Why Abortion is Immoral

[Belk]

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.

Fair enough. I can work with that as an axiom. In this case the reason I feel abortion is an exception to the rule is that I do not feel a fetus is subject to the rule. I do not think a fetus is a human being (though personally I prefer the term person. I find it less subject to ambiguation).

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.

Understood and appreciated. I find this to be a more interesting discussion then mere legality.

 

[Belk]

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.

Ah! Apologies. I am glad I asked. May I ask you to expound on the reason you feel killing a fetus is immoral?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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.



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.

The moment of conception seems to be the least arbitrary choice.

I know you dislike my cake baking analogy but I'm going to continue with it for a moment if you'll allow:

Once you mix the ingredients, they still can't make a cake just like a fertilized egg left alone can't make a person. There is more to the process: someone has to put the cake in the oven, someone has to turn the oven on, etc. Its a long string of processes that go from "ingredients sitting on a counter" to "delicious cake".

But I think the mixing of the ingredients is the most unambiguous moment when you've gone from "separate entities that, on their own, cannot make a cake" to "one, unified, mixed entity which can make a cake"

Any other choice seems much more arbitrary than that moment.

 

[jenny1972]

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?

a fetus has its own body its not apart of the mothers body attached to her body yes but not apart of her body . people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as they do no harm to someone else . the limits of liberty do not extend to hurting other people you say you are "pro choice" but of course you have limits to what a woman can choose to do , do you support a womans choice to bash someone over the head and steal their money or assault another person if that is her choice ? self determination is based on self , not the lives of others even if they are temporarily located inside of that person they are a separate person (that is how each and every person is created)

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Fair enough. I can work with that as an axiom. In this case the reason I feel abortion is an exception to the rule is that I do not feel a fetus is subject to the rule. I do not think a fetus is a human being (though personally I prefer the term person. I find it less subject to ambiguation).

The collection of cells which make a fetus is a unique human being. A unique set of DNA unlike any other set of DNA ever seen. The collection of cells which make up the fetus are of the species Homo sapiens. That is how I define a unique human being. It is the broadest definition possible because narrowing the definition inevitably ends up creating contradictory morals. I prefer the broadest definition possible to encompass any possible ambiguities and to avoid de-classifying certain "persons" as non-human beings.

"Person" is much more narrow. Personhood generally relies on some features of consciousness, higher level brain function, etc. Using personhood as a narrow definition of what is and what is not okay to kill raises possibilities where mentally handicapped people, comatose people, babies, small children, and the severely ill fall outside the definition of "person". It then raises the ugly and contradictory notion that killing such groups is morally equivalent to abortion. However, they all still safely fall inside the broadest definition.

In the case of such a serious matter as killing of human beings, I think it is better to take the conservatively broad definition.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Ah! Apologies. I am glad I asked. May I ask you to expound on the reason you feel killing a fetus is immoral?

Because that is the default position. Intentionally killing unique human beings is generally wrong. Axiomatically.

Exceptions must be justified. Abortion is the exception which must be justified.

 

[SteveB28]

a fetus has its own body its not apart of the mothers body attached to her body yes but not apart of her body . people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as they do no harm to someone else . the limits of liberty do not extend to hurting other people you say you are "pro choice" but of course you have limits to what a woman can choose to do , do you support a womans choice to bash someone over the head and steal their money or assault another person if that is her choice ? self determination is based on self , not the lives of others even if they are temporarily located inside of that person they are a separate person (that is how each and every person is created)

Allow me to resurrect a question I read some time ago:

Let's forget about pregnancy for a moment. A child is lying in a hospital bed suffering from a serious disease. A DNA search discovers that you, and only you, are a genetic match to this child and that its life can be saved if you agree to be connected to it, so that your blood can be used to keep it alive. This procedure does present some threats to your health and you would be required to undergo the 'connection' daily.

My question to you is : do you have a moral obligation to essentially 'medically enslave' yourself to that person?

My subsequent questions are:

What if it was a 65 year old adult?
What if it was a child you knew?
What if it was a blood relative of yours?
What if the child was a newborn?
What if it was your newborn?

 

[blackribbon]

Certainly I can:

"
(Reuters Health) - Less than one percent of women getting a medication-induced abortion at Planned Parenthood had a serious side effect or a failed abortion, according to a new study.

Researchers found the rate of abortion-related complications sending women to the emergency room or requiring a blood transfusion, for example, was one in 625 during 2009 and 2010.

"At Planned Parenthood, medical abortion is extremely safe," said reproductive health researcher James Trussell from Princeton University in New Jersey, who worked on the study.

"The most common adverse outcome is just continuing pregnancy," he added. "It doesn't work 100 percent of the time."



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-medical-abortions-are-safe-study-idUSBRE8BJ1CW20121220

This is a classic example of why serious researchers don't rely upon isolated anecdotal evidence to frame their conclusions.

You think 1 in 625 for emergency room visits or a visit requiring a blood transfusion is Low Risk?....especially for otherwise healthy young women? I think that is terrible odds for an outpatient procedure.

 

[Belk]

The collection of cells which make a fetus is a unique human being. A unique set of DNA unlike any other set of DNA ever seen. The collection of cells which make up the fetus are of the species Homo sapiens. That is how I define a unique human being. It is the broadest definition possible because narrowing the definition inevitably ends up creating contradictory morals. I prefer the broadest definition possible to encompass any possible ambiguities and to avoid de-classifying certain "persons" as non-human beings.

"Person" is much more narrow. Personhood generally relies on some features of consciousness, higher level brain function, etc. Using personhood as a narrow definition of what is and what is not okay to kill raises possibilities where mentally handicapped people, comatose people, babies, small children, and the severely ill fall outside the definition of "person". It then raises the ugly and contradictory notion that killing such groups is morally equivalent to abortion. However, they all still safely fall inside the broadest definition.

In the case of such a serious matter as killing of human beings, I think it is better to take the conservatively broad definition.

OK. I have to ask given this definition do you find yourself compelled to side with keeping the human body alive even if the person is brain dead?

 

[Belk]

Because that is the default position. Intentionally killing unique human beings is generally wrong. Axiomatically.

Exceptions must be justified. Abortion is the exception which must be justified.

Of course. A condition already agreed to. Another time for this one then.

 

[SteveB28]

You think 1 in 625 for emergency room visits or a visit requiring a blood transfusion is Low Risk?....especially for otherwise healthy young women? I think that is terrible odds for an outpatient procedure.

Yes, it is extremely low. It amounts to 0.16%.

Let us compare it with the rate of Severe Maternal Morbidity, or the more severe complications that "healthy young women" suffer each year by going through with their pregnancy. Your CDC quotes it as 163 in 10,000, or around 1.6%.

Allow me to help you with the risk calculations. It is 10 times more likely that a woman's health will suffer from completing a pregnancy than through undergoing a termination of that pregnancy.


http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/severematernalmorbidity.html

 

[jenny1972]

Allow me to resurrect a question I read some time ago:

Let's forget about pregnancy for a moment. A child is lying in a hospital bed suffering from a serious disease. A DNA search discovers that you, and only you, are a genetic match to this child and that its life can be saved if you agree to be connected to it, so that your blood can be used to keep it alive. This procedure does present some threats to your health and you would be required to undergo the 'connection' daily.

My question to you is : do you have a moral obligation to essentially 'medically enslave' yourself to that person?

My subsequent questions are:

What if it was a 65 year old adult?
What if it was a child you knew?
What if it was a blood relative of yours?
What if the child was a newborn?
What if it was your newborn?

interesting question , yes i definately would feel obligated to save that persons life . a pregnant woman literally does not have to do anything but allow it to happen naturally she doesnt need to go anywhere or do anything but yes if i was some kind of special DNA match that would require me to be connected to a stranger for a couple months to give them the gift of life i definately would and i would feel an obligation to do it . this entire thing is about one think the value a person has on human life thats it nothing more some people value human life more than others and where that comes from i dont know why some people dont care i dont know some people can kill without remorse and others cannot . why is one woman who has an abortion overcome with guilt for the rest of her life but another woman has no remorse after her 5th abortion ?

 

[blackribbon]

Certainly I can:

"
(Reuters Health) - Less than one percent of women getting a medication-induced abortion at Planned Parenthood had a serious side effect or a failed abortion, according to a new study.

Researchers found the rate of abortion-related complications sending women to the emergency room or requiring a blood transfusion, for example, was one in 625 during 2009 and 2010.

"At Planned Parenthood, medical abortion is extremely safe," said reproductive health researcher James Trussell from Princeton University in New Jersey, who worked on the study.

"The most common adverse outcome is just continuing pregnancy," he added. "It doesn't work 100 percent of the time."


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-medical-abortions-are-safe-study-idUSBRE8BJ1CW20121220

This is a classic example of why serious researchers don't rely upon isolated anecdotal evidence to frame their conclusions.

'
Here is the medical abortion procedure. Heavy bleeding and severe cramping are EXPECTED reactions to this medication...you are passing the pregnancy (giving birth)....this lasts on average for one to four hours. These are not "side effects". And this is not just "bad monthly cramping"...it is bad enough that clients are prescribed a narcotic pain medication. 2-5% experience side effects beyond these. And it is of ultimate importance that the client returns for a follow-up appointment make sure the abortion was complete or risk a baby with severe side effects and serious infections in the mother.

Also note: The first "after care" instruction is recognizing when to go get emergency help. Tell me, did your last dental procedure instructions start with how to recognize a medical emergency? It isn't even the number one thing on a patient's hospital discharge instructions. There is a reason for this.

https://cwhccolorado.com/services/medication-abortion/aftercare-medication-abortion/

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

I don't think so. A fetus is harmed in cases of abortion. The fetus is harmed by being deprived of future, human experiences. What is harmed in the case of contraception?

 

[jenny1972]

OK. I have to ask given this definition do you find yourself compelled to side with keeping the human body alive even if the person is brain dead?

if the brain dead person has a chance for recovery .... if the condition is temporary .... yes the brain dead person should be kept alive until he recovers

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Genetically speaking, a fetus is certainly a human being. What's in question is whether or not a fetus is a person. But either way, a fetus in most cases will certainly become a person. Therefore a fetus has a VHF. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.

But it is not yet such a being that can be deprived of things, as a person is.

 

[Tree of Life]

But it is not yet such a being that can be deprived of things, as a person is.

I don't see why this would be true. A fetus is deprived of future human experiences when it is killed.

If we totally destroy our planet due to mass consumption of fossil fuels and global warming we are depriving future generations of a habitable earth. It's possible to take stuff away from those who don't even exist yet.

 

[blackribbon]

Yes, it is extremely low. It amounts to 0.16%.

Let us compare it with the rate of Severe Maternal Morbidity, or the more severe complications that "healthy young women" suffer each year by going through with their pregnancy. Your CDC quotes it as 163 in 10,000, or around 1.6%.

Allow me to help you with the risk calculations. It is 10 times more likely that a woman's health will suffer from completing a pregnancy than through undergoing a termination of that pregnancy.


http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/severematernalmorbidity.html

Did you read the risk factors for Severe Maternal Morbidity? These are NOT the healthy young women who are opting to get medical abortion. Women with these risk factors probably would not be candidates for medical abortions because of their complicated medical history.

0.16% of young people needing to go to the emergency room or get blood transfusions is NOT low risk ... it is scary high.

 

[blackribbon]

if the brain dead person has a chance for recovery .... if the condition is temporary .... yes the brain dead person should be kept alive until he recovers

There is no such thing as recovery from being brain dead...it is a permanent state.

 

[jenny1972]

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

i guess i just believe human beings are special because im a human being if i was a horse maybe i would think horses are special i can only speculate on that of course but maybe . the human experience is amazing i enjoy living i think everyone has a right to this experience and noone has a right to take it away from someone else regardless of their own opinions on life and humanity they can have any opinion they want when this human being develops they also will very soon have their own opinions and they have a right to have them just as much as you or i or their mother does.