Hypocrisy?

[Marek]

It is clear that there is a large group of people who for the most part, oppose war and the death penalty, yet support pro-choice beliefs. I guess the question is, if abortion is morally accepted, then why are war and the death penalty morally unaccepted? How is this not hypocritical? I’ve been contemplating this question for some time. I’ve read several arguments and opposing viewpoints, yet I’ve not come across a clear explanation of this view. I think it is important to understand both sides of an argument before formulating a strong opinion on it. If there is anyone out there who holds these beliefs, I would love to hear a clear and rational explanation. I do not want to argue; I’m just yet to come across logical reasoning for this. Thanks.

 

[Arikay]

It's a good question.
It is important to note that it is pro choice, not pro abortion. Quite a few pro choice supporters see abortion as morally wrong in many cases, however they support the right for the patient and doctor to decide what is best for themselves instead of generalized legislation deciding for them. In some cases abortion could be considered pro life. If both the baby and mother are going to die without an abortion, the abortion saves a life. Since abortions happen no matter if it is legal or not, legal abortions can be much safer and thus can save the life of the person who would get an illegal abortion.

 

[Freodin]

The basic problem is the definition of "human life".

It is very difficult to define when a group of cells becomes a "human being". Perhaps you should read what some of the church fathers had to say about that - they couldn´t agree either.

But in both war and capital punishment, the victim is clearly defined as a human being.

So you see, there is a difference.

 

[Marek]

The basic problem is the definition of "human life".

It is very difficult to define when a group of cells becomes a "human being". Perhaps you should read what some of the church fathers had to say about that - they couldn´t agree either.

But in both war and capital punishment, the victim is clearly defined as a human being.

So you see, there is a difference.

I feel this is the basic problem with many arguments concerning abortion. Right away people jump to whether or not something falls under the category of "human being" or "human life". It seems to be very flawed logic to believe that as long as it does not fall under this category, it is morally acceptable to kill it. Before jumping to this conclusion, I think it is important to understand what makes the killing of a human being such a terrible act and then apply it to this situation. So what does make killing a human being so wrong and how does this not apply to a human embryo?

Arikay, thanks for the reply but I was asking about those that oppose a ban on abortion, except in certain rare cases such as the mother's life being in danger.

 

[Freodin]

I feel this is the basic problem with many arguments concerning abortion. Right away people jump to whether or not something falls under the category of "human being" or "human life". It seems to be very flawed logic to believe that as long as it does not fall under this category, it is morally acceptable to kill it. Before jumping to this conclusion, I think it is important to understand what makes the killing of a human being such a terrible act and then apply it to this situation. So what does make killing a human being so wrong and how does this not apply to a human embryo?

"What makes killing a human wrong?" is a difficult question - as can be seen by the age-old and ongoing debates about justifying wars and capital punishment. My argument would be that every human life is precious as something unique and not replacable in the way of having personal experiences.
This does (possibly) not apply to an embryo, because it is not able to have any experiences, because it is yet lacking the necessary "equipment".
It is in that not different from you hair. You do believe it is morally acceptable to cut you hair, do you? Why?

Now the difference is that an embryo has the potential to have experiences, and will, at some undefined point, cross the line from "not-able" to "able to have experiences".

But a decision to kill is made at a certain point in time. It acts on the conditions at this point, and not on potentials.

So an embryo can be aborted, exactly because it is not a human being.


I have to add that I reject abortions, exactly for the reason that it is NOT clearly defined when this groups of cells stops being human cells, and becomes a human being.
But there are people who make this definition - by whatever standard. These people can support abortion and reject capital punishment - and not be hypocrites.

 

[David Gould]

I oppose a ban on abortion. I oppose the death penalty. I generally am not too happy with the notion of war, although sometimes I think it is necessary.

My defence of my abortion position is based entirely on the notion of personhood. In other words, the happiness of a human being in general come before the happiness of a non-human. I eat meat, for example. I would say that I put humans first, cats second and everything else third.

Now, I do not accept that a foetus is a human being. In that case, the rights of the mother are of priority. Pretty simple, really.

The death penalty: I opposed this when I was a Christian because I believed all human life to be sacred to God and it is His choice, not ours, as to when it should end. I oppose it now that I am an atheist because I believe this life is all we get. There are other, more complicated, considerations but there is not much point going into them at the moment.

I generally oppose war because it usually creates vast amounts of suffering. Sometimes it can be required to prevent vast amounts of suffering, but that is always difficult to judge.

 

[Marek]

"What makes killing a human wrong?" is a difficult question - as can be seen by the age-old and ongoing debates about justifying wars and capital punishment. My argument would be that every human life is precious as something unique and not replacable in the way of having personal experiences.
This does (possibly) not apply to an embryo, because it is not able to have any experiences, because it is yet lacking the necessary "equipment".
It is in that not different from you hair. You do believe it is morally acceptable to cut you hair, do you? Why?

Now the difference is that an embryo has the potential to have experiences, and will, at some undefined point, cross the line from "not-able" to "able to have experiences".

But a decision to kill is made at a certain point in time. It acts on the conditions at this point, and not on potentials.

So an embryo can be aborted, exactly because it is not a human being.


I have to add that I reject abortions, exactly for the reason that it is NOT clearly defined when this groups of cells stops being human cells, and becomes a human being.
But there are people who make this definition - by whatever standard. These people can support abortion and reject capital punishment - and not be hypocrites.

I agree that if this belief is held then these people would not be hypocrites, but this belief would have to entail certain other beliefs that are not so easy to hold. By saying that an embryo can be killed because it "has the potential to have experiences" but is not "having personal experiences", you would have to include those that are unconscious as those that are morally acceptable to kill. They too are not having personal experiences but have the potential to have personal experiences(that is, when they become conscious). I don't feel this is acceptable reasoning. You can probably see why this type of reasoning gets kind of messy.

 

[Freodin]

I agree that if this belief is held then these people would not be hypocrites, but this belief would have to entail certain other beliefs that are not so easy to hold. By saying that an embryo can be killed because it "has the potential to have experiences" but is not "having personal experiences", you would have to include those that are unconscious as those that are morally acceptable to kill. They too are not having personal experiences but have the potential to have personal experiences(that is, when they become conscious). I don't feel this is acceptable reasoning. You can probably see why this type of reasoning gets kind of messy.

It is a messy kind of reasoning. That is all that is left when you don´t have clear-cut definitions.

That´s why I like to err on the side of caution.

 

[Marek]

My defence of my abortion position is based entirely on the notion of personhood. In other words, the happiness of a human being in general come before the happiness of a non-human.

Could you explain how you account for animal cruelty with this reasoning? It would seem that this would not be morally wrong if some sort of cruelty to animals brought about some joy in the human responsible. Either you feel this is morally acceptable, or there is some flaw in your reasoning.

 

[David Gould]

I agree that if this belief is held then these people would not be hypocrites, but this belief would have to entail certain other beliefs that are not so easy to hold. By saying that an embryo can be killed because it "has the potential to have experiences" but is not "having personal experiences", you would have to include those that are unconscious as those that are morally acceptable to kill. They too are not having personal experiences but have the potential to have personal experiences(that is, when they become conscious). I don't feel this is acceptable reasoning. You can probably see why this type of reasoning gets kind of messy.

This gets into all the other complicated things.

However, just because the rights of a fetus are overridden by the rights of the mother does not mean that the fetus has no rights. Further, it is only when those rights come into conflict that a decision needs to be taken.

It might well be perfectly moral to kill someone who is unconscious provided that there was a legitimate conflict in rights. In other words, someone simply being unconscious does not impinge on the rights of humans. Therefore, there is no argument to permissible kill them. A fetus, however, does impinge on the rights of humans - specifically the mother.

 

[David Gould]

Could you explain how you account for animal cruelty with this reasoning? It would seem that this would not be morally wrong if some sort of cruelty to animals brought about some joy in the human responsible. Either you feel this is morally acceptable, or there is some flaw in your reasoning.

No, because just because human rights are superior does not mean that they swamp all rights of animals. This is the way humans in general operate. In other words, we would prefer to eat meat but at the same time we would prefer it if the animals we eat were treated reasonably well up until the point of their death, and we would prefer it if their death was relatively painless.

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that the superiority of human rights means the extinguishment of other rights.

As an example, a fetus may well impinge on the rights of the people around it. For example, I may feel grudgingly obligated to give up my seat on the bus to the mother. However, that impingement on my rights does not mean that I can demand the fetus be aborted. This is because its rights are superior to mine in this instance.

 

[Marek]

It might well be perfectly moral to kill someone who is unconscious provided that there was a legitimate conflict in rights. In other words, someone simply being unconscious does not impinge on the rights of humans. Therefore, there is no argument to permissible kill them. A fetus, however, does impinge on the rights of humans - specifically the mother.

But does the right to be "better-off" override the right to life? Somehow I don't see this as a "legitimate conflict in rights".

 

[David Gould]

But does the right to be "better-off" override the right to life? Somehow I don't see this as a "legitimate conflict in rights".

I am a meat eater. My right to be able to eat meat overrides the right of a non-human to life.

A fetus is, in my opinion, a non-human.


And we are not arguing here about what is right and wrong: we are arguing about the consistency of my position. You can legitimately disagree with my proposition that a woman's right to do what she likes overrides the rights of a fetus. That's fine. But that is not what we are discussing.

 

[Marek]

I am a meat eater. My right to be able to eat meat overrides the right of a non-human to life.

A fetus is, in my opinion, a non-human.


And we are not arguing here about what is right and wrong: we are arguing about the consistency of my position. You can legitimately disagree with my proposition that a woman's right to do what she likes overrides the rights of a fetus. That's fine. But that is not what we are discussing.

My initial question was concerning the conflict between the rights to life of a convicted murderer or opposing soldier versus that of a human fetus. The issue does not seem to be the difference between them, but the unavoidable similarity. We are considering the premature death of these “beings”. What makes the premature death of a criminal or a soldier morally unacceptable? It seems clear that the misfortune in killing them is that they are deprived of their future, most importantly, the goods of their future. This is why killing humans is so wrong. This is why depriving someone of this results in the most severe penalty, that is, the deprivation of their own goods of their future.

Now, when this is related to an embryo, the same holds true whether or not an embryo is a human. It seems morally wrong to kill them because they are deprived of the exact same thing humans are deprived of, that is, a similar future of goods.

Now the problem with your view is that in one case the deprivation of this is morally accepted, and in another it is not. How can one act be both wrong and right at the same time? This is where my confusion lies.

 

[David Gould]

My initial question was concerning the conflict between the rights to life of a convicted murderer or opposing soldier versus that of a human fetus. The issue does not seem to be the difference between them, but the unavoidable similarity. We are considering the premature death of these “beings”. What makes the premature death of a criminal or a soldier morally unacceptable? It seems clear that the misfortune in killing them is that they are deprived of their future, most importantly, the goods of their future. This is why killing humans is so wrong. This is why depriving someone of this results in the most severe penalty, that is, the deprivation of their own goods of their future.

I have a few issues with this but none of any importance. For ease, I will simply say I agree with this.

Now, when this is related to an embryo, the same holds true whether or not an embryo is a human. It seems morally wrong to kill them because they are deprived of the exact same thing humans are deprived of, that is, a similar future of goods.

If you argue this then you must argue that it is wrong to eat meat.

The problem you are having here is the same one I mentioned above: the problem of two conflicting rights.

An animal has a right to live and enjoy future goods. I have a right to enjoy a steak. Two conflicting rights. The conflict is resolved in my favour due to the notion that the rights of a human generally outweigh the rights of a non-human.

If we apply this to a fetus, a fetus has the right to live and enjoy future goods. The mother also has the right to enjoy future goods in the way she chooses. There is a potential conflict here. How is that conflict resolved? In her favour due to the notion that the rights of a human generally outweigh the rights of a non-human.

There is no inconsistency in my position.

Now the problem with your view is that in one case the deprivation of this is morally accepted, and in another it is not. How can one act be both wrong and right at the same time? This is where my confusion lies.

I hope I have cleared it up for you.