Why Abortion is Immoral

[Cearbhall]

"Inconclusive" is fairly different. This implies that there is a correct answer, objectively speaking, we just do not yet know it.

Fair point. I'm not sure what word to use, then, but it seems you understand what I meant, so I guess that's that.

If morality is purely subjective then the answer isn't inconclusive at all. The answer is clear - abortion is not wrong.

According to my moral system, yes, I would agree.

 

[SteveB28]

There is one instance in which you are allowed to do something immoral: if all the other alternatives are also immoral.

And there again is your contradiction! "Allowed to do" and "something immoral" are contradictory phrases. If something is deemed to be immoral then, BY DEFINITION, it is something that you are NOT "allowed to do". If you find exceptions, then those actions CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS IMMORAL, because you are permitting for them to be done!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You can deprive non-persons of important things and this is an ethical matter. We should not continue to consume carbon at the rate we are because our destruction of the planet deprives FUTURE people. It doesn't really hurt us much. That's an ethical argument based on depriving people who don't yet exist.

The study of ethics only regards things with consciousness. You can't have an ethical position regarding rocks. Rocks don't care you treat them because they can't care. Since first trimester fetuses don't have consciousness (and aren't persons), they're can't care what you do to them either. Your argument above doesn't work because your focus is on actual people who will exist who could suffer because of what we do to the planet. Not non-person fetuses who can't suffer.

This really has very little to do with the argument. Abortion is wrong because it deprives a fetus of a valuable human future. It doesn't matter whether or not the fetus is a person or a potential person.

Of course it matters. I've already shown that potentiality isn't a factor in how we view current ethical situations. You've ignored my arguments and in addition you keep using the phrase "valuable human future", even though I've demonstrated that there's no certain future, nor is there a way to demonstrate or quantify the word "valuable". The fact that you keep repeating things without addressing my arguments means that you're either not understanding the argument or you're being intellectually dishonest.

No. Miscarriages happen all the time. But we don't have much control of that. That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether or not we have the right to willfully and forcefully disrupt the fetus in such a way that the fetus is deprived of a valuable human future.

Once again, a non-person can not be "deprived" of anything.

You're arguing down a line that would say that murdering an adult is not wrong because we can never guarantee that the adult would have lived past the moment of his murder had he not been murdered. We don't know what would've happened! So murder is ok.

Ok, now I know you're not understanding my arguments.

It's the anti-abortion side that brings up that potentiality means something in the argument. Not me. In fact, since potentiality isn't assured, it comes off the table completely as a factor. Leaving us with a non-sentient non-person. And as I've said, rational people don't take up ethical positions for non-sentient non-persons.

 

[Tree of Life]

The study of ethics only regards things with consciousness. You can't have an ethical position regarding rocks. Rocks don't care you treat them because they can't care. Since first trimester fetuses don't have consciousness (and aren't persons), they're can't care what you do to them either. Your argument above doesn't work because your focus is on actual people who will exist who could suffer because of what we do to the planet. Not non-person fetuses who can't suffer.

How is a hypothetical person who is not even a fetus yet different from a fetus? Why is depriving a hypothetical person of future goods wrong while depriving a fetus of future goods morally acceptable?

Of course it matters. I've already shown that potentiality isn't a factor in how we view current ethical situations. You've ignored my arguments and in addition you keep using the phrase "valuable human future", even though I've demonstrated that there's no certain future, nor is there a way to demonstrate or quantify the word "valuable". The fact that you keep repeating things without addressing my arguments means that you're either not understanding the argument or you're being intellectually dishonest.

Nah. There is no need to address your point because your point is not relevant. Again, there's no "certain future" for anyone. According to your argument, murdering an adult is acceptable because we cannot guarantee that they would have had a future anyway.

Once again, a non-person can not be "deprived" of anything.

Yes they can. Future generations can be deprived of a habitable planet. Future generations are, technically speaking, non-people because they don't exist. At best they are hypothetical people. It's hard to see how they are significantly different from fetuses.

Ok, now I know you're not understanding my arguments.

It's the anti-abortion side that brings up that potentiality means something in the argument. Not me. In fact, since potentiality isn't assured, it comes off the table completely as a factor. Leaving us with a non-sentient non-person. And as I've said, rational people don't take up ethical positions for non-sentient non-persons.

Rational people do this all the time. I.e. discussions concerning climate change and present consumption patterns and their effects on future generations.

 

[Cearbhall]

Why is depriving a hypothetical person of future goods wrong while depriving a fetus of future goods morally acceptable?

We know that people will exist. Caring about future people born to consenting mothers, whoever they may be, is not the same as demanding that a specific potential person be brought into the world against the will of the pregnant woman.

 

[Tree of Life]

We know that people will exist. Caring about future people born to consenting mothers, whoever they may be, is not the same as demanding that a specific potential person be brought into the world against the will of the pregnant woman.

That's just silly. A fetus is a much more potential person that the abstract idea of a potential person. If you care about potential people you should care about fetuses because they are, in fact, potential people.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

How is a hypothetical person who is not even a fetus yet different from a fetus? Why is depriving a hypothetical person of future goods wrong while depriving a fetus of future goods morally acceptable?

Actual existent people can suffer, whether they exist now or in the future. Fetuses, whether they exist now or in the future, cannot.

Nah. There is no need to address your point because your point is not relevant. Again, there's no "certain future" for anyone. According to your argument, murdering an adult is acceptable because we cannot guarantee that they would have had a future anyway.

Unless you can say why my point about the word "valuable" isn't relative, you're just dodging the question. And I've already explained why you're incorrect to say that my argument advocates murdering adults. I keep giving you examples why potentiality means nothing to the argument. Which you keep ignoring or not understanding. Once again, the fact that you keep repeating the same things without addressing my arguments means that you're either not understanding or being intellectually dishonest.

Yes they can. Future generations can be deprived of a habitable planet. Future generations are, technically speaking, non-people because they don't exist. At best they are hypothetical people. It's hard to see how they are significantly different from fetuses.

It is simply not hard in the least. Let's say that in the future there's an existent person. This person can suffer. Let's also say in the future there's a first trimester fetus. This fetus can not suffer. Ethics only applies to the existent person, just like ethics only applies to current existent persons.

Rational people do this all the time. I.e. discussions concerning climate change and present consumption patterns and their effects on future generations.

No, rational people discuss ethics in regards to existent persons, rather than non-persons. Once again... if you discuss climate change as an ethical issue, it's in regards to how the environment will affect future existent people who can suffer, not non-persons who can't.

Anyone who's taken any Philosophy at all should be able to follow this...

 

[Tree of Life]

Nah dude. You ain't get it. No need for us to continue in this discourse. I've said enough to let the peanut gallery make their own conclusions.

 

[AionPhanes]

Interesting argument. The non-person lump of cells could, if all went well (no spontaneous miscarriage, mother burning to death in a housfire, etc...),end up becoming a person in the future. Terminate the fetus and you might end up denying that possible future person a future.

I guess one could also use that argument to show that wasting sperm cells is equivalent to killing a person too.

 

[Cearbhall]

That's just silly.

To each his own. I don't see why I'm not allowed to care about humanity in general just because I have no interest in forcing a woman to give birth on threat of prison time.

 

[Tree of Life]

Interesting argument. The non-person lump of cells could, if all went well (no spontaneous miscarriage, mother burning to death in a housfire, etc...),end up becoming a person in the future. Terminate the fetus and you might end up denying that possible future person a future.

I guess one could also use that argument to show that wasting sperms cells is equivalent to killing a person to.

No this argument cannot be made in that case. I've already demonstrated why in this thread and in the OP. In the case of abortion harm can easily be assigned - it's the fetus that is being deprived of a future. In the case of contraception or masturbation harm cannot be assigned. What is harmed in the case of contraception or masturbation?

In the case of masturbation no sperm cell has a human future, so no sperm cell is harmed in that way. In the case of contraception neither the ovum nor any sperm is harmed because these things alone do not have a human future.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nah dude. You ain't get it. No need for us to continue in this discourse. I've said enough to let the peanut gallery make their own conclusions.

"Ain't get it"?

Well, I suppose that's exactly what I thought you'd do. Unfortunately typical...

 

[Tree of Life]

"Ain't get it"?

Well, I suppose that's exactly what I thought you'd do. Unfortunately typical...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Interesting argument. The non-person lump of cells could, if all went well (no spontaneous miscarriage, mother burning to death in a housfire, etc...),end up becoming a person in the future. Terminate the fetus and you might end up denying that possible future person a future.

I guess one could also use that argument to show that wasting sperm cells is equivalent to killing a person too.

You could also argue that it's fine giving children alcohol since they're potential people of drinking age. Or allowing them to vote, since they're potential voters.

 

[Cearbhall]

"Ain't get it"?

Well, I suppose that's exactly what I thought you'd do. Unfortunately typical...

I had the same reaction. I try not to be picky or snobby about making Standard English out to be superior and the only acceptable dialect, but I don't believe "You ain't get it" even matches the grammatical structures of AAVE when the verb is present continuous.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

And there again is your contradiction! "Allowed to do" and "something immoral" are contradictory phrases. If something is deemed to be immoral then, BY DEFINITION, it is something that you are NOT "allowed to do". If you find exceptions, then those actions CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS IMMORAL, because you are permitting for them to be done!

How is that a contradiction? I mean, if you only have two options and both are immoral, what do you do? You have to consent for one of them!

 

[AionPhanes]

No this argument cannot be made in that case. I've already demonstrated why in this thread and in the OP. In the case of abortion harm can easily be assigned - it's the fetus that is being deprived of a future. In the case of contraception or masturbation harm cannot be assigned. What is harmed in the case of contraception or masturbation?

In the case of masturbation no sperm cell has a human future, so no sperm cell is harmed in that way. In the case of contraception neither the ovum nor any sperm is harmed because these things alone do not have a human future.

No sperm cell has a human future if it's wasted in the same way no fetus has a human future if it is aborted. In both cases given the proper set of circumstances (union with egg and/or being carried to full term) and environment (womb) both would lead to the eventual birth of a human person.

** non-person would be more apt because personhood is the key issue. Human is less relevant. A severed arm can be human.

 

[Tree of Life]

No sperm cell has a human future if it's wasted in the same way no fetus has a human future if it is aborted...

...in the same way that no adult person has a human future if he is murdered. How far do you want to take this?

Killing a sperm does not deprive it of a human future because a sperm cannot become a person. Killing a fetus deprives it of a human future because a fetus can and will probably become a person.

 

[AionPhanes]

Personally I think it's a category mistake to take an argument that deals with an actual person and then demand that it also be applied in the same way to a non person entity. "Nonperson yet possible future person" is not the same thing as an actual person. A fetus, like a sperm cell, isn't a person and there is no guarantee it will become one.

 

[Tree of Life]

Personally I think it's a category mistake to take an argument that deals with an actual person and then demand that it also be applied in the same way to a non person entity. "Nonperson yet possible future person" is not the same thing as an actual person. A fetus, like a sperm cell, isn't a person and there is no guarantee it will become one.

Is an implanted, healthy fetus that is aborted deprived of a human future?