parents may make this decision, just as they made the decision to conceive in the first place. Ideally, of course, the conception would never have taken place, if the baby was not wanted. But the world is not ideal, and babies are conceived when they are not wanted, or where the parents cannot support and raise a child, etc.

Given that there are 8,000,000,000 of us, our world does NOT neeed any more, especially if they are unwanted. So I beleive, pragmatically, that an unwanted child may be terminated. Yes, the child is killed. Yes, in an ideal world, this would be avoidable and avoided. But in the real world, our choices are rarely simple. So I believe that the parents - and no-one else, individual or corporate - may decide not to have their baby; to kill it. But, to repeat, I agree that it would have been better if they didn't make a baby in the first place, if they didn't want it or were unable to care properly for it.

Ideal-world pronouncements are unhelpful in this difficult matter. I recommend pragmatism. And (human) population-reduction (no, not mass execution!).
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by Alias »

Sculptor1 wrote: March 9th, 2021, 6:25 am [and all pregnancies carried to term are safe and all babies born are properly supported and loved, then you get a say.
Just a say, mind, not the deciding vote.]

Not all pregnancies can be carried to full term.
I phrased it clumsily. I meant : if you can guarantee that all those pregnancies which the mother and nature and medical science all agree to bring to terms; and also, furthermore, that all those babies that are eventually born alive get the support and love they need to thrive.... then...
I didn't think the OP was trying to make a moral case against miscarriage. If he were, he's have to take it up with an authority beyond my ken.
As for childern getting the care, love and attention they need, I do not see the religious right on any personal crusades to adopt the world's millions of desperate children.
Until every child can be guarenteed a decent life why bring more unwanted children into the world?
Yes, that.
Also:
No moral pronouncement is worth considering unless it's comprehensive and based in a single, solid premise. Abortion is not a separate issue from all other considerations of life and death, but the self-appointed judges talk as if it existed in isolation from the world's conflicts, injustices and misfortunes.
HJCarden
Posts: 137
Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am

Re: An Argument Against Abortion

Post by HJCarden »

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.
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 9th, 2021, 11:02 am 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?
Each argument doesn't need to be comprehensive, so long as you are prepared to present an argument, based on the same principle, for all other issues of a similar kind. The principle on which a moral stance is based does need to be both comprehensive and sound.

I
f 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)
That's a big assumption, given the current state of women's empowerment world-wide.
than the mother's autonomy is being placed against the autonomy of the fetus.
Wherein, you speak for the foetuses of the entire human race, and advocate for a foetal will that you claim to in present and projected future, while the women may or may not be allowed to speak for themselves.
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.
Not unlike all the male dominated religious and legislative bodies that preside the fate of women and children.
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