Why Abortion is Immoral

[Armoured]

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.

They most assuredly are not in agreement. That a foetus is human, certainly. That it is a human being? Absolutely different kettle of fish.

 

[SteveB28]

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.

Your anecdote is an extreme outlier. Abortions performed under western medical circumstances are extremely safe and I think it highly irresponsible for a medical professional to be attempting to mount an argument which portrays otherwise. You should be ashamed.

And, fortunately, the bulk of our communities disagree with your draconian position that a woman should be denied her rights to choose after she finds herself pregnant.

 

[Belk]

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.

I apparently was not clear. trying to exclude an egg and sperm from the argument was a case of special pleading, not the abortion argument in general.

 

[Tree of Life]

They most assuredly are not in agreement. That a foetus is human, certainly. That it is a human being? Absolutely different kettle of fish.

What's the difference between a human and a human being? Something like personhood? Yeah. That's the real question. "Is a fetus a person?"

 

[Tree of Life]

I apparently was not clear. trying to exclude an egg and sperm from the argument was a case of special pleading, not the abortion argument in general.

Please demonstrate how.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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

Three things:

1. The qualifier "valuable" has no place in the argument, as it's not demonstrable or quantifiable.
2. It's not possible to guarantee any future for the fetus.
2. We don't allow or disallow actions based on possible futures. We don't incarcerate people based on the possibility that they'll commit a crime. We incarcerate people after they've committed a crime.

Without higher brain functions, a fetus isn't a person. and potentiality is meaningless.

 

[SteveB28]

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

I understand that much follow-up research has been done on this question. If memory serves, something like 95% of women have no regrets about their decision, years after their abortion. Your question is a 'red herring'.

 

[Tree of Life]

Three things:

1. The qualifier "valuable" has no place in the argument, as it's not demonstrable or quantifiable.
2. It's not possible to guarantee any future for the fetus.
2. We don't allow or disallow actions based on possible futures. We don't incarcerate people based on the possibility that they'll commit a crime. We incarcerate people after they've committed a crime.

Without higher brain functions, a fetus isn't a person. and potentiality is meaningless.

I don't think you get the argument. If you'll allow me to walk you through it, we'll start at square one.

Do you think that it's wrong to kill a normal adult human being? By normal, I mean one that is not liable to death via war, capital punishment, self defense. One who is not mentally ill or having a terminal illness. Those issues obviously complicate things and it's possible that it may not be wrong to kill in those circumstances. But a normal, adult human being. Don't you think it's wrong to kill one of them?

 

[SteveB28]

I want to add that IF we take the stance that abortion is immoral, we also need to develop an attitude of compassion for the woman who is pregnant out of wedlock. She needs to be loved and supported and not shamed. That is how we show Christ's love to these very vulnerable women. (Seldom do the fathers of these pregnancy suffer the same shame.)

Why does wedlock make a difference? Why should the options open to a single woman differ from a married one?

And, you almost 'got it'. The father is not required to honour any responsibility in the carrying of the foetus. None. The responsibility lies completely with the woman.

So, therefore, should all the decision-making opportunity.

 

[jenny1972]

Flawed premise at 2. Killing a NAHB is "wrong" at least partly because a NAHB is a sentient being who can appreciate and fear the concept of death. A VHF is not. Potential is not actuality. Acorns aren't oak trees.

since you believe that only people who are able to "appreciate and fear the concept of death" have a right to live please stay away from young children and people in hospitals and nursing homes ok ...

 

[Belk]

Please demonstrate how.

The argument rests on the premise that to deprive a potential future experience is immoral. You then attempt to exclude sperm and egg from the argument because they "do not have their own unique DNA". This is irrelevant because it is simply drawing an arbitrary distinction at the moment of conception. All sperm and eggs have as much of a chance of forming together and becoming a zygote. Why is it immoral to deprive this possible future from a zygote that has just formed but not immoral for the sperm and egg that it just came from a few seconds previously? Your explanation offers no reason too differentiate except the passage of a couple of seconds. Ergo, special pleading.

 

[jenny1972]

since you believe that only people who are able to "appreciate and fear the concept of death" have a right to live please stay away from young children and people in hospitals and nursing homes ok ...

... and mentally disabled people who live outside of institutions

 

[Armoured]

What's the difference between a human and a human being? Something like personhood? Yeah. That's the real question. "Is a fetus a person?"

Exactly so.

 

[SteveB28]

since you believe that only people who are able to "appreciate and fear the concept of death" have a right to live please stay away from young children and people in hospitals and nursing homes ok ...

"at least partly" Do try to read all the words in a sentence.

 

[Tree of Life]

The argument rests on the premise that to deprive a potential future experience is immoral. You then attempt to exclude sperm and egg from the argument because they "do not have their own unique DNA". This is irrelevant because it is simply drawing an arbitrary distinction at the moment of conception. All sperm and eggs have as much of a chance of forming together and becoming a zygote. Why is it immoral to deprive this possible future from a zygote that has just formed but not immoral for the sperm and egg that it just came from a few seconds previously? Your explanation offers no reason too differentiate except the passage of a couple of seconds. Ergo, special pleading.

I don't think so. A fertilized zygote will almost certainly become a person if not tampered with. A singular sperm or egg will not. Furthermore, the moment of conception is not arbitrary. The sperm and egg cease to exist and a new organism with unique DNA is formed. What's arbitrary about that?

 

[Tree of Life]

Exactly so.

A fetus is certainly a human being.
A fetus is probably not a person.
But personhood doesn't really matter in the question of whether or not abortion is immoral. Marquis' argument does not depend on whether or not a fetus is a person.

 

[SteveB28]

The argument rests on the premise that to deprive a potential future experience is immoral. You then attempt to exclude sperm and egg from the argument because they "do not have their own unique DNA". This is irrelevant because it is simply drawing an arbitrary distinction at the moment of conception. All sperm and eggs have as much of a chance of forming together and becoming a zygote. Why is it immoral to deprive this possible future from a zygote that has just formed but not immoral for the sperm and egg that it just came from a few seconds previously? Your explanation offers no reason too differentiate except the passage of a couple of seconds. Ergo, special pleading.

Well done sir - you deliver the final nail!

 

[Armoured]

A fetus is certainly a human being.
A fetus is probably not a person.
But personhood doesn't really matter in the question of whether or not abortion is immoral. Marquis' argument does not depend on whether or not a fetus is a person.

Then your definition of "human being " is different to how I understand the term.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't think you get the argument. If you'll allow me to walk you through it, we'll start at square one.

Do you think that it's wrong to kill a normal adult human being? By normal, I mean one that is not liable to death via war, capital punishment, self defense. One who is not mentally ill or having a terminal illness. Those issues obviously complicate things and it's possible that it may not be wrong to kill in those circumstances. But a normal, adult human being. Don't you think it's wrong to kill one of them?

Lol. Oh I get the argument all right. I'm starting to think that you don't though...

Even your "square one" has issues. "Normal" isn't demonstrable or quantifiable either. Your exceptions are just special pleading.

But I'll give a particular circumstance just to keep things moving. I think it would be wrong of me to kill my neighbor because he's playing music loud. I think this for various reasons. The one you're most interested in (probably the least important reason to me) is because as an existent person, killing him denies him something that he already has.

Your turn...

 

[jenny1972]

Exactly so.

yes we know you dont consider human beings as people who have a right to live unless they have a certain degree of intelligence , very dangerous thinking indeed , and a direct result of legalized abortion on our culture . next will be the argument that mentally disabled people are not really people with rights in fact some like yourself have already determined that they are not people because of their lack of intelligence a dangerous road we travel on here.