Why Abortion is Immoral

[Armoured]

Yet a fetus still suffers a great loss by being deprived of a VHF, whether or not they're aware of it.

if it's not aware of it, and has never been aware of it, how can there be any "loss"?

If you kill a NAHB unawares it's a similar situation. They are not aware of their death, yet you're still harming them because of the loss you've inflicted. Likewise a newborn child is not terribly sentient or aware - especially of its own mortality. You could kill an infant without the knowledge of their own death. Yet we still feel it's terribly wrong to kill an infant.

Except the argument can be made that a newborn has a general sense of it's own awareness, and can experience and register pain, unlike a foetus, especially an early term foetus.

Beyond that, I'll even tell you a secret. Other than the attachment of parents who, generally, would be devastated at the killing of a newborn, I'd agree with the proposition that in terms of actual real world harm inflicted on a conscious entity, killing a newborn isn't as bad as killing an older person. I'm not saying it's OK to do, but I will say that any argument against killing newborns is largely emotionally derived. To a lesser extent, it's also a religious idea, because historically and legally, "personhood" is considered to extend from the first indrawn breath.

 

[Armoured]

A fetus in most cases will certainly become a human being. Therefore a fetus has a VHF. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.

If I sell you an oak tree, sight unseen, but deliver you an acorn, you'd be happy with that?

 

[Tree of Life]

if it's not aware of it, and has never been aware of it, how can there be any "loss"?

If an adult is suddenly killed unawares they suffer the loss of their future experiences. If a fetus is killed unawares it suffers the loss of its future experiences. Simple as that.

Except the argument can be made that a newborn has a general sense of it's own awareness, and can experience and register pain, unlike a foetus, especially an early term foetus.

Beyond that, I'll even tell you a secret. Other than the attachment of parents who, generally, would be devastated at the killing of a newborn, I'd agree with the proposition that in terms of actual real world harm inflicted on a conscious entity, killing a newborn isn't as bad as killing an older person. I'm not saying it's OK to do, but I will say that any argument against killing newborns is largely emotionally derived. To a lesser extent, it's also a religious idea, because historically and legally, "personhood" is considered to extend from the first indrawn breath.

Interesting idea. I don't think you'll find much sympathy for it. Killing a person harms the person. How does it harm them? It's not the pain inflicted or the loss that others experience. The dead person loses something. What do they lose? Future, human experiences. Arguably a newborn loses a lot more human experiences than an older person does. So the harm inflicted is greater.

 

[Tree of Life]

If I sell you an oak tree, sight unseen, but deliver you an acorn, you'd be happy with that?

Certainly not!

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

[...] Beyond that, I'll even tell you a secret. Other than the attachment of parents who, generally, would be devastated at the killing of a newborn, I'd agree with the proposition that in terms of actual real world harm inflicted on a conscious entity, killing a newborn isn't as bad as killing an older person. [...]

Hmm... I think I would disagree. I understand what you mean, but I think that killing a foetus, a new-born and an old person are better understood as three different kinds of evil, and that trying to rate them by what is worse or not so bad is foolish. They are all bad, because all three are human beings with intrinsic value, worth and rights — namely, the right to live. When you say that you feel that killing an old person is worse than killing a newborn, you are implying that, if you had to choose, you would rather kill the baby. Personally, I cannot say that. I'm not saying you are wrong, but just that I think it is nonsensical to rate it like that. Just my thoughts on this...

 

[Tree of Life]

You have a degree in philosophy? Who taught you to structure an argument, may I inquire?

Dr. William Irvine.

 

[Chriliman]

Except the argument can be made that a newborn has a general sense of it's own awareness, and can experience and register pain, unlike a foetus, especially an early term foetus.

Beyond that, I'll even tell you a secret. Other than the attachment of parents who, generally, would be devastated at the killing of a newborn, I'd agree with the proposition that in terms of actual real world harm inflicted on a conscious entity, killing a newborn isn't as bad as killing an older person. I'm not saying it's OK to do, but I will say that any argument against killing newborns is largely emotionally derived. To a lesser extent, it's also a religious idea, because historically and legally, "personhood" is considered to extend from the first indrawn breath.

If a conscious entity tells you that they don't care if you kill them, does that make it moral to kill them?

A fetus is conscious in that it can feel pain, but it's unable to express it's feelings about death. Since it's unable to express it's feelings, does that make it moral to kill it?

Speaking of emotions, isn't the woman's choice to have an abortion completely based on how she feels about raising a child? For a woman who wants an abortion, the thought of raising a child has a negative effect on her emotions, therefore she somehow has the right to take away the VHF of the unborn, based on her emotional state.

Any argument that is for killing of unborns is completely emotionally driven and not driven by what's actually the right thing to do.

Only when the woman's life is in danger of physically ending(not emotionally ending) because of the pregnancy does she have the right to end the pregnancy.

This is why I'm pro good choices before conception. Making good choices can prevent many unwanted problems, just ask Adam and Eve.

 

[AirPo]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.

"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."

This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.

"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."

Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.

Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?

The first premis is incorrect. The problem is not the future, it's the present.

 

[Armoured]

If a conscious entity tells you that they don't care if you kill them, does that make it moral to kill them?

I defy you to make a secular argument against it. Outside of religious injunction, assuming one is of sound mind, is not under duress and gives their fully informed consent, suicide is unarguably a moral prerogative

A fetus is conscious in that it can feel pain, but it's unable to express it's feelings about death. Since it's unable to express it's feelings, does that make it moral to kill it?

The mere ability to "feel" pain does not indicate consciousness. Insects show an aversion to pain, yet few would argue they are conscious.

Speaking of emotions, isn't the woman's choice to have an abortion completely based on how she feels about raising a child? For a woman who wants an abortion, the thought of raising a child has a negative effect on her emotions, therefore she somehow has the right to take away the VHF of the unborn, based on her emotional state.

So? Why are the woman's feelings invalid in such a case?

Any argument that is for killing of unborns is completely emotionally driven and not driven by what's actually the right thing to do.

Any argument? I can list any number of logical arguments in favour of termination.

Only when the woman's life is in danger of physically ending(not emotionally ending) because of the pregnancy does she have the right to end the pregnancy.

In your opinion.

This is why I'm pro good choices before conception. Making good choices can prevent many unwanted problems, just ask Adam and Eve.

And hind sight is 20/20.

 

[Chriliman]

I defy you to make a secular argument against it. Outside of religious injunction, assuming one is of sound mind, is not under duress and gives their fully informed consent, suicide is unarguably a moral prerogativeThe mere ability to "feel" pain does not indicate consciousness. Insects show an aversion to pain, yet few would argue they are conscious.So? Why are the woman's feelings invalid in such a case?Any argument? I can list any number of logical arguments in favour of termination.In your opinion.
And hind sight is 20/20.

You said:

"I'm not saying it's OK to do, but I will say that any argument against killing newborns is largely emotionally derived"

I'm simply pointing out that any argument that is for the killing of newborns/unborns is completely emotionally derived as well. What this means is that we have one party's emotions arguing against the other party's emotions and both parties are possibly completely ignoring what the objective correct moral action is.

I believe the objective correct moral action can only come from God, but if no one is asking God then everyone is going to do the wrong thing, thus the problem of abortion(and many other problems) we have today.

 

[Armoured]

You said:

"I'm not saying it's OK to do, but I will say that any argument against killing newborns is largely emotionally derived"

I'm simply pointing out that any argument that is for the killing of newborns/unborns is completely emotionally derived as well. What this means is that we have one party's emotions arguing against the other party's emotions and both parties are possibly completely ignoring what the objective correct moral action is.

Only one of those partie is the actual person involved, though, so their emotional concern trumps the other.

I believe the objective correct moral action can only come from God, but if no one is asking God then everyone is going to do the wrong thing, thus the problem of abortion(and many other problems) we have today.

Well, tht's not an argument that cuts any ice in a secular context, much as I may personally agree with it.

Come up with an argument that's equally compelling to a Catholic, an Hindu, and an atheist, and let's talk.

 

[Chriliman]

Only one of those partie is the actual person involved, though, so their emotional concern trumps the other.

My hope is that the secularists will begin to understand that when we allow our emotions to be the only driver of our decisions, bad things happen. Having a balance of emotion and rational thinking is key to a productive healthy life. Which brings me back to the importance of promoting good choices before conception and forget the idea of pro choice after conception because it only justifies the immoral actions of abortion.

Pro good choices before conception is both pro life and pro choice, how can anyone argue against it?

 

[Tree of Life]

The first premis is incorrect. The problem is not the future, it's the present.

So are you saying that killing a normal adult human being does not harm them?

 

[Armoured]

My hope is that the secularists will begin to understand that when we allow our emotions to be the only driver of our decisions, bad things happen. Having a balance of emotion and rational thinking is key to a productive healthy life. Which brings me back to the importance of promoting good choices before conception and forget the idea of pro choice after conception because it only justifies the immoral actions of abortion.

What you call emotional, others call rational. Every woman I know who has discussed her termination has put very, very hard thought into the decision. I think writing off such decisions as "merely" emotional is unfair, to say the least.

Pro good choices before conception is both pro life and pro choice, how can anyone argue against it?

I don't know anyone who disagrees with you, in the cold light of day. Ever been a drunk, horny 18 year old?

 

[Chriliman]

What you call emotional, others call rational. Every woman I know who has discussed her termination has put very, very hard thought into the decision. I think writing off such decisions as "merely" emotional is unfair, to say the least.

Have you ever known a God fearing woman to abort her own baby? Maybe the better question is, have you ever known a God fearing woman to have irresponsible sex? Have you ever known a God fearing man to rape a woman?

I don't know anyone who disagrees with you, in the cold light of day. Ever been a drunk, horny 18 year old?

Honestly, no. I first got "drunk" at 14 and never wanted to do it again. I understand this makes it difficult for me to relate to irresponsible teenagers who feed off of each other instead of respect authority.

Instill a respect for authority at an early age and they will be far less likely to do something that might get them in trouble later on. An aspect of parenting that is being lost, unfortunately. Parents now a days want their kids to be happy, while not realizing that instilling discipline will bring about the highest potential for happiness.

 

[Armoured]

Have you ever known a God fearing woman to abort her own baby? Maybe the better question is, have you ever known a God fearing woman to have irresponsible sex? Have you ever known a God fearing man to rape a woman?

What's that got to do with anything?

Honestly, no. I first got "drunk" at 14 and never wanted to do it again. I understand this makes it difficult for me to relate to irresponsible teenagers who feed off of each other instead of respect authority.

Instill a respect for authority at an early age and they will be far less likely to do something that might get them in trouble later on. An aspect of parenting that is being lost, unfortunately. Parents now a days want their kids to be happy, while not realizing that instilling discipline will bring about the highest potential for happiness.

Uh-huh. Well lucky for you, you're just perfect. I'm sure your kid's are perfect too. The rest of us mere mortals, however, are prone to errors of judgement from time to time.

 

[Chriliman]

Uh-huh. Well lucky for you, you're just perfect. I'm sure your kid's are perfect too. The rest of us mere mortals, however, are prone to errors of judgement from time to time.

Thankfully, it is true that if we place our lives in God's perfect hands, He will make us perfect in every way. Amen?

 

[Armoured]

Thankfully, it is true that if we place our lives in God's perfect hands, He will make us perfect in every way. Amen?

And with that, I take it you're conveniently dismissing my unanswered points?

 

[Chriliman]

And with that, I take it you're conveniently dismissing my unanswered points?

My point about the other thing was that someone who honestly fears the authority of God would not have an abortion, but would rather either love the child or at least put them up for adoption.

 

[blackribbon]

I am a nurse and a woman who works on a women's floor at a major hospital. Every decision we make for a woman who is pregnant is based on what is best for the health of BOTH PATIENTS. This is including all stages of gestation including early pregnancy.

I believe the right to choose ends at conception. In most cases, there were plenty of opportunities to make choices up until that point. In the rare occasion that the pregnancy was the result of force, carrying a baby to birth still a "curable" condition and the baby can be offered to someone who will care for it. If the choice gets down to truly being a dangerous pregnancy for the mother, then I will always say "save the mother" but most of the time this is used because the pregnancy is an inconvenience and not a danger. Even then, most mothers pick their babies lives over theirs when asked to choose...and convincing them to make decisions that does otherwise are often difficult.

I have held babies born at 24 weeks. They are every bit as human as babies born at 40 weeks. Before that, they aren't usually viable outside the womb but a few years ago, neither were babies born at 24 weeks.

Pregnancy is a curable medical condition...and it never last longer than approximately nine months.

I have cared for an 18 year old patient who had a medical abortion (done at a proper medical clinic) and she spent several days in ICU and almost died from this "choice". I was in the room when the doctor was discussing the possibility of maybe needing a hysterectomy. She was one month out of high school. Abortions are not "safe" alternatives to pregnancy. Birth control or abstinence is.