Why Abortion is Immoral

[Ana the Ist]

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

So morality changes according to circumstances?

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

So morality changes according to circumstances?

No, I never said that. Abortion is always immoral, even in the case that the woman was coerced to have sex. However, if she was coerced, there are two immoral choices: either we allow the woman to abort, which is immoral, or we prohibit her from aborting, which is also immoral (because she never consented to have sex and get pregnant).

So, no, morality does not change according to circumstances. It is always immoral to abort a child, and it is always immoral to force someone to go through unwanted suffering which was not consented. In most abortions, since the woman has already consented to have sex and, consequently, possibly get pregnant, the second parameter does not apply and the best choice is clear. However, if the woman has been raped, it is still immoral to do both things.

In other words, as I have said earlier, every foetus has the right to live and every woman has the right to choose whether to get pregnant. If the woman has already used her right, that right is not given back to her; but, if she has not (as it happens in a situation of rape), she still has the right to choose, and it is immoral to take it away from her.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I never said that. Abortion is always immoral, even in the case that the woman was coerced to have sex. However, if she was coerced, there are two immoral choices: either we allow the woman to abort, which is immoral, or we prohibit her from aborting, which is also immoral (because she never consented to have sex and get pregnant).

So, no, morality does not change according to circumstances. It is always immoral to abort a child, and it is always immoral to force someone to go through unwanted suffering which was not consented. In most abortions, since the woman has already consented to have sex and, consequently, possibly get pregnant, the second parameter does not apply and the best choice is clear. However, if the woman has been raped, it is still immoral to do both things.

In other words, as I have said earlier, every foetus has the right to live and every woman has the right to choose whether to get pregnant. If the woman has already used her right, that right is not given back to her; but, if she has not (as it happens in a situation of rape), she still has the right to choose, and it is immoral to take it away from her.

Well, the reason I asked is this is because you made this statement...

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

So would the "least immoral" choice become the moral choice by default?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Really?

Yes really. Not all human experiences are valuable. Take any instance of suffering for example. Those are not valuable to me at all. That term has to be taken out of your equation.

This may be a foothold. You are harming a fetus or a zygote. You're harming it very greatly - by depriving it of future, human experiences. But you may not be harming a person. That may matter. I don't know.

Since a first trimester fetus isn't a person, the use of the word "deprive" in the way you're using it is incorrect. You can't deprive an aspect of personhood to something that isn't a person. So there's no demonstrable harm.

Right. I'm still not sure how that is relevant to this argument.

It's relevant because, as I've said before, we shouldn't base our ethics on potentialities or "what if's". Should you shoot someone walking down the same street as you because they have the potential to mug you? What if you knew for a fact that they've mugged other people in the past?

Similarly, should you not abort a fetus because it has the potential to become a person?

Both of those situations are in the same category.

A future.

Can you guarantee that all first trimester fetuses will be delivered at nine months? If not, then you're just speculating that any fetus will fully develop.

 

[fhansen]

Yes really. Not all human experiences are valuable. Take any instance of suffering for example. Those are not valuable to me at all. That term has to be taken out of your equation.



Since a first trimester fetus isn't a person, the use of the word "deprive" in the way you're using it is incorrect. You can't deprive an aspect of personhood to something that isn't a person. So there's no demonstrable harm.



It's relevant because, as I've said before, we shouldn't base our ethics on potentialities or "what if's". Should you shoot someone walking down the same street as you because they have the potential to mug you? What if you knew for a fact that they've mugged other people in the past?

Similarly, should you not abort a fetus because it has the potential to become a person?

Both of those situations are in the same category.



Can you guarantee that all first trimester fetuses will be delivered at nine months? If not, then you're just speculating that any fetus will fully develop.

Should we be free to take the life of a healthy, innocent adult since, after all, they might be killed in a car accident tomorrow anyway?

 

[Cearbhall]

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

No. Morality is subjective, and abortion is moral according to my system of morality. I believe that humans should not be forced to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of others. So, for example, I support taxation, but not forced blood donation.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Should we be free to take the life of a healthy, innocent adult since, after all, they might be killed in a car accident tomorrow anyway?

Nope. Which is another illustration of why the potential personhood of a fetus is immaterial to the discussion.

 

[fhansen]

Nope. Which is another illustration of why the potential personhood of a fetus is immaterial to the discussion.

You're last point was simply that, not knowing whether the fetus might have a future in itself should give reason to deny it the right to continued life.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You're last point was simply that, not knowing whether the fetus might have a future in itself should give reason to deny it the right to continued life.

No, the fact that the fetus isn't assured a future (and therefore personhood) eliminates that factor from consideration. The fact that a first trimester fetus isn't a person is what justifies abortion.

Your example actually bolsters my position, not yours.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Well, the reason I asked is this is because you made this statement...

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

So would the "least immoral" choice become the moral choice by default?

Well, neither option is moral in that case. Which one is ‘the least immoral’ could be relative and subject to discussion.

 

[Tree of Life]

Since a first trimester fetus isn't a person, the use of the word "deprive" in the way you're using it is incorrect. You can't deprive an aspect of personhood to something that isn't a person. So there's no demonstrable harm.

You can deprive non-persons of important things and this is an ethical matter. We should not continue to consume carbon at the rate we are because our destruction of the planet deprives FUTURE people. It doesn't really hurt us much. That's an ethical argument based on depriving people who don't yet exist.

Similarly, should you not abort a fetus because it has the potential to become a person?

This really has very little to do with the argument. Abortion is wrong because it deprives a fetus of a valuable human future. It doesn't matter whether or not the fetus is a person or a potential person.

Can you guarantee that all first trimester fetuses will be delivered at nine months? If not, then you're just speculating that any fetus will fully develop.

No. Miscarriages happen all the time. But we don't have much control of that. That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether or not we have the right to willfully and forcefully disrupt the fetus in such a way that the fetus is deprived of a valuable human future.

You're arguing down a line that would say that murdering an adult is not wrong because we can never guarantee that the adult would have lived past the moment of his murder had he not been murdered. We don't know what would've happened! So murder is ok.

 

[Tree of Life]

No. Morality is subjective, and abortion is moral according to my system of morality. I believe that humans should not be forced to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of others. So, for example, I support taxation, but not forced blood donation.

Oh ok. Well in that case abortion is immoral according to my system of morality. I guess it's wrong for me to have an abortion but it's right for you.

 

[fhansen]

No, the fact that the fetus isn't assured a future (and therefore personhood) eliminates that factor from consideration. The fact that a first trimester fetus isn't a person is what justifies abortion.

Your example actually bolsters my position, not yours.

No, sorry. Those were two separate points you made. One was that a first trimester fetus was not a person. The other was that the mere possibility of it's having no future made it's existence of less worth.

BTW, when in your opinion, does the unborn become worthy of continued existence, to the right to life?

 

[Cearbhall]

Oh ok. Well in that case abortion is immoral according to my system of morality.

Yes. I have no objection to that conclusion.

I guess it's wrong for me to have an abortion but it's right for you.

Subjectively, yes. Objectively, it's inconclusive.

 

[fhansen]

No. Morality is subjective, and abortion is moral according to my system of morality. I believe that humans should not be forced to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of others. So, for example, I support taxation, but not forced blood donation.

So do you think it might be reasonable to, say, reverse the laws against homicide? If morality is only relative, then there's nothing intrinsically wrong with genocide or homicide, let alone any reason for moral outrage against such behavior?

 

[Tree of Life]

Subjectively, yes. Objectively, no.

Didn't you say that morality is purely subjective?

 

[Cearbhall]

So do you think it might be reasonable to, say, reverse the laws against homicide?

No. I believe that limitations on killing are a cornerstone of any functional social contract. Therefore, they are an important part of my moral system.

If morality is only relative, then there's nothing intrinsically wrong with genocide or homicide, let alone any reason for moral outrage against such behavior?

Oh, I see. You're equating the lack of belief in objective morality with a desire for anarchy. Allow me to clarify: I fully believe that subjective moral beliefs are more than enough justification to construct laws and limit the behavior of others. Just because I don't agree with theories of some objective source of morality (such as an all-powerful deity) doesn't mean that I want human society to self-destruct. That would go against my evolutionary programming. There doesn't have to be anything objectively wrong with an action in order for it to have consequences that are worth avoiding.

 

[fhansen]

No. I believe that limitations on killing are a cornerstone of any functional social contract. Therefore, they are an important part of my moral system.

Oh, I see. You're equating the lack of belief in objective morality with a desire for anarchy. Allow me to clarify: I fully believe that subjective moral beliefs are more than enough justification to construct laws and limit the behavior of others. Just because I don't agree with theories of some objective source of morality (such as an all-powerful deity) doesn't mean that I want human society to self-destruct. That would go against my evolutionary programming. There doesn't have to be anything objectively wrong with an action in order for it to have consequences that are worth avoiding.

Yes, the minimizing of the value of human life and the taking of human life is always self-destructive, unless to protect against harm to innocent life from those with a sinister intent. So, when does a a human being become human, worthy of the full protection of the law?

 

[Cearbhall]

Didn't you say that morality is purely subjective?

Yes. What I meant was that it's not definitively right or wrong, objectively speaking. I realized that my succinct wording didn't make that clear, so I changed it to "inconclusive."

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes. What I meant was that it's not definitively right or wrong, objectively speaking. I realized that my succinct wording didn't make that clear, so I changed it to "inconclusive."

"Inconclusive" is fairly different. This implies that there is a correct answer, objectively speaking, we just do not yet know it. If morality is purely subjective then the answer isn't inconclusive at all. The answer is clear - abortion is not wrong.