Why Abortion is Immoral

[quatona]

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.

That´s not my stance - therefore his argument doesn´t apply.

1. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).

That´s not my stance - therefore his argument doesn´t apply.

1. 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.

So it´s also true in case of killing a sperm or an egg.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments).

If anything, it may be a successful rebuttal to arguments that rest on the premises mentioned.
It´s not an argument against abortion.

 

[AionPhanes]

Is an implanted, healthy fetus that is aborted deprived of a human future?

Sure. There is nothing immoral with depriving a non person object of its possible future as a person though. That's one of the main reasons I consider it a catagory mistake. Not all things are equal.

What might be wrong when done to an actual person (terminating them) isn't necessarily wrong when performed on a lump of fetal tissue that isn't a person. It's possible future state as a person doesn't change the fact that it isn't one and thus has no claim on a future.

 

[AionPhanes]

A currently non existent possible future person was denied his possible continued human future =/= An actual person was murdered and thus denied their continued human life.

 

[Beechwell]

so when we fall asleep we are no longer people with a right to live ?

No, none of us would want to live in a society where it would be permissible to be killed in your sleep, because we would like to expect to wake up again.
If, for a neonate, any consciousness only begins with birth, this is a completely different scenario.

In my views, all arguments concerning the morality of abortion come down to the question if the fetus qualifies as a victim of an abortion. If it does, I would say that abortion is intrinsically immoral even in cases of rape or serious medical dangers - although it may still be a lesser evil.
However to be a victim of abortion, a fetus needs to have at least some form of self-awareness - how much may be disputable. In my previous post I just wanted to point out that any such self-awareness is virtually impossible prior to week 20-24 of gestation; and I was speculating wether such self-awareness may be said to begin with birth, which usually is considered a rather arbitrary date in these discussions.


My apologies if my English isn't the very best right now - it is getting a little late here.

 

[SteveB28]

How is that a contradiction? I mean, if you only have two options and both are immoral, what do you do? You have to consent for one of them!

Because, for the umpteenth time, "immoral" means "you must not do this!". As soon as you then find exceptions wherein you permit "this", it ceases to be "immoral" in those cases!

Look, the best thing that I can say is that at least you are coming to the view that morality is not a concrete, black-white, yes-no metric. It's a continuum, and your comments reflect this reality. We can never say that something is "always wrong", because we always seem to find exceptions to that very blanket statement. The best that we can say is that some decisions cause more/less harm to people under varying circumstances.

 

[SteveB28]

...in the same way that no adult person has a human future if he is murdered. How far do you want to take this?

Killing a sperm does not deprive it of a human future because a sperm cannot become a person. Killing a fetus deprives it of a human future because a fetus can and will probably become a person.

You attempt to conflate two concepts which are distinct. A foetus is not a human being. Yes, it is composed of human tissue, yes, it may well develop into a human being at some future time, but it cannot be equated with an independent functioning human adult.

Your intellectual honesty comes under scrutiny when making such dubious comparisons.

 

[SteveB28]

Is an implanted, healthy fetus that is aborted deprived of a human future?

I notice now that you slide in "implanted" into your argument. Can we assume then, that you are quite happy with the destruction of a fertilised egg before it implants?

 

[Tree of Life]

I notice now that you slide in "implanted" into your argument. Can we assume then, that you are quite happy with the destruction of a fertilised egg before it implants?

Not at all. This distinction is not terribly important for me. And it's not very relevant for cases of abortion because abortion kills fetuses that are implanted.

 

[SteveB28]

Not at all. This distinction is not terribly important for me. And it's not very relevant for cases of abortion because abortion kills fetuses that are implanted.

Oh, it's terribly important. Your 'argument' rests on a premise of denying a foetus a future. That foetus forms at conception. There is a period of time between fertilisation and implantation. Are you concerned about a foetus (technically, a zygote) being destroyed in this period? If so, then why do you stress "implanted" in your earlier comment?

 

[Tree of Life]

Oh, it's terribly important. Your 'argument' rests on a premise of denying a foetus a future. That foetus forms at conception. There is a period of time between fertilisation and implantation. Are you concerned about a foetus (technically, a zygote) being destroyed in this period? If so, then why do you stress "implanted" in your earlier comment?

Yes I think the willful destruction of a zygote is as immoral as abortion for the same reasons. A zygote has a valuable human future.

 

[SteveB28]

Yes I think the willful destruction of a zygote is as immoral as abortion.

There were two questions. Why add the descriptor "implanted" then?

 

[Tree of Life]

There were two questions. Why add the descriptor "implanted" then?

I was inquiring into AeonPhane's views on implanted, healthy fetuses.

 

[SteveB28]

I was inquiring into AeonPhane's views on implanted, healthy fetuses.

Let's tease this out a little further then.

Am I right that you would approve of the use of condoms and the contraceptive pill, but not with an IUD?

 

[Tree of Life]

Let's tease this out a little further then.

Am I right that you would approve of the use of condoms and the contraceptive pill, but not with an IUD?

I don't have any problem with condoms and contraceptive pills. How does an IUD work?

 

[SteveB28]

I don't have any problem with condoms and contraceptive pills. How does an IUD work?

Typically, it permits the union of egg and sperm in most cases, but transforms the lining of the uterus, making it unsuitable for implantation.

 

[Tree of Life]

Typically, it permits the union of egg and sperm in most cases, but transforms the lining of the uterus, making it unsuitable for implantation.

I would oppose this method of birth control.

 

[SteveB28]

I would oppose this method of birth control.

I thought that might be the case.

Very well. You may or may not know, but many women will be advised to use more than one method in combination, in order to heighten the effectiveness.

One of these combinations is to use a spermicidal cream which is designed to kill sperm cells along with an IUD. Apparently, it can raise the effectiveness up to 97%.

Now, here is my question. A woman using this combination of methods, and who remains 'pregnancy free' will not know which of those methods she employed is the one that has prevented her pregnancy. She simply welcomes the outcome.

Is she acting immorally?

 

[Tree of Life]

I thought that might be the case.

Very well. You may or may not know, but many women will be advised to use more than one method in combination, in order to heighten the effectiveness.

One of these combinations is to use a spermicidal cream which is designed to kill sperm cells along with an IUD. Apparently, it can raise the effectiveness up to 97%.

Now, here is my question. A woman using this combination of methods, and who remains 'pregnancy free' will not know which of those methods she employed is the one that has prevented her pregnancy. She simply welcomes the outcome.

Is she acting immorally?

Yes. The use of the IUD is immoral and impractical. Condoms and birth control pills work just fine and are used by most people wanting to prevent pregnancy.

 

[SteveB28]

Yes. The use of the IUD is immoral and impractical. Condoms and birth control pills work just fine and are used by most people wanting to prevent pregnancy.

Forget about practicality, your argument is about morality.

So, how do you say that a woman is immoral, if she is unaware whether it is the IUD or the spermicide which prevented her pregnancy? You are against the use of an IUD to prevent pregnancy, but in favour of something that just kills sperm cells. How would you know which caused the outcome, in order for you to pronounce her actions 'immoral'?

 

[Tree of Life]

Forget about practicality, your argument is about morality.

So, how do you say that a woman is immoral, if she is unaware whether it is the IUD or the spermicide which prevented her pregnancy? You are against the use of an IUD to prevent pregnancy, but in favour of something that just kills sperm cells. How would you know which caused the outcome, in order for you to pronounce her actions 'immoral'?

Since the IUD makes it possible for an "abortive" form of birth control to occur I would say that the very use of it is immoral. Someone who cares about protecting the life of a fertilized egg would never use one. But it would be hard to say for certain that the use of an IUD resulted in the death of a fertilized egg. What are you getting at?