Why Abortion is Immoral

PsychoSarah · Dec 19, 2015

blackribbon said:
Monthly pregnancy tests are an expensive way to manage your reproductive cycle. It would be better to stop engaging in "risky behaviors". Even so, the best pregnancy tests aren't reliable until one day after your missed period. And from what I am reading, a lot of places won't do abortions before 5 or 6 weeks because they can't actually see the pregnancy to make sure it was aborted properly.

I am pretty sure that the people are not using the tests monthly. And I know that the second statement is wrong, I know of pregnancy tests that are accurate 2 weeks for urine http://americanpregnancy.org/while-pregnant/hcg-levels/ . As stated again, in my country, the majority of abortions are performed within the first month. In some places, they won't let you have one later than that.

blackribbon said:
As for your situation, the best option would be to eliminate the risk of pregnancy on a permanent basis...then you don't have to worry anymore and can take your medication without fear. An abortion isn't a "non-event"...it is a pregnancy and an expulsion of the fetus/along with all the hormonal changes that go with a pregnancy and the ending of a pregnancy. Permanent birth control would also be the cheaper option.

The perspective of the question is supposed to be addressed as if I just found out that I am pregnant. Not the obvious things I should do to prevent myself from getting in that situation. Prevention is irrelevant to the discussion I was initiating.

blackribbon said:
And based on what you say, your medication is necessary for life (unable to function is not ever acceptable medically). So your health does out weight the danger to the baby. Again, prevent the pregnancy. That really isn't that hard if you have no anticipation of ever being able to be pregnant safely.

Address the abortion issue. Is an abortion allowable for me, in your view, yes or no? It is irrelevant how likely I am to become pregnant, the point is to address the situation as if I am. If abortion were made illegal, with some exceptions, this would be an important situation to consider. This is the scenario you have to acknowledge as potentially happening, so what would you have me do were I already pregnant?

blackribbon · Dec 19, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
I am pretty sure that the people are not using the tests monthly. And I know that the second statement is wrong, I know of pregnancy tests that are accurate 2 weeks for urine http://americanpregnancy.org/while-pregnant/hcg-levels/ . As stated again, in my country, the majority of abortions are performed within the first month. In some places, they won't let you have one later than that.

The perspective of the question is supposed to be addressed as if I just found out that I am pregnant. Not the obvious things I should do to prevent myself from getting in that situation. Prevention is irrelevant to the discussion I was initiating.

Address the abortion issue. Is an abortion allowable for me, in your view, yes or no? It is irrelevant how likely I am to become pregnant, the point is to address the situation as if I am. If abortion were made illegal, with some exceptions, this would be an important situation to consider. This is the scenario you have to acknowledge as potentially happening, so what would you have me do were I already pregnant?

First of all, that webpage had no "new information" 10-12 days after conception IS about the time you miss your first period...and the truth is that they are most accurate starting one day after you have missed. I have looked an I can not find any countries that do a majority of their abortions in the first month...in fact, I can't find any places that recommend this as a good time for an abortion. First trimester yes...first month, no. I guess I will have to go on wondering though but I can't find any information that backs your claim.

And in your situation, NO, I would not recommend an abortion. I would recommend finding an obstetrician that specialized in patients taking psychiatric medications and have that doctor work closely with your psychiatrist for the best pregnancy outcomes. You have stated the medication is a Class C...so your baby may not even be at risk even if you do not stop or reduce the medications you are taking. I don't see any reason that an abortion is a medical necessity for you or your baby's health.

PsychoSarah · Dec 19, 2015

blackribbon said:
Which is it? Is the medication "highly toxic to a developing infant" or is it a "Class C" drug? They are NOT the same thing and to represent it as such is a misrepresentation.

It is not a misrepresentation. I take an unusually high dose, due to having a weirdly efficient liver. There are very few studies in pregnant humans for this drug class, but in animals the problems I mentioned are common. Most people that take these do not do so while pregnant, but most people also are not in as severe need as me to take it, so it is difficult to say exactly what would happen. But from personal knowledge of medical research patterns, if it hurts the test animals, it'll hurt humans worse.

I was not being misleading as to how it would affect an unborn child either, when I know that if someone like you took one of my pills, you could die from an overdose, and conclusive research shows it in the bloodstreams of children if their mother took it while pregnant. Many of those children also have developmental disorders. All stimulants carry the risk of low birth weight or miscarriage.

But the reason why I view it with such high concern is because of the dose I take, not just the risks shown in the animals, which pop up before effective doses are in their bloodstreams.

blackribbon said:
The other option that you never listed that is often considered is going without your medications for the first trimester and then going back on it when it poses a lower risk for the baby. But many psychiatric diagnoses also carry a genetic risk of the baby getting the same disorder and that has to be weighed into the decision on whether or not to get pregnant (always preferable over making a decision about abortion after the fact).

You think lower risk comforts me? I view it as irresponsible to take a medication that would pose any risk that would outweigh the health reward. And we are bringing up genetics now? Seriously? Never expected that one from the pro-life advocate; apparently, I shouldn't have children, because they might have the same condition I do. If people followed that logic, then more than half of the human population would sterilize itself.

And yet this whole time, you continue to dodge the issue. Enough prevention, address it as if I was pregnant right now. No more should I or should I not get pregnant in the first place. The decision is immediate; is abortion allowed or not?

PsychoSarah · Dec 19, 2015

blackribbon said:
And in your situation, NO, I would not recommend an abortion. I would recommend finding an obstetrician that specialized in patients taking psychiatric medications and have that doctor work closely with your psychiatrist for the best pregnancy outcomes. You have stated the medication is a Class C...so your baby may not even be at risk even if you do not stop or reduce the medications you are taking. I don't see any reason that an abortion is a medical necessity for you or your baby's health.

Now here are the possible futures of that choice of yours:

You are right, and I just need to take reduced doses of my medication for a period of time, and all is well.

You are right, but I can't take my medication for the first trimester. 3 months may not sound as bad as 9, but it would still leave me jobless and unable to care for myself for an extended period of time.

You are wrong, but fortunately, despite the risk to my child, they beat the odds.

You are wrong, and they didn't beat the odds. I am devastated by a miscarriage or a child damaged by my medication, and already being a suicide risk, prospects look pretty bad.

Class C medications have shown some ill effects in animal studies, but have no extensive human studies. I bring this up again that the reason for that is most people opt out of taking the medication, so there isn't a good pool of people to do a study on. It doesn't mean that the medication is safe or even likely to be safe; on the contrary, it could go either way, but I mention again that when the animals suffer from it, usually humans do to.

blackribbon · Dec 19, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
Now here are the possible futures of that choice of yours:

You are right, and I just need to take reduced doses of my medication for a period of time, and all is well.

You are right, but I can't take my medication for the first trimester. 3 months may not sound as bad as 9, but it would still leave me jobless and unable to care for myself for an extended period of time.

You are wrong, but fortunately, despite the risk to my child, they beat the odds.

You are wrong, and they didn't beat the odds. I am devastated by a miscarriage or a child damaged by my medication, and already being a suicide risk, prospects look pretty bad.

Class C medications have shown some ill effects in animal studies, but have no extensive human studies. I bring this up again that the reason for that is most people opt out of taking the medication, so there isn't a good pool of people to do a study on. It doesn't mean that the medication is safe or even likely to be safe; on the contrary, it could go either way, but I mention again that when the animals suffer from it, usually humans do to.

You asked me what I'd recommend and I told you. I do not think a Class C drug necessitates or even indicates the need to consider abortion. I wouldn't recommend taking it unless it is necessary for the health of the mother which is appears to be clearly indicated in your case.

If it is so important to you that you not face this decision, not getting pregnant is a very real option....and there are plenty of reliable methods ... or doubling up if you want to be that much sure.

Also, are you suggesting that sometime in the future you will no longer be needing these medications and able to go 9 months without taking them...if not, then genetic issues are realistic considerations and permanent birth control should be considered. It has nothing to do with you personally but you are the one stating that you can't exist for 9 months without your medications.

Yes, I do think that abortion as a form of birth control is a very irresponsible way of living. Pregnancy doesn't "just happen", it has a known cause. So saying that prevention doesn't play a part in the decision making process, is delusional. If you find yourself pregnant, then be pregnant and get some good medical counseling on how to keep that baby as healthy as possible. Nobody is guaranteed a healthy baby even if they do everything right...and more amazing, is most babies are healthy in spite of the risky behavior we undertook even before we realized we were pregnant or the known risks we take after we do know.

As long as abortion is legal, you will get to make your own decision concerning any pregnancy you face. However, I will continue to believe that it is immoral to kill a child because of an unsubstantiated fear that it is less than perfect. I also believe that even if the baby is imperfect, that it has a right to live. That is my opinion.

Ana the Ist · Dec 19, 2015

Tree of Life said:
Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.

Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).

Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.

Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.

Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.

Furthermore it is possible to assign harm in cases of abortion whereas it is not possible to assign harm in cases of contraception. In cases of abortion a fetus or zygote is harmed because it is deprived of future, human experiences. But what is harmed in cases of contraception? It cannot be a singular sperm because there's no reason to assign harm to a sperm and not an ovum. It cannot be assigned to a singular ovum because there is no reason to assign harm to an ovum and not a sperm. It cannot be assigned to a sperm and ovum together because the possibilities during conception are so large that we can never know which sperm will fertilize which ovum. There is no actual agent to assign harm to that is not arbitrary in cases of contraception.

"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."

This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.

"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."

Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.

Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?

No...It appears to me that Don hasn't really thought this through. Things like "value" as in VHF are relative and subjective terms. For example...

1. Forcibly removing value from someone's life is morally wrong.
2. Imprisonment removes value from a person's life, robbing them of VHF.
3. Placing someone in prison is morally wrong.

Logically constructed, there's nothing wrong with this argument...yet I doubt anyone would agree with it.

fhansen · Dec 19, 2015

Tree of Life said:
Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.

Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).

Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.

Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.

Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.

Furthermore it is possible to assign harm in cases of abortion whereas it is not possible to assign harm in cases of contraception. In cases of abortion a fetus or zygote is harmed because it is deprived of future, human experiences. But what is harmed in cases of contraception? It cannot be a singular sperm because there's no reason to assign harm to a sperm and not an ovum. It cannot be assigned to a singular ovum because there is no reason to assign harm to an ovum and not a sperm. It cannot be assigned to a sperm and ovum together because the possibilities during conception are so large that we can never know which sperm will fertilize which ovum. There is no actual agent to assign harm to that is not arbitrary in cases of contraception.

"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."

This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.

"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."

Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.

Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?

Human life is sacred because God created humans in His image and gave them life. We recognize this sacredness intuitively, even if we may override that knowledge. And there is simply no way to logically arrive at a point in time along the course of the development of a human being where we can say, "Now it is human life, but before this moment it was not". We just don't possess the right to take an innocent human life.

The Portuguese Baptist · Dec 19, 2015

SteveB28 said:
Your analogies are hopelessly clumsy and fail to relate to the argument which you are trying to mount. Allow me to make a few comments:

Yes, consent is a continuous process in this case. If a woman finds herself pregnant, her consent to remain pregnant must persist for the next 9-10 months if she is to carry the pregnancy through to birth.

There isn't really a specific consent to ‘remain pregnant’. She must remain pregnant because she has agreed to harbour the foetus in the first place. When you agree to do something, you agree to bear all the possible consequences of the act you have committed. Similarly, when a woman agrees to have sex, she agrees to bear the possible consequence of getting pregnant, if it happens. The consent is to get pregnant (and, consequently, to remain pregnant until the end), not to remain pregnant specifically. What sense does it make to say, ‘I accept to get pregnant, but I refuse to remain pregnant’?

I insist that, when she has sex, she knows that she may get pregnant and have a baby, and it is ridiculous for her to cancel it only because she did not really want that.

You must understand that, when the foetus is formed inside the womb, the foetus has life and is a living human being, just like us. Suppose the woman wants to kill her son as a child, after he has been born, because she has changed her mind and dislikes the idea of having him in her house. Surely you would agree that it would be wrong, would you not? Why? Because the child has life and killing him is murder, just like killing a normal adult. However, why do you think that it is not wrong for the woman to do that before he was born? It is because you see the foetus as lifeless (or, at least, worthless and with no rights). It is because you see the period of her pregnancy as a time when nothing is decided yet, nothing has happened and it is OK to cancel the operation. However, if you were asked about aborting a child, you would say, ‘No! It is too late. There is nothing we can do’, would you not?

Ultimately, what you defend is teaching teens and adults that it is OK to be irresponsible: ‘You can have sex as much as you want — if you don't want a baby, and you get pregnant, we can fix that! Now go out and have fun!’ Is this the lesson you want to pass on?

SteveB28 said:
A far better analogy than any you offered is to consider a person who has agreed to regularly have their blood transfused into another, to help them deal with some disease. At any point in that commitment, the person who is 'lending' their body to the other must have the right to terminate their consent. This is surely a basic tenet of bodily autonomy that we all enjoy.

Yes, that is correct, unless the person has promised to do so continuously, or is he has signed a contract that binds him to this commitment. In that situation, only if the person's life is at risk does it make any sense to allow him to cancel the agreement.

SteveB28 said:
But here is the comment which really stuck in my craw:

You present here, rather crudely, a scenario of a one-sided 'contract'! One in which only one party is obliged to make a commitment. You make no mention at all of the responsibilities of the other party. In case your knowledge of human reproduction is as poor as your colleague's, may I remind you that, when conception occurs, two parties have been responsible for bringing about that situation! Yet you make no mention whatsoever about the responsibility of the man involved. Because of the foibles of human biology, the resultant foetus happens to be lodged in the body of the female. But the male was equally responsible for placing it there. Under your scenario, however, it is solely the woman that bears responsibility for maintaining that pregnancy.

Fine. If the responsibility is solely the woman's, then so is all the decision-making - including whether or not she wishes to continue!

Of course the father is responsible as well! However, I do not see how that changes the argument in anything — that is why I did not talk about it. If you believe that the fact that the father holds responsibility along with the woman does damage to my argument, please show me exactly how. (In discussions about abortion, I have never heard anyone talk about the rights of the father: generally, people debate only between the rights of the foetus and the rights of the woman.)

The Portuguese Baptist · Dec 19, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
No...It appears to me that Don hasn't really thought this through. Things like "value" as in VHF are relative and subjective terms. For example...

1. Forcibly removing value from someone's life is morally wrong.
2. Imprisonment removes value from a person's life, robbing them of VHF.
3. Placing someone in prison is morally wrong.

Logically constructed, there's nothing wrong with this argument...yet I doubt anyone would agree with it.

I agree with that argument: it is morally wrong to arbitrarily place someone in prison.

However, you must consider that criminals who go to prison are put in prison because they have committed a crime which has robbed someone else of value, in a certain manner. In that regard, if criminals have violated someone else's rights, it makes sense to also violate one of the rights of the criminal: in this case, the right to never be imprisoned. The general principle of ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ applies in these situations of civil judgement in a court.

Of course, we could disagree on what kind of rights a criminal has are worthy of being broken for punishment. For example, does it make sense to kill a criminal who has killed someone else, or is human life an absolute human right, completely inviolable in any circumstance whatsoever? Does it make sense to physically torture a criminal who has tortured someone else, or is the right to not be subjected to physical torture an absolute human right, completely inviolable in any circumstance whatsoever?

These questions are a bit more vague, but we all agree with the general principle that, if you deprive me of something, the state will deprive you of something similar — this is a matter of justice: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ Or, as Romans 13:4 puts it: ‘But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.’

Ana the Ist · Dec 19, 2015

The Portuguese Baptist said:
There isn't really a specific consent to ‘remain pregnant’. She must remain pregnant because she has agreed to harbour the foetus in the first place. When you agree to do something, you agree to bear all the possible consequences of the act you have committed. Similarly, when a woman agrees to have sex, she agrees to bear the possible consequence of getting pregnant, if it happens. The consent is to get pregnant (and, consequently, to remain pregnant until the end), not to remain pregnant specifically. What sense does it make to say, ‘I accept to get pregnant, but I refuse to remain pregnant’?

I insist that, when she has sex, she knows that she may get pregnant and have a baby, and it is ridiculous for her to cancel it only because she did not really want that.

You must understand that, when the foetus is formed inside the womb, the foetus has life and is a living human being, just like us. Suppose the woman wants to kill her son as a child, after he has been born, because she has changed her mind and dislikes the idea of having him in her house. Surely you would agree that it would be wrong, would you not? Why? Because the child has life and killing him is murder, just like killing a normal adult. However, why do you think that it is not wrong for the woman to do that before he was born? It is because you see the foetus as lifeless (or, at least, worthless and with no rights). It is because you see the period of her pregnancy as a time when nothing is decided yet, nothing has happened and it is OK to cancel the operation. However, if you were asked about aborting a child, you would say, ‘No! It is too late. There is nothing we can do’, would you not?

Ultimately, what you defend is teaching teens and adults that it is OK to be irresponsible: ‘You can have sex as much as you want — if you don't want a baby, and you get pregnant, we can fix that! Now go out and have fun!’ Is this the lesson you want to pass on?

Yes, that is correct, unless the person has promised to do so continuously, or is he has signed a contract that binds him to this commitment. In that situation, only if the person's life is at risk does it make any sense to allow him to cancel the agreement.

Of course the father is responsible as well! However, I do not see how that changes the argument in anything — that is why I did not talk about it. If you believe that the fact that the father holds responsibility along with the woman does damage to my argument, please show me exactly how. (In discussions about abortion, I have never heard anyone talk about the rights of the father: generally, people debate only between the rights of the foetus and the rights of the woman.)

So you're in favor of abortion in cases of pregnancy by rape?

Your argument seems based in the idea of being responsible for the consequences of consented actions. Since rape is non-consensual...you're in favor of rape victims getting abortions?

Ana the Ist · Dec 19, 2015

The Portuguese Baptist said:
I agree with that argument: it is morally wrong to arbitrarily place someone in prison.

However, you must consider that criminals who go to prison are put in prison because they have committed a crime which has robbed someone else of value, in a certain manner. In that regard, if criminals have violated someone else's rights, it makes sense to also violate one of the rights of the criminal: in this case, the right to never be imprisoned. The general principle of ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ applies in these situations of civil judgement in a court.

Of course, we could disagree on what kind of rights a criminal has are worthy of being broken for punishment. For example, does it make sense to kill a criminal who has killed someone else, or is human life an absolute human right, completely inviolable in any circumstance whatsoever? Does it make sense to physically torture a criminal who has tortured someone else, or is the right to not be subjected to physical torture an absolute human right, completely inviolable in any circumstance whatsoever?

These questions are a bit more vague, but we all agree with the general principle that, if you deprive me of something, the state will deprive you of something similar — this is a matter of justice: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ Or, as Romans 13:4 puts it: ‘But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.’

Well I'm glad you understand the logical argument I made...but I think you might have missed the point behind it. Our moral opinions aren't necessarily based upon logic...there's a host of complex factors that go into deciding what is morally good or bad.

Ever read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"? In it, he makes a logical argument for the selling and eating of babies...specifically for a solution to the Irish potato famine. It's satire...but his point is the same, we don't create morals based upon logic alone.

The Portuguese Baptist · Dec 19, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
So you're in favor of abortion in cases of pregnancy by rape?

Your argument seems based in the idea of being responsible for the consequences of consented actions. Since rape is non-consensual...you're in favor of rape victims getting abortions?

Hmm... In situations of rape, it is much more difficult to make a reasonable judgement...

On the one hand, the woman never wanted to have a baby and does not want to go through labour pains: someone else has forced her to go through this... Since she is still in a period when she can cancel this, it does not make sense to force her to bear with the suffering of pregnancy and labour pains, since she never wilfully did anything which would signal her consent for this... Besides, she does not want to have a child, and giving the child for adoption could make him quite unhappy, perhaps for a long time without the love of caring parents... If the woman in question is a Christian, she will of course be worried by the extremely likely possibility that non-Christian parents would collect the child and fail to properly educate him in the paths of the Lord...

On the other hand, the foetus is a human life, and killing it would still be murder... Besides, even if the child were given for adoption, loving parents could eventually collect him to take care of him... If the woman in question is a Christian, she will understand that what had happened had been in God's plan, and it would not make much sense to force a change like that...

In situations of rape, both decisions are bad, and we have to go with the ‘least damage’ principle. However, this can be hard to judge. As such, I believe that, in situations of rape, abortion should be legalised — however, if a woman asked me whether she should do it or not, I would tell her to pray about it, and I would pray as well, but I could not absolutely defend either choice.

Ana the Ist · Dec 19, 2015

The Portuguese Baptist said:
Hmm... In situations of rape, it is much more difficult to make a reasonable judgement...

On the one hand, the woman never wanted to have a baby and does not want to go through labour pains: someone else has forced her to go through this... Since she is still in a period when she can cancel this, it does not make sense to force her to bear with the suffering of pregnancy and labour pains, since she never wilfully did anything which would signal her consent for this... Besides, she does not want to have a child, and giving the child for adoption could make him quite unhappy, perhaps for a long time without the love of caring parents... If the woman in question is a Christian, she will of course be worried by the extremely likely possibility that non-Christian parents would collect the child and fail to properly educate him in the paths of the Lord...

On the other hand, the foetus is a human life, and killing it would still be murder... Besides, even if the child were given for adoption, loving parents could eventually collect him to take care of him... If the woman in question is a Christian, she will understand that what had happened had been in God's plan, and it would not make much sense to force a change like that...

In situations of rape, both decisions are bad, and we have to go with the ‘least damage’ principle. However, this can be hard to judge. As such, I believe that, in situations of rape, abortion should be legalised — however, if a woman asked me whether she should do it or not, I would tell her to pray about it, and I would pray as well, but I could not absolutely defend either choice.

Well you understand the practical difficulties of such a law....right?

If we make abortions illegal except in cases of rape...how would we determine the rape occurred? Our legal system isn't really known for its quickness...most women would be carrying the baby to term before the trial commences. That's if a trial commences, since there's always the possibility the rapist isn't caught.

If the standard is simply that the woman claims she was raped...then we've just created a system where women lie about being raped more often than they do now. I'm not even going to get into all the kinds of problems that's likely to cause.

The effect on the actual number of abortions would be negligible IMO. It would save our often overworked/unsupported police force a lot of time and effort just to let women legally abort.

I do appreciate your logical consistency though. Kudos to you for that.

Armoured · Dec 19, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I find this line of reasoning to be a slippery slope.

Is it okay to kill severely mentally handicapped human beings? What about babies? Do babies have what we would call "thoughts"? Do newborns have a "mind". They have all the rudimentary hardware...but is it all up and functioning? What about people who had serious strokes? Spinal injuries? People in comas?

That's a messy definition if I've ever seen one. "Consciousness", "thought", and "mind" are about some of the most vague concepts we know of. Basing our morality off it seems like a horrible idea.

I would say that "thought" requires language. And "consciousness" requires the ability to form memories. Newborn infants have neither.

It's a tricky subject, and any decisions about it are going to involve at least some arbitrary lines being drawn. But the discussion still needs to be had, we can't just throw up pur hands and say "slippery slope" and ignore it. Like many things, consciousness, mind, sentience all exist on a spectrum. And like on a spectrum, it's impossible to say where red ends and green begins. That does not, however, meanthat one end of the spectrum isn't green while the other is red.

Ana the Ist · Dec 19, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I find this line of reasoning to be a slippery slope.

Is it okay to kill severely mentally handicapped human beings? What about babies? Do babies have what we would call "thoughts"? Do newborns have a "mind". They have all the rudimentary hardware...but is it all up and functioning? What about people who had serious strokes? Spinal injuries? People in comas?

That's a messy definition if I've ever seen one. "Consciousness", "thought", and "mind" are about some of the most vague concepts we know of. Basing our morality off it seems like a horrible idea.

I would say that "thought" requires language. And "consciousness" requires the ability to form memories. Newborn infants have neither.

Basing the law upon it is something we already do though...isn't it?

Don't we examine the mentally diminished and decide whether they can do things like serve on a jury or in the armed forces?

Don't we look at those in a vegetative state and have someone else determine if they are to remain upon life support or not?

This is the heart of the issue for me...because those who think abortion immoral want it illegal because they've conflated morality and law. Laws shouldn't serve morality necessarily...they should serve the good of society. IMO the benefits to society of keeping abortion legal greatly outweigh making it illegal.

SteveB28 · Dec 19, 2015

The Portuguese Baptist said:
Hmm... In situations of rape, it is much more difficult to make a reasonable judgement...

In situations of rape, both decisions are bad, and we have to go with the ‘least damage’ principle. However, this can be hard to judge. As such, I believe that, in situations of rape, abortion should be legalised — however, if a woman asked me whether she should do it or not, I would tell her to pray about it, and I would pray as well, but I could not absolutely defend either choice.

Ah, at last! The hypocrisy finally reveals itself - I wondered how long.

This argument has NOTHING to do with a desire to 'save' the foetus. If it were, you would have no hesitation in advocating for it in ALL situations.

But you don't. You would permit it to be destroyed, just as long as the behaviour of the woman meets your conditions! It lives or dies, not on its own merits, but only if you consider that the woman's actions were honourable.

This has nothing to do with 'saving the unborn'. It is entirely about controlling women!

William67 · Dec 19, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
I'll add another premise:

- forcing a human to use his/her body as a host to another, is wrong as it is an infraction to that human's bodily autonomy. It is the same principle that states that you can't force someone to donate organs, blood, bone marrow, etc.

With that premise added, it seems to me that the argument no longer works.

If you require bone marrow and I am a match, but I refuse to donate bone marrow, then that is my right - even if it means that you'll die.

Your rights do not have priority over my rights.
Just like a fetus' rights do not have priority over the woman's rights.

A person's "right" to do anything they please with their body is not absolute. If a woman doesn't want to "host another" human being, she should have herself sterilized.

The second part that I bolded explains a great deal. Ive donated blood, stem cells, and I'm registered as a marrow donor.

KCfromNC · Dec 19, 2015

Norbert L said:
Untrue.

Sperm and eggs only have a potential to become a human and have a VHF, totally unlike a human during the gestation portion of life.

Just like a fertilized egg only has the potential to become a human which experiences something.

KCfromNC · Dec 19, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
No...It appears to me that Don hasn't really thought this through. Things like "value" as in VHF are relative and subjective terms. For example...

1. Forcibly removing value from someone's life is morally wrong.
2. Imprisonment removes value from a person's life, robbing them of VHF.
3. Placing someone in prison is morally wrong.

Logically constructed, there's nothing wrong with this argument...yet I doubt anyone would agree with it.

Yep. There's lots of special pleading going on here. Lots of assertions that this argument magically doesn't apply anywhere but for abortion but no real discussion of why that's true. The more you think about it, the more it prevents one from stopping anyone from doing anything. It argues not only against abortion, but against suicide prevention, medical treatment, the justice system, self defense, and a ton of other things which no one would reasonably want to support. But hey, it can be used to attack abortion so let's ignore all that.

KCfromNC · Dec 19, 2015

William67 said:
A person's "right" to do anything they please with their body is not absolute. If a woman doesn't want to "host another" human being, she should have herself sterilized.

There are many other choices as well, such as contraception or abortion. Why are you jumping all the way to forced sterilization?

Why Abortion is Immoral

Chaotic Neutral

Not a newbie

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Not a newbie

Aggressively serene!

Oldbie

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat

Aggressively serene!

So is America great again yet?

Aggressively serene!

Well-Known Member

Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency