Why Abortion is Immoral

[Belk]

why do you not consider the unborn as people with a right to live? what exactly makes them not a person?

Mostly the lack of a sentient mind.

 

[Belk]

do you support then the legalization of prostitution?

I fail to see the relevance?

 

[fhansen]

why do you not consider the unborn as people with a right to live? what exactly makes them not a person?

Right. And when, exactly, do they become a person if not one to begin with? At what point would we say, "Now you have the right to life, now we afford you the minimum rights determined to be due all humans"? At conception? At the third trimester? At viability? 10 minutes before birth? When the newborn takes their first breath? At one year of age? At ten years of age? At the age of reason?

 

[jenny1972]

I fail to see the relevance?

well its relevant because you believe in the absolute autonomy over ones body that should then extend to the right to prostitution if you believe abortion should be legal because of body autonomy then you should also then have the same view about prostitution for the same reason.

 

[jenny1972]

Mostly the lack of a sentient mind.

so mental ability determines whether a human being is a person with a right to live ? there are many people born who have varying degrees of mental ability should we round up all the mentally disabled people and kill them too because they are not people ? but the most comparable condition to the mental state of an unborn person is a person who has been put into a temporary medical coma to aid in healing after surgery if someone came into their hospital room and shot a person in a temporary coma should the killer be charged with murder ? or do you consider that the killing of a non person and therefore they did nothing wrong ?

 

[Belk]

well its relevant because you believe in the absolute autonomy over ones body that should then extend to the right to prostitution if you believe abortion should be legal because of body autonomy then you should also then have the same view about prostitution for the same reason.

Really? I should? There are no other considerations to take into account with prostitution? The objection to rests only on objecting to how others use their body? I do not think that is correct. However, I am actually in favor of legalized prostitution. I think the idea that you can't sell something that is perfectly legal to give away is silly and that making it illegal only makes the plight of prostitutes worse in the long run.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Just examine the grounds upon which you deign to agree that a woman might have an abortion.

You continually use terms like "deliberate" and "irresponsible", yet you know nothing about the circumstances of the women in question, save for the small number that may be within your circle of acquaintances.

I believe that, unless you are coerced to do something, you are responsible for doing it. I believe that this is basic Philosophy.

Women may find themselves in a sexual encounter for a hundred and one reasons. They may do so willingly,

Those should not be allowed to abort.

they may be coerced in some way,

Those should be allowed to abort.

they may be ignorant of the outcome (I understand that there are still many young women who believe, for example, that it is not possible to fall pregnant "the first time"),

I apologise: I generally tend to assume that people round me are not stupid, but that assumption has clearly been proven wrong sometimes.

they may be women who are 'bending to the will of the husband' (particularly if they are devout followers of particular religions).

If a woman is forced to have unprotected sex by her husband, feels uncomfortable, because of their background, to refuse, and is willing to actually have a child, then that is essentially coercion, and she should be allowed to abort.

And there are those whom you mention, who may be the victims of rape, or who are party to incest.

Those have been coerced and should be allowed to abort.

And of those women who do willingly take part, why do you assume "irresponsibility" when they find they are pregnant? All forms of contraception can fail from time to time, despite the care that may have been taken by the user. Again, subject to certain religious beliefs, women may have their options for contraception limited to less efficient methods. Think of Catholics in this regard. What does the woman do whose devout husband forbids her from using the contraceptive pill or condoms, but also insists that it is her duty to give herself sexually to him?

That must be a pretty stupid husband: why can't she use contraceptive methods?

My point is that people must be held responsible for their acts. Premarital sex is also immoral, and, if that did not happen, many fewer requests for abortion would be made.

Besides, nowadays, if you do not want any kids, you can have an operation to permanently make it impossible for you to reproduce.

I see no allowance in your comments for any of these situations. And I dare say I could think of many more.

No, your automatic assumption is that a) except for rape and incest, women always make the decision freely to have sex, and b) any pregnancy that follows is a result of their "irresponsibility".

I complimented you earlier for being prepared to think. Think longer and harder.

The problem with abortion, when it comes to the woman, is this: she wants to have sex, but not a baby. She decides to take the risk, insisting that ‘there is no problem’: if a foetus is formed, she can just go to hospital and have it killed. Problem solved! What about the rights of the foetus? Huh? Doesn't the foetus have the right to live? Please! In most situations, abortion is ridiculous, and it is simply a way of avoiding the consequences of your acts — exceptions can be made for situations of coercion, in which the poor woman was not given the option to not have sex.

 

[Belk]

so mental ability determines whether a human being is a person with a right to live ?

In every legal framework throughout the world as far as I am aware, yes.

there are many people born who have varying degrees of mental ability should we round up all the mentally disabled people and kill them too because they are not people ?

No, we should not

but the most comparable condition to the mental state of an unborn person is a person who has been put into a temporary medical coma

According to whom?

to aid in healing after surgery if someone came into their hospital room and shot a person in a temporary coma should the killer be charged with murder ?

Yes, they should be charged with murder.

or do you consider that the killing of a non person and therefore they did nothing wrong ?

I do not consider it such.

Would you consider it murder to stop the machinery that is keeping a brain dead person alive?

 

[jenny1972]

In every legal framework throughout the world as far as I am aware, yes.



No, we should not



According to whom?



Yes, they should be charged with murder.




I do not consider it such.

Would you consider it murder to stop the machinery that is keeping a brain dead person alive?

then your beliefs completely contradict eachother how can you argue against killing mentally disabled people or people who have been put into temporary comas ? a fetus has a temporary mental disability it does not last long in fact the temporary mental state of an unborn baby in most cases does not last as long as a person who is placed in a temporary coma

 

[Belk]

then your beliefs completely contradict eachother how can you argue against killing mentally disabled people or people who have been put into temporary comas ? a fetus has a temporary mental disability it does not last long in fact the temporary mental state of an unborn baby in most cases does not last as long as a person who is placed in a temporary coma

Kindly respond to the question I posed to you and then I will happily respond to yours.

 

[jenny1972]

Kindly respond to the question I posed to you and then I will happily respond to yours.

ok is it right to pull the plug on someone who is permanently brain dead ? yes it is right to do that because the condition is permanent not temporary there is no brain activity and there wont be any in the future its not a temporary condition that will pass

 

[Belk]

ok is it right to pull the plug on someone who is permanently brain dead ? yes it is right to do that because the condition is permanent not temporary there is no brain activity and there wont be any in the future its not a temporary condition that will pass

Thank you. Then I submit that we both use cognitive state as a determining factor in the morality of killing someone. The difference is I look at their current state and you look at possible future states.

Now, to answer your question the reason I do not think killing a person in a coma is correct is because they still have sentient cognition. Being in a coma does not mean you are brain dead. If it did I would not see an issue with it. However as far as we are able to determine a person in a coma still has thoughts. They are simply unable to "wake up" and have limited response to outside stimuli.

 

[jenny1972]

Thank you. Then I submit that we both use cognitive state as a determining factor in the morality of killing someone. The difference is I look at their current state and you look at possible future states.

Now, to answer your question the reason I do not think killing a person in a coma is correct is because they still have sentient cognition. Being in a coma does not mean you are brain dead. If it did I would not see an issue with it. However as far as we are able to determine a person in a coma still has thoughts. They are simply unable to "wake up" and have limited response to outside stimuli.

a fetus is no longer brain dead after 8 weeks post conception so if being brain "dead" is the determining factor for you then abortion after 8 weeks post conception should also be considered murdering a human being

 

[Belk]

a fetus is no longer brain dead after 8 weeks post conception so if being brain "dead" is the determining factor for you then abortion after 8 weeks post conception should also be considered murdering a human being

It is not the determining factor however. It is certainly a large part of it but like so much of human ethics it does not hinge upon a single point. There is also the bodily autonomy of the woman to consider as well.

 

[SteveB28]

I believe that, unless you are coerced to do something, you are responsible for doing it. I believe that this is basic Philosophy.



Those should not be allowed to abort.



Those should be allowed to abort.



I apologise: I generally tend to assume that people round me are not stupid, but that assumption has clearly been proven wrong sometimes.



If a woman is forced to have unprotected sex by her husband, feels uncomfortable, because of their background, to refuse, and is willing to actually have a child, then that is essentially coercion, and she should be allowed to abort.



Those have been coerced and should be allowed to abort.

"Yes, I make an exception for that....and for that.....and that". And I wager we could find many more examples wherein you would 'give a pass' to the woman who decided to terminate her pregnancy.

But then, having made all those concessions, you jump straight back to "deliberate" and "irresponsible", as we shall see below. The bottom line is that you do not know the individual circumstances of those women that you so broadly condemn!

That must be a pretty stupid husband: why can't she use contraceptive methods?

There is one section of the Christian religion that is much larger than any other. You may have heard of them - the Roman Catholics. A woman married to a devout Catholic (or she may be one herself) is forbidden from using contraceptive devices or medicines. I do, however, agree with the "stupid" label.

My point is that people must be held responsible for their acts. Premarital sex is also immoral, and, if that did not happen, many fewer requests for abortion would be made.

In your opinion! In 2015, many people do not agree with your moral pronouncement about premarital relationships. In fact, I read that a majority of couples now live together for a period before making decisions about marriage, so I would venture that it is a majority that disagree with your moral position.

Besides, nowadays, if you do not want any kids, you can have an operation to permanently make it impossible for you to reproduce.

It may interest you to know that nearly 2/3 of the woman who have an abortion already have at least one child, so 'not wanting kids' would hardly appear to be a relevant factor. It may also interest you that approximately half live below the poverty line, so the expense of such an operation may be prohibitive.

The problem with abortion, when it comes to the woman, is this: she wants to have sex, but not a baby.

And this what I mean about your 'jump'. We have discussed several situations where this is simply NOT the case, yet you seek, once again, to broad brush all women with your "deliberate" and "irresponsible" brushes.

She decides to take the risk, insisting that ‘there is no problem’: if a foetus is formed, she can just go to hospital and have it killed. Problem solved!

And again, your manufactured stereotype!

What about the rights of the foetus? Huh? Doesn't the foetus have the right to live? Please! In most situations, abortion is ridiculous, and it is simply a way of avoiding the consequences of your acts — exceptions can be made for situations of coercion, in which the poor woman was not given the option to not have sex.

And, as I said in another message, your decision to condemn is made entirely upon your assessment of the behaviour of the woman, not the future of any particular foetus. You are attempting to mandate what YOU feel should be appropriate female sexual behaviour, and I think THAT is immoral!

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

"Yes, I make an exception for that....and for that.....and that". And I wager we could find many more examples wherein you would 'give a pass' to the woman who decided to terminate her pregnancy.

But then, having made all those concessions, you jump straight back to "deliberate" and "irresponsible", as we shall see below. The bottom line is that you do not know the individual circumstances of those women that you so broadly condemn!

Hmm... I still do not think it makes much of a difference. We do not have to know the individual circumstances of every single possibility that an action will occur in order to pronounce a moral judgement on it. For example, I assume both of us would agree that murder is morally wrong, even though it might be justified in some circumstances. We do not have to wait to hear every single case of every murder that has ever happened for us to agree that it is wrong.

Similarly, I can say that abortion is always immoral, regardless of the specific circumstances of each situation. Allow me to remind you that: 1) in this thread, we are discussing whether or not abortion is immoral, not whether or not abortion should be carried out; and 2) I have never said that abortion would cease to be immoral in such cases where I permit it.

There is one section of the Christian religion that is much larger than any other. You may have heard of them - the Roman Catholics. A woman married to a devout Catholic (or she may be one herself) is forbidden from using contraceptive devices or medicines. I do, however, agree with the "stupid" label.

I wasn't aware that Catholics forbade the use of contraceptive devices. However, given their long history of ignoring and contradicting the Bible, it comes as no surprise.

By the way, I doubt any Catholic who opposes contraception is OK with abortion, so I cannot quite understand why you even talk about this possibility.

In your opinion! In 2015, many people do not agree with your moral pronouncement about premarital relationships. In fact, I read that a majority of couples now live together for a period before making decisions about marriage, so I would venture that it is a majority that disagree with your moral position.

I am glad to know that, meanwhile, a significant part of the population agrees with me — and even gladder to know that I shall always have people around me discouraging me from premarital sex.

It may interest you to know that nearly 2/3 of the woman who have an abortion already have at least one child, so 'not wanting kids' would hardly appear to be a relevant factor. It may also interest you that approximately half live below the poverty line, so the expense of such an operation may be prohibitive.

Maybe I should clarify: I meant ‘not wanting any more kids’. Regarding the expenses, the fact that abortion is cheaper than such operations does not make it moral.

And this what I mean about your 'jump'. We have discussed several situations where this is simply NOT the case, yet you seek, once again, to broad brush all women with your "deliberate" and "irresponsible" brushes.



And again, your manufactured stereotype!

Still doesn't make it moral.

And, as I said in another message, your decision to condemn is made entirely upon your assessment of the behaviour of the woman, not the future of any particular foetus. You are attempting to mandate what YOU feel should be appropriate female sexual behaviour, and I think THAT is immoral!

I get it. Your bottom line is that I cannot make a universal judgement if I do not know the individual circumstances. My bottom line is that the individual circumstances do not affect whether or not abortion is immoral. I believe this summarises our arguments, and that I can now take a break from this otherwise endless discussion and proclaim, ‘I rest my case.’ I maintain that abortion is immoral in all circumstances, and that, unless her right to choose whether or not to have sex in the first place has been ignored, and unless the woman's life is at risk, abortion should not be carried out.

 

[Beechwell]

The brain and spinal cord start to develop at Week 5 ... which means the mother has been pregnant for 3 weeks (the first two weeks are prior to pregnancy but we count since we date a pregnancy from the last menstrual cycle). Very few abortions are performed at this stage because the mother doesn't even know she is pregnant yet. This would only be "one week late" for the woman who is regular which many women are not.

I just wanted to comment on this statement, because I find it misleading. At around 5 weeks the brain and spinal cord start to form as separate structures, and neurons also start being created at around this time (4th week actually I believe).
However, the neurons at this stage lack any connectivity which is a requirement for any nerve input to be transmitted. Connections only start forming at aorund the 8th week, but actual nerve sensory input probably only reaches the mid-brain at week 18, while the cortex - which is arguable required for any kind of conscious perception - isn't connected before week 24.
So it appears to be save to say that any kind of awareness or pain recognition cannot take place before week 24, simply because the required physiological structures don't exist before then.

All dates are relative to the date of the last menstrual period, so probably roughly 4-6 weeks before a pregnancy is generally first detected. The data is either from memory or from the
Report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, 2010 (https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf),
which seems to be a pretty good general reference for prenatal neurological development, though mostly concerned with pain perception.
Incidentally the report also suggests that fetuses probably remain in an unconscious, or sleeplike, state during the whole pregnancy, only reaching true wakefulness directly after birth. That issue is still seems rather uncertain, but if this is indeed the case, it would be strong case for setting the date of birth as the begin of personhood.

 

[SteveB28]

Hmm... I still do not think it makes much of a difference. We do not have to know the individual circumstances of every single possibility that an action will occur in order to pronounce a moral judgement on it.

Yes we do - you have already said as much!

Look, morality is nothing more than an acceptance of what 'should/ought' be our behaviour. If you make the blanket statement "abortion is always immoral", you are effectively saying that we should/ought never do it. Then you contradict yourself by coming up with many instances of where that 'should/ought not' need not apply. I'm not suggesting here that you are saying that a raped 13 year old should have an abortion, but you do seem to suspend the 'should/ought not' provision. In other words, you're not saying that it's morally good in that case - you're just not saying that it's morally bad. Likewise with a woman's life being in danger. Likewise with a profoundly intellectually handicapped girl who has had someone take advantage of her.

Similarly, I can say that abortion is always immoral, regardless of the specific circumstances of each situation. Allow me to remind you that: 1) in this thread, we are discussing whether or not abortion is immoral, not whether or not abortion should be carried out;

And there's your contradiction! Whether or not something should be carried out IS a measure of its morality! If you can find instances of where it would be permitted to carry something out, then, by definition, it is not universally immoral!

and 2) I have never said that abortion would cease to be immoral in such cases where I permit it.

Again you could not have expressed your contradiction more clearly!

 

[jenny1972]

I just wanted to comment on this statement, because I find it misleading. At around 5 weeks the brain and spinal cord start to form as separate structures, and neurons also start being created at around this time (4th week actually I believe).
However, the neurons at this stage lack any connectivity which is a requirement for any nerve input to be transmitted. Connections only start forming at aorund the 8th week, but actual nerve sensory input probably only reaches the mid-brain at week 18, while the cortex - which is arguable required for any kind of conscious perception - isn't connected before week 24.
So it appears to be save to say that any kind of awareness or pain recognition cannot take place before week 24, simply because the required physiological structures don't exist before then.

All dates are relative to the date of the last menstrual period, so probably roughly 4-6 weeks before a pregnancy is generally first detected. The data is either from memory or from the
Report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, 2010 (https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf),
which seems to be a pretty good general reference for prenatal neurological development, though mostly concerned with pain perception.
Incidentally the report also suggests that fetuses probably remain in an unconscious, or sleeplike, state during the whole pregnancy, only reaching true wakefulness directly after birth. That issue is still seems rather uncertain, but if this is indeed the case, it would be strong case for setting the date of birth as the begin of personhood.

so when we fall asleep we are no longer people with a right to live ?

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Yes we do - you have already said as much!

Look, morality is nothing more than an acceptance of what 'should/ought' be our behaviour. If you make the blanket statement "abortion is always immoral", you are effectively saying that we should/ought never do it. Then you contradict yourself by coming up with many instances of where that 'should/ought not' need not apply. I'm not suggesting here that you are saying that a raped 13 year old should have an abortion, but you do seem to suspend the 'should/ought not' provision. In other words, you're not saying that it's morally good in that case - you're just not saying that it's morally bad. Likewise with a woman's life being in danger. Likewise with a profoundly intellectually handicapped girl who has had someone take advantage of her.



And there's your contradiction! Whether or not something should be carried out IS a measure of its morality! If you can find instances of where it would be permitted to carry something out, then, by definition, it is not universally immoral!



Again you could not have expressed your contradiction more clearly!

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