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
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4335
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by LuckyR » November 11th, 2019, 3:57 am

Gnosis wrote:
November 10th, 2019, 7:47 pm
cynicallyinsane wrote:
April 20th, 2007, 6:45 pm
Is abortion wrong? Is it okay? Why?
I think this discussion is nested in a deeper discussion of what is consciousness, what is life, is it okay to needlessly destroy a conscious being, does a fetus have consciousness or not? I think that if we were clear on what consciousness is and when it begins then we wouldn't have an issue with abortion, since murder is not the killing of a bundle of cells but the killing of a conscious being. If a fetus does not have a consciousness or if consciousness is nothing unique in itself but is only an arrangement of atoms then there should be no problem with abortion, but that would bring further problems, why would murder of a newborn or adult be wrong then? If on the other hand there was a unique consciousness in us, something akin to the soul, and a fetus has that consciousness then what right do we have to kill it? As I said this question is embedded in a much deeper question of what is it that makes us human, what is it that makes human life valuable. I think it is consciousness and I have a clear idea of what that is and when it begins, as do most other pro-lifers, I think it is really the pro-choice people who have no idea what makes human life valuable and causing all the confusion.
This implies a false choice, namely abortion is either totally great, if fetuses have no neural function, or it is so wrong it is akin to murder and should be banned.

The reality is closer to a third choice between the other two, abortion is a mild negative since fetuses have a very limited neural capacity, but since maternal autonomy is the leading consideration, due to their full neural capacity, it is reasonable option, that individuals should be free to consider.
"As usual... it depends."

Gnosis
Posts: 40
Joined: January 5th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Gnosis » November 11th, 2019, 5:05 am

LuckyR wrote:
November 11th, 2019, 3:57 am
Gnosis wrote:
November 10th, 2019, 7:47 pm


I think this discussion is nested in a deeper discussion of what is consciousness, what is life, is it okay to needlessly destroy a conscious being, does a fetus have consciousness or not? I think that if we were clear on what consciousness is and when it begins then we wouldn't have an issue with abortion, since murder is not the killing of a bundle of cells but the killing of a conscious being. If a fetus does not have a consciousness or if consciousness is nothing unique in itself but is only an arrangement of atoms then there should be no problem with abortion, but that would bring further problems, why would murder of a newborn or adult be wrong then? If on the other hand there was a unique consciousness in us, something akin to the soul, and a fetus has that consciousness then what right do we have to kill it? As I said this question is embedded in a much deeper question of what is it that makes us human, what is it that makes human life valuable. I think it is consciousness and I have a clear idea of what that is and when it begins, as do most other pro-lifers, I think it is really the pro-choice people who have no idea what makes human life valuable and causing all the confusion.
This implies a false choice, namely abortion is either totally great, if fetuses have no neural function, or it is so wrong it is akin to murder and should be banned.

The reality is closer to a third choice between the other two, abortion is a mild negative since fetuses have a very limited neural capacity, but since maternal autonomy is the leading consideration, due to their full neural capacity, it is reasonable option, that individuals should be free to consider.
This is only because you consider consciousness to be of a complex nature, a composite of neurons, which makes it nothing special. I highly doubt that is the case, it seems like consciousness is fundamental, that it cannot be divided and is just like all other fundamental particles and laws, I don't see how any neural arrangement could bring consciousness about. When you consider consciousness as fundamental and indivisible the number of neural cells or otherwise associated with it becomes irrelevant,

Your definition of consciousness is a typical materialist definition and many people don't buy it, this is why I said we first need the discussion of what is consciousness. This is a problem of philosophy just as much as it is of science since science is founded on empiricism and empiricism is a school of philosophy that is founded on consciousness. Furthermore, it is imaginable that all our brain functions could occur subconsciously, yet we are conscious for some reason, this difference suggests that there could be something else other than neurons responsible for consciousness. And I don't mean conscious thought, but conscious perception, feelings and emotions rather than complex thoughts. I grant that intelligence is something AI can do, but conscious perception? Impossible, only unconscious perception but not a conscious one, since perception is like an input/output, and neurons are only capable of processing, they cannot see without eyes nor move without muscles. Equally, no combination of unconscious neurons will give rise to conscious perception, the logic just does not follow, it's like trying to claim that a certain combination of neurons will be capable of moving objects by themselves, unless there is some muscular tissue attached to it there is no way that is happening.

Gnosis
Posts: 40
Joined: January 5th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Gnosis » November 11th, 2019, 5:10 am

Greta wrote:
November 11th, 2019, 1:25 am
Why favour an unthinking and unfeeling human foetus over intelligent and aware large mammals, who have personalities, relationships and a social place, whom we slaughter without much care?

It's the same reason that a dog pack favours its own members over outsiders. Humans simply tend to favour their own, an evolutionary tendency. There are all manner of non-credible ideas put forward post-hoc by so called "pro-lifers" to justify their inherent biases.

"Pro-life" my fat aunt! How many of these so-called pro-lifers worry similarly about rampant gun murders in the US or the waging of needless warfare in the middle east, or who are concerned for the welfare of Mexican children in camps? A small percentage would be my guess. You can't worry about everyone - the world is full of death and disaster. I personally will favour the interests of an adult over that of a non-viable foetus every day of the week.

It's a simple equation. Is the foetus viable? If not, then abortion is a reasonable option, if need be.
1) Because we are not convinced it is unfeeling. 2) Going by that logic, would you kill a small born child if it was in your interest? 3) If yes this is no longer an abortion discussion but a discussion of basic morality

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9480
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Greta » November 11th, 2019, 7:52 pm

Your choices make zero sense.

A baby is viable, an early stage foetus is non viable. As stated above.

Gnosis
Posts: 40
Joined: January 5th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Gnosis » November 11th, 2019, 9:21 pm

Greta wrote:
November 11th, 2019, 7:52 pm
Your choices make zero sense.

A baby is viable, an early stage foetus is non viable. As stated above.
What do you mean by viable? Pretty sure if you don't look out for your kids they will die they need constant care. Why is a newborn viable and a fetus not? what is your criteria?

Gnosis
Posts: 40
Joined: January 5th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Gnosis » November 11th, 2019, 9:23 pm

Furthermore how will you ever manage to place a date? You think a fetus magically turns into a baby at a set date? Embryonic development is a gradual process with no clear cut defined line between human and fetus other than conception itself.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 9480
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Greta » November 12th, 2019, 4:00 pm

Gnosis wrote:
November 11th, 2019, 9:23 pm
Furthermore how will you ever manage to place a date? You think a fetus magically turns into a baby at a set date? Embryonic development is a gradual process with no clear cut defined line between human and fetus other than conception itself.
I think you are sticking your nose into issues that are other people's business. Let the mothers and doctors decide for themselves. Alas, I forgot that the masses are apparently bored with living in a democracy that allows personal freedom. Especially freedom for women and dark people.

None of the division between foetus and baby matters because babies don't especially matter. Let's not pretend that they do. They are not sacred.

They don't matter more than the unemployed that we drive to suicide, nor those who are mentally ill and cannot gain treatment, nor those living in refugee camps etc.

Babies are are just undeveloped life forms like any others. That includes lefties, Muslims, blacks, Jews, whites, gays, lesbians, suicide bombers, killers, rapists, thieves, predators, liars ... all of those who are hated and wished dead by millions.

What of dogs, cats, cockroaches, trees and weeds. These are all alive, and not sacred either.

Why do people fret so much over small life forms unrelated to them? Ideology. Full stop. There is no rational reason.

Newborn babies lack any appreciable emotions or mentality, possessing only just a blind drive to survive, with far less capacity to suffer than the cows, chickens and pigs that we happily and routinely torture for our meals. A cow is infinitely more intelligent, aware and emotional than any newborn.

Why do you not care about their suffering and pain? I have never seen you mention it. Why is it okay to drive women to hell, maybe suicide, over the decision to terminate the pregnancy with an unwanted non-sentient being? The loss of the woman is infinitely more of a tragedy than the loss of an unthinking life from.

Babies were once the future. That's why humans and other species are evolved to be obsessive about them. However, babies are no longer the future, they are just more of what the world desperately does not need - more humans.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4335
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by LuckyR » November 13th, 2019, 2:30 am

Gnosis wrote:
November 11th, 2019, 5:05 am
LuckyR wrote:
November 11th, 2019, 3:57 am


This implies a false choice, namely abortion is either totally great, if fetuses have no neural function, or it is so wrong it is akin to murder and should be banned.

The reality is closer to a third choice between the other two, abortion is a mild negative since fetuses have a very limited neural capacity, but since maternal autonomy is the leading consideration, due to their full neural capacity, it is reasonable option, that individuals should be free to consider.
This is only because you consider consciousness to be of a complex nature, a composite of neurons, which makes it nothing special. I highly doubt that is the case, it seems like consciousness is fundamental, that it cannot be divided and is just like all other fundamental particles and laws, I don't see how any neural arrangement could bring consciousness about. When you consider consciousness as fundamental and indivisible the number of neural cells or otherwise associated with it becomes irrelevant,

Your definition of consciousness is a typical materialist definition and many people don't buy it, this is why I said we first need the discussion of what is consciousness. This is a problem of philosophy just as much as it is of science since science is founded on empiricism and empiricism is a school of philosophy that is founded on consciousness. Furthermore, it is imaginable that all our brain functions could occur subconsciously, yet we are conscious for some reason, this difference suggests that there could be something else other than neurons responsible for consciousness. And I don't mean conscious thought, but conscious perception, feelings and emotions rather than complex thoughts. I grant that intelligence is something AI can do, but conscious perception? Impossible, only unconscious perception but not a conscious one, since perception is like an input/output, and neurons are only capable of processing, they cannot see without eyes nor move without muscles. Equally, no combination of unconscious neurons will give rise to conscious perception, the logic just does not follow, it's like trying to claim that a certain combination of neurons will be capable of moving objects by themselves, unless there is some muscular tissue attached to it there is no way that is happening.
Well, nice attempt to have it both ways. Specifically, you're quite comfortable pontificating what consciousness is not (brain activity) yet extremely squishy describing what it's source is, if not brain activity.

Essentially words without meaning.
"As usual... it depends."

Gnosis
Posts: 40
Joined: January 5th, 2013, 11:15 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by Gnosis » November 14th, 2019, 8:10 am

LuckyR wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 2:30 am
Gnosis wrote:
November 11th, 2019, 5:05 am


This is only because you consider consciousness to be of a complex nature, a composite of neurons, which makes it nothing special. I highly doubt that is the case, it seems like consciousness is fundamental, that it cannot be divided and is just like all other fundamental particles and laws, I don't see how any neural arrangement could bring consciousness about. When you consider consciousness as fundamental and indivisible the number of neural cells or otherwise associated with it becomes irrelevant,

Your definition of consciousness is a typical materialist definition and many people don't buy it, this is why I said we first need the discussion of what is consciousness. This is a problem of philosophy just as much as it is of science since science is founded on empiricism and empiricism is a school of philosophy that is founded on consciousness. Furthermore, it is imaginable that all our brain functions could occur subconsciously, yet we are conscious for some reason, this difference suggests that there could be something else other than neurons responsible for consciousness. And I don't mean conscious thought, but conscious perception, feelings and emotions rather than complex thoughts. I grant that intelligence is something AI can do, but conscious perception? Impossible, only unconscious perception but not a conscious one, since perception is like an input/output, and neurons are only capable of processing, they cannot see without eyes nor move without muscles. Equally, no combination of unconscious neurons will give rise to conscious perception, the logic just does not follow, it's like trying to claim that a certain combination of neurons will be capable of moving objects by themselves, unless there is some muscular tissue attached to it there is no way that is happening.
Well, nice attempt to have it both ways. Specifically, you're quite comfortable pontificating what consciousness is not (brain activity) yet extremely squishy describing what it's source is, if not brain activity.

Essentially words without meaning.
Not everything has a source, some things are a source, that's why I called it fundamental. It is illogical to ask how something fundamental operates. Go read about infinite regress. Here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UW3Imn5b8

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4335
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by LuckyR » November 14th, 2019, 9:12 pm

Gnosis wrote:
November 14th, 2019, 8:10 am
LuckyR wrote:
November 13th, 2019, 2:30 am


Well, nice attempt to have it both ways. Specifically, you're quite comfortable pontificating what consciousness is not (brain activity) yet extremely squishy describing what it's source is, if not brain activity.

Essentially words without meaning.
Not everything has a source, some things are a source, that's why I called it fundamental. It is illogical to ask how something fundamental operates. Go read about infinite regress. Here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UW3Imn5b8
Do you drawn a distinction between human consciousness and canine consciousness?
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
amplified cactus
Posts: 26
Joined: December 29th, 2019, 6:00 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by amplified cactus » December 30th, 2019, 3:42 am

For me it's simple: (1) Others have the right to occupy your body only with your explicit consent. (2) You have the right to revoke consent to the occupation of your body for any reason at any time. (3) It's acceptable to use lethal force against somebody occupying your body without your consent.

So abortion is always permssible in my view. If I were king, there wouldn't be any restrictions on abortion at all.

User avatar
amplified cactus
Posts: 26
Joined: December 29th, 2019, 6:00 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by amplified cactus » December 30th, 2019, 3:53 am

Gnosis wrote:
November 10th, 2019, 7:47 pm
cynicallyinsane wrote:
April 20th, 2007, 6:45 pm
Is abortion wrong? Is it okay? Why?
I think this discussion is nested in a deeper discussion of what is consciousness, what is life, is it okay to needlessly destroy a conscious being, does a fetus have consciousness or not? I think that if we were clear on what consciousness is and when it begins then we wouldn't have an issue with abortion, since murder is not the killing of a bundle of cells but the killing of a conscious being. If a fetus does not have a consciousness or if consciousness is nothing unique in itself but is only an arrangement of atoms then there should be no problem with abortion, but that would bring further problems, why would murder of a newborn or adult be wrong then? If on the other hand there was a unique consciousness in us, something akin to the soul, and a fetus has that consciousness then what right do we have to kill it? As I said this question is embedded in a much deeper question of what is it that makes us human, what is it that makes human life valuable. I think it is consciousness and I have a clear idea of what that is and when it begins, as do most other pro-lifers, I think it is really the pro-choice people who have no idea what makes human life valuable and causing all the confusion.
The status of the foetus is totally irrelevant to me. Even if the foetus has enough cognitive sophistication that it's writing papers in quantum physics, abortion is still permissible. The reason why you should have a right to kill it is that, in general, you should have a right to kill people in self-defense when those people are posing severe threats to your bodily autonomy. What counts as a "severe threat to bodily autonomy"? Well, that's obviously vague, but thankfully for this particular discussion, pregnancy is an easy case. I'm inclined to say that nonconsensual sex counts as a severe violation of bodily autonomy, and so it's acceptable to kill rapists in self-defense. Nonconsensual pregnancy is a far greater violation of bodily autonomy than nonconsensual sex: it lasts far longer, the thing inside you is larger, and it produces a host of physiological changes.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4335
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by LuckyR » December 31st, 2019, 2:46 am

amplified cactus wrote:
December 30th, 2019, 3:42 am
For me it's simple: (1) Others have the right to occupy your body only with your explicit consent. (2) You have the right to revoke consent to the occupation of your body for any reason at any time. (3) It's acceptable to use lethal force against somebody occupying your body without your consent.

So abortion is always permssible in my view. If I were king, there wouldn't be any restrictions on abortion at all.
So you are cool with infanticide 5 minutes before delivery of an otherwise normal infant?
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
amplified cactus
Posts: 26
Joined: December 29th, 2019, 6:00 pm

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by amplified cactus » December 31st, 2019, 2:53 am

LuckyR wrote:
December 31st, 2019, 2:46 am
amplified cactus wrote:
December 30th, 2019, 3:42 am
For me it's simple: (1) Others have the right to occupy your body only with your explicit consent. (2) You have the right to revoke consent to the occupation of your body for any reason at any time. (3) It's acceptable to use lethal force against somebody occupying your body without your consent.

So abortion is always permssible in my view. If I were king, there wouldn't be any restrictions on abortion at all.
So you are cool with infanticide 5 minutes before delivery of an otherwise normal infant?
Yes, at least in principle. It's difficult to imagine circumstances where a woman would choose to do that. If she has carried the pregnancy to term, and has been happy with it up to that point, it would be odd for her to change her mind at the last minute. We'd need to make sure that she really does want to revoke consent and to use lethal force, and that she's not just saying this as a result of being high on drugs or something like that.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4335
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is abortion wrong?

Post by LuckyR » December 31st, 2019, 3:22 am

amplified cactus wrote:
December 31st, 2019, 2:53 am
LuckyR wrote:
December 31st, 2019, 2:46 am


So you are cool with infanticide 5 minutes before delivery of an otherwise normal infant?
Yes, at least in principle. It's difficult to imagine circumstances where a woman would choose to do that. If she has carried the pregnancy to term, and has been happy with it up to that point, it would be odd for her to change her mind at the last minute. We'd need to make sure that she really does want to revoke consent and to use lethal force, and that she's not just saying this as a result of being high on drugs or something like that.
Then very few, if any professional medical ethicists agree with you, let alone lay society.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply