Why Abortion is Immoral

[blackribbon]

I want to add that IF we take the stance that abortion is immoral, we also need to develop an attitude of compassion for the woman who is pregnant out of wedlock. She needs to be loved and supported and not shamed. That is how we show Christ's love to these very vulnerable women. (Seldom do the fathers of these pregnancy suffer the same shame.)

 

[AirPo]

My hope is that the secularists will begin to understand that when we allow our emotions to be the only driver of our decisions, bad things happen. Having a balance of emotion and rational thinking is key to a productive healthy life. Which brings me back to the importance of promoting good choices before conception and forget the idea of pro choice after conception because it only justifies the immoral actions of abortion.

Pro good choices before conception is both pro life and pro choice, how can anyone argue against it?

Because that's rational thinking.

 

[AirPo]

So are you saying that killing a normal adult human being does not harm them?

No.

 

[Armoured]

My point about the other thing was that someone who honestly fears the authority of God would not have an abortion, but would rather either love the child or at least put them up for adoption.

That's great, but that isn't what we were talking about.

 

[Tree of Life]

No.

How does killing a NAHB harm them? Let's think especially in the case of a very sudden killing that is painless to the victim and catches them totally unawares. How are they harmed in that instance?

 

[Armoured]

How does killing a NAHB harm them? Let's think especially in the case of a very sudden killing that is painless to the victim and catches them totally unawares. How are they harmed in that instance?

Disruption of their express sentience, and cause of upset to friends family, and to a lesser extent, economic investment in the person.

However, most people you ask will say that "sudden and painless" is how they want to die, which should tell you something.

 

[Tree of Life]

Disruption of their express sentience, and cause of upset to friends family, and to a lesser extent, economic investment in the person.

However, most people you ask will say that "sudden and painless" is how they want to die, which should tell you something.

You've mentioned how their killing harms others - upsetting to survivors, upsetting economically. But killing is wrong primarily because it harms the person killed. Conceivably you could kill a person and harm no one else in the process - perhaps they have no family to miss them. But it would still be wrong because killing harms the person killed. You've touched on why a little bit. Killing disrupts something - their experiences. Put more plainly, killing them deprives them of future experiences they would have otherwise had. This is the great harm done in killing. This is the most obvious harm done. This is most obviously why we ourselves do not want to be killed. And this is primarily why killing is wrong.

 

[Armoured]

You've mentioned how their killing harms others - upsetting to survivors, upsetting economically. But killing is wrong primarily because it harms the person killed. Conceivably you could kill a person and harm no one else in the process - perhaps they have no family to miss them. But it would still be wrong because killing harms the person killed. You've touched on why a little bit. Killing disrupts something - their experiences. Put more plainly, killing them deprives them of future experiences they would have otherwise had. This is the great harm done in killing. This is the most obvious harm done. This is most obviously why we ourselves do not want to be killed. And this is primarily why killing is wrong.

Nope. I can't agree, sorry. You have to have a concept of future experience before you can be meaningfully deprived of if. Foetuses don't. So I just don't see how they're the same.

 

[Belk]

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:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. 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:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. 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:

Capital punishment is immoral because it deprives VHF.
Self defense is immoral because it deprives VHF.

"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.

Special pleading is special.

 

[Davian]

Let me first answer these questions before I critique this kind of response.

1. Yes, of course women have all kinds of rights.
2. No I am not a woman.

These are two other kinds of objections that are mounted against Marquis' argument and they're both very silly, I think.

Are you now the arbiter of silliness in for these forums?

They go like this:

"Women have rights over their own body. They are not morally obligated to support a fetus. The fetus may have a right to life, but it does not trump the right the woman has over her body."

This argument was made popular by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson under her "famous violinist" scenario. It fails for two reasons:

It does not address Marquis' argument at all. So his argument still stands.

You have simply presumed that the Marquis' argument takes precedent over the women's rights over her own body.

While I personally find the concept of abortion abhorrent, I hold no such presumption. I am pro-life, but not anti-choice.

It fails to explain why we believe that a mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child. A newborn is just as dependent on the mother's body as a fetus is. Yet we think that it's wrong for a mother to neglect a child that has already been born.

Sure we think it is wrong. Yet some mothers, for their own reasons, are not capable of this.

We cannot dictate how others think.

"If you're not a woman then you're not allowed to challenge the ethics of abortion."

I'm not sure that this even needs a response. It's like saying "if you're not a father then you're not allowed to challenge my decision to be a dead-beat dad." After all, just because a guy gets a woman pregnant doesn't mean he's ethically obliged to care for that child, right? Oh wait...

Or: "if you're not a politician then you're not allowed to challenge governmental corruption." It just doesn't follow.

That is not my position. I can only speak from experience. My wife wanted to become pregnant, even going in for surgery to check her tubes and such to see if there were problems (none found). I simply cannot share this experience.

Likewise, if it were not for modern medical intervention, my wife and first child would have died while in labour. Pain so intense that it burst blood vessels in the skin of her face. Again, this I could only watch.

I am not saying that we (the un-impregnate-able) should not be allowed to challenge the ethics of abortion, I am saying that we should not get to put both hands on the steering wheel.

I would ask you, does your level of concern for the child's health change at birth?

 

[Tree of Life]

Nope. I can't agree, sorry. You have to have a concept of future experience before you can be meaningfully deprived of if. Foetuses don't. So I just don't see how they're the same.

You do agree that this harm is done to NAHB?

Fetuses, in most cases, have VHF just like adults do - though they may not be aware of this. When a fetus is killed it is deprived of the same thing that a NAHB is deprived of.

 

[Tree of Life]

Capital punishment is immoral because it deprives VHF.
Self defense is immoral because it deprives VHF.

That's where the qualifier "normal" comes in. A normal adult human being is one who is not liable to capital punishment or one who is not liable to violence due to self defense. There could be reasons to kill an adult human being, but a killing a NAHB is wrong. Most agree. I think you do too.

Special pleading is special.

Don't know what you mean.

 

[Tree of Life]

Are you now the arbiter of silliness in for these forums?

Not officially.

You have simply presumed that the Marquis' argument takes precedent over the women's rights over her own body.

Well the two arguments do not really directly communicate with each other. They do pose interesting problems for one another, but in an angular way. Both arguments cannot be true. It would create this conundrum:

1. Abortion is immoral.
2. A woman is not obliged to carry a child to term. She is permitted to terminate the pregnancy.

They cannot both be true. So if Marquis' argument is successful or unchallenged then Thomson's argument has no leg to stand on.

I would ask you, does your level of concern for the child's health change at birth?

Um. I don't think so. Why?

 

[Armoured]

You do agree that this harm is done to NAHB?

Fetuses, in most cases, have VHF just like adults do - though they may not be aware of this. When a fetus is killed it is deprived of the same thing that a NAHB is deprived of.

No it's not. Because it isn't aware of what it's being deprived of. Crux point.

 

[Belk]

That's where the qualifier "normal" comes in. A normal adult human being is one who is not liable to capital punishment or one who is not liable to violence due to self defense. There could be reasons to kill an adult human being, but a killing a NAHB is wrong. Most agree. I think you do too.

This just gets worse and worse.

Don't know what you mean.

Obviously not. Special pleading is where you try to except your argument from objections for non logical reasons. For example claiming your argument against killing people only applies to people who do not deserve to be killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

 

[Tree of Life]

No it's not. Because it isn't aware of what it's being deprived of. Crux point.

I don't see how this is relevant at all.

Let's say that you have a distant relative who dies and his directives are to leave you with $20,000,000. This fortune belongs to your family and was acquired by your family over several generations. Your relative decided that it should go to you because you're the most competent person to handle it. Furthermore you greatly need this wealth. You have a child who has a life threatening condition and you need a large some of money to pay for the procedures needed.

Then lets say you know nothing about this relative or this inheritance. Your relative's lawyer notices this and figures out a way to steal this money from you without your, or anyone's knowledge of it. You never knew it existed. You never knew it was rightfully yours. Later on your child dies because you couldn't pay for medical procedures.

Would you say that you were harmed in this situation?

 

[Tree of Life]

This just gets worse and worse.

Take it up with Marquis. He's the world class philosopher who qualified the term. Read his paper for yourself.

Obviously not. Special pleading is where you try to except your argument from objections for non logical reasons. For example claiming your argument against killing people only applies to people who do not deserve to be killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Could you demonstrate why my response to the objection was a case of special pleading?

 

[Armoured]

I don't see how this is relevant at all.

Let's say that you have a distant relative who dies and his directives are to leave you with $20,000,000. This fortune belongs to your family and was acquired by your family over several generations. Your relative decided that it should go to you because you're the most competent person to handle it. Furthermore you greatly need this wealth. You have a child who has a life threatening condition and you need a large some of money to pay for the procedures needed.

Then lets say you know nothing about this relative or this inheritance. Your relative's lawyer notices this and figures out a way to steal this money from you without your, or anyone's knowledge of it. You never knew it existed. You never knew it was rightfully yours. Later on your child dies because you couldn't pay for medical procedures.

Would you say that you were harmed in this situation?

A little overwrought, isn't it?
But trying to give you a fair response... yes, if someone stole something you didn't know you owned, it wouldn't "harm" you in any meaningful way. In the case you outlined, it would certainly be illegal, and it would be immoral, IMHO, more because the lawyer is in breach of his trust, and because the child dies.

 

[Chriliman]

That's great, but that isn't what we were talking about.

If my memory serves me, we were talking about the emotional state of a woman who's faced with the possibility of having an abortion to better(or unintentionally worsen) her own quality of life. I'm just making the point that a woman who fears the authority of God would not consider killing the unborn for fear of God's righteous judgment.

A woman who does not fear God's authority would consider killing an unborn child as a good thing because she perceives it as bettering her own quality of life, however, many woman say that having an abortion causes unforeseen grief and regret. This grief and regret they experience is quite possibly God's judgment against them. Should they ask for forgiveness from God, they will receive it, but this doesn't mean they can continue having abortions.

 

[Armoured]

If my memory serves me, we were talking about the emotional state of a woman who's faced with the possibility of having an abortion to better(or unintentionally worsen) her own quality of life. I'm just making the point that a woman who fears the authority of God would not consider killing the unborn for fear of God's righteous judgment.

A woman who does not fear God's authority would consider killing an unborn child as a good thing because she perceives it as bettering her own quality of life, however, many woman say that having an abortion causes unforeseen grief and regret. This grief and regret they experience is quite possibly God's judgment against them. Should they ask for forgiveness from God, they will receive it, but this doesn't mean they can continue having abortions.

You've gone of on a weird tangent.

The point being discussed, was emotion vs. logical, rational decision making. Again, every women I have discussed it with who has had a termination, put a great deal of thought into it. And while emotion certainly plays a part, the decision is based on rationality as well.

As to whether any of them were "God fearing" that's a. irrelevant and b. a pretty obvious opening for a game of "No True Scotsman."