The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Is abortion wrong?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 4th, 2019, 9:09 am

Fdesilva wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 3:16 am

If it is in the context that human life is good, then the survival of a given humans life is dependent on other humans,
Good in practical terms or moral ones? From the social standpoint or the individual? Death is part of the human experience and actually necessary for survival of the species as a whole. So, from that point o view, human death is good, too.
Fdesilva wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 3:16 am

If the context is humaneness then All humans have the same degree of humanness because humaneness is not measure by the volume of flesh that a human carries. As such a fetus is no less or no more human as one born.
But you already assume a fetus is a human subject in the same sense that a born child is. There's a difference between being a fetus of the human species and being a human, a person. Notice that the adjective "human" does not entail the noun "human" (the subject itself). A human hand is the hand belonging to a biological entity, a subject which itself belongs to the class of humans, but no one says a hand should be treated as a human subject. There are many things qualified as human, without pointing at living things.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Fdesilva » January 4th, 2019, 9:38 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 5:38 am


What you appear to be saying here is that "being human" is a binary, all-or-nothing thing; any given entity is either completely human or completely not human. I think that this, as well as many other proposed binary divisions of Nature, can be shown not to be arbitrary by trying to consider precisely where we place the dividing line between "human" and "non-human". In the context of a developing embryo, would you say that at the moment a sperm cell fertilises an ovum a new human exists that ought to be regarded as fully human in exactly the same sense that a fully developed person is? If not, at what point in the development does this entity suddenly switch to being a human being? Can you demonstrate that the point in the embryo's development where you place this dividing line is not a matter of personal preference but represents an objective truth?
Yes to the bolded part as from that point the body has a well defined boundary just as a table or chair has a well defined boundary. The embryo is distinctly separate from the parent and that's is all that is needed.


Steve3007 wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 5:38 am
Consider also the divisions between humans and other animals. In the relatively recent evolutionary past some of our closest relatives, such as homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis, went extinct. Were they human? What criteria would you use to answer this question?
The question is if the Neanderthals considered it wrong to kill other Nearndertals? If so then if they are to apply this law it would also need to include the neathatal embryos.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 5:38 am
Our closest extant relatives are chimpanzees. Our common ancestor with them lived about 7 million years ago. Most people would agree than chimpanzees are not human. So, at what point in that 7 million years was the first human born? At what point did a non-human mother give birth to human offspring? If you maintain that there is an objectively existing hard dividing line between human and non-human then you have to conclude that at some point in the past this happened. And you have to be able to demonstrate why it is objectively true that this transition happened at the chosen point in time.
Humans make laws (right/wrong)for humans. When humans came into existence does not have a bearing on laws that humans make for themsleves today

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Fdesilva » January 4th, 2019, 9:43 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 9:09 am
Fdesilva wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 3:16 am

If it is in the context that human life is good, then the survival of a given humans life is dependent on other humans,
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 9:09 am
Good in practical terms or moral ones? From the social standpoint or the individual? Death is part of the human experience and actually necessary for survival of the species as a whole. So, from that point o view, human death is good, too.
Yes natural death is good

Fdesilva wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 3:16 am

If the context is humaneness then All humans have the same degree of humanness because humaneness is not measure by the volume of flesh that a human carries. As such a fetus is no less or no more human as one born.
But you already assume a fetus is a human subject in the same sense that a born child is. There's a difference between being a fetus of the human species and being a human, a person. Notice that the adjective "human" does not entail the noun "human" (the subject itself). A human hand is the hand belonging to a biological entity, a subject which itself belongs to the class of humans, but no one says a hand should be treated as a human subject. There are many things qualified as human, without pointing at living things.
It is wrong to cut a humans hand other than if cutting it will save the life of the owner of the hand

User avatar
cavacava
Posts: 55
Joined: October 12th, 2018, 11:10 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by cavacava » January 4th, 2019, 9:56 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 8:31 am
cavacava wrote:
January 3rd, 2019, 11:08 pm
And you obliviously have not read all my responses. I have indicated several times that I think abortions are moral in some circumstances.
And you obviously haven't noticed that your responses contradict each other. That's why you can't give a coherent answer to the moral dilemmas I have presented to you. This last one is particularly illuminating:
Count Lucanor wrote:what happens,for example, when the mother took the necessary precautions to not get pregnant, but still she got pregnant, her pregnancy is safe and she is not in danger. But she didn't want a baby. Is it OK to harm the human life of the fetus now because it was not the product of a negligent act? Why she should not be forced to carry the baby through to birth?
In response to LuckyR;
By 'ought' I mean the ethical duty that one feels to act in a certain manner. I'am not sure I understand what you mean by "...parents are not necessarly responsible for their progeny..." The discussion is about abortion, two people had sex, and the woman got pregnant, how are they not responsible? I think that if they had consensual sex then they are ethical bound (freedom entails responsibility) to see the pregnancy though, even if they decide afterwards to give the child up for abortion. If the sex was non-consensual as in rape, or incest or if the mother's life becomes threatened or perhaps if their best prophylactic efforts fail then the woman's right over her body trumps the fetus's right and she is not ethically obligated to carry the pregnancy to term.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 4th, 2019, 3:04 pm

Fdesilva wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 9:43 am
It is wrong to cut a humans hand other than if cutting it will save the life of the owner of the hand
If someone decides to cut his/her own hand, no one will come to say: "it is a human hand and therefore you cannot cut it". People take away body parts all the time.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 4th, 2019, 4:45 pm

cavacava wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 9:56 am
In response to LuckyR;
I think that if they had consensual sex then they are ethical bound (freedom entails responsibility) to see the pregnancy though, even if they decide afterwards to give the child up for abortion.
...if their best prophylactic efforts fail then the woman's right over her body trumps the fetus's right and she is not ethically obligated to carry the pregnancy to term.
Best prophylactic efforts still involve consensual sex and taking risks of failure to prevent pregnancy. Who can precisely quantify how much effort and trust in effectiveness of prevention methods separates the right from wrong in abortion? It's too subjective and you just can't determine that. The alternative is to respect the mother's decision.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by LuckyR » January 5th, 2019, 3:54 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 4:45 pm
cavacava wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 9:56 am
In response to LuckyR;
I think that if they had consensual sex then they are ethical bound (freedom entails responsibility) to see the pregnancy though, even if they decide afterwards to give the child up for abortion.
...if their best prophylactic efforts fail then the woman's right over her body trumps the fetus's right and she is not ethically obligated to carry the pregnancy to term.
Best prophylactic efforts still involve consensual sex and taking risks of failure to prevent pregnancy. Who can precisely quantify how much effort and trust in effectiveness of prevention methods separates the right from wrong in abortion? It's too subjective and you just can't determine that. The alternative is to respect the mother's decision.
Well, the rhythm method is a legitimate form of Birth Control, and it, like everything else including surgery, has a known failure rate. What about the pull out method? What about the "I hope she doesn't get pregnant" method?
"As usual... it depends."

Steve3007
Posts: 5828
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Steve3007 » January 5th, 2019, 7:56 am

Fdesilva wrote:Yes to the bolded part as from that point the body has a well defined boundary just as a table or chair has a well defined boundary. The embryo is distinctly separate from the parent and that's is all that is needed.
It's no more or less distinctly separate from the body of the parent than a sperm cell or a clipped fingernail. What is it about the fact that the ovum has been fertilized that leads you to believe it should be treated like a fully formed human being? Is it the fact that it is at this point that the genes of the parents combine? If so, why would that lead you to confer rights on this particular type of single cell and not on other examples of single cells like skin cells, sperm cells or amoeba?
The question is if the Neanderthals considered it wrong to kill other Nearndertals? If so then if they are to apply this law it would also need to include the neathatal embryos.
That's not the point I was seeking to make.
Humans make laws (right/wrong)for humans. When humans came into existence does not have a bearing on laws that humans make for themsleves today.
My point was to provide a further illustration of the fact that there is no hard objectively existing dividing line between the two classifications "a human being" and "not a human being". This is illustrated both by the development of a child from a single cell in the womb and by the evolution of the human race from our common ancestor with other species. In both case, the point at which we declare "a human being now exists" is arbitrarily chosen by us and, if we confer rights on, and obligations towards, the entities that we classify as human beings then the moral issues that arise from that cannot ever be solved by appeals to supposed objective facts. The abortion issue is, fundamentally, always going to cause disagreements. It is not, at its heart, amenable to rational argument. You simply have to state your personal taste.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Fdesilva » January 6th, 2019, 10:31 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 3:04 pm
Fdesilva wrote:
January 4th, 2019, 9:43 am
It is wrong to cut a humans hand other than if cutting it will save the life of the owner of the hand
If someone decides to cut his/her own hand, no one will come to say: "it is a human hand and therefore you cannot cut it". People take away body parts all the time.
It not a comparison with cutting once own hand but rather another persons hand. Your context for saying abortion is ok is based on saying that a fetus and a child born is different. How does the difference imply a right to terminate life? A child of one month is different to a child of 3 months so does that mean the 1 month child has a less right to live than the 3 month child? How exactly does difference lead to a right to end a life?
I think it ironic that we provide a voice to the criminal to defend themselves in order to hold ensure that one is innocent until proven guilty and yet deprive the most innocent and voiceless from seeing the light of day.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Fdesilva » January 6th, 2019, 11:38 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 5th, 2019, 7:56 am
It's no more or less distinctly separate from the body of the parent than a sperm cell or a clipped fingernail. What is it about the fact that the ovum has been fertilized that leads you to believe it should be treated like a fully formed human being? Is it the fact that it is at this point that the genes of the parents combine? If so, why would that lead you to confer rights on this particular type of single cell and not on other examples of single cells like skin cells, sperm cells or amoeba?
Biologically the separation is very well formed. The wall of the uterus is definite boundary to a womens body to the same degree that the skin on her face is a boundary to her body. So firstly a fetus is not a part of the parents body. Feeding via a placenta or feeding a baby via a milk bottle does not make the fetus a part of once body. Now a fetus is not a fingernail, fingernail can never grow hands and feet.
What is wrong is no human should have the right to take the life of another. Every humans life begins from the first moment of conception. Life in the womb is in no way inferior to life outside the womb. Every stage of human life is unique and equally important. Laws need to be logical. You cannot have laws that say it ok to kill a human at this stage but not at that stage. You cannot have laws that protect the planet for future generations and also allow the killing of that generation before they are born. It not logical but rather insanity.


Steve3007 wrote:
January 5th, 2019, 7:56 am
My point was to provide a further illustration of the fact that there is no hard objectively existing dividing line between the two classifications "a human being" and "not a human being". This is illustrated both by the development of a child from a single cell in the womb and by the evolution of the human race from our common ancestor with other species. In both case, the point at which we declare "a human being now exists" is arbitrarily chosen by us and, if we confer rights on, and obligations towards, the entities that we classify as human beings then the moral issues that arise from that cannot ever be solved by appeals to supposed objective facts. The abortion issue is, fundamentally, always going to cause disagreements. It is not, at its heart, amenable to rational argument. You simply have to state your personal taste.
Based on your logic as life originated from none life it is perfectly fine to destroy any life as we are not destroying life as dead things and living thing cannot be distinguished based on their origin. Do you agree? if not how is it different to what you are saying?

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 7th, 2019, 9:03 pm

Fdesilva wrote:It not a comparison with cutting once own hand but rather another persons hand.
You've gone strayed now. Go back to the point where the hand analogy started, to deal with your wrong assumption that a fetus is a human in the same sense as a born child is. I'm not comparing a fetus with a hand, I'm saying that to be a human fetus is not the same as being a human, the same as a human hand is not a human. The adjective "human" could mean both essential and non-essential properties and relationships between things and humans, such as in "human shelter". It is not the same treatment for the noun "human", which points at the biological entity, the being itself.
Fdesilva wrote:Your context for saying abortion is ok is based on saying that a fetus and a child born is different.
No, that's not the context in which I'm saying abortion is OK. The context is the mother's decision and the embryo or fetus being on an early stage of development, without a fully capable central nervous system and the ability to breathe for itself. A fetus in the third trimester does not fall into these conditions and it's not right to abort at this stage.
Fdesilva wrote:How does the difference imply a right to terminate life?
Lives of all things are terminated all the time, without no one ever feeling any remorse. For food, for safety, for fun, for nothing, or for practical reasons. For example, the embryos in IVF procedures, which are implanted knowing that some of them will die. Others are frozen indefinitely. Where does the right to do that come from?
Fdesilva wrote:I think it ironic that we provide a voice to the criminal to defend themselves in order to hold ensure that one is innocent until proven guilty and yet deprive the most innocent and voiceless from seeing the light of day.
But criminals are humans, enjoy the privileged status of personhood. Fetuses and embryos don't get a voice because their immature biology deprives them from personhood.

Fdesilva
Posts: 132
Joined: August 20th, 2016, 5:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Fdesilva » January 8th, 2019, 2:50 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 9:03 pm

No, that's not the context in which I'm saying abortion is OK. The context is the mother's decision and the embryo or fetus being on an early stage of development, without a fully capable central nervous system and the ability to breathe for itself. A fetus in the third trimester does not fall into these conditions and it's not right to abort at this stage.

From the above would I be right in inferring that abortion in your opinion is wrong after a level of development? For example a nervous system has come into place?
If so then you do have love for the fetus and that is great and wonderful. However where I live abortion is now ok right upto 9 months.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... e-abortion

While I don't agree with abortion at any stage, I will hold my opinion on why that is the case until I know your take on the above.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by LuckyR » January 8th, 2019, 4:36 am

Fdesilva wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 2:50 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 9:03 pm

No, that's not the context in which I'm saying abortion is OK. The context is the mother's decision and the embryo or fetus being on an early stage of development, without a fully capable central nervous system and the ability to breathe for itself. A fetus in the third trimester does not fall into these conditions and it's not right to abort at this stage.

From the above would I be right in inferring that abortion in your opinion is wrong after a level of development? For example a nervous system has come into place?
If so then you do have love for the fetus and that is great and wonderful. However where I live abortion is now ok right upto 9 months.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... e-abortion


While I don't agree with abortion at any stage, I will hold my opinion on why that is the case until I know your take on the above.
Perhaps arithmetic is not your strong suit, but 22 weeks is not 9 months.

Just sayin'
"As usual... it depends."

Steve3007
Posts: 5828
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Steve3007 » January 8th, 2019, 7:49 am

Fdesilva wrote:What is wrong is no human should have the right to take the life of another. Every humans life begins from the first moment of conception.
As I've said, the opinion that all humans have an equal right to have their continued existence protected by law and that a single celled embryo is a human in the same sense that a fully formed baby is a human, and that therefore single celled embryos have the same rights as fully formed humans, is one to which you are entitled. But it is not an objective fact. It is simply your personal taste to place the dividing line between "not human" and "human" at the point of conception. Others disagree with you.
Life in the womb is in no way inferior to life outside the womb.
The fact that you make no distinction between single celled embryos and fully formed babies is your personal choice. You are in a minority in that view.
Every stage of human life is unique and equally important.
Yes. Separate sperm and egg cells are one of those stages. Without them, new life could not exist. So they are equally important. Their being an important and indispensable stage in the development of new human life doesn't make contraception objectively immoral. It is immoral in the opinion of some people, just as their destruction just after they meet is immoral in your opinion.
Laws need to be logical. You cannot have laws that say it ok to kill a human at this stage but not at that stage.
If the term "human" has legal or moral implications, then people can and do disagree as to what constitutes a human.

Laws need to make binary distinctions. In order to enact laws we have to impose those binary distinctions on the continua of Nature. So, in the case of abortion laws, we have to place a dividing line on the development of new human life and say "before this point, stopping the development of new human life is permitted; after this point it is forbidden". Some people place that point before conception and hold that deliberate contraception - the deliberate thwarting of the natural process of sperm meeting egg - is immoral. Others place that point further on in the continuous process of the development of new human life.
You cannot have laws that protect the planet for future generations and also allow the killing of that generation before they are born. It not logical but rather insanity.
There are 7+ billion human beings on this planet and the number increases every day by more than the total number of living individuals in the populations of all the other Great Apes combined. In the foreseeable future there is no possibility whatever of the next generation of humans failing to materialise. Birth control and management of the global human population is the most important factor in lessening the devastating impact that the human race is having on global biodiversity. We are well on the way to destroying almost all species that we do not regard as being directly useful to us, simply as a result of our vast numbers demanding the land on which they live for our own use. In my view, of all the massive problems facing the human race, the destruction of non-sentient single celled embryos is absolutely not one of them. Clearly you disagree. That is your right. Fortunately for the other species of life on this planet, I think you're in a minority.
Based on your logic as life originated from none life it is perfectly fine to destroy any life as we are not destroying life as dead things and living thing cannot be distinguished based on their origin. Do you agree? if not how is it different to what you are saying?
No I don't agree. As I've said, my point is that the distinction between "life" and "non-life" and between "human" and "non-human" is a continuum, not a hard dividing line. It is a greyscale, not black and white. The demonstrable fact that this is true does not logically lead to the conclusion that every point on that continuum is equal.

Another illustration of this fact is provided by considering the diversity of life currently existing on Earth. The continuous increase in complexity from viroids to humans does not logically lead to the conclusion that viroids are humans.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 8th, 2019, 9:28 pm

Fdesilva wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 2:50 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 9:03 pm

No, that's not the context in which I'm saying abortion is OK. The context is the mother's decision and the embryo or fetus being on an early stage of development, without a fully capable central nervous system and the ability to breathe for itself. A fetus in the third trimester does not fall into these conditions and it's not right to abort at this stage.
From the above would I be right in inferring that abortion in your opinion is wrong after a level of development? For example a nervous system has come into place?
I stand for what I said, which more or less coincides with Roe vs. Wade:
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
What was the reasoning in Roe v. Wade? There was no legal weight given to what happens to the children once they are born, or to the family. Instead, a woman's right to reproductive freedom is protected, the court ruled, by constitutional guarantees of privacy. But that right is not unqualified. The woman's guarantee of privacy and the fetus's right to life must be weighed--and when the court did the weighing' priority was given to privacy in the first trimester and to life in the third. The transition was decided not from any of the considerations we have been dealing with so far…--not when "ensoulment" occurs, not when the fetus takes on sufficient human characteristics to be protected by laws against murder. Instead, the criterion adopted was whether the fetus could live outside the mother. This is called "viability" and depends in part on the ability to breathe. The lungs are simply not developed, and the fetus cannot breathe--no matter how advanced an artificial lung it might be placed in—until about the 24th week, near the start of the sixth month. This is why Roe v. Wade permits the states to prohibit abortions in the last trimester. It's a very pragmatic criterion.

Fdesilva wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 2:50 am
If so then you do have love for the fetus and that is great and wonderful.
That's your way of putting it, and I don't mind, but I think it's just the more rational and rightful approach to the issue. BTW, I could care for, let's say, a kitten, which someone could kill for pure fun. I would be heartbroken and consider this killing a despicable act, and yet I would not consider this person a criminal that deserves prison, perhaps just a fine.
Fdesilva wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 2:50 am
However where I live abortion is now ok right upto 9 months.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... e-abortion
A relative had a nine-month abortion. I considered it a despicable act and even worst that it was forced on her by her mother.

Post Reply