Is Abortion Morally Permissible?

[brightlights]

This thread is a formal debate between brightlights and Nathan45. All are welcome to read the posts, but only the two mentioned are allowed to post.
The question being debated in this thread is this: Is abortion morally permissible?

Since we are debating morality we should not talk about law or making abortion legal/illegal. Rather, we should concentrate on whether or not abortion is morally permissible. Laws and morals are different things.

I was asked to state my stance on abortion in the cases of rape, the child threatening the mother's life, and fetuses with terrible diseases but I would rather the discussion did not touch on these cases because they are marginal and obviously ethical dilemas. The vast majority of abortions performed are not performed for these reasons and if we are to discuss the moral permissibility of abortion we should deal with what abortion is mostly, considering that this position does not necessarily commit us to a position on the marginal cases. They are very different and should not be considered when discussing the permissibility of abortion.

If Nathan would like to call any of the above into question he may, but these are the stipulations that I would like to put on the debate and I think they are reasonable ones.

That being said I will procede with my position on abortion and infanticide.
1) Abortion is prima facie wrong no matter when the fetus is aborted.
2) Infanticide is prima facie wrong. I do suppose we will both agree on this, so I will not bother to argue for it at the moment.

One arguement for 1) procedes thusly:
Begin with the obvious truth: It is seriously prima facie wrong to kill a normal adult human being. Now:
1) Taking abortion out of the mind, consider why it is bad to kill a normal adult human being.
2) A strong reason for why it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being is that it prevents him from having future experiences (supposing that he has a future like ours).
3) Now apply this reason to abortion and see if the same holds true. Is the natural property still present in abortion?
4) Aborting a fetus prevents it from having any future experiences and prevents it from having a future like ours.
5) Therefore abortion is seriously prima facie morally wrong.

 

[Nathan45]

Hello, and thanks for the opportunity to debate this issue



I will make two replies. My first post--this one--will outline my position on this issue. The second post will be a rebuttal to your post.

First, rather than a narrow debate, I would much prefer this debate encompass the full range of issues:

1) The morality of celibacy
2) The morality of contraception
2) The morality of abortion in cases of medical danger, rape, or deformity.
3) The morality of elective abortion
4) The morality of late-term abortion
5) The morality of infanticide
6) The morality of murder

As was discussed in your original debate invitation post, some arguments used in favor of legal abortion could also be used in favor of legal infanticide.

Likewise, many arguments opposing abortion, can also be used to oppose justifiable abortion--abortion in cases of medical danger, rape or deformity, and can be used to oppose contraception or oppose celibacy.

I also think that the legality of abortion is a central issue to this debate, and it is difficult to discuss abortion without discussing whether it should be legal or not.

With that being said, I will stake my position as follows:

First, on the general basis of morality:

1) Morality is relative to culture, laws, and the conscience of the individual in question.

2) Absolute morality does not exist and is not knowable. Nothing is immoral a priori.

edit: It has been pointed out to me that i don't actually know what "prima facie" means. I was never really that good with latin, lol. what i meant was "a priori". So i've replaced all instances of "prima facie" with "a priori" in this post.

in contrast, Objective Morality does exist and is knowable, because it is set in stone as laws. It is not absolute because it is only objective for as long as the law is valid or enforceable. There is no difference between Objective Morality and Legalism--Objective morality is defined as legalism for the purpose of this discussion, as separate from Absolute morality, defined as a priori morality, which does not exist.

Subjective Morality does exist and is knowable to oneself, but not to others, and is known only through conscience.

2) Morality is, in it's entirety, is derived from evolutionary social interactions and game theory. An Evil action is one which is harmful* to the social group, and often beneficial* to the individual who undertakes it. .

*these are subjective terms because morality is subjective.

Legalism, both the type you find in modern legal codes or in the old testament, is the result of shoving subjective morality into an objective box, where it can be effectively and objectively judged. The purpose of this is to have an objective way of encouraging good and discouraging evil, having this is beneficial to a healthy society.

For practical reasons it is necessary to draw very distinct lines on what is moral and what is not, or else there would be moral chaos. It must be clear and obvious when a law is broken, and for practical reasons, the objectivity of the law is in some cases more important than the moral value of it. This is what objective legalism is all about, shoving morality into a box where it can be easily understood and identified, and then agreed upon.

Subjective Morality is one's own opinion of morality, apart from the law, including but not limited to, general empathy, reason and logic, purpose, or any other opinion which the individual believes will lead to positive results. On this ground, because one can only be judged on self-consistency, the only appropriate attack on someone's subjective morality is pointing out hypocrisy.

3) As such there are two chief issues to use when determining whether something is moral:

a) is it against cultural norms, or illegal. ( what is other people's opinion about this? what criteria does the law use to objectively judge whether the actions in question are permissible or not? )

b) does it violate one's own reason, or conscience? ( your own opinion about morality ).

... As such, is it difficult to judge per terms of your debate whether "abortion" is moral apart from the law, it depends very much on social norms, and the mentality of the woman and doctor performing the abortion. Eitherway, it is not, currently, illegal, in the united states, where I live.

I will say that abortion is not the moral equivalent of murder. I believe this stems from a fallacy related to Loki's Wager. The point at which a fetus attains the right to life cannot be absolutely defined, thus, according to the fallacy, it cannot be discussed. It is like warming a coffee cup, at one point it is cold, at one point it is hot, but it is difficult to point down a single instant where it was cold and became hot.

However, even if it cannot be absolutely defined, it can, and has, been objectively defined.

I will tentatively accept that the fetus has a right to life after the 2nd trimester, although I wouldn't disagree or fault anyone or any law that defined it at birth.

For a rhetorical question ( You can answer, if you want ),

What is a 6 week old fetus worth?

Option A) Utterly priceless
Option B) About 6 weeks.

To answer this question you would have to ask the mother, and i think most mothers would answer A. But this question is up to her, because she is the one who will be going through the pain and labor of bringing this being into the world.

But if the fetus is aborted at 6 weeks, how is anyone, including the fetus, any better or worse of than if the baby had never been conceived at all? The fetus is no better or no worse off than any other combination of sperm and egg that never met.

Furthermore, you could argue that a fetus has a soul, I would argue that this can't be proven. An early fetus and embryo does not have a brain, never did have one, and never will. So why would God give it a soul?

The mother owes this fetus absolutely nothing. The fetus is not more entitled to life than any other random combination of sperm and egg. Life is a gift, which once given cannot be ( legally ) taken away, but in this case it was never given a life in the first place.

...

Now that i have laid the groundwork, my position is as follows:

1) The mother owes the fetus absolutely nothing, and is not obligated to become a baby factory if she does not want to. The baby is no worse off being aborted than if it was never conceived at all.

2) Infanticide ( and I would argue, tentatively, this could apply to late term abortion also ) is not proper because the fetus is already been completed. There is no reason to arbitrarily kill it if it is viable outside of the womb. That would be destroying what has already been given.

Because we live in an industrialized country where there is plenty of food and people willing to adopt, there is no reason to kill the fetus/baby after it has already been given life.



I look forward to a lively debate. I will reply again with a rebuttal to your opening argument shortly.

 

[Nathan45]

That being said I will procede with my position on abortion and infanticide.
1) Abortion is prima facie wrong no matter when the fetus is aborted.
2) Infanticide is prima facie wrong. I do suppose we will both agree on this, so I will not bother to argue for it at the moment.

One arguement for 1) procedes thusly:
Begin with the obvious truth: It is seriously prima facie wrong to kill a normal adult human being. Now:
1) Taking abortion out of the mind, consider why it is bad to kill a normal adult human being.
2) A strong reason for why it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being is that it prevents him from having future experiences (supposing that he has a future like ours).
3) Now apply this reason to abortion and see if the same holds true. Is the natural property still present in abortion?
4) Aborting a fetus prevents it from having any future experiences and prevents it from having a future like ours.
5) Therefore abortion is seriously prima facie morally wrong.

1) I do not believe that anything is a priori morally wrong. I would question what absolute basis you have for declaring anything "prima facie" morally wrong.

edit: replaced "prima facie" with "a priori" above, because i don't speak latin.

2) You are correct in that it is morally wrong to kill a normal adult human being ( although not a priori, there is a time for everything under the sun ). However, this is not because you deprive him of future experiences.

I would argue that because morality is derived from social instincts, which lead us into the direction of a coherant social order, it is extremely anti-social to kill other people. It goes without saying that a social order which allows it's members to arbitrarily murder, for greed or for gain, anyone they feel like-- will not long endure.

Abortion, however, is different--it is simply the unwillingness at this time to create another person. No one else is any worse off than if the baby had not been conceived in the first place, and the woman in question is under no obligations to become a baby factory without her own willingness towards that end.

Also, the argument that it is wrong to kill a fetus because you deprive him of future experiences, if believed, should be taken to it's logical conclusion:

1) Is it wrong to abort a fetus that was the result of rape, because you deprive him of future experiences?

2) Is it wrong to use contraception, because you prevent life and prevent an egg from having future experiences? What separates a zygote or embryo from an egg? If you believe that God gives the egg a soul at conception, why do you believe this?

3) Is it wrong to be celebate because that would result in not having children, who would then not have future experiences?

4) At what rate is the future experiences of the mother weighed against the future experiences of the fetus?

You could argue that if the pregnancy is dangerous, in cases where the life of the mother is at risk, the future experiences of the mother must be weighed against the future experiences of the fetus. But if abortion is legal when the mother's life is at risk, do the rights of the mother not outweigh the rights of the fetus?

If you agree, then you must agree that even a perfectly safe pregnancy, will have an effect on the future experiences of the mother.

In a nutshell, why is a 6 week old aborted fetus any worse off than if it had never been conceived, and why is the woman in question under any obligation to give life to this lump of flesh in her belly?

 

[brightlights]

First, rather than a narrow debate, I would much prefer this debate encompass the full range of issues:

1) The morality of celibacy
2) The morality of contraception
2) The morality of abortion in cases of medical danger, rape, or deformity.
3) The morality of elective abortion
4) The morality of late-term abortion
5) The morality of infanticide
6) The morality of murder

After thinking about it more, I realize that these issues will come up, but they are derivative issues. Bringing them up can be useful to test logic. Moral arguments can tend to be limited in scope, but one way to challenge them is to see whether or not the person holding them has opposing beliefs according to his logic. So yes, these issues will come up but they are not the primary subject.

I also think that the legality of abortion is a central issue to this debate, and it is difficult to discuss abortion without discussing whether it should be legal or not.

You can mention whatever you'd like but I will not be discussing anything concerning the legality of abortion. I'm only interested in its morality.

3) As such there are two chief issues to use when determining whether something is moral:

a) is it against cultural norms, or illegal. ( what is other people's opinion about this? what criteria does the law use to objectively judge whether the actions in question are permissible or not? )

b) does it violate one's own reason, or conscience? ( your own opinion about morality ).

I sure hope that this is not what we mean by 'moral'. When I assess whether or not something is morally permissable I don't think that "does it happen normally" and "is it illegal" are very good indicators of truth. The latter seems to be arbitrary. Legality does not determine morality. Also, I should like to think that there is something more complicated going on in right and wrong than personal conscience. Killing an innocent human being is prima facie wrong no matter what my conscience tells me or what the law tells me, do you agree? We call people crazy who have no conscience or a conscience that is severely broken. Surely right and wrong must be more complicated than what my personal conscience tells me.

1) The mother owes the fetus absolutely nothing, and is not obligated to become a baby factory if she does not want to. The baby is no worse off being aborted than if it was never conceived at all.

I would pose this question: when does a fetus have the right to use the mother's body?

2) Infanticide ( and I would argue, tentatively, this could apply to late term abortion also ) is not proper because the fetus is already been completed. There is no reason to arbitrarily kill it if it is viable outside of the womb. That would be destroying what has already been given.

What do you mean by 'viable' and what exactly has the infant been given that a fetus has not been given?

 

[brightlights]

1) I do not believe that anything is a priori morally wrong. I would question what absolute basis you have for declaring anything "prima facie" morally wrong.

For the record, 'prima facie' means 'on the face of it'. It is a qualifier that makes an argument weaker, not stronger. It does not mean 'a priori'.

2) You are correct in that it is morally wrong to kill a normal adult human being ( although not a priori, there is a time for everything under the sun ). However, this is not because you deprive him of future experiences.

The "future like ours" (FLO) account of why it is bad to die is not meant here as a normative reason for why killing is bad. That is to say, it is not the only reason but one of many -- and what I see to be a strong one. It makes sense to me. When I consider why it would be bad for me to die I think that it's because I am being deprived of experiencing more things. Do you disagree that this is a reason for why dying is bad (and why making die -- killing -- is bad)?

I would argue that because morality is derived from social instincts, which lead us into the direction of a coherant social order, it is extremely anti-social to kill other people. It goes without saying that a social order which allows it's members to arbitrarily murder, for greed or for gain, anyone they feel like-- will not long endure.

This could be another reason for why it is bad to kill, but I think that it's less strong. The principle here is this:
1) Morality is derived from social instincts
2) Killing is extremely anti-social
3) Therefore killing is immoral

Let me try to refute this logic by analogy. See if you agree with this argument -- it uses the same logic:
1) Morality is derived from social instincts
2) Sleeping is extremely anti-social
3) Therefore sleeping is immoral

or even this:

1) Morality is derived from social instincts
2) Living alone on a mountain is extremely anti-social
3) Therefore living alone on a mountain is immoral

Abortion, however, is different--it is simply the unwillingness at this time to create another person. No one else is any worse off than if the baby had not been conceived in the first place, and the woman in question is under no obligations to become a baby factory without her own willingness towards that end.

Here I believe you are wrong. Abortion is not simply the unwillingness to create another person -- that would be celibacy. Abortion is the termination of an existing human fetus -- a life form. You are killing something when you have an abortion. Also, the fetus is certainly worse off. It is in fact dead after it has been aborted. In my account that means it's worse off than had it remained alive provided that it was a healthy fetus. It may be true that no person is worse off because a fetus is not yet a person, but the fetus as a life form is certainly in a worse state. I would ask the question again concerning your last point: when does a fetus have a right to use the mother's body?

Also, the argument that it is wrong to kill a fetus because you deprive him of future experiences, if believed, should be taken to it's logical conclusion:

1) Is it wrong to abort a fetus that was the result of rape, because you deprive him of future experiences?

This is where the qualifier 'prima facie' comes in. My argument was that abortion is seriously prima facie wrong. This does not necessarily take into account a fetus that is made as a result of rape, so I am not committed to any view on this situation in light of the argument I've made.

2) Is it wrong to use contraception, because you prevent life and prevent an egg from having future experiences? What separates a zygote or embryo from an egg? If you believe that God gives the egg a soul at conception, why do you believe this?

A fertilized, implanted zygote is specially different from a separated sperm and egg cell. A zygote is rapidly dividing and becoming a human while an egg simply is not that. A zygote is fertilized while an egg is not. A zygote has a full set of DNA required to make a human while an egg does not. The list goes on as to why my argument does not commit me to a view on contraception. And for the record I don't think it's wrong to use contraception in non-abortive forms.

3) Is it wrong to be celebate because that would result in not having children, who would then not have future experiences?

No and this is somewhat silly. A normal fetus will practically always become a person who has a future like ours that when aborted is entirely deprived of. An imaginary child that I never had has never existed and can never become a person that I would deprive of anything should I not have him.

4) At what rate is the future experiences of the mother weighed against the future experiences of the fetus?

I would tend to say only if the mother's future experience would be imminent death as a result of keeping the pregnancy.

You could argue that if the pregnancy is dangerous, in cases where the life of the mother is at risk, the future experiences of the mother must be weighed against the future experiences of the fetus. But if abortion is legal when the mother's life is at risk, do the rights of the mother not outweigh the rights of the fetus?

This is a special case that my argument, again, would not apply to. See the qualifier: 'prima facie'.

In a nutshell, why is a 6 week old aborted fetus any worse off than if it had never been conceived, and why is the woman in question under any obligation to give life to this lump of flesh in her belly?

The fetus, which is not a person yet, is worse off because it is now dead. Had it never had been conceived then we would be talking about imaginary persons and things and would be nonsensical.

Concerning the latter point, the lump in her belly is alive. It's already been given life. Its cells are rapidly dividing. It's a good question to ask, though, why a woman would be under obligation to let the fetus use her body. So, again, it seems like before we proceed further I should ask: when does the fetus have a right to use the mother's body?

 

[allhart]

To be or not to be, but you still have made a choice about "killing,dieing,death" and to make that choice of undoing what is already done. I don't Know how they can live with them selves or how they can justify the end to there means They terminate human being and they don't care.They have hard hearts ,cold and malice,but methodical.

 

[Nathan45]

After thinking about it more, I realize that these issues will come up, but they are derivative issues. Bringing them up can be useful to test logic. Moral arguments can tend to be limited in scope, but one way to challenge them is to see whether or not the person holding them has opposing beliefs according to his logic. So yes, these issues will come up but they are not the primary subject.

Fair enough.

You can mention whatever you'd like but I will not be discussing anything concerning the legality of abortion. I'm only interested in its morality.

This is probably going to be a sticking point, because the legality of something is an important factor in it's morality.

Thought experiment:

Apart from the law, is it immoral to drive on the left side of the road, and to pass on the left, instead of the right?

I would say that it is not, neither passing on the left or passing on the right, is moral or immoral apart from the law.

However, I would say that driving on the left side is very immoral if the law says that you drive on the right side. Therefore, in some instances, morality is determined by the law.

You have a similar situation with abortion. Those who are pro-choice agree that at some point the baby has a right to life, and at some point it is not considered to have that right. Therefore, a law is needed to arbitarily define when it has that right, and when it doesn't. ( either defined at birth, or at the beginning of the 3nd trimester ). Therefore, aborting after that point ( possibly the 3rd trimester ) would be immoral, but aborting before wouldn't.

I sure hope that this is not what we mean by 'moral'. When I assess whether or not something is morally permissable I don't think that "does it happen normally" and "is it illegal" are very good indicators of truth. The latter seems to be arbitrary. Legality does not determine morality. Also, I should like to think that there is something more complicated going on in right and wrong than personal conscience.

I disagree. I don't believe that absolute morality exists. You "should like to think" that something more exists, however you've yet to demonstrate that it does.

I argue that all forms of morality, with no exceptions, fall into two categories:

1) Legalistic codes, which are abitrarily defined by some religion or some authority, and subjective personal opinion, no matter how widely shared.

2) Subjective morality from conscience-- while there is some minor variation of opinion, and some nut cases who don't have a functional conscience--is mostly universal and derives from evolutionary social interactions.

Killing an innocent human being is prima facie wrong no matter what my conscience tells me or what the law tells me, do you agree?

From what I understand, ( having learned this today ), Prima Facie has to do with burden of proof.

Abortion is currently legal-- although you don't wish to talk about legality-- but the burden of proof should be on you.

I will say that killing a human is prima facie wrong only if you define human as exclusive of fetus.

I will also say that it is prima facie wrong to kill a fetus, if you're not it's mother or a qualified doctor working in agreement with the mother.

I will not say that abortion is morally wrong. It's been legal for decades now, as far as abortion is concerned, the burden of proof is on you to say that it is wrong.

We call people crazy who have no conscience or a conscience that is severely broken. Surely right and wrong must be more complicated than what my personal conscience tells me.

This is what i meant when i said "extremely anti-social", although one doesn't have to be crazy to be "extremely anti-social", they may simply be angry or have some other reason. However, some people have no consience and they're said to be sociopaths.

As stated, ethics and morality is an evolutionary effort towards social cohesion. As such, some people just didn't get the memo about it, so to speak.

I would pose this question: when does a fetus have the right to use the mother's body?

This is a permutation to the question i asked and answered in my original post. "When does a fetus have the right to life":

I will say that abortion is not the moral equivalent of murder. I believe this stems from a fallacy related to Loki's Wager. The point at which a fetus attains the right to life cannot be absolutely defined, thus, according to the fallacy, it cannot be discussed. It is like warming a coffee cup, at one point it is cold, at one point it is hot, but it is difficult to point down a single instant where it was cold and became hot.

However, even if it cannot be absolutely defined, it can, and has, been objectively defined.

I will tentatively accept that the fetus has a right to life after the 2nd trimester, although I wouldn't disagree or fault anyone or any law that defined it at birth.

What do you mean by 'viable' and what exactly has the infant been given that a fetus has not been given?

When I say viable, I mean, it could survive outside of the womb with limited assistance, if the pregnancy were to stop immediately. In this instance, the baby has already been completed, for the most part, so there's no reason to kill it.

I will also tentatively suggest that at this point the pregnancy should continue, because it would be unhealthy for the baby to be born early.

 

[Nathan45]

The "future like ours" (FLO) account of why it is bad to die is not meant here as a normative reason for why killing is bad. That is to say, it is not the only reason but one of many -- and what I see to be a strong one. It makes sense to me. When I consider why it would be bad for me to die I think that it's because I am being deprived of experiencing more things. Do you disagree that this is a reason for why dying is bad (and why making die -- killing -- is bad)?

This is for the most part an argument based on empathy. Empathy is a result of evolution and social conditioning.

This could be another reason for why it is bad to kill, but I think that it's less strong. The principle here is this:
1) Morality is derived from social instincts
2) Killing is extremely anti-social
3) Therefore killing is immoral

Let me try to refute this logic by analogy. See if you agree with this argument -- it uses the same logic:
1) Morality is derived from social instincts
2) Sleeping is extremely anti-social
3) Therefore sleeping is immoral

I disagree with 2, that sleeping is "extremely anti-social"

I would also accuse you of using an equivocation fallacy, because when i say "extremely anti-social" or i am not refering to the kind of mild shyness or such that leads one to sleep in or not be outgoing.

No, i am referring to the kinds of extreme anti-social tendancies that would require a reaction or retaliation from other people or groups, such as stealing, killing, etc. Sleeping in may be mildly anti-social, but it is not anti-social enough to merit any serious reaction or punishment, therefore it does not fall into the category of morality.

Here I believe you are wrong. Abortion is not simply the unwillingness to create another person -- that would be celibacy. Abortion is the termination of an existing human fetus -- a life form.

If the fetus is not viable outside of the womb i would not consider it a fully formed life form, only a potential one. Abortion is the unwillingness to turn potential life into life. Any egg or sperm combination is also potential life, the same as a fetus.

When I compare abortion to celibacy, I mean to say, that the end result of celibacy and abortion are the same. My argument is that there is no significant end-result distinction between abortion and not getting pregnant in the first place, therefore they are equivilent.

You are killing something when you have an abortion. Also, the fetus is certainly worse off.

The fetus is not worse of than if it had never been conceived. We're comparing abortion to celibacy, not birth.

Furthermore, the woman, who could have stayed celibate, and because she could have stayed celebate, is obviously under no obligations to birth a child.

It is up to you to demonstrate that the fetus has any right to life before it is fully formed, and I have yet to see any good arguments that it should have this right. A sperm and egg meeting does not automatically entitle said sperm and said egg to life.

when does a fetus have a right to use the mother's body?

as stated, I would tentatively consider the fetus to have this right after the 2nd trimester, however, the line is arbitary, some people draw the line at birth.

This is where the qualifier 'prima facie' comes in. My argument was that abortion is seriously prima facie wrong.

From what I understand of prima facie, I disagree that abortion is prima facie wrong, because it is legal. Prima facie has to do with burden of proof. It is up to you to show that abortion is immoral or that the fetus has any right to life before it is fully developed.

A fertilized, implanted zygote is specially different from a separated sperm and egg cell. A zygote is rapidly dividing and becoming a human while an egg simply is not that. A zygote is fertilized while an egg is not. A zygote has a full set of DNA required to make a human while an egg does not.

I could also draw just as many distinctions between an embryo and a zygote, a fetus and an embryo and an embryo and a baby. And for the record, the full set of DNA does exist, any sperm and egg combination has a full set of DNA.

I do not think that chemical reactions inside of a uterus have any relationship to morality. A zygote is a lump of cells and not a very large one to begin with. Same with an embryo. I also do not think that it follows that a zygote has rights because it has a full set of DNA.

No and this is somewhat silly. A normal fetus will practically always become a person who has a future like ours that when aborted is entirely deprived of.
An imaginary child that I never had has never existed and can never become a person that I would deprive of anything should I not have him.

An imaginary child, if by that we're referring to any random combination of sperm or egg, could certainly become a person. A fetus/zygote/embryo is not a child, it is a fetus/zygote/embryo. It is not a person yet, it is a potential person. It does not have any more rights than any random sperm or egg combination.

I would tend to say only if the mother's future experience would be imminent death as a result of keeping the pregnancy.

Hypothetical situation:

A woman is 6 weeks pregnant. The pregnancy is considered dangerous but not necessarily life threatening. The doctor recommends an abortion, which is a perfectly safe operation.

Two options:

A) Continue with the operation, and risk your life for a 6 week old lump of flesh
B) Abort and try again.

I would argue that picking anything other than B would be fanatical. An embryo/fetus is nothing more and nothing less than a sperm/egg combination that has been growing in a uterus for a few weeks. It is not more entitled to life than any other hypothetical sperm or egg combination. You should not risk your life for a 6 week old pregnancy, because it won't take very long to grow a new fetus back again.

I also have an interesting thought experiment, let us say that it is a few decades in the future and there is now a third option:

C) Take some DNA out of the fetus, abort the fetus, then reimplant the DNA into an egg in the Uterus, causing the next fetus grown to be identical to the previous fetus. Essentially, you're giving it another try with the same DNA set as before. This can be safely done at no harm to the woman, preventing a dangerous pregnancy

For an interesting discussion, would you consider option C to be morally wrong, if it was possible?

This is a special case that my argument, again, would not apply to. See the qualifier: 'prima facie'.
The fetus, which is not a person yet, is worse off because it is now dead. Had it never had been conceived then we would be talking about imaginary persons and things and would be nonsensical.

I would say that the fetus is just as much an imaginary person as any sperm or egg combination.

Concerning the latter point, the lump in her belly is alive. It's already been given life. Its cells are rapidly dividing. It's a good question to ask, though, why a woman would be under obligation to let the fetus use her body.

She wouldn't be under any obligation. She shouldn't be forced to have children if she doesn't want to have children.

I also disagree that it has been given life. It's in the process of being given life, but it hasn't been given life yet.

 

[brightlights]

This is probably going to be a sticking point, because the legality of something is an important factor in it's morality.

Thought experiment:

Apart from the law, is it immoral to drive on the left side of the road, and to pass on the left, instead of the right?

I would say that it is not, neither passing on the left or passing on the right, is moral or immoral apart from the law.

However, I would say that driving on the left side is very immoral if the law says that you drive on the right side. Therefore, in some instances, morality is determined by the law.

You have a similar situation with abortion. Those who are pro-choice agree that at some point the baby has a right to life, and at some point it is not considered to have that right. Therefore, a law is needed to arbitarily define when it has that right, and when it doesn't. ( either defined at birth, or at the beginning of the 3nd trimester ). Therefore, aborting after that point ( possibly the 3rd trimester ) would be immoral, but aborting before wouldn't.

This is ridiculous and it's why I didn't want to get into the legality of abortion. Morals and law are not the same. If what you say above is true about morality then the following is also true:
1) Abortion is moral in some states but not all.
2) Prostitution is moral in some states but not all.
3) There should be no further discussion concerning the morality of abortion because it's legal. Case closed.
4) Right and wrong changes based on where you're located on the globe.
5) It was immoral to oppose Hitler in WWII Germany because it was against the law.
6) It is not immoral to be a huge jerk to everyone I meet because it's not illegal.
7) When slavery was legal in the United States it was moral, but after it was made illegal it was immoral.
Laws are often derived from moral issues, but it's the morality that comes first, not the legality. You are speaking as if legality determines morality which is absurd. If you hold this position then I cannot continue this discussion with you. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

I disagree. I don't believe that absolute morality exists. You "should like to think" that something more exists, however you've yet to demonstrate that it does.

You yourself say that something more exists. You continue to say that morality is derived from evolutionary psychology. Our consciences are formed by survival success for our species. This alone is something more than just personal opinion. If you hold to the position that morality is only personal opinion and nothing more, which it seems like you do not because of your references to evolutionary psychology, then I cannot continue this discussion with you.

1) Legalistic codes, which are abitrarily defined by some religion or some authority, and subjective personal opinion, no matter how widely shared.

I do not believe that you actually think that morality is arbitrary. You contradict yourself. If it's derived from survival success then it's not arbitrary. It's based on what's been helpful for our species. If it were arbitrary then it would be based on nothing and certainly not on social instincts.

2) Subjective morality from conscience-- while there is some minor variation of opinion, and some nut cases who don't have a functional conscience--is mostly universal and derives from evolutionary social interactions.

Here it appears that you contradict yourself in 1).

From what I understand, ( having learned this today ), Prima Facie has to do with burden of proof.

Prima facie in the sense that it's being used in this discussion means "on the face of it". If I claim that killing is prima facie wrong it means something like this:
1) Killing generally seems to be wrong
2) There could be exceptions
3) Self defense seems like a reasonable exception
4) Killing therefore is not absolutely wrong, but prima facie wrong
This is all that is meant by 'prima facie'.

I will say that killing a human is prima facie wrong only if you define human as exclusive of fetus.

*Normal adult human being.

I will not say that abortion is morally wrong. It's been legal for decades now, as far as abortion is concerned, the burden of proof is on you to say that it is wrong.

Again legality has nothing to do with morality. Consider this:
1) Slavery was not illegal in the 1800's
2) Therefore not immoral in the 1800's

This is a permutation to the question i asked and answered in my original post. "When does a fetus have the right to life"

The fetus may have a right to life and not have a right to use the mother's body. The fetus may have the right to use the mother's body and not have a right to life. They appear similar on the face but they question two different things.

When I say viable, I mean, it could survive outside of the womb with limited assistance, if the pregnancy were to stop immediately. In this instance, the baby has already been completed, for the most part, so there's no reason to kill it.

Viability can seem a bit arbitrary. I'm not sure why viability would give a fetus a right to life while a fetus two days before viability would not have that right.

 

[brightlights]

This is for the most part an argument based on empathy. Empathy is a result of evolution and social conditioning.

That's fine.

Do you think that the FLO account is a good account for why it is bad for you to die.

I disagree with 2, that sleeping is "extremely anti-social"

I would also accuse you of using an equivocation fallacy, because when i say "extremely anti-social" or i am not refering to the kind of mild shyness or such that leads one to sleep in or not be outgoing.

No, i am referring to the kinds of extreme anti-social tendancies that would require a reaction or retaliation from other people or groups, such as stealing, killing, etc. Sleeping in may be mildly anti-social, but it is not anti-social enough to merit any serious reaction or punishment, therefore it does not fall into the category of morality.

Yeah the sleeping example was a bit extreme, but your account of ethics confuses me. At first you say that morality is totally arbitrary then you say that morality arises from evolutionary psychology. Anyway, I think that wherever morality arises from it's a digression and distraction from my first argument. I'll restate the argument:

Obvious truths to start out with (if we don't agree on these then we should no longer have this discussion): 1) It is seriously prima facie wrong to kill a normal adult human being. 2) It is directly prima facie wrong -- meaning that it is wrong because it causes a harm to the person killed (among other things such as destroys social ties). This is to say that killing is wrong because I have harmed you. Not simply because I have disrupted society, though that is also a reason.
1) Taking abortion out of the mind consider why it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (why is it a harm).
2) Killing a normal adult human being prevents him from experiencing future things. This is a harm to him if he has a FLO.
3) Aborting a fetus prevents it from having a FLO.
4) Therefore abortion is seriously prima facie wrong.

To argue where morality is derived from is irrelevant to the above argument. Please deal with the argument.

If the fetus is not viable outside of the womb i would not consider it a fully formed life form, only a potential one. Abortion is the unwillingness to turn potential life into life. Any egg or sperm combination is also potential life, the same as a fetus.

You are simply wrong. A fetus is living. There is no such thing as potentially living. Something is either living or not living. A fetus is alive, though it is not a person. Again, abortion is the termination of a living thing. You can look that up in a medical journal. A seperated egg and sperm cell is not the same as a fetus for many important reasons. Here is a main one: a fetus will become a person. A seperated sperm and egg cell will not.

When I compare abortion to celibacy, I mean to say, that the end result of celibacy and abortion are the same. My argument is that there is no significant end-result distinction between abortion and not getting pregnant in the first place, therefore they are equivilent.

You say:
1) Celibacy results in no babies.
2) Abortion results in no babies.
3) Therefore they are equivilent morally.

Using the same logic, do you also agree to this:
1) Abortion results in no adults.
2) Murder results in no adults.
3) Therefore they are equivilent morally.

The fetus is not worse of than if it had never been conceived. We're comparing abortion to celibacy, not birth.

I argue that it is worse off because it has lost something. The fetus that was never conceived is unable to lose or gain anything. It's never existed. The fetus that was alive has been deprived of future experiences so it is indeed worse off.

Furthermore, the woman, who could have stayed celibate, and because she could have stayed celebate, is obviously under no obligations to birth a child.

She is under no obligation to birth a child that she has not conceived, but I'm not sure the same is true for an existant fetus.

It is up to you to demonstrate that the fetus has any right to life before it is fully formed, and I have yet to see any good arguments that it should have this right. A sperm and egg meeting does not automatically entitle said sperm and said egg to life.

I'm not sure that the fetus has a right to life, but it does have a right to the use of the mother's body by virtue of her decisions. If she has caused it to exist via her choices then she has given the fetus a right to her body.

as stated, I would tentatively consider the fetus to have this right after the 2nd trimester, however, the line is arbitary, some people draw the line at birth.

If we are going to draw a line there is a hope for it to be purposeful or at least less arbitrary than other lines. Drawing the line at birth is very arbitrary.

From what I understand of prima facie, I disagree that abortion is prima facie wrong, because it is legal. Prima facie has to do with burden of proof. It is up to you to show that abortion is immoral or that the fetus has any right to life before it is fully developed.

Then you misunderstand what I mean by prima facie. See what I posted about it above.

I could also draw just as many distinctions between an embryo and a zygote, a fetus and an embryo and an embryo and a baby. And for the record, the full set of DNA does exist, any sperm and egg combination has a full set of DNA.

A sperm cell does not have a full set of human DNA and neither does an egg cell. When the two come together to form a zygote they are no longer sperm and egg. The distinctions between a zygote and a separated sperm and egg cell are so extreme that positions protecting the zygote are not committed to positions against contraception.

I do not think that chemical reactions inside of a uterus have any relationship to morality. A zygote is a lump of cells and not a very large one to begin with. Same with an embryo. I also do not think that it follows that a zygote has rights because it has a full set of DNA.

It may not have rights in the way that an adult human being has rights, but certainly it has moral status. The question becomes this: "What is the moral status of the fetus?" Do you pose that the lump of cells that makes up the fetus and the lump of cells that make up a chunk of body fat have the same moral status? I think that the fetus counts for more -- that is it is more important.

An imaginary child, if by that we're referring to any random combination of sperm or egg, could certainly become a person. A fetus/zygote/embryo is not a child, it is a fetus/zygote/embryo. It is not a person yet, it is a potential person. It does not have any more rights than any random sperm or egg combination.

By imaginary child I mean the child that the abstinent person did not conceive. It can't become a person.

Hypothetical situation:

A woman is 6 weeks pregnant. The pregnancy is considered dangerous but not necessarily life threatening. The doctor recommends an abortion, which is a perfectly safe operation.

Two options:

A) Continue with the operation, and risk your life for a 6 week old lump of flesh
B) Abort and try again.

I would argue that picking anything other than B would be fanatical. An embryo/fetus is nothing more and nothing less than a sperm/egg combination that has been growing in a uterus for a few weeks. It is not more entitled to life than any other hypothetical sperm or egg combination. You should not risk your life for a 6 week old pregnancy, because it won't take very long to grow a new fetus back again.

You speak as if the fetus counts for nothing -- has no moral status. Is this what you're claiming? I'm not sure what the best option is in the above situation because it's an ethical dilema that calls for much thought and prayer but I don't think that option A is fanatical. The fetus counts for something. It is not morally equivalant to a 6 week old chunk of lard.

I also have an interesting thought experiment, let us say that it is a few decades in the future and there is now a third option:

C) Take some DNA out of the fetus, abort the fetus, then reimplant the DNA into an egg in the Uterus, causing the next fetus grown to be identical to the previous fetus. Essentially, you're giving it another try with the same DNA set as before. This can be safely done at no harm to the woman, preventing a dangerous pregnancy

For an interesting discussion, would you consider option C to be morally wrong, if it was possible?

I have no idea.

She wouldn't be under any obligation. She shouldn't be forced to have children if she doesn't want to have children.

If the woman has made choices to create the fetus then it has the right to use her body. If she doesn't want to have children but still wants to have sex then she must be open to the possibility of having a child because once the fetus is created the woman has given it a right to her body.

I also disagree that it has been given life. It's in the process of being given life, but it hasn't been given life yet.

It's a living thing. It's not becoming alive.

 

[Nathan45]

This is ridiculous and it's why I didn't want to get into the legality of abortion. Morals and law are not the same. If what you say above is true about morality then the following is also true:
1) Abortion is moral in some states but not all.

i would argue that abortion is
2) Prostitution is moral in some states but not all.
3) There should be no further discussion concerning the morality of abortion because it's legal. Case closed.

That's not my argument. My argument is the burden of proof
4) Right and wrong changes based on where you're located on the globe.
5) It was immoral to oppose Hitler in WWII Germany because it was against the law.
6) It is not immoral to be a huge jerk to everyone I meet because it's not illegal.
7) When slavery was legal in the United States it was moral, but after it was made illegal it was immoral.
Laws are often derived from moral issues, but it's the morality that comes first, not the legality. You are speaking as if legality determines morality which is absurd. If you hold this position then I cannot continue this discussion with you. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.
You yourself say that something more exists. You continue to say that morality is derived from evolutionary psychology. Our consciences are formed by survival success for our species. This alone is something more than just personal opinion. If you hold to the position that morality is only personal opinion and nothing more, which it seems like you do not because of your references to evolutionary psychology, then I cannot continue this discussion with you.
I do not believe that you actually think that morality is arbitrary. You contradict yourself. If it's derived from survival success then it's not arbitrary. It's based on what's been helpful for our species. If it were arbitrary then it would be based on nothing and certainly not on social instincts.

You misunderstand my position, sorry if i havn't made it clear.

It is based on social insticts, but it's still arbitrary.

There seems to be this false dichotomy that either morality is absolute set in stone by God for all time or else it doesn't exist.

I argue that morality is subjective, that isn't to say it doesn't exist. Sorry for the confusion. However, how we perceive morality, is based on subjective opinion. That's not to say our opinions arn't based on anything, but they are subjective.

It is also worth noting, that even if we had perfect knowledge and discernment of truth, morality would still be arbitrary because it depends on arbitrary goals and objectives. It is based on natural selection, obviously the goal of natural selection is to survive*, but once you're done surviving you probably have other goals, and these are arbitrary. Therefore morality is arbitrary because it ultimately is dependant on the goals and objectives of other people.

*Note: the "goal" of natural selection is NOT to, after surviving, then flourish, because flourishing often leads to depletion of resources, which causes you to die off later. edit: Also when i say "survive" i mean survive as a kind or genotype, not necessarily the individual.

...

Also, you are misunderstanding my argument with legalism.

My point is that in that in some cases laws is important to determining the morality of something, that is not to say they are all important. I think we may be going off on a tangent here, but i will try to explain myself:

...

I am making here two very nuanced arguments:

1) i'm not arguing that abortion should be legal because abortion is legal, or that abortion is moral because it is legal. ( i am arguing that the burden of proof is on you to show it is immoral, but that is a side argument )

2) I'm also arguing this, which was my point above:

If abortion is moral at some point during the pregnancy and immoral at another point, this point should be defined legally, because in this case an objective determination is needed. Not all morality is based on laws, just some types. I was simply giving an example of when morality is based off of laws.

For example, some people ( like me ) say that abortion should be legal at some point in the pregnancy, but late term abortion should not be legal.

However, there is no fine line separating late term abortion. But if you make a law, which draws an arbitrary line, then there now is a line, and the line is effectively agreed too. Therefore, it would be immoral to have an abortion after the legally defined point, but moral to have one before. The morality in this case is dependant on the law, because a definition is necessary.

Viability can seem a bit arbitrary. I'm not sure why viability would give a fetus a right to life while a fetus two days before viability would not have that right.

Because that's what the law says and it is mutually agreed too, this is the point i was trying to explain above. It is agreed ( by many ) that at one some point abortion is moral and at other points abortion is immoral, but no one can agree at which point. See Loki's Wager. However, if you define the point in an abritrary law, then the point can be agreed too. So the law is necessary to determine the relative morality of when is too late in late term abortion.

 

[Nathan45]

That's fine.

Do you think that the FLO account is a good account for why it is bad for you to die.

No, but believe me I understand the concept of empathy, but it isn't relevent to a fetus.

Yeah the sleeping example was a bit extreme, but your account of ethics confuses me. At first you say that morality is totally arbitrary then you say that morality arises from evolutionary psychology. Anyway, I think that wherever morality arises from it's a digression and distraction from my first argument. I'll restate the argument:

I hope i have explained this in my previous post.

Obvious truths to start out with (if we don't agree on these then we should no longer have this discussion): 1) It is seriously prima facie wrong to kill a normal adult human being. 2) It is directly prima facie wrong -- meaning that it is wrong because it causes a harm to the person killed (among other things such as destroys social ties). This is to say that killing is wrong because I have harmed you. Not simply because I have disrupted society, though that is also a reason.

I disagree, so maybe we should stop having this discussion? You are making an argument based on empathy. Empathy is the result of social conditioning and evolution. So is morality, but empathy is not a flawless view of morality.

However, let us make a consideration:

There are two perspectives:

1) Killing is wrong because life has value and killing disrupts life.

2) Killing life is wrong, because it causes suffering and hurts the experiences of other people. ( argument from empathy )

Argument 2 is an argument based on empathy. I would argue that 2 is a useful framework for understanding ethics at a basic level, but when we get down to the nitty gritty, I do not accept it as an argument against abortion.

I would also argue according to 1) that an unwanted 6 week old fetus could be replaced in 6 weeks at will, and does not have any significant value. ( a 6 month old fetus, however, does have value, because someone would want to adopt it ).

( and 1 is of course an oversimplification also because "value" is relative to goals )

Making your arguments entirely from empathy has several traps:

-- Consider War. War involves killing, often civilians. Commanders must often make crushing decisions to determine who lives and who dies. Generally speaking, the people dying should be the enemy, not your own side, however if you base your morality entirely from empathy, you will put yourself into the absurd situation of weighing the suffering of enemy civilians with your own troops. Instead, you should argue from end result: your goal is to win the war, achieve peace, and then rebuild.

1) Taking abortion out of the mind consider why it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (why is it a harm).
2) Killing a normal adult human being prevents him from experiencing future things. This is a harm to him if he has a FLO.
3) Aborting a fetus prevents it from having a FLO.
4) Therefore abortion is seriously prima facie wrong.

The FLO of a fetus is no more relevent than the FLO of any random combination of sperm and egg. This argument is an argument based on empathy and it is not relevent to abortion.

You are simply wrong. A fetus is living. There is no such thing as potentially living.

An egg is also "living" , so is a sperm. But it doesn't have a life.

Something is either living or not living. A fetus is alive, though it is not a person. Again, abortion is the termination of a living thing. You can look that up in a medical journal.

Medical semantics is not relevent to morality.

A seperated egg and sperm cell is not the same as a fetus for many important reasons. Here is a main one: a fetus will become a person. A seperated sperm and egg cell will not.

A separated sperm and egg are perfectly capable of becomming a person under the right circumstances, same as a fetus.

You say:
1) Celibacy results in no babies.
2) Abortion results in no babies.
3) Therefore they are equivilent morally.

Using the same logic, do you also agree to this:
1) Abortion results in no adults.
2) Murder results in no adults.
3) Therefore they are equivilent morally.

No. But with permission, i will rephrase the argument to show the flaw more clearly:

1) Celibacy results in no babies.
2) Punching a pregnant woman in the stomach results in no babies.
3) Therefore they are equivilent morally.

There are two flaws in the argument:
1) The first, as i mentioned in my previous post, goals are important. The woman wanted to have a child, and was violently deprived of that right.

2) A young fetus does not have any significant value, it can be replaced in a few short weeks. A human being is irreplacable and often an integral part of society. The human has irreplacable value, which he has accumulated over his life, the fetus is easily replacable and does not have significant value.

She is under no obligation to birth a child that she has not conceived, but I'm not sure the same is true for an existant fetus.

I don't think she's under any moral obligation to birth either. So we'll just have to disagree here.

I'm not sure that the fetus has a right to life, but it does have a right to the use of the mother's body by virtue of her decisions. If she has caused it to exist via her choices then she has given the fetus a right to her body.

I disagree that she has implicitly given the fetus any right to her body by having sex.

If we are going to draw a line there is a hope for it to be purposeful or at least less arbitrary than other lines. Drawing the line at birth is very arbitrary.

Drawing the line anywhere is very arbitrary but nonetheless the line must be drawn somewhere.

A sperm cell does not have a full set of human DNA and neither does an egg cell. When the two come together to form a zygote they are no longer sperm and egg.

They are still very much a sperm and an egg when they come together, a zygote is a sperm lodged in an egg.

The distinctions between a zygote and a separated sperm and egg cell are so extreme that positions protecting the zygote are not committed to positions against contraception.

I would argue that the differerences between the two are not extreme at all, they're both a microscopic ball of flesh and they look very much alike.

It may not have rights in the way that an adult human being has rights, but certainly it has moral status. The question becomes this: "What is the moral status of the fetus?" Do you pose that the lump of cells that makes up the fetus and the lump of cells that make up a chunk of body fat have the same moral status?

Essentially, yes, but A fetus in most cases has more value than a lump of body fat. A fetus is easily replacable, but a lump of body fat is more easily replacable. At some point the fetus becomes difficult to replace, and then eventually becomes irreplacable.

You speak as if the fetus counts for nothing -- has no moral status. Is this what you're claiming?

No, not quite nothing. I'm claiming that a 6 week old fetus is worth 6 weeks of being pregnant. So I do not assign it a significant ammount of moral value.

I'm not sure what the best option is in the above situation because it's an ethical dilema that calls for much thought and prayer but I don't think that option A is fanatical. The fetus counts for something. It is not morally equivalant to a 6 week old chunk of lard.

Please, without using emotional or empathetic arguments demonstrate that an unsafe or unwanted fetus is worth more than a 6 week old lump of flesh.

If the woman has made choices to create the fetus then it has the right to use her body.

Why?

If she doesn't want to have children but still wants to have sex then she must be open to the possibility of having a child because once the fetus is created the woman has given it a right to her body.

Why?

It's a living thing. It's not becoming alive.

I think it's a semantic destinction.

What i was trying to say is that it does not yet have any significant value because it is 1) not completed, and 2) has no significant social connections or life experiences. If it was either of the two it would have value.

 

[PetersKeys]

Absolute morality does exist, it was plastered on 2 stones held by Moses.

Abortion will always be immoral and it must in all cases be subdued as well as its supporters. Personally one can talk about it till they are blue in the face, but I think they need to go and take a look at what happens during a real abortion. Your conscious WILL bother you after seeing one. And that in itself speaks volumes.

 

[brightlights]

However, there is no fine line separating late term abortion. But if you make a law, which draws an arbitrary line, then there now is a line, and the line is effectively agreed too. Therefore, it would be immoral to have an abortion after the legally defined point, but moral to have one before. The morality in this case is dependant on the law, because a definition is necessary.

Thanks for clearing the above up. I better understand what you're saying now. I do believe that you're wrong here, though. The law is perhaps necessary for a society to function with abortion but this issue is entirely separate from morality. Just because it's legal that doesn't mean that it's moral. That is to say, just because it is legal to abort the fetus before a certain time does not mean that it should be done -- that it is morally permissible. For instance, it is legal to cheat on my wife (I'm not married) but it is still immoral. Please, may we focus this debate on the moral and not the legal?

Because that's what the law says and it is mutually agreed too, this is the point i was trying to explain above. It is agreed ( by many ) that at one some point abortion is moral and at other points abortion is immoral, but no one can agree at which point. See Loki's Wager. However, if you define the point in an abritrary law, then the point can be agreed too. So the law is necessary to determine the relative morality of when is too late in late term abortion.

Sorry, you cannot fall back on the authority of the law to argue for the morality of an issue. I'll use the above example. We may debate this: Is cheating on my wife immoral? And you could argue in this way: No it's not because it's legal. Everyone would agree that this is a poor argument. Just because it's legal does not mean that it's moral. You can't use the existence of a law as a moral argument so let's get away from it.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I think sometimes we miss the point of non-religious morality. Generally morality (non-religious) is defined as what the majority believes. Wouldn't that indicate whether is abortion is morally okay more so than any one person's ideal? If the vast majority support abortion, and you're speaking in a non-religious sense, I'd have to say it is moral on those grounds.

(morality -

1. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. )

 

[brightlights]

No, but believe me I understand the concept of empathy, but it isn't relevent to a fetus.

You don't understand what I'm asking. Put everything else aside and consider this: Why would it be bad for you if you died?

I disagree, so maybe we should stop having this discussion? You are making an argument based on empathy. Empathy is the result of social conditioning and evolution. So is morality, but empathy is not a flawless view of morality.

However, let us make a consideration:

There are two perspectives:

1) Killing is wrong because life has value and killing disrupts life.

2) Killing life is wrong, because it causes suffering and hurts the experiences of other people. ( argument from empathy )

Argument 2 is an argument based on empathy. I would argue that 2 is a useful framework for understanding ethics at a basic level, but when we get down to the nitty gritty, I do not accept it as an argument against abortion.

I would also argue according to 1) that an unwanted 6 week old fetus could be replaced in 6 weeks at will, and does not have any significant value. ( a 6 month old fetus, however, does have value, because someone would want to adopt it ).

( and 1 is of course an oversimplification also because "value" is relative to goals )

Making your arguments entirely from empathy has several traps:

This argument is not made from empathy. These are just obvious truths that we must start out with. If you don't agree that killing a human being is directly wrong (wrong because of what you've done to that human directly) then I can't debate with you anymore. It just seems to be too obvious of a point that the discussion cannot do without.

-- Consider War. War involves killing, often civilians. Commanders must often make crushing decisions to determine who lives and who dies. Generally speaking, the people dying should be the enemy, not your own side, however if you base your morality entirely from empathy, you will put yourself into the absurd situation of weighing the suffering of enemy civilians with your own troops. Instead, you should argue from end result: your goal is to win the war, achieve peace, and then rebuild.

War ethics are probably different than regular ethics.

The FLO of a fetus is no more relevent than the FLO of any random combination of sperm and egg. This argument is an argument based on empathy and it is not relevent to abortion.

I don't understand what you're saying. Why is the future life of a fetus not more relevant than the future lives of a separated sperm and egg cell? I can tell you why it is more relevant, so please refute this point: a fetus will become a person while the latter two will not.

An egg is also "living" , so is a sperm. But it doesn't have a life.

Living, yes. My skin cells are living. Still these sex cells don't have the moral status of a fetus because a fetus will become a person. These sex cells will not and neither will my skin cells.

Medical semantics is not relevent to morality.

Simply pointing out that a fetus is alive. You said it was "being given life" and I'm not sure what that could mean.

A separated sperm and egg are perfectly capable of becomming a person under the right circumstances, same as a fetus.

The right circumstances would be this: they would be joined and not separated and would become a fetus. As they are they are of no consequence. When the two join they become very different and special. A fetus needs no special circumstances, only normal circumstances. When it is created it simply will become a person. A separated sperm and egg cell need to come together but before they do they cannot become a person.

No. But with permission, i will rephrase the argument to show the flaw more clearly:

1) Celibacy results in no babies.
2) Punching a pregnant woman in the stomach results in no babies.
3) Therefore they are equivilent morally.

There are two flaws in the argument:
1) The first, as i mentioned in my previous post, goals are important. The woman wanted to have a child, and was violently deprived of that right.

2) A young fetus does not have any significant value, it can be replaced in a few short weeks. A human being is irreplacable and often an integral part of society. The human has irreplacable value, which he has accumulated over his life, the fetus is easily replacable and does not have significant value.

We're talking about flaws in your argument right?

I disagree that she has implicitly given the fetus any right to her body by having sex.

It's my intuition that she has given the fetus said right. Consider this question: if a mother has sex with the intention to get pregnant and gets pregnant then has she given the fetus the right to use her body?

I would argue that the differerences between the two are not extreme at all, they're both a microscopic ball of flesh and they look very much alike.

Here are some extreme differences:
1) The egg immediately creates a barrier to all other sperm.
2) The cells of the zygote begin to multiply.
3) The collection of cells moves to the uterus.
4) The collection of cells is nourished by the uterus.
Here is some information on the subject http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch257/ch257c.html

Essentially, yes, but A fetus in most cases has more value than a lump of body fat. A fetus is easily replacable, but a lump of body fat is more easily replacable. At some point the fetus becomes difficult to replace, and then eventually becomes irreplacable.

I suppose here we will have to disagree as well. It seems to be that having an abortion performed is fundamentally different than getting your hair cut or having liposuction. It seems to me that the fetus is inherantly more valuable than a lump of fat by virtue of what it will become.

Please, without using emotional or empathetic arguments demonstrate that an unsafe or unwanted fetus is worth more than a 6 week old lump of flesh.

It is worth more by virtue of what it will become. It will become human life, which you claim has value. Also, it will become human life more than anything else will become human life. It will inevitably become human life unlike a sperm and egg cell.

Why?

Because the function of sex is reproduction. That's why it exists. If a woman has sex and knows that she can get pregnant and does then she has given the fetus a right to her body.
Why?

What i was trying to say is that it does not yet have any significant value because it is 1) not completed, and 2) has no significant social connections or life experiences. If it was either of the two it would have value.

These are value placements that you have made. I don't think they're demonstratable or matter of fact any more than the values that I have placed.

Now, a few points.
Firstly, yes, if you disagree that killing is directly wrong then I can't continue this debate. It's too fundamental an assumption. We won't be able to get anywhere.

Secondly, we're kindof buck-shotting points here. May we simplify the discussion for a moment? Let's lay aside the can of worms we've opened and deal with the opening argument first. So first point is the question asked above: Why would it be bad for you if you died?