An Argument Against Abortion
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am
An Argument Against Abortion
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.
- 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
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.
"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.
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
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.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.
- Inquinsitive_mind
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 27th, 2021, 4:42 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
- Inquinsitive_mind
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 27th, 2021, 4:42 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
[/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.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
There's no good reason to attribute "conscious will" to an embryo.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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
Perhaps an idle question, and you obviously don't have to answer: are you traditionally male, traditionally female or LGBTQ?
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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."
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.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.
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.
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: 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.
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: 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.
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: 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.
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: 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.
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.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.
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."
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
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.
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.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.
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.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
Not all pregnancies can be carried to full term.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.
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?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
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!).
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
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.
Yes, that.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?
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.
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
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.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: An Argument Against Abortion
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
That's a big assumption, given the current state of women's empowerment world-wide.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)
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.than the mother's autonomy is being placed against the autonomy of the fetus.
Not unlike all the male dominated religious and legislative bodies that preside the fate of women and children.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.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023