Why Abortion is Immoral

[ToddNotTodd]

Would you agree that being deprived of future, human experiences is a "great harm" that constitutes the action as immoral?

I think that being deprived of personal experience is a bad thing.

 

[jenny1972]

Enough with the strawmanning. If you want a discussion, great. If you want to rant, well, Free republic is that way.

you have already stated that a human who lacks intelligence cannot be considered a person its the reason you stated why you dont consider unborn babies as people because of their lack of awareness and also you say that you believe people who are brain dead cannot be considered people . so for you and for others a person is determined by their level of awareness and intelligence . the reason this is dangerous is that once this kind of thinking is established and accepted the amount of intelligence a human being has in order to make them a "person" can and will vary by the powers that be your ideas on what defines a person are dangerous .

 

[SteveB28]

I guess I'm confused as to what situation is being described here then. Could you elaborate as to what you mean by "an egg and sperm cell together"?

Now, let's see.....its been about 50 years since I've given this talk.........

'When the mummy and the daddy love one another very much, the daddy will.........................'

 

[ToddNotTodd]

you have already stated that a human who lacks intelligence cannot be considered a person its the reason you stated why you dont consider unborn babies as people because of their lack of awareness and also you say that you believe people who are brain dead cannot be considered people . so for you and for others a person is determined by their level of awareness and intelligence . the reason this is dangerous is that once this kind of thinking is established and accepted the amount of intelligence a human being has in order to make them a "person" can and will vary by the powers that be your ideas on what defines a person are dangerous .

Level of intelligence has nothing to do with it. This has been explained to you before.

 

[SteveB28]

you have already stated that a human who lacks intelligence cannot be considered a person its the reason you stated why you dont consider unborn babies as people because of their lack of awareness and also you say that you believe people who are brain dead cannot be considered people . so for you and for others a person is determined by their level of awareness and intelligence . the reason this is dangerous is that once this kind of thinking is established and accepted the amount of intelligence a human being has in order to make them a "person" can and will vary by the powers that be your ideas on what defines a person are dangerous .

Perhaps you might like to show where Mr Armoured has said any of this?

 

[Tree of Life]

I think that being deprived of personal experience is a bad thing.

Alright. I would say that it is bad enough to constitute the action of killing as immoral on only those grounds even though there are other reasons that killing is immoral. But let's just look at those grounds.

Does this principle hold in cases of abortion? When a fetus is aborted it is deprived of valuable, future, human experiences. If this makes killing an adult wrong it's hard to see why it wouldn't also make killing a fetus wrong since the same harm is being inflicted.

 

[jenny1972]

They most assuredly are not in agreement. That a foetus is human, certainly. That it is a human being? Absolutely different kettle of fish.

what do you think a "being" is?

 

[Tree of Life]

Now, let's see.....its been about 50 years since I've given this talk.........

'When the mummy and the daddy love one another very much, the daddy will.........................'

Here is Marquis' response to the contraception issue:

"Candidates for a subject of harm by contraception fall into four categories: (1) some sperm or other, (2) some ovum or other, (3) a sperm and an ovum separately, and (4) a sperm and an ovum together. Assigning the harm to some sperm is utterly arbitrary, for no reason can be given for making a sperm the subject of harm rather than an ovum. Assigning the harm to some ovum is utterly arbitrary, for no reason can be given for making an ovum the subject of harm rather than a sperm. One might attempt to avoid these problems by insisting that contraception deprives both the sperm and the ovum separately of a valuable future like ours. On this alternative, too many futures are lost. Contraception was supposed to be wrong, because it deprived us of one future of value, not two. One might attempt to avoid this problem by holding that contraception deprives the combination of sperm and ovum of a valuable future like ours. But here the definite article misleads. At the time of contraception, there are hundreds of millions of sperm, one (released) ovum and millions of possible combinations of all of these. There is no actual combination at all. Is the subject of the loss to be a merely possible combination? Which one? This alternative does not yield an actual subject of harm either. Accordingly, the immorality of contraception is not entailed by the loss of a future-like-ours argument simply because there is no nonarbitrarily identifiable subject of the loss in the case of contraception."

 

[SteveB28]

Alright. I would say that it is bad enough to constitute the action of killing as immoral on only those grounds even though there are other reasons that killing is immoral. But let's just look at those grounds.

Does this principle hold in cases of abortion? When a fetus is aborted it is deprived of valuable, future, human experiences. If this makes killing an adult wrong it's hard to see why it wouldn't also make killing a fetus wrong since the same harm is being inflicted.

.....or killing the egg and sperm cell which would form that foetus, "since the same harm is being inflicted"!

Your argument is in shreds.

 

[Tree of Life]

.....or killing the egg and sperm cell which would form that foetus, "since the same harm is being inflicted"!

Your argument is in shreds.

I don't think so. Marquis' response solves this issue you think you've raised.

 

[Armoured]

you have already stated that a human who lacks intelligence cannot be considered a person its the reason you stated why you dont consider unborn babies as people because of their lack of awareness and also you say that you believe people who are brain dead cannot be considered people . so for you and for others a person is determined by their level of awareness and intelligence . the reason this is dangerous is that once this kind of thinking is established and accepted the amount of intelligence a human being has in order to make them a "person" can and will vary by the powers that be your ideas on what defines a person are dangerous .

Um, I don't believe I said any of the stuff you think I said. But whatever.

 

[Armoured]

what do you think a "being" is?

Rather than upsetting you further, why don't YOU tell US what you think a "being" is?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Alright. I would say that it is bad enough to constitute the action of killing as immoral on only those grounds even though there are other reasons that killing is immoral. But let's just look at those grounds.

Does this principle hold in cases of abortion? When a fetus is aborted it is deprived of valuable, future, human experiences. If this makes killing an adult wrong it's hard to see why it wouldn't also make killing a fetus wrong since the same harm is being inflicted.

Dude, did you even read my first response to you? You're just restating the thing that I successfully argued against.

To recap:

1. The qualifier "valuable" has no place in the argument, as it's not demonstrable or quantifiable.
2. It's not possible to guarantee any future for the fetus.
2. We don't allow or disallow actions based on possible futures. We don't incarcerate people based on the possibility that they'll commit a crime. We incarcerate people after they've committed a crime.

Without higher brain functions, a fetus isn't a person. and potentiality is meaningless.

^^^^ ADDRESS THIS ^^^^

 

[jenny1972]

ok for all of you "people" here who do not consider a fetus a person when does one magically stop being a worthless blob and turn into a person there must be some point in your minds so when is it for each of you at 20 weeks 24 weeks or at 40 weeks after conception one year after birth when exactly does a human become a person with rights like other people?

 

[Tree of Life]

Dude, did you even read my first response to you? You're just restating the thing that I successfully argued against.

Alright. Just needed to make sure we both understood the argument.

To recap:

1. The qualifier "valuable" has no place in the argument, as it's not demonstrable or quantifiable.

I suppose it's relative. Do you value human experiences?

2. It's not possible to guarantee any future for the fetus.

If this is true then it's not possible to guarantee any future to anyone. But killing someone still deprives them of a future they otherwise would have had.

2. We don't allow or disallow actions based on possible futures. We don't incarcerate people based on the possibility that they'll commit a crime. We incarcerate people after they've committed a crime.

I don't think that this point is really communicating with the argument. Why do you think this point has relevance?

Without higher brain functions, a fetus isn't a person. and potentiality is meaningless.

^^^^ ADDRESS THIS ^^^^

But an implanted fetus almost certainly has a human future. Killing the fetus takes away that future.

 

[Armoured]

ok for all of you "people" here who do not consider a fetus a person when does one magically stop being a worthless blob and turn into a person there must be some point in your minds so when is it for each of you at 20 weeks 24 weeks or at 40 weeks after conception one year after birth when exactly does a human become a person with rights like other people?

I'm interested to know when you think they become a person.

 

[SteveB28]

Here is Marquis' response to the contraception issue:

"Candidates for a subject of harm by contraception fall into four categories: (1) some sperm or other, (2) some ovum or other, (3) a sperm and an ovum separately, and (4) a sperm and an ovum together. Assigning the harm to some sperm is utterly arbitrary, for no reason can be given for making a sperm the subject of harm rather than an ovum. Assigning the harm to some ovum is utterly arbitrary, for no reason can be given for making an ovum the subject of harm rather than a sperm. One might attempt to avoid these problems by insisting that contraception deprives both the sperm and the ovum separately of a valuable future like ours. On this alternative, too many futures are lost. Contraception was supposed to be wrong, because it deprived us of one future of value, not two. One might attempt to avoid this problem by holding that contraception deprives the combination of sperm and ovum of a valuable future like ours. But here the definite article misleads. At the time of contraception, there are hundreds of millions of sperm, one (released) ovum and millions of possible combinations of all of these. There is no actual combination at all. Is the subject of the loss to be a merely possible combination? Which one? This alternative does not yield an actual subject of harm either. Accordingly, the immorality of contraception is not entailed by the loss of a future-like-ours argument simply because there is no nonarbitrarily identifiable subject of the loss in the case of contraception."

And you admire this fool!? I have emboldened the key flaw in his 'argument'. In order for you to wail about your doomed foetus, one first has to be formed. Therefore, one of those sperm cells must form a "combination" with the egg. That we are unable to identify beforehand which particular sperm cell will unite is irrelevant. The inescapable conclusion is that one must, before your wailing can commence. Ergo, any measure taken to prevent all sperm cells from uniting with any egg necessarily prevents your precious foetus from coming into existence. Its "future" is then denied!

Honestly, that took an 87 year old brain about 3 minutes to sort out. You need to start reading and thinking chum.

 

[Tree of Life]

And you admire this fool!? I have emboldened the key flaw in his 'argument'. In order for you to wail about your doomed foetus, one first has to be formed. Therefore, one of those sperm cells must form a "combination" with the egg. That we are unable to identify beforehand which particular sperm cell will unite is irrelevant. The inescapable conclusion is that one must, before your wailing can commence. Ergo, any measure taken to prevent all sperm cells from uniting with any egg necessarily prevents your precious foetus from coming into existence. Its "future" is then denied!

Honestly, that took an 87 year old brain about 3 minutes to sort out. You need to start reading and thinking chum.

I don't think you're doing damage to his view. In the case of abortion, the zygote is harmed. In the case of contraception you cannot assign harm to anything without it being arbitrary. What is harmed in the case of contraception?

 

[jenny1972]

Rather than upsetting you further, why don't YOU tell US what you think a "being" is?

a being is something that exists and is alive a fetus is of the human species and exists and so is a human being since these human beings lack a certain amount of intelligence you personally do not consider them people who have value , but a being is simply something that exists and is alive you seem to have a very hard time admitting that a fetus is a human being you can say human but "being" you seem to have a hard time with interesting

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I suppose it's relative. Do you value human experiences?

Not all, no.

If this is true then it's not possible to guarantee any future to anyone. But killing someone still deprives them of a future they otherwise would have had.

In regards to abortion, you're not killing "someone". That "someone" doesn't exist. Therefore, you're not depriving a "someone" of anything. You can only deprive existent persons of things.

I don't think that this point is really communicating with the argument. Why do you think this point has relevance?

It shows that potentiality has nothing to do with ethics. We don't incarcerate potential rapists. We don't give rights to potential people.

But an implanted fetus almost certainly has a human future. Killing the fetus takes away that future.

A possible future. A possible, unknown future.