Why Abortion is Immoral

[SteveB28]

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?

Good grief! You've forgotten your own argument! You have been bleating on about a "lost future", remember? Contraception assures that lost future, yet, because of your arbitrary determination that conception is the starting point of that future, you destroy your own argument.

 

[SteveB28]

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

A sperm cell meets your description. Do you wail each time one is destroyed?

 

[jenny1972]

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

as a woman and a mother i believe at the moment of conception new humanity and a new person exists and simply grows older and becomes more developed as we people do for the remainder of our lives in continual change with varying degrees of awareness and very young people and very old people have less awareness but are no less people no less human beings

 

[jenny1972]

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

the level of intelligence that a fetus has might not be why you personally dont consider them as people but its the reason why others do not consider a fetus as a person people have different reasons why they do not consider them people for some "people" its because the fetus has not fully developed and for some other "people" a fetus is not considered a person because of the lack of awareness , others it is determined by gestational age exc...

 

[SteveB28]

as a woman and a mother i believe at the moment of conception new humanity and a new person exists and simply grows older and becomes more developed as we people do for the remainder of our lives in continual change with varying degrees of awareness and very young people and very old people have less awareness but are no less people no less human beings

And you are completely entitled to that view and the actions it informs. For you.

Other people have other views.

 

[Armoured]

as a woman and a mother i believe at the moment of conception new humanity and a new person exists and simply grows older and becomes more developed as we people do for the remainder of our lives in continual change with varying degrees of awareness and very young people and very old people have less awareness but are no less people no less human beings

So... what qualities make a person "special " in that case?

 

[Tree of Life]

Not all, no.

Really?

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.

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.

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

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

A possible future. A possible, unknown future.

A future.

 

[jenny1972]

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

read his comments in my recent thread about planned parenthood we discuss the topic of intelligence and how it determines if someone is a person or not , i questioned him then if someone is placed in a temporary medical coma in order to aid in healing are they no longer people who have a right to live (comparable to a fetus with temporary unconsciousness) and he said "no" . which is why i say he should stay away from hospitals

 

[Armoured]

read his comments in my recent thread about planned parenthood we discuss the topic of intelligence and how it determines if someone is a person or not , i questioned him then if someone is placed in a temporary medical coma in order to aid in healing are they no longer people who have a right to live (comparable to a fetus with temporary unconsciousness) and he said "no" . which is why i say he should stay away from hospitals

No such exchange occurred. Go ahead. Quote it. Because one of us is lying.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I apparently was not clear. trying to exclude an egg and sperm from the argument was a case of special pleading, not the abortion argument in general.

I think excluding the sperm and the egg is perfectly justifiable.

Simply put: Taken individually, no sperm is a unique human being with the potential to become a person.

We don't mourn the death of skin cells, sperm cells or liver cells because they have no potential to become a person if left alone. Sperm cells must meet egg cells in order to mix together and have the potential to become a person.

I'll try to make a baking analogy. The sperm and egg are like the milk and flour in a cake. You can buy them separately, they are made in different ways and neither one of them has the potential to become a cake. Only by combining them does a cake begin to get made. If you saw milk sitting on a counter, you wouldn't say, "Hey, that milk has the potential to become a cake!" However, if you saw all the ingredients for a cake mixed together in a bowl you would say, "Hey, that mixture can become a cake. All it needs is some time and heat." Time and heat will not turn milk into a cake. There is no potential in milk sitting on a counter. By mixing the ingredients, you've fundamentally changed the nature and relationship of the individual ingredients. And it cannot be undone. The mixed ingredients have the ability to be baked and become a unique cake with a certain flavour, texture and composition which would be hard to reproduce.

There may be limits to the analogy, but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Lol. Oh I get the argument all right. I'm starting to think that you don't though...

Even your "square one" has issues. "Normal" isn't demonstrable or quantifiable either. Your exceptions are just special pleading.

As I said earlier, the default position is that "intentional killing = bad". Any exceptions to that rule need to be justified.

Capital punishment, self-defence and war are exceptions to the rule and must be justified (although such justifications belong in another thread).

So, the onus is on "pro-abortion" folks to justify why abortion is an exception. The default position is that abortion is immoral, unless otherwise justified.

 

[jenny1972]

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

Your argument is in shreds.

a sperm and egg are different than a new human being i consider them beautiful and amazing organisms but nothing compared to a human being

Good grief! You've forgotten your own argument! You have been bleating on about a "lost future", remember? Contraception assures that lost future, yet, because of your arbitrary determination that conception is the starting point of that future, you destroy your own argument.

thats the reason why catholics are against contraception because of the potential that the sperm and egg have to form a human being but they are not yet a human being . the chance that the human being has of continuing life noone can know , a baby can die naturally of sids yet that is not a reasonable argument for killing a baby "well its ok that i killed the baby because look at the likelihood he wouldve died naturally of sids" what kind of defense/excuse would that be ?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The argument rests on the premise that to deprive a potential future experience is immoral. You then attempt to exclude sperm and egg from the argument because they "do not have their own unique DNA". This is irrelevant because it is simply drawing an arbitrary distinction at the moment of conception. All sperm and eggs have as much of a chance of forming together and becoming a zygote. Why is it immoral to deprive this possible future from a zygote that has just formed but not immoral for the sperm and egg that it just came from a few seconds previously? Your explanation offers no reason too differentiate except the passage of a couple of seconds. Ergo, special pleading.

See my cake baking analogy.

To mix ingredients of a cake is to fundamentally change the potential. There is no potential for a cake to be made by putting milk on the counter. And there is no potential for a cake to be made by putting flour in a bowl. The milk could be used to make many combinations of different types of cakes. And the flour could be used to make many combinations of different cakes.

Only by mixing them (and other ingredients) do you now have the potential to make a unique cake.


(Btw, I think conception (which may be arbitrary) is far less arbitrary than the "22 week" rule for late-term abortions. The 22-week line is shifting all the time with medical advances meaning that thousand of fetuses have been aborted which would now today be considered immoral. To continue the cake analogy: mixing the ingredients is a very fundamental change in the nature of the system. However, saying: "Oh well, you know it really doesn't turn into a cake until the internal temperature hits 325 F" is completely arbitrary.)

 

[Belk]

I think excluding the sperm and the egg is perfectly justifiable.

Simply put: Taken individually, no sperm is a unique human being with the potential to become a person.

We don't mourn the death of skin cells, sperm cells or liver cells because they have no potential to become a person if left alone.

If left alone neither does a fertilized egg. That is kind of the whole point. Don't get me wrong it is an important and interesting part in the process, but it is a process. In any case none of that is relevant to my objection in this particular case. You can see my response earlier in the thread if it interests you.

Sperm cells must meet egg cells in order to mix together and have the potential to become a person.

I'll try to make a baking analogy. The sperm and egg are like the milk and flour in a cake. You can buy them separately, they are made in different ways and neither one of them has the potential to become a cake. Only by combining them does a cake begin to get made. If you saw milk sitting on a counter, you wouldn't say, "Hey, that milk has the potential to become a cake!" However, if you saw all the ingredients for a cake mixed together in a bowl you would say, "Hey, that mixture can become a cake. All it needs is some time and heat." Time and heat will not turn milk into a cake. There is no potential in milk sitting on a counter. By mixing the ingredients, you've fundamentally changed the nature and relationship of the individual ingredients. And it cannot be undone. The mixed ingredients have the ability to be baked and become a unique cake with a certain flavour, texture and composition which would be hard to reproduce.

There may be limits to the analogy, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Oh, I understand your point I think. It is true that at the moment of fertilization there is a new combination of DNA created. However there is much more to the debate then just that moment.

 

[Belk]

As I said earlier, the default position is that "intentional killing = bad". Any exceptions to that rule need to be justified.

A couple of observations.

1) When was this maxim established? Are you presenting it as an axiom?
2) You need to figure out a way to limit this to humans because we have no qualms about killing a large variety of entities.

Capital punishment, self-defence and war are exceptions to the rule and must be justified (although such justifications belong in another thread).

So, the onus is on "pro-abortion" folks to justify why abortion is an exception. The default position is that abortion is immoral, unless otherwise justified.

Seems to me the "Pro female slavery" ( ) folks need to do a bit more work before they shift that over to the pro choice side. Specifically you need to address my points above.

 

[jenny1972]

So... what qualities make a person "special " in that case?

im not sure what your asking but i think all human beings are people and all are special regardless of their intelligence or disability or the value people assign to them , each person is valuable . would anyone here commenting want their value to be assigned by someone else what right would they have? that would be seen as extremely unjust yet that is exactly what we are doing to people who are not born yet determining their value and even determining if they should even be considered people and we do not have the right to do that regardless of a persons age or mental ability.

 

[Belk]

See my cake baking analogy.

To mix ingredients of a cake is to fundamentally change the potential. There is no potential for a cake to be made by putting milk on the counter. And there is no potential for a cake to be made by putting flour in a bowl. The milk could be used to make many combinations of different types of cakes. And the flour could be used to make many combinations of different cakes.

Only by mixing them (and other ingredients) do you now have the potential to make a unique cake.


(Btw, I think conception (which may be arbitrary) is far less arbitrary than the "22 week" rule for late-term abortions. The 22-week line is shifting all the time with medical advances meaning that thousand of fetuses have been aborted which would now today be considered immoral. To continue the cake analogy: mixing the ingredients is a very fundamental change in the nature of the system. However, saying: "Oh well, you know it really doesn't turn into a cake until the internal temperature hits 325 F" is completely arbitrary.)

Lets agree to skip your analogy. It is already becoming way to strained. For what reason do you feel that fertilization should be the cutoff point at which we decide the potential future overrides the mothers right to bodily autonomy? At least. I presume that is your position?

 

[Armoured]

im not sure what your asking but i think all human beings are people and all are special regardless of their intelligence or disability or the value people assign to them , each person is valuable . would anyone here commenting want their value to be assigned by someone else what right would they have? that would be seen as extremely unjust yet that is exactly what we are doing to people who are not born yet determining their value and even determining if they should even be considered people and we do not have the right to do that regardless of a persons age or mental ability.

So they're special in some sort of... indefinable just generally special sort of way?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

A couple of observations.

1) When was this maxim established? Are you presenting it as an axiom?
2) You need to figure out a way to limit this to humans because we have no qualms about killing a large variety of entities.

I think I am essentially presenting it an axiom. And I can make the axiom more clear if you prefer:

"Intentional killing of human beings = bad".

There are exceptions to the axiom because no moral rule is black and white. However, in the vast majority of situations, intentional killing is considered wrong.

So, for those that view abortion as moral (or amoral), the onus is on them to justify why abortion is an exception. I think the default position is that abortion is immoral unless it can be justified that it falls in a similar class as capital punishment, war or self-defence.

Seems to me the "Pro female slavery" ( ) folks need to do a bit more work before they shift that over to the pro choice side. Specifically you need to address my points above.

Keep in mind that I am pro-choice. The subject of this thread is whether abortion is moral or immoral not whether it should be legal or illegal. Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral, nor does it mean it should be encouraged, nor does it mean it is a desirable outcome.

The subject of this thread is whether abortion is immoral or not.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Lets agree to skip your analogy. It is already becoming way to strained. For what reason do you feel that fertilization should be the cutoff point at which we decide the potential future overrides the mothers right to bodily autonomy? At least. I presume that is your position?

No, you've misunderstood my position.

To me, the abortion debate is two separate and distinct questions.

1) Is killing a fetus immoral?
2) Is suspending a woman's right to bodily autonomy immoral?

My answer to both questions is "Yes".

This thread is about whether the killing of a fetus is immoral. If it is immoral, that does not mean a woman should not have the choice to do an immoral thing.