Abortion = Murder ?

[Seeking...]

What does "a future like ours" mean exactly?

 

[Marek]

What does "a future like ours" mean exactly?

Basically, a 'future like ours' would consist of the future of any rational being, in this case, a human being. Humans have the capacity for a future of good. They can view beautiful paintings, they can experience love, they can eat fine food, they can enjoy a good book, they can relax in a comfortable bed, etc., etc. When a person is killed, they are deprived of this good that is to come in their future. This is why murder is wrong; we have no right to intentionally destroy an innocent person's 'future like ours'.

 

[Seeking...]

Basically, a 'future like ours' would consist of the future of any rational being, in this case, a human being. Humans have the capacity for a future of good. They can view beautiful paintings, they can experience love, they can eat fine food, they can enjoy a good book, they can relax in a comfortable bed, etc., etc. When a person is killed, they are deprived of this good that is to come in their future. This is why murder is wrong; we have no right to intentionally destroy an innocent person's 'future like ours'.

So according to your reasoning the abortion of a severely deformed child or one with a fatal genetic defect would not be immoral on the same basis because you would not be depriving them of a "future like ours".

Is this assessment correct?

 

[Marek]

So according to your reasoning the abortion of a severely deformed child or one with a fatal genetic defect would not be immoral on the same basis because you would not be depriving them of a "future like ours".

Is this assessment correct?

If the defect is so severe that they cannot enjoy any goods of life, then I would agree that abortion is acceptable.

 

[James T]

What's wrong with this logic?

Murder is wrong because it deprives someone/something of a future like ours.

Abortion deprives someone/something of a future like ours.

Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Several issues here, but the one I wanted to pick up on was the specific logic of the above statement. My view is that if you can substitute an absurd claim into the argument without altering the structure and the absurd claim follows with the same degree of validity of the original then the original is unsound.

It seems possible to include a wide range of words in place of Abortion some of which are truly absurd, consider masturbation, abstinence, preventing rape. The part of the statement which I just consider to be absurd is the inclusion of the term something, this is basically an attempt to move the goal posts away from the key issue which is defining what it is to be a person.

We know that this occurs sometime after conception and before birth. We know that it includes a degree of conscious capability which is clearly evident in young children but not so clearly evident in newborn babies. My own view is that the gestation necessary for a premature birth to result in a good outcome is one extreme limit. I don't know the gestational details well enough to suggest the other, however it seems likely the first trimester would be my first guess.

What disturbs me is that in focussing on the extreme ends of this argument, abhorent practices of partial birth abortion (defined as second and third trimester abortions) continued until very recently. The all or nothing argument is silly and counterproductive.

The all or nothing argument had pushed me solidly into the pro-choice camp. However, on partial birth abortions, I am solidly pro-life.

 

[Seeking...]

If the defect is so severe that they cannot enjoy any goods of life, then I would agree that abortion is acceptable.

So abortion/murder are only immoral based on a quality of life issue? If this is your basis then how do you define an acceptable quality of life? Would you use a subjective/cultural standard or an objective one? How? The points you made earlier were about a life in a distinctly western culture. Many third world countries to not have such a standard for even a sizable minority of their citizens. Would murder and abortion there be more acceptable because those people do not have a "future like ours"?

 

[Marek]

Several issues here, but the one I wanted to pick up on was the specific logic of the above statement. My view is that if you can substitute an absurd claim into the argument without altering the structure and the absurd claim follows with the same degree of validity of the original then the original is unsound.

It seems possible to include a wide range of words in place of Abortion some of which are truly absurd, consider masturbation, abstinence, preventing rape. The part of the statement which I just consider to be absurd is the inclusion of the term something, this is basically an attempt to move the goal posts away from the key issue which is defining what it is to be a person.

This problem does not apply. Tell me, what being is deprived of a future in the case of masturbation, abstinence, etc.? Whether or not a fetus is a person does not apply. The important issue is that it has a future (if it is not aborted). The issue of 'someone/something' can be cleared up with the exclusion of 'someone', as a person or a fetus is clearly 'something'.

We know that this occurs sometime after conception and before birth. We know that it includes a degree of conscious capability which is clearly evident in young children but not so clearly evident in newborn babies. My own view is that the gestation necessary for a premature birth to result in a good outcome is one extreme limit. I don't know the gestational details well enough to suggest the other, however it seems likely the first trimester would be my first guess.

Again, I don't feel this applies.

What disturbs me is that in focussing on the extreme ends of this argument, abhorent practices of partial birth abortion (defined as second and third trimester abortions) continued until very recently. The all or nothing argument is silly and counterproductive.

The all or nothing argument had pushed me solidly into the pro-choice camp. However, on partial birth abortions, I am solidly pro-life.

Though the all or nothing argument may be conterproductive, I do not believe it to be 'silly'.

 

[Marek]

So abortion/murder are only immoral based on a quality of life issue?

Yes. If it is a sure thing that a child will not experience any good in their life, then abortion is acceptable.

If this is your basis then how do you define an acceptable quality of life? Would you use a subjective/cultural standard or an objective one? How?

A life with no good is not worth living. That seems to be a fairly simple standard.

The points you made earlier were about a life in a distinctly western culture. Many third world countries to not have such a standard for even a sizable minority of their citizens. Would murder and abortion there be more acceptable because those people do not have a "future like ours"?

No. A 'future like ours' entails any good that exists in a rational being's life. Clearly, even citizens of third world countries are rational beings and have some good in their life. To kill these people would deprive them of this good.

 

[Spitsign]

The truth can be much more simple than it appears. Remember that the morality of slavery was debated for centuries while most educated people today would agree that it is clearly morally wrong.

I don't believe that you can say that a change in personality results in the death of a person. I also don't see how this relates to the issue of abortion...

A fetus is nothing more than a potential for life. So is a sperm. So, by saying abortion is wrong, you're saying wasting a sperm is wrong. No more birth control!
Yep, good idea..

 

[James T]

This problem does not apply. Tell me, what being is deprived of a future in the case of masturbation, abstinence, etc.? Whether or not a fetus is a person does not apply. The important issue is that it has a future (if it is not aborted). The issue of 'someone/something' can be cleared up with the exclusion of 'someone', as a person or a fetus is clearly 'something'.

When you introduce your thoughts as logic and then present in a premise premise conclusion form one expects a certain degree of rigour that is absent. One of the elements required is that your terms actually make some distinctions, use of the term someone/something fails by being so general to be completely worthless.

You probably haven't seen the Monty Python skit every sperm is sacred otherwise you might have picked up my meaning a little more clearly.

Though the all or nothing argument may be conterproductive, I do not believe it to be 'silly'.

I suppose it depends on whether you really want to save some lives or whether you just wish to beat your chest and force your views onto the way other people live their lives.

Yes. If it is a sure thing that a child will not experience any good in their life, then abortion is acceptable.

A life with no good is not worth living. That seems to be a fairly simple standard.

How and who defines the experience of good, or even just good? These are naive definitions.

 

[Marek]

A fetus is nothing more than a potential for life. So is a sperm. So, by saying abortion is wrong, you're saying wasting a sperm is wrong. No more birth control!
Yep, good idea..

What? This relates to nothing I've said.

 

[Spitsign]

What? This relates to nothing I've said.

Accidentally quoted your post, was just speaking to everybody in the thread generally.

 

[Ryal Kane]

What's wrong with this logic?

Murder is wrong because it deprives someone/something of a future like ours.

Abortion deprives someone/something of a future like ours.

Therefore, abortion is wrong.

You could argue that contraception also deprives something of a future. Do you think this is wrong too? How about abstinance?

I'm pro choice but I think there are far too many abortions. Contraception should be used before it gets to that point. But the abortion option should exist.

 

[Spyr]

Yes. If it is a sure thing that a child will not experience any good in their life, then abortion is acceptable.


A life with no good is not worth living. That seems to be a fairly simple standard.


No. A 'future like ours' entails any good that exists in a rational being's life. Clearly, even citizens of third world countries are rational beings and have some good in their life. To kill these people would deprive them of this good.

I thought I knew where you stood Marek but I'm not too sure now. Are you saying that abortion is acceptable if the fetus is sick or deformed or if they'll have a bad life? If so then I would argue that a fetus morally forced to be carried to term will have a bad life because they'll be born to a person who doesn't really want it (even adoption could be a bad thing).

Also where would you draw the line for sick or deformed. I was born with poor lungs and heart and actually have no assurance I'll wake up tomorrow. Would it have been morally acceptable to abort me? And if that would be the exception then if a mother deliberately did drugs in order to make the fetus less viable then would it be acceptable to abort?

I'm just trying to see where your lines are drawn. I haven't made myself clear please feel free to correct me and tell me exactly when abortions or morally acceptable.

 

[Spyr]

I've never understood how some pro-life people could be against abortion but not against contraceptives. Isn't it the same thing? I mean a sperm has the same potential for life as a fetus if handled properly. What about killing animals or harvesting crops. They seem to have the same value as a fetus to me. At any rate it's not like any of this makes a difference right?

 

[Marek]

When you introduce your thoughts as logic and then present in a premise premise conclusion form one expects a certain degree of rigour that is absent. One of the elements required is that your terms actually make some distinctions, use of the term someone/something fails by being so general to be completely worthless.

How is 'someone/something' so general that it is completely worthless? Let me remove 'someone'. Does it make the argument invalid? Clearly not. Then is it unsound? Let's see:
'Murder is wrong because it deprives something of a future like ours.' - This is a sound premise. Murder clearly deprives something of a future like ours. If you don't agree with this, let me know.
'Abortion deprives something of a future like ours.' - This is also true. The fetus is deprived of growing and having a future of good. This is a sound premise.
Clearly the conclusion follows from these. The argument in sound and valid. I don't see where the problem lies.

You probably haven't seen the Monty Python skit every sperm is sacred otherwise you might have picked up my meaning a little more clearly.

I have seen it. It is quite funny.

I suppose it depends on whether you really want to save some lives or whether you just wish to beat your chest and force your views onto the way other people live their lives.

I'm just trying to show that the all or nothing stance is the logically and morally correct stance to have. I doubt it will change many views anyway.

How and who defines the experience of good, or even just good? These are naive definitions.

They need not be defined. Any rational being has the capacity for the experience of good.

 

[Marek]

You could argue that contraception also deprives something of a future. Do you think this is wrong too? How about abstinance?

I'm pro choice but I think there are far too many abortions. Contraception should be used before it gets to that point. But the abortion option should exist.

You need to understand the difference between active and passive potentiality. If contraception is used, you are merely preventing a life from being created. Is this wrong? What is being harmed? What is being deprived of a future like ours? It cannot be the possible fetus; this being does not yet exist. You clearly cannot harm something that does not and never will exist. If nothing is being harmed through the use of contraceptives, then it is not wrong.

 

[Marek]

I thought I knew where you stood Marek but I'm not too sure now. Are you saying that abortion is acceptable if the fetus is sick or deformed or if they'll have a bad life? If so then I would argue that a fetus morally forced to be carried to term will have a bad life because they'll be born to a person who doesn't really want it (even adoption could be a bad thing).

Also where would you draw the line for sick or deformed. I was born with poor lungs and heart and actually have no assurance I'll wake up tomorrow. Would it have been morally acceptable to abort me? And if that would be the exception then if a mother deliberately did drugs in order to make the fetus less viable then would it be acceptable to abort?

I'm just trying to see where your lines are drawn. I haven't made myself clear please feel free to correct me and tell me exactly when abortions or morally acceptable.

I'm saying that abortion is acceptable if there is not chance that the being will experience any good in its life. This could be the case if the child will be born without a functioning brain or if the child has defects such that it will be in severe pain and die soon after it is born. Clearly this is very rarely the case which is why abortion should rarely occur in these situations. I'm not trying to say that if the child will have a bad life, such as being poor or sick, they should be aborted. Clearly they will experience good in life, or at least have the same capacity for good that others have, and can make of it what they wish.

 

[Spyr]

I'm saying that abortion is acceptable if there is not chance that the being will experience any good in its life. This could be the case if the child will be born without a functioning brain or if the child has defects such that it will be in severe pain and die soon after it is born. Clearly this is very rarely the case which is why abortion should rarely occur in these situations. I'm not trying to say that if the child will have a bad life, such as being poor or sick, they should be aborted. Clearly they will experience good in life, or at least have the same capacity for good that others have, and can make of it what they wish.

If the child is born and will have severe pain doesn't mean they can't still have good in their life. And there's not a 100% certainty that the child will die after birth. In which case shouldn't it be left up to god if the child dies after birth? What if a miracle were to happen, as with humble ol' me, and the child survived? You might as well just have abortion be wrong in its entirety and be done with it.

 

[Marek]

If the child is born and will have severe pain doesn't mean they can't still have good in their life. And there's not a 100% certainty that the child will die after birth. In which case shouldn't it be left up to god if the child dies after birth? What if a miracle were to happen, as with humble ol' me, and the child survived? You might as well just have abortion be wrong in its entirety and be done with it.

Yes - I'll agree with you. If there is any chance for good then the child should be kept alive. In rare but possible instances where there is an impossibility for good, then I feel there in nothing wrong with abortion. As slim as the chances of this case might be, there must be this exception.