Why Abortion is Immoral

[GoldenBoy89]

Perhaps it is immoral... But immorality has never been the sole basis for criminality.

 

[Chriliman]

You've gone of on a weird tangent.

The point being discussed, was emotion vs. logical, rational decision making. Again, every women I have discussed it with who has had a termination, put a great deal of thought into it. And while emotion certainly plays a part, the decision is based on rationality as well.

As to whether any of them were "God fearing" that's a. irrelevant and b. a pretty obvious opening for a game of "No True Scotsman."

Fair enough. How many of those woman that you talked to expressed feelings of grief or remorse for what they did?

 

[Armoured]

Fair enough. How many of those woman that you talked to expressed feelings of grief or remorse for what they did?

Some of them. Interestingly, although some of them expressed grief and remorse, no one I spoke to said they would make a different decision given the chance. Humans are complicated.

 

[AirPo]

How does killing a NAHB harm them? Let's think especially in the case of a very sudden killing that is painless to the victim and catches them totally unawares. How are they harmed in that instance?

They are dead.

 

[Chriliman]

Some of them. Interestingly, although some of them expressed grief and remorse, no one I spoke to said they would make a different decision given the chance. Humans are complicated.

Indeed.

 

[jayem]

Perhaps it is immoral... But immorality has never been the sole basis for criminality.

Exactly. That's the crux of the issue for me. Not everything that's immoral must also be illegal. As I posted in another thread, I do think that terminating a pregnancy for less than rape, incest, or medical reasons is morally questionable. But using the police power of the state to criminalize it is worse.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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?

I love it when "philosophers" make up acronyms to use in arguments. It almost always means they're complete rubbish. As in this case.

"VHF" isn't a thing.

Here, I can make the same type of ridiculous argument:

All human life has suffering to the extent that the balance is negative. Because I say so...
We'll call this SNBBISS (Suffering negative balance because I say so).

SNBBISS > VHF

Therefore, all pregnant women should get an abortion.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Exactly. That's the crux of the issue for me. Not everything that's immoral must also be illegal. As I posted in another thread, I do think that terminating a pregnancy for less than rape, incest, or medical reasons is morally questionable. But using the police power of the state to criminalize it is worse.

True. If we are going to criminalize everything Christians believe to be immoral, I'd love to see a movement to criminalize greed, gluttony, blasphemy, lying and divorce first.

And why stop with Christian beliefs of morality? We should also require women to wear a hijab because Muslims believe it is immoral for a woman to have her hair uncovered in public.

 

[SteveB28]

Genetically speaking, a fetus is certainly a human being. What's in question is whether or not a fetus is a person. But either way, a fetus in most cases will certainly become a person. Therefore a fetus has a VHF. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.

Nothing to do with being a 'person'. That is just another distraction thrown into the mix. The foetus is not a human being until it reaches a stage of development whereby sentience, sapience and self-survival have been achieved. Until then, it is a potential human being. This is why, in the vast majority of human communities, we make a clear distinction between the foetus and any 'rights' it may have and the human being which may result.

 

[SteveB28]

The newborn may not be dependent on the body of the mother but a newborn is certainly dependent on someone's body. If no one uses their body to hold, feed, bathe, clothe, and protect the infant then the infant will die within 12-24 hours. I think the mother is probably the best candidate for this responsibility.

So, all of that bluster condenses into an agreement with me that the newborn baby has NO necessary dependence on the body of the mother. Totally different to a developing foetus.

Your analogy fails. Your argument fails.

 

[SteveB28]

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

Again you display your ignorance of the material upon which you pontificate!

Sentience is generally held to develop at about the 25 week stage of gestation! Newborn babies are quite sentient.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Perhaps it is immoral... But immorality has never been the sole basis for criminality.

This is exactly my position.

I think abortion is immoral, as argued by Tree of Life in the OP. And I think many people think this implicitly. No one wants more abortions. An ideal world would be one where no abortions had to occur.

However, I am also pro-choice. I think it is also immoral to force a woman to take a child to term. And the immorality of forcing a woman to go to term trumps the immorality of killing a fetus. Therefore, as a "lesser of two evils", it is better to give women the choice to abort rather than making it illegal.

I think common ground can be found: both pro-choice and pro-life people would prefer a world with fewer abortions. Lets work together to improve women's health, sex education and healthy choices so that we decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Capital punishment is immoral because it deprives VHF.
Self defense is immoral because it deprives VHF.

Special pleading is special.

I don't think the abortion debate is a case of special pleading.

Capital punishment, self defence and war are exceptions to the rule of "intentional killing = bad". These exceptions have to be justified. (Don't derail...those justifications belong in a different thread).

However, the default position is "intentional killing = bad", for the reasons Tree of Life gave in his OP. So the onus is on you to provide a justification as to why abortion is a special exception.

 

[Tree of Life]

A little overwrought, isn't it?
But trying to give you a fair response... yes, if someone stole something you didn't know you owned, it wouldn't "harm" you in any meaningful way. In the case you outlined, it would certainly be illegal, and it would be immoral, IMHO, more because the lawyer is in breach of his trust, and because the child dies.

Interesting that you think that you would not be harmed. I disagree. I think many others would as well.

 

[SteveB28]

Who? Tree of Life? Er, no, probably not — but we seem to agree, like most Christians I know, that abortion is immoral.



No, consent is a single act, like anything else, and you cannot change your mind unless there is a specific clause for that. Here are a few examples:

• If you purchase a product at a shop, you must pay for it and you receive the product. You are not allowed to give back the product and get the money back, unless the shop specifically allows for it (and, if they do allow for it, it is generally only upon certain conditions: that the product is undamaged, that you keep the receipt, and that it is returned within a specified number of weeks). Unless the country's law requires it, no shop is obligated to allow you to return the product after you have purchased.
• If you sell your house, after you have signed the contract, you are not allowed to claim the house back, unless the contract has a specific clause that allows for it under certain conditions, similarly to the previous example.
• If I promise that I will pick you up at the airport, I am obligated to do so, by word of honour. I cannot simply just change my mind and say, ‘As it turns out, I don't want to pick you up right now.’ When I promised I would, I bound myself to this commitment that I would pick you up, regardless of what I wanted or how my mind would change meanwhile. It is implicit that, unless something very bad happens which physically prevents me from going (like excessive traffic or an accident) or something else more necessary or more urgent appears unpredictably (like a relative suffering a heart attack or a very important work-related meeting) — in which cases you would surely understand —, I am forced to go and pick you up, regardless of anything else, even if I change my mind.

Similarly, upon the moment the woman has sex, the understands that, as a result, a foetus may or may not be formed within her body — and she is obligated to respect the foetus's rights if this happens, because she has agreed to take the risk.



Yes, it can. When you allow something to happen, you become responsible for it. If you put a product for sale for a specified price, you are accepting the possibility that someone will buy it; if someone does request to buy it, you cannot cancel and say, ‘Ah! Sorry! As it turns out, I don't want to sell it any more.’ You can only do that before anyone approaches to purchase your product: before the first customer comes in to buy it, you can still cancel; but, after someone has seen it and is going into your shop to buy it and offers you the money in exchange for the product, you cannot cancel it any more, since, when you put up the announcement, you were expecting precisely that.

Similarly, when the woman has sex, she accepts the possibility of the formation of the foetus. She can still attempt to cancel the formation of the foetus before conception (that is why there are emergency pills) — but, after conception has taken place, it is too late and she must stay true to the contract she made by allowing that to happen, even if she has changed her mind afterwards.



But, nevertheless, that possibility exists; and, upon sexual intercourse, the woman agrees that, if a foetus is formed, she will let it live. Of course it may not happen! But the agreement only has its effect in the case scenario that it does happen. Take my previous example: when you put up the announcement that you are selling that product, you do not know whether any interested buyers will show up; if they do not, you are free from your bond and you may remove the announcement at any time; but, after someone has shown up, you are not allowed to remove the announcement.

Think of another example: suppose you are driving a car and, upon approaching a curve, you do not slow down below the maximum safe speed, but instead you keep driving faster than you should. As you know, there is the risk that the wheels will lose adherence to the road and that your car will slide and crash. Of course it may not happen! If you are lucky enough and it does not happen, you are free from any criminal charges. But, if it happens and someone is injured, you will be prosecuted for injuring a person, and you may go to jail or be forced to pay for the person's expenses; if it happens and someone is killed, you will be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, and you may go to jail. Maybe you did not directly want to kill anyone; however, since you have committed, consciously and not subjected to coercion, an act which, with your knowledge, might lead to that person's death (even if there was also the possibility that it would not), if that person is killed as a result of your act, you will be held responsible for it.

Your analogies are hopelessly clumsy and fail to relate to the argument which you are trying to mount. Allow me to make a few comments:

Yes, consent is a continuous process in this case. If a woman finds herself pregnant, her consent to remain pregnant must persist for the next 9-10 months if she is to carry the pregnancy through to birth. A far better analogy than any you offered is to consider a person who has agreed to regularly have their blood transfused into another, to help them deal with some disease. At any point in that commitment, the person who is 'lending' their body to the other must have the right to terminate their consent. This is surely a basic tenet of bodily autonomy that we all enjoy.

But here is the comment which really stuck in my craw:

If you sell your house, after you have signed the contract, you are not allowed to claim the house back, unless the contract has a specific clause that allows for it under certain conditions, similarly to the previous example.

You present here, rather crudely, a scenario of a one-sided 'contract'! One in which only one party is obliged to make a commitment. You make no mention at all of the responsibilities of the other party. In case your knowledge of human reproduction is as poor as your colleague's, may I remind you that, when conception occurs, two parties have been responsible for bringing about that situation! Yet you make no mention whatsoever about the responsibility of the man involved. Because of the foibles of human biology, the resultant foetus happens to be lodged in the body of the female. But the male was equally responsible for placing it there. Under your scenario, however, it is solely the woman that bears responsibility for maintaining that pregnancy.

Fine. If the responsibility is solely the woman's, then so is all the decision-making - including whether or not she wishes to continue!

 

[Tree of Life]

Perhaps it is immoral... But immorality has never been the sole basis for criminality.

Indeed. I'm not arguing nor is Marquis that abortion should be illegal. Just that it is immoral. Do you find his argument persuasive to that end?

 

[Tree of Life]

I love it when "philosophers" make up acronyms to use in arguments. It almost always means they're complete rubbish. As in this case.

"VHF" isn't a thing.

Here, I can make the same type of ridiculous argument:

All human life has suffering to the extent that the balance is negative. Because I say so...
We'll call this SNBBISS (Suffering negative balance because I say so).

SNBBISS > VHF

Therefore, all pregnant women should get an abortion.

You don't think there's such a thing as future human experiences?

 

[Tree of Life]

Nothing to do with being a 'person'. That is just another distraction thrown into the mix. The foetus is not a human being until it reaches a stage of development whereby sentience, sapience and self-survival have been achieved. Until then, it is a potential human being. This is why, in the vast majority of human communities, we make a clear distinction between the foetus and any 'rights' it may have and the human being which may result.

Nah dude. The philosophers and scientists are in agreement on at least this point. A fetus is certainly a human being. Just like someone in a vegetative state is a human being.

 

[SteveB28]

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.

You seem to have 'lost the plot'. This discussion centres around secular arguments about abortion.

 

[Tree of Life]

So, all of that bluster condenses into an agreement with me that the newborn baby has NO necessary dependence on the body of the mother. Totally different to a developing foetus.

Your analogy fails. Your argument fails.

Not really. Perhaps my objection to Thomson's argument fails. But that doesn't really mean anything for Marquis' argument.