Is Abortion Ethical?

[Sehnsucht]

A bit of what you'd said there is ... not really true, I guess, and that's just not a good way to defend the position: treat it like any other piece of flesh. That point is in itself already a safe point to make (because it's scientifically accurate to call a fetus a temporarily attached lump of flesh matter) but to assume the fetus is so incapable of interaction is to decline an invitation to the touchy-feely side of parenthood and pregnancy especially. Though there's still plenty of research to be done on the effects of infants, mothers, fathers, pregnant women, et al, there's no doubt that babies cause humans to congregate. There's just something about babies that forces people (usually women but not always) to notice. Call it what you will, but this phenomenon plays out like every other "instinct" in the day to day lives of humans and expresses itself in ways that we may not ever recognize at first. Nurture, essentially. Human nurturing. If a fetus really is just a lump of flesh that we may discard as we would 10 pounds of fat (yes, the vacuum method for abortion, seen that ****... man...) then why are we so desperately attached to it, unlike a limb that's gone bad. Perhaps it's because we don't remove parts of our body until we decide we don't want them anymore? And is that decision meant to be awkward to a mother, perhaps? Should it FEEL wrong? I don't know, myself I can't know (and no I'm not saying it can't be known, just that I don't know.) But I think it should feel wrong. It should feel as wrong as sleeping with your sister. But unlike the latter, circumstance, well it presents itself, and the brain has to decide, to I do this or do I not? Look at it simply. Genes. Obviously the women who went through with the abortion weren't from a gene pool/culture where that was just absolutely forbidden, and so those peoples will probably have a greater population and indeed higher influence over policies regarding abortion. Meanwhile women who DO go through with it, well, it's safe to say that they're from a gene pool/culture that isn't so dead set against the idea. I think all people may think "huh, that's a horrible idea" but under circumstance would consider it. But I think your Roman Catholic families, for instance, tend to shame abortion and even birth control. I can't post the link here but there's a hilarious YT entitled "F me in the A if you love JESUS!!!" or whatever, it's so spot on. That was a rant and half

Hm. So while a fetus can't do anything in its own right -- it simply gestates -- it does bring people together and/or has a (sometimes profound) impact on the people around it (the mother, the father, relatives, friends, etc.). Is this what you're saying?

That's certainly true, but that doesn't pertain much to my original point. I was exploring the relation between the applicability of law and the measure of a person to act. If we found a floating yellow ball that just floats in the air and nothing else, would we grant this ball the same rights and protections and privileges as those granted to human citizens? The ball can neither act righteously or unrighteously. It can only influence others inasmuch as a yellow floating ball could drive others to action (however much an innocuous yellow ball could).

I'd think that a given law exists to cover a given domain of acts or behaviours or states. We have laws prohibiting murder because humans are capable of murder. A fetus isn't capable of anything in its own right, so such laws can't apply to it. Only laws about states could apply -- such as the fetus being a person, and thus is deserving of certain protections. If a floating yellow ball that does nothing but float were found to have personhood, such protections would no doubt be extended to them. If they were capable of murder, then laws concerning murder would apply to them. But they aren't, so while such laws would nominally pertain to fetuses (and FYLs) on account of their personhood, they aren't applicable to them.

So that's what I was getting at back there, I suppose. Interesting ideas to ponder.

As for the remainder of your rant and a half (I like that term 8P), you seem to be talking about A) the genetic/evolutionary basis for why people tend to avoid abortion, and B) social and historical attitudes that can influence such decisions. Is this relevant to notions of the relationship between laws and fetuses? Or if fetuses as being corollaries to limbs and other bodily growths? I'm not sure I can see the connection -- your writing here is rather stream-of-consciousness. At most, I think you may be describing how people tend to view fetuses intuitively (hence why people tend not to consider fetuses as "mere limbs"), and how this shapes the approach to the abortion question. But if you're trying to make a more specific point of this, it doesn't seem clear.

Whatever the case, for all my talk about the unborn, I don't think nor expect that the decision to abort should be easy, or be an easy burden to bear. Maybe for some, it isn't a burden, and for others, the choice is a bit harder to face. So if that's what you're touching on with talks of emotion and connection to the fetus and so on, I don't disagree.

 

[Sucumbio]

Now I see an interesting parallel... The yellow ball, the flying spaghetti monster... Ha...

Buuuuuuut lemme just throw this bone out:

A very Catholic attitude mind you but 'tis no yellow ball or nameless thing but is a child yet unborn. Meaning laws made by those same humans will side with mother then the child, then the dad... And since we've established mother and child are as one... To protect a mother means to protect the child and in many cultures the wimen are expected to die in childbirth.

Relevance? I forgot

 

[Sehnsucht]

Now I see an interesting parallel... The yellow ball, the flying spaghetti monster... Ha...

Buuuuuuut lemme just throw this bone out:

A very Catholic attitude mind you but 'tis no yellow ball or nameless thing but is a child yet unborn. Meaning laws made by those same humans will side with mother then the child, then the dad... And since we've established mother and child are as one... To protect a mother means to protect the child and in many cultures the wimen are expected to die in childbirth.

Plot twist: the yellow balls are actually eggs of Elder Things.

I can certainly see your point, here -- culture and circumstances have informed how societies have perceived (and dealt with) mothers, "unborn children", and the relationship between both. Does it mean these approaches were right, or were the best ones? Such actions may be understandable given their circumstances. But we're interested first in whether abortion should be permissible as a principle. Once we sort that out, then we can talk about situational, applied solutions and practices.

Thing is that a lot of folks, mainly Pro-Life advocates, find contention in the principle of abortion. So it's harder to move from theory to practice when we're still hung up on theory.

I dunno. Like you, I'm just blabbing.

In any case, here's another plot twist for you aspiring screenwriters. If the mother and the fetus are as one, then the fetus is a part of the mother, and the fetus depends on the mother to survive. But what if it was the other away around?

Relevance? I forgot

Classic Sucumbio!

:slide-whistle:

 

[Sucumbio]

And this is where we hit Hume's dead end.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Here's my take on this issue: You are officially considered "dead" when your heart stops beating. So, logically, someone is considered "alive" once their heart has a beat. A heart beat begins merely days after conception. To then remove an embryo or fetus or whatever it is, would be to stop its heartbeat, which I interpret as murder. With that said I'm not going to campaign against people who believe in it, it simply isn't something I want to be involved with. In either event, I can't bring myself to see this as an ethical decision no matter how I look at it. But ethics are subjective, so we won't ever have an answer to this question.

 

[Duplighost]

Here's my take on this issue: You are officially considered "dead" when your heart stops beating. So, logically, someone is considered "alive" once their heart has a beat. A heart beat begins merely days after conception. To then remove an embryo or fetus or whatever it is, would be to stop its heartbeat, which I interpret as murder. With that said I'm not going to campaign against people who believe in it, it simply isn't something I want to be involved with. In either event, I can't bring myself to see this as an ethical decision no matter how I look at it. But ethics are subjective, so we won't ever have an answer to this question.

This is actually an interesting factor that I haven't considered before. I like your perspective!

 

[Sehnsucht]

Here's my take on this issue: You are officially considered "dead" when your heart stops beating. So, logically, someone is considered "alive" once their heart has a beat. A heart beat begins merely days after conception. To then remove an embryo or fetus or whatever it is, would be to stop its heartbeat, which I interpret as murder.

Where do you stand on the personhood issue? Do you consider a fetus a person (i.e. a "someone")? That is, do you see an embryo/fetus as a mass of cells that has the potential to become a person, or do you see an embryo/fetus as a "somebody" and all that this entails?

Your language suggests that you do in fact hold them to be persons. What do you consider to be a person, then? Is a tree a person? A chimpanzee? A mouse? A fly? A dog? An amoeba? What qualities differentiate a person from some organic construct?

I ask because you seem to be proposing that the presence of a heartbeat is a sufficient (or even sole) indicator of personhood. If a thing has a heart beat, is it a person?

The personhood question will inform how one should approach the handling of fetuses and abortion, so it would be useful to know when personhood kicks in (if at all) during gestation.

With that said I'm not going to campaign against people who believe in it, it simply isn't something I want to be involved with. In either event, I can't bring myself to see this as an ethical decision no matter how I look at it. But ethics are subjective, so we won't ever have an answer to this question.

Don't give up, Rawk! 8D

Ethics concern morality -- that is, the way we should or shouldn't treat one another, and react and handle to given situations involving others. If we can't ever agree on how we should go about such things, then we'll always be running into conflicts and remain at a standstill, unable to evolve.

Ethics are not subjective; beliefs are subjective (including beliefs about proper ethics). I would think that there does exist an ethical model that is, objectively, the best one for the human species (and perhaps beyond). The question is what this model might be, how close we are to attaining it, can we attain it at all, etc. But to say "all ethics are subjective, we can't ever reach a consensus" has a spirit of futility to it. I'm no big fan of this mentality, since it suggests investigation and debate isn't worthwhile. Yet to nip any attempts in the bud can't be any more fruitful than resigning to the prospect of perpetual stalemate.

Whatever the case, for abortion (along with various other topics), it's not just a moral and philosophical issue issue; there's the pragmatic consideration as well. If we never get a consensus on the subject of abortion, then we'll remain in constant flux and conflict about what legislative measures we should be passing concerning abortion (and by extension, reproductive rights and laws general). So we have to keep chipping away at it, even if it does take a decade or two (or more?) to arrive at the most optimal outcome.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

I can't tell if you're mocking me or not, but I'm willing to bet you're smarter than I am, at least in this topic, so I don't really want to get into this, especially with you. But I also don't want to leave you too disappointed so I'll answer a few of your questions so long as you don't disrespect my opinions or beliefs.

Where do you stand on the personhood issue? Do you consider a fetus a person (i.e. a "someone")? That is, do you see an embryo/fetus as a mass of cells that has the potential to become a person, or do you see an embryo/fetus as a "somebody" and all that this entails?

Your language suggests that you do in fact hold them to be persons. What do you consider to be a person, then? Is a tree a person? A chimpanzee? A mouse? A fly? A dog? An amoeba? What qualities differentiate a person from some organic construct?

I ask because you seem to be proposing that the presence of a heartbeat is a sufficient (or even sole) indicator of personhood. If a thing has a heart beat, is it a person?

I think it is a person. Maybe not with conscious thinking, or defined beliefs, but I do think it is a form of life nonetheless. I love the idea of human lives, with the perception of emotions and beliefs and such. No, I don't think the fetus/embryo experiences these, or has any form of comprehension, but that doesn't make it any less of a being.

An no to answer that string of questions, none of those can be considered a person. Only a human is capable of that classification due to their higher intelligence and more notable forms of communication. But the heartbeat argument is valid in this sense because that group of cells that I'm referring to is going to become a human (given that it makes it out of the womb). No woman is going to give birth to a frog, or a tree, or any of that. It will be a human. And the thing is, when you look back at everyone who is living on this planet, at one point they were in the same place. That is literally where we begin.

As far as the rest of the argument goes, I'm not up for arguing about philosophy right now, long day.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I can't tell if you're mocking me or not, but I'm willing to bet you're smarter than I am, at least in this topic, so I don't really want to get into this, especially with you. But I also don't want to leave you too disappointed so I'll answer a few of your questions so long as you don't disrespect my opinions or beliefs.

No mockery in the least. I'm just prompting some elaboration. Seeing what the details of your stance might be, and so on.

As for respect, I find it better to critique the idea over the speaker. An argument is an argument, no matter whose mouth it comes from. So, I may analyze the opinions/beliefs of others as a function of debate, perhaps disagreeing with them at times, but no disrespect is ever meant by it; it's just the way debate goes. Only blatantly awful conduct on the part of the poster would not be worthy of respect. But I think neither of us intend to devolve into personal attacks and the like.

I think it is a person. Maybe not with conscious thinking, or defined beliefs, but I do think it is a form of life nonetheless. I love the idea of human lives, with the perception of emotions and beliefs and such. No, I don't think the fetus/embryo experiences these, or has any form of comprehension, but that doesn't make it any less of a being.

An no to answer that string of questions, none of those can be considered a person. Only a human is capable of that classification due to their higher intelligence and more notable forms of communication. But the heartbeat argument is valid in this sense because that group of cells that I'm referring to is going to become a human (given that it makes it out of the womb). No woman is going to give birth to a frog, or a tree, or any of that. It will be a human. And the thing is, when you look back at everyone who is living on this planet, at one point they were in the same place. That is literally where we begin.

Alright. I've blabbed about personhood a lot in this thread by now; I'll try to cover those notions in a more condensed form:

[collapse=ON PERSONHOOD AND STUFF]
--So, you hold that a human is a person on the basis of their intelligence, capacity for communication, and other qualities. My own view is similar -- I hold that personhood entails self-awareness, and related qualities (e.g. introspection, agency, etc.). This encompasses intelligence and the capacity for communication as well, naturally.

But you don't have to be a human to be a person, under my definition. If a non-human entity were to display those qualities (e.g. an artificial intelligence, an extraterrestrial, etc.), then they would have to be classified as persons. So humanity is not a requirement for personhood. Under your definition, non-human persons can also exist, if they exhibit intelligence and communication and so forth. What do you make of that?

--A fetus is certainly a form of life. But is it a person? In your second paragraph, you treat a fetus as a potential person. That is, if a fetus gestates fully and is born into the world, it will most definitely become a person, if it wasn't one already. Though a potential never actualized remains only an abstract, mathematical quantity. A potential person is not a person, until it becomes a person. A potential tree cannot spring unless the seed is able to actualize in growth. And so it goes. So do you think it's unethical to eliminate or preventing a potential from coming into being? Should potential persons be protected under the law? These are things to consider.

--I'm going on and on about personhood, here, but it's because your argument for the unethical quality of abortion rests on it. Abortion is, if not always unethical, then at least highly undesirable on account of a fetus being A) a living thing, and B) a "potential person".

I'm with you on the undesirable part. If a potential person is never actualized, then it can't contribute to the world. You may give birth to a psychopath, true, but you can also give birth to an upstanding citizen and human being generally. Can't really know either way unless you let the potential become actual. As such, abortion is less preferable than other solutions which allow the fetus to come to term.

But ethics concerns people, in the end. My actions affect you (and you are aware of this impact), and your actions affect me (and I'm aware of this impact). Morality, then, is a sort of contract that we decide to keep to for our individual and collective interests.

It's certainly unethical to murder a person, then. But is it unethical to terminate a potential person? Is it unethical to dig up a seed before it pokes through the soil? My thinking is that it isn't unethical. But perhaps you'd like to expand on why potential persons deserve consideration, if you have more to say on it.

--I'll lastly note that you have some gaps in your premises. [Fetuses are human, therefore abortion is unethical], [Fetuses have heartbeats, therefore abortion is unethical]. It's certainly the case that (human) fetuses are human, and that they have heartbeats (if they are alive). But how does that tell us what we should or shouldn't do? Facts alone possess no moral information, one way or another. Only in conjunction with reasoning do facts gain moral substance. Otherwise, it's just data divorced from meaning.

Appealing to the humanity of a fetus (or that it happens to have a pulse), therefore, doesn't serve as sufficient cause to deem abortion unethical. If you want to make a strong case, you have to show why anyone should care that abortion is unethical. And to do that, you'll have to connect your raw facts to values/principles/consequences/etc.

So, with that in mind, perhaps you might be interested in filling in the gaps:

A) Fetuses are [human] and/or [potential persons] and/or [have pulses];
B) ???;
C) Therefore, we ought not abort fetuses [ever] or [only in certain cases].

What is B)? This is the question I'll leave you with.
[/collapse]

In the preface to your post, you say that you're more hesitant to go into detail, since I might know more about this all than you do. And I suppose I probably do, to an extent. But even so, no reason I can't use my knowledge, however much I do have, to get you to think about your ideas in more depth -- to have you consider the implications of your views, so that you'll either strengthen and refine your position, or will find cause to revise and modify your position. Everyone wins if people are improving/evolving/learning/etc. 8)

As far as the rest of the argument goes, I'm not up for arguing about philosophy right now, long day.

No worries. Not like this thread is going anywhere.

Or any of us here on Smashboards. We're here forever.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

No mockery in the least. I'm just prompting some elaboration. Seeing what the details of your stance might be, and so on.

As for respect, I find it better to critique the idea over the speaker. An argument is an argument, no matter whose mouth it comes from. So, I may analyze the opinions/beliefs of others as a function of debate, perhaps disagreeing with them at times, but no disrespect is ever meant by it; it's just the way debate goes. Only blatantly awful conduct on the part of the poster would not be worthy of respect. But I think neither of us intend to devolve into personal attacks and the like.

Alright. I've blabbed about personhood a lot in this thread by now; I'll try to cover those notions in a more condensed form:

[collapse=ON PERSONHOOD AND STUFF]
--So, you hold that a human is a person on the basis of their intelligence, capacity for communication, and other qualities. My own view is similar -- I hold that personhood entails self-awareness, and related qualities (e.g. introspection, agency, etc.). This encompasses intelligence and the capacity for communication as well, naturally.

But you don't have to be a human to be a person, under my definition. If a non-human entity were to display those qualities (e.g. an artificial intelligence, an extraterrestrial, etc.), then they would have to be classified as persons. So humanity is not a requirement for personhood. Under your definition, non-human persons can also exist, if they exhibit intelligence and communication and so forth. What do you make of that?

--A fetus is certainly a form of life. But is it a person? In your second paragraph, you treat a fetus as a potential person. That is, if a fetus gestates fully and is born into the world, it will most definitely become a person, if it wasn't one already. Though a potential never actualized remains only an abstract, mathematical quantity. A potential person is not a person, until it becomes a person. A potential tree cannot spring unless the seed is able to actualize in growth. And so it goes. So do you think it's unethical to eliminate or preventing a potential from coming into being? Should potential persons be protected under the law? These are things to consider.

--I'm going on and on about personhood, here, but it's because your argument for the unethical quality of abortion rests on it. Abortion is, if not always unethical, then at least highly undesirable on account of a fetus being A) a living thing, and B) a "potential person".

I'm with you on the undesirable part. If a potential person is never actualized, then it can't contribute to the world. You may give birth to a psychopath, true, but you can also give birth to an upstanding citizen and human being generally. Can't really know either way unless you let the potential become actual. As such, abortion is less preferable than other solutions which allow the fetus to come to term.

But ethics concerns people, in the end. My actions affect you (and you are aware of this impact), and your actions affect me (and I'm aware of this impact). Morality, then, is a sort of contract that we decide to keep to for our individual and collective interests.

It's certainly unethical to murder a person, then. But is it unethical to terminate a potential person? Is it unethical to dig up a seed before it pokes through the soil? My thinking is that it isn't unethical. But perhaps you'd like to expand on why potential persons deserve consideration, if you have more to say on it.

--I'll lastly note that you have some gaps in your premises. [Fetuses are human, therefore abortion is unethical], [Fetuses have heartbeats, therefore abortion is unethical]. It's certainly the case that (human) fetuses are human, and that they have heartbeats (if they are alive). But how does that tell us what we should or shouldn't do? Facts alone possess no moral information, one way or another. Only in conjunction with reasoning do facts gain moral substance. Otherwise, it's just data divorced from meaning.

Appealing to the humanity of a fetus (or that it happens to have a pulse), therefore, doesn't serve as sufficient cause to deem abortion unethical. If you want to make a strong case, you have to show why anyone should care that abortion is unethical. And to do that, you'll have to connect your raw facts to values/principles/consequences/etc.

So, with that in mind, perhaps you might be interested in filling in the gaps:

A) Fetuses are [human] and/or [potential persons] and/or [have pulses];
B) ???;
C) Therefore, we ought not abort fetuses [ever] or [only in certain cases].

What is B)? This is the question I'll leave you with.
[/collapse]

In the preface to your post, you say that you're more hesitant to go into detail, since I might know more about this all than you do. And I suppose I probably do, to an extent. But even so, no reason I can't use my knowledge, however much I do have, to get you to think about your ideas in more depth -- to have you consider the implications of your views, so that you'll either strengthen and refine your position, or will find cause to revise and modify your position. Everyone wins if people are improving/evolving/learning/etc. 8)

No worries. Not like this thread is going anywhere.

Or any of us here on Smashboards. We're here forever.

I have to admit, you showed me gaps in my argument and ultimately led me to better understand this entire topic as well as my own argument. To be completely honest I had never really thought about the whole idea of "personhood" and all that. I hadn't even considered the difference between being a person, and being a human. It's actually a really intriguing topic. Anyways, I've taken a fair amount of time to think about all this before making a response.

So I really do like the definition of a person which you wrote up above. I agree with 99% of it, the only thing I disagree with is the idea that artificial intelligence can be considered a person, only because as the name implies, it's artificial. (Though I suppose it could fall under the classification of an artificial human, but that's not what this topic is about).

Anyways, your next statement deals with the idea of "a potential person" vs "an actualized person". I really appreciated the quote, "...potential never actualized remains only an abstract, mathematical quantity." This was really interesting take on the whole thing, and made me think for a while. Normally I would agree with this statement, but in this context, the embryo/fetus naturally will follow a path to actualization, given that it isn't interrupted or disturbed while it's in the womb. A fetus/embryo will never be in a state where it is dependent on something else, or waits for an indefinite amount of time for it to actualize. There are natural steps which are taken to achieve actualization. As you said, "A potential person is not a person, until it becomes a person." And as I stated, it will inevitably become a person, provided there are no interruptions or disturbances. Now, in my mind, this essentially means that the fetus has achieved "pre-personhood" if you will. Similar to how a caterpillar is a pre-butterfly. No they aren't the same, but if the natural steps are taken, that caterpillar will become a butterfly. There's no reason to treat the two any different from each other in my mind.

Where you see a "potential person," I see a "pre-person", and I think that's where most of our arguments differ.

Then there's this quote you made: "It's certainly unethical to murder a person, then. But is it unethical to terminate a potential person? Is it unethical to dig up a seed before it pokes through the soil? My thinking is that it isn't unethical. But perhaps you'd like to expand on why potential persons deserve consideration, if you have more to say on it." So we agree that it's unethical to murder a person. Cool. And I would also agree, it's not unethical to dig up a seed before it pokes through the soil. But I would also argue that it isn't unethical to cut down a tree or flower, the "birthed" version of that seed. (While it may be unnecessary, isn't necessarily unethical). But to terminate a pre-person, something with all of that potential to achieve personhood is unethical by my morals. I live with the admittedly naive mentality that "everyone deserves a chance."

I like to think that when there are two outcomes to a situation, whichever has more positive outcomes is the more ethical choice. For example, it's okay for humans to kill animals, because the humans will be provided with meat and other resources to continue living. Only downside to that situation is that the cow is dead. But its death benefits something bigger: humanity. When an abortion takes place, the only person that it "benefits" (if even that) is the mother with the child. On the downside, that is wasted potential (whether the child would grow up to be good or bad is irrelevant in this statement). In my mind, it's a selfish act to rob that "pre-person" of their "personhood" as only one person benefits from the termination. One thing I've always said is that I don't like to discriminate anyone, regardless of their age, religion, race, gender...blah blah blah...or whether their in the womb or not. Maybe it's a silly mentality to have, but I fail to see why fetuses should be treated as any less given their "potential".

I suppose I want to end by saying that the act of getting an abortion isn't an ethical decision (IMO), but it may not be completely unethical either. I dunno, I hope this made sense. I should note that I'm not the best when it comes to using the word "moral" versus the word "ethic", so take everything I say with a grain of salt while synthesizing this response.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I have to admit, you showed me gaps in my argument and ultimately led me to better understand this entire topic as well as my own argument. To be completely honest I had never really thought about the whole idea of "personhood" and all that. I hadn't even considered the difference between being a person, and being a human. It's actually a really intriguing topic. Anyways, I've taken a fair amount of time to think about all this before making a response.

Glad to hear it. This is why debate is an engrossing and enriching activity -- you get exposed to new ideas and new ways of thinking. 8)

So I really do like the definition of a person which you wrote up above. I agree with 99% of it, the only thing I disagree with is the idea that artificial intelligence can be considered a person, only because as the name implies, it's artificial. (Though I suppose it could fall under the classification of an artificial human, but that's not what this topic is about).

Yeah, AIs are not quite the topic at hand, but we can still make a short aside for the sake of ironing out our concept of personhood:

[collapse=ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE]
So, would you say that being of organic origin is a requirement for personhood? If an artificial construct demonstrated all the qualities of personhood -- self-awareness, capacity for reflection, capacity to act to achieve a certain intentional goal, etc. -- would it be a non-person simply on account that the AI was assembled, that it's "processor" is made of silicate pathways instead of synaptic ones?

A computer operates on binary. 1s and 0s. On and Off. Every second, numerous transistors flashing on and off, stringing together long and complex strings of inputs and outputs to generate the software we use.

Consider instead a human brain. A network of trillions of synaptic junctions zapping with electric signals, always existing in one of two states. On or Off. 1s and 0s. Is it really any different than a silicon chip computer?

Think about emotions. AIs can't have emotions, can they? Well, what are emotions? They are responses to stimulus, and the subsequent emotions we feel are meant to prompt/motivate the organism to take a certain action. We feel positively when we engage in acts with reward the organism, and negatively when we do the inverse. This all stems from our pro-social evolutionary heritage. We are happy when we satisfy our cravings. We are lonely when we are isolated from others. We are protective when harm risks befalling our kin. We are angry at those that transgress upon us. And so on.

If an AI has the capacity to receive stimulus, and has goals -- that is, things it prefers, and things it wishes to avoid -- then an AI would have the basis for emotions. Granted, the kind of emotions an AI might have could differ greatly from humans, due to having different natures. But if emotions are a requirement of personhood, an AI could well satisfy that requirement.

Given all this, what difference does it really make, in the grand scheme, that a thing was shaped by nature or shaped by intelligent intention? What humans show is that by having an information processor (a brain) which is complex enough, it is possible for self-awareness to kick in, thereby allowing personhood. Whether such a processor arises "organically" or "artificially", would the resulting entities not be persons all the same?
[/collapse]

Clearly, the subject of AIs is fascinating in its own right. But I do maintain that it's possible, at least in principle, that artificial creations can qualify as persons, so long as they A) have the "building blocks" necessary to generate personhood (i.e. a brain, a CPU, etc.), and B) display the traits associated with personhood.

Anyways, your next statement deals with the idea of "a potential person" vs "an actualized person". I really appreciated the quote, "...potential never actualized remains only an abstract, mathematical quantity." This was really interesting take on the whole thing, and made me think for a while. Normally I would agree with this statement, but in this context, the embryo/fetus naturally will follow a path to actualization, given that it isn't interrupted or disturbed while it's in the womb. A fetus/embryo will never be in a state where it is dependent on something else, or waits for an indefinite amount of time for it to actualize. There are natural steps which are taken to achieve actualization. As you said, "A potential person is not a person, until it becomes a person." And as I stated, it will inevitably become a person, provided there are no interruptions or disturbances. Now, in my mind, this essentially means that the fetus has achieved "pre-personhood" if you will. Similar to how a caterpillar is a pre-butterfly. No they aren't the same, but if the natural steps are taken, that caterpillar will become a butterfly. There's no reason to treat the two any different from each other in my mind.

Where you see a "potential person," I see a "pre-person", and I think that's where most of our arguments differ.

[collapse=ON PRE-PERSONHOOD]
A seed that successfully implants in the soil will also inevitably germinate -- unless some conditions interfere with this process. Such as the seed itself being defective, or environmental changes impede the plant's ability to sprout and flourish.

Likewise, an embryo will eventually gestate to "fetal maturity", unless some conditions interfere with this process. Such as the fetus being genetically defective, or the mother's body causing a miscarriage for biological reasons, or the mother herself taking choices which can impede fetal development (e.g. drugs and alcohol, blunt trauma to the womb, etc.).

I see why you bring this up, when you put it in terms of process. A process is not a potential thing; a process is a thing that is actually happening. There is indeed a fetus growing, even if it is not yet a human child; there is indeed a seed that is germinating, even if it is not yet what we would consider a tree.

Yet this doesn't really address personhood. You can consider an embryo like the larval stage of a butterfly, sure. But that's a description of the process of life. What we're interested in is when (if at all) during pregnancy does a fetus attain personhood, under the definitions we've been discussing.

A fetus is not a potential human; it is a human, albeit at the early stages of development. But even with this, a fetus may not be a person. I think this is where the issue with your "pre-person" label lies.

Until and unless personhood kicks in, a fetus remains a potential person, even if that potential will inevitably be actualized under normal conditions. Just as a caterpillar remains a potential butterfly until and unless it does become a butterfly, even if that potential will inevitably be actualized under normal conditions.

Personhood, therefore, is not a strictly biological thing. It's a more subtle thing, a state of consciousness. If the brain is like a computer, personhood is like the software. During gestation, a fetus is developing the brain that will generate self-awareness. But until and unless that very brain starts "running" the software of personhood, is it really a person? If a software isn't active, is software nonetheless "happening"?

I would think not. It's why we don't consider dead people to be persons. Sure, they have brains, but the "software" of personhood isn't running (nor will it ever again). We can consider such corpses to be human, of course, but persons? Same for fetuses. They are certainly humans, and may be pre-persons in the sense that they will inevitably become persons under normal conditions. But that doesn't mean they are in fact persons, by mere default that they can be if the right software is switched on.
[/collapse]

Then there's this quote you made: "It's certainly unethical to murder a person, then. But is it unethical to terminate a potential person? Is it unethical to dig up a seed before it pokes through the soil? My thinking is that it isn't unethical. But perhaps you'd like to expand on why potential persons deserve consideration, if you have more to say on it." So we agree that it's unethical to murder a person. Cool. And I would also agree, it's not unethical to dig up a seed before it pokes through the soil. But I would also argue that it isn't unethical to cut down a tree or flower, the "birthed" version of that seed. (While it may be unnecessary, isn't necessarily unethical). But to terminate a pre-person, something with all of that potential to achieve personhood is unethical by my morals. I live with the admittedly naive mentality that "everyone deserves a chance."

I like to think that when there are two outcomes to a situation, whichever has more positive outcomes is the more ethical choice. For example, it's okay for humans to kill animals, because the humans will be provided with meat and other resources to continue living. Only downside to that situation is that the cow is dead. But its death benefits something bigger: humanity. When an abortion takes place, the only person that it "benefits" (if even that) is the mother with the child. On the downside, that is wasted potential (whether the child would grow up to be good or bad is irrelevant in this statement). In my mind, it's a selfish act to rob that "pre-person" of their "personhood" as only one person benefits from the termination. One thing I've always said is that I don't like to discriminate anyone, regardless of their age, religion, race, gender...blah blah blah...or whether their in the womb or not. Maybe it's a silly mentality to have, but I fail to see why fetuses should be treated as any less given their "potential".

[collapse=ON PRIORITY IN CONSENT]
If a fetus is not a person, then it is like a tree or a flower. So you can treat it one way or another, without moral consequence. You can leave a tree alone, you can nurture it, you can cut it down for constructive purposes, and you can set it on fire for your own amusement. Same for a fetus. Carry it to term, abort it, whatever; since it is not a person, then it isn't by necessity subject to (nor can be concerned with) moral consideration.

If a fetus is a person (or a "pre-person", if you like), then it is subject to moral consideration. It should also, technically, be concerned with morality, but a fetus can't really act on other people directly, nor does it (probably) have any real understanding of agency, morality, and so on. But that's beside the point.

So, if a fetus is a person, we should consider it ethically. Namely, we ought not violate its autonomy without its consent. This includes murder, which is the intentional termination of a person's life without that person's consent. If a fetus could communicate its consent to be aborted, then we could honour its wishes. But since fetuses can't meaningfully communicate any kind of consent -- nor do I imagine most fetuses would wish for death -- then the proper course of action would be to let the fetus live. Therefore, following this train of moral logic to its conclusion, abortion ought not be performed, since you are violating the autonomy of the fetal person.

Right?

Well, there are some factors to consider. Namely, the autonomy of the mother. Whether a fetus is in fact a person at any point during gestation may be a grey area, but we can say without contest that the mother is most definitely a person. So what of her autonomy? What of her desires? What weight does her consent hold? Is it the mother, or the fetus, who gets the final word in decisions pertaining to the prospective abortion of the fetus?

I think the key thing to note is that the fetus is dependent on the mother. Which is to say, the fetus takes up the mother's biological resources and incurs a variety of things that would not otherwise occur (e.g. swelling abdomen, bladder pressure, morning sickness, hormonal shifts, physical discomforts, etc.). If the mother never consented to experiencing these things, then does her desire out-prioritize that of the fetus' to live? If the mother changes her mind, such that she no longer consents to this experience, does her desire out-prioritize that of the fetus? [/collapse]

What do you think of this, Rawk? Of mothers, fetuses, and the dynamics of consent? Who deserves what is perhaps a bit of a tricky issue, not the easiest to navigate. I'll let you contemplate these points before going any further on this.

I suppose I want to end by saying that the act of getting an abortion isn't an ethical decision (IMO), but it may not be completely unethical either. I dunno, I hope this made sense. I should note that I'm not the best when it comes to using the word "moral" versus the word "ethic", so take everything I say with a grain of salt while synthesizing this response.

They're pretty close synonyms. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that concerns morality. So you can say that something is ethical/unethical, or moral/immoral, and mean the same thing (i.e. that which we should or should not do). There may be a subtle, technical difference between the two terms, but for colloquial purposes, it doesn't matter. So long as we all understand what we say and mean.

In any case, I appreciate your more thorough response. I hope that, regardless of how this conversation pans out, that you'll have solidified your thoughts and views on these matters, and found ways to communicate your ideas more effectively in the future. 8)

 

[_Keno_]

Is a born child who has not yet reached self-awareness a "person" by your definition, Sehnsucht?

I live with the admittedly naive mentality that "everyone deserves a chance."

Ah, but they are not part of "everyone" if they are not a person, no?


Anyways, let's say I believe that abortion is justifiable on a fetus for any reason, and that it would IMMORAL not to abort a fetus if it is probable that the fetus will develop into a person with a major mental or physical defect. Since they are not yet a person, you are only helping to prevent suffering, and a healthier counterpart might be born instead at a later time.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Is a born child who has not yet reached self-awareness a "person" by your definition, Sehnsucht?

In an earlier response to C.M. Gomez, I affirmed that this would be the case. If personhood requires self-awareness, and a born infant has not yet achieved this state, then if follows that infant could not (yet) be called a person.

This notion may seem distressing to some. An infant smiles and cries, reacts to its environment, moves and jitters around, etc. It looks like a person, so is it not a person? Is a dog a person, simply because it reacts and moves and is alive? Those processes don't require self-awareness; a non-sapient animal operates on instinct and impulse and reflex and reaction to stimuli. And so does an infant, by all apparent indications.

So, if an infant is not a person, it isn't by necessity subject to moral consideration (nor is the infant capable of such consideration). There's nothing to dictate how one should treat and deal with infants. If we're holding to these premises, then infanticide is just as permissible as nurture (as is anything else toward the infant).

But I do think that infanticide is most non-preferable. In the case of abortion, the fetus is dependent on the mother's body, but once the child is born, this is no longer the case. The infant is no longer encroaching on the mother's bodily autonomy to quite the same degree, and has a much greater to chance at survival, now that it is freed from that environment.

So why not invest in that child's growth and development? If you have to terminate an infant, best be as a last recourse. And since, in the Western World at least, we have more prevalent access to such things as adoption and foster care, infanticide only serves to snuff the potential for a good and productive person to come out of the infant. I'd think terminating an infant would only be viable in the event of medical necessity (i.e. euthanasia for extreme defects and medical conditions).

tl;dr: infants may not be people, so you can do whatever you want with them, but best to invest in their success with nurture and support if we all generally have mutual pro-social interests.[/quote]

 

[..uuuuu.....]

no, no, no

..your twisted minds

so killing a fetus/ animal benefits mother/ humanity?

a lot of things can benefit humanity..

but what is humanity..

like, the world, country, ..

how many?

terrorists killing other people who dont agree with them benefits them..

so that is unethical(?)

so are they not part of humanity anymore?

second point

you say killing a seed before it completely grows is not unethical?

how twisted have your minds become!

oh, how convenient we are to be mammals!,

lest we be squishing our own eggs at our fingertips!

ai

do robots have souls?

fear the day when machines own all the qualities of a man!

then- we will all be the same




no!

because we have souls,

you cannot artificially create a soul!

as God- created humans,

we have souls



also, how do you make a spoiler?

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Wow @ Sehnsucht that was one hell of a post you left me...I don't even know how to go about responding to that. I can't say you didn't bring up good points that have changed my view on a few things. However, with that said, I still can't see this as an ethical decision. As you stated in the last major reply to me and the most recent reply, you said that an infant isn't necessarily a person, in the same sense that a fetus isn't a person. However, we see it morally wrong to commit infanticide, as I'm sure almost everyone does. But with an infant and a fetus being so similar, the only difference being their location, I find it unacceptable to treat one as less than another. And I stand by my original argument that a pre-human should be just as valued as any other person.

I do understand the whole mother/consent issue, and do feel a sense of empathy for those stuck in that conflict. Unfortunately, I feel like abortion almost forgives people for their irresponsibility, and I fail to see how more good comes from terminating a potential person than from allowing it to achieve personhood.

Apologies for the length of time it took me to respond, a lot went on the last few days.

no, no, no

..your twisted minds

so killing a fetus/ animal benefits mother/ humanity?

a lot of things can benefit humanity..

but what is humanity..

like, the world, country, ..

how many?

terrorists killing other people who dont agree with them benefits them..

so that is unethical(?)

so are they not part of humanity anymore?

second point

you say killing a seed before it completely grows is not unethical?

how twisted have your minds become!

oh, how convenient we are to be mammals!,

lest we be squishing our own eggs at our fingertips!

ai

do robots have souls?

fear the day when machines own all the qualities of a man!

then- we will all be the same

no!

because we have souls,

you cannot artificially create a soul!

as God- created humans,

we have souls

also, how do you make a spoiler?

@ ..uuuuu..... We are in agreement on this issue. As far as making a spoiler, all you have to do is put spoiler tags around your text.

[SPOILER]YOUR TEXT HERE[/SPOILER]

 

[Sehnsucht]

no, no, no

..your twisted minds

so killing a fetus/ animal benefits mother/ humanity?

a lot of things can benefit humanity..

but what is humanity..

like, the world, country, ..

how many?

terrorists killing other people who dont agree with them benefits them..

so that is unethical(?)

so are they not part of humanity anymore?

Killing a fetus, or an animal, doesn't really benefit humanity as a whole. I'm not making that argument, and I don't think anyone else here is, either. I am most certainly not saying:

"We should kill our fetuses", or "Given the options available, it is usually preferable to kill our fetuses";

I am saying, however, that:

"If it is necessary and/or deemed desirable by the mother, then the procedure should be legally available -- though abortion is always preferably a last-resort measure, and other options should be considered before settling for abortion".

Abortion can benefit mothers on an individual basis, but this is highly dependent on the circumstances and potential outcome of the abortion itself.

And it's not really about "benefit", either. It's about the relationship between personhood, life, autonomy and consent. Would you force a mother to carry a fetus to term, against her will? If so, you are infringing on her autonomy and consent.

So who, in the end, gets the final say? The mother, on account of respect for her autonomy and consent? The fetus, on account that it is alive (and may be a person), and thus to kill it would violate its own autonomy?

This is the relevant question. Whose autonomy matters more?

It isn't about whether abortion "benefits" humanity. As a result of this, your example on terrorists "benefitting" from killing others is not relevant to the particular case I am making. And for the record, I do view mass killing by terrorist for the purpose of their agenda to be unethical, since they are killing people without their consent, which is murder. Not to mention the various other unethical acts that terrorists tend to enact upon civilians.

second point

you say killing a seed before it completely grows is not unethical?

how twisted have your minds become!

oh, how convenient we are to be mammals!,

lest we be squishing our own eggs at our fingertips!

ai

Are you saying that, as mammals -- or that, as self-aware, intelligent beings -- we have a burden of responsibility towards all life?

I would agree, broadly speaking. We are capable of reflecting on our action, and are capable of fully experiencing the nuances of actions carried out upon us (or against us). This is a quality that non-persons do not possess. Morality, therefore, can only truly be appreciated -- and can only truly concern -- persons (which we, as humans, are). Because of this, it is in our interests to consider the outcomes of our choices -- of our actions and behaviours, both for our own sake and for the sake of those with whom we interact.

As such, I'm not saying that we should uproot seeds before they can flourish, much as I'm not saying we should perform abortions. I'm saying that, ethically speaking, it doesn't matter either way.

In other words, I'm not saying abortion (or seed-uprooting) is advisable. But neither am I saying that it's "bad". Because it is neither good nor bad. If an entity is not a person, then under my ethical model, it is neither morally right, nor morally wrong, to treat such an entity one way or another. Want to kill an animal? Harm an animal? Nurture an animal? Ignore an animal? Dress an animal in costumes? Train animals to fight one another? None of these things are right; none of these things are wrong. If an animal is not a person, then they cannot be subject to morality, nor must we expect to be concerned with morality.

But I will say that the inconsistent application of empathy is against our pro-social interests. So while you can harm an animal, why would you? Why would you kill an animal, unless necessary or for justified reasons (e.g. self-defense, food and resources, etc.)? So it goes, in my view, for all non-persons. If we are inconsistent in our empathy, then these habits may risk bleeding into our interaction with other persons (e.g. if I consistently harm and abuse my pets, these habits risk bleeding into my behavior toward children and relatives and friends, which is ethically inadvisable).

If an animal is found to be a person, then things change. However, we don't know of any species that qualifies as persons other than the human species, so far. Is a fetus a person? If so, when does it become one? The answer to that question will influence how we, as persons capable of morality, will perceive the fetus and how we should consider approaching their treatment.

do robots have souls?

fear the day when machines own all the qualities of a man!

then- we will all be the same

no!

because we have souls,

you cannot artificially create a soul!

as God- created humans,

we have souls

If you wish to invoke the presence of the soul as reason to avoid abortion, then you have some more work ahead of you, on two fronts.

You are making the argument:

A) Fetuses possess "souls";
B) ???;
C) Therefore, we ought to avoid performing abortions, AND/OR abortions are unethical in all cases.

First, there is a gap in your logic. In what way does the presence a soul (A) means that abortions are unethical (C)? In argumentation, each premise must follow logically from the other. (C) does not follow logically from (A) -- so, there is a gap in the premises (B). Given that, what is (B)?

This argument would have the same problem if you were to say that (A) was about fetuses not possessing souls. How does a fetus not having a soul (for example) mean that we should avoid abortion? In that case, the conclusion also does not follow from the premise, so further expansion on the argument is required.

Second, here are some points that you should address, if you want to develop and argue for the "soul-argument":

-What is a soul? Where do they come from? How do they work?
-Why is the presence, or the absence, of the soul relevant to the discussion of abortion?
-What are the consequences of aborting a fetus that possesses a soul?
-Why is this a morally wrong action?

I would invite you to address these four points. Because otherwise you kind of just throw the word "soul" into the mix, without clarifying what you mean by it, and why souls are relevant to this discussion.

Wow @ Sehnsucht , that was one hell of a post you left me...I don't even know how to go about responding to that. I can't say you didn't bring up good points that have changed my view on a few things. However, with that said, I still can't see this as an ethical decision. As you stated in the last major reply to me and the most recent reply, you said that an infant isn't necessarily a person, in the same sense that a fetus isn't a person. However, we see it morally wrong to commit infanticide, as I'm sure almost everyone does. But with an infant and a fetus being so similar, the only difference being their location, I find it unacceptable to treat one as less than another. And I stand by my original argument that a pre-human should be just as valued as any other person.

Please forgive me for my long-ass replies.

I don't want to delve too greatly into infanticide, since that isn't quite on-topic. But I will say that we are most certainly wired to not want to kill our babies -- and for obvious reasons (i.e. if we consistently killed our babies, we would harm long-term population stability). But does the fact that we are wired for certain behaviours means that such behaviours are, or are not ethical? Or that they are ethically justifiable? Sometimes, perhaps, but sometimes not. Our human natures don't necessarily always align with a logically-consistent morality. Which is why we can't always simply accept our gut feelings; added reflection and reasoning will be required, lest we fall prey to our biases.

As such, Infanticide lacking moral value one way or another (i.e. being neither good nor bad) may not sit well with our pro-baby wiring, but that may not be sufficient reason to say it's bad in all cases. Though I, personally, would nonetheless advise against it unless absolutely necessary. When would it be necessary? Probably in very few cases. And even then, I wouldn't say that I'd expect such a thing to be clean and easy.

I'd also like to reiterate, if I haven't made it clear already, that I do not currently know whether an infant is a person, or when personhood. Same for fetuses/embryos. I have, thus far, been speaking in terms of hypotheticals. If a fetus (and/or an infant) is a person, then the moral implications are X; if it isn't, then the moral implications are Y. Until science elucidates these things beyond reasonable doubt, we can only speak in uncertainties and probabilities. I'm not current on the science of this issue, anyway; as such, I can only discuss this topic on a philosophical ground. Which isn't too bad at all, because on this topic, we can certainly build coherent positions on argument and reasoning alone.

So, just to make all that clear.

I do understand the whole mother/consent issue, and do feel a sense of empathy for those stuck in that conflict. Unfortunately, I feel like abortion almost forgives people for their irresponsibility, and I fail to see how more good comes from terminating a potential person than from allowing it to achieve personhood.

Abortion forgiving people for irresponsibility? Would that not depend on the circumstances of pregnancy? Was a woman who was sexually assaulted being "irresponsible"? What of genetic and medical complications that endanger the mother and/or make the fetus non-viable, on no fault of the woman's own? What of strong (and even valid) concerns that bringing a child into the mother's environment would not be feasible, with the mother not being able to care for the fetus and no other options are available?

By "irresponsibility", there is a connotation that the mother has had some fault in the formation of the pregnancy. That there were factors in her control, but she, through carelessness or recklessness, mismanaged them. Maybe a woman gets pregnant because she neglects birth control, or decides to be daring one night, or gets drunk and has her judgement impaired. If the mother did not intend for pregnancy to occur, are you saying she must now "life with" this consequence? That she must now endure roughly nine months of arduous biological processes against her own desires and will?

My view, similar to the one outline above, is that I do agree with you -- terminating a potential person is less preferable than to allow that potential to come to be. If you have the option between abortion and adoption, why not go with adoption, unless some combination of factors make that either too risky or too

But I also think that the procedure should be available and legal, because I also think we should respect the bodily autonomy of women. The compromise with this is that, yes, a woman could use abortion as a convenient way to get rid of a pregnancy (unless we put into place regulations that limit what kind of reasons one may have an abortion). But by banning abortion in all cases, some mothers would be forced to endanger their lives (in the case of complications), forced to bring to term irreparably defective fetuses, and/or incur psychological/emotional burdens by birthing a fetus they had not consented to have (in the case of sexual assault, bring forced to birth something that will remain a perpetual reminder of their assault).

And what's more, if abortion is not available for women, then some women may resort to seeking the services of unlicensed practitioners (i.e. "back-alley" abortions). Or worse yet, try to induce an abortion on their own. The danger in this, naturally, is that without the proper medical equipment and/or knowledge, you incur much greater risk on your person. With legal access to licensed, regulated, and professional clinics, the risks of these dangers diminish significantly.

So ultimately, I think abortion is undesirable, and that other options are best considered before it. But I also think that on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, it would be better to have abortion legally available for those that need it (and perhaps want it, in some cases), since otherwise you permit the risks entailed in back-alley abortions, and eliminate abortion as an option for those for which it is necessary/justified (unfortunate a prospect thought that may be).

As I said to "uuuuu" above, I'm not saying we should be having abortions. I'm not advocating this as the go-to option. I'm saying it should be available, if a mother needs it. Would you agree with me on that much? That the price of banning abortion out-weighs the benefit of having it available?

We may disagree on a purely philosophical, ethical perspective, but we are discussing ethics as a function of real-world application and pragmatics. In the end, it's the real-world consequences and application that matters, so better to be on the same page in practice, even if we aren't on the same page in theory.

I certainly sympathize with your stance. I would never say that abortion shouldn't be a heavy thing to consider, or a heavy burden to bear. It does go against our usual impulses and wiring to incur harm upon our young, unborn or no. But I'm more interested in the positions that can are logically/rationally justifiable, over those that "feel" right.

My current position is where my trail of reasoning has led me; I hope that, even if you do disagree on some points, that I have explained the "math" behind my ethics clearly and without confusion. I think that this, in the end, is more important than whether we do ultimately cause one another to revise our views, or cause one to change their stance from one camp to another. I hope that you'll agree.

Apologies for the length of time it took me to respond, a lot went on the last few days.

There's no schedule or timetable to these things. It's not like any one of us is obligated to be here. So please do carry on at your own convenience. 8)

 

[Claire Diviner]

Has anyone ever thought to ask themselves, "Will this woman having an abortion affect my life in any way directly or indirectly?" 9 times out of 10, the answer will be no. If someone's choice has no bearing on your own life, why even care to begin with? Besides, the human population, at over 7 billion people, is already out of hand, so as far as I'm concerned, abortion isn't as bad a thing as people make it out to be, especially if the unborn child isn't developed enough to be deemed "a person" (as one puts it). I'm still not fond of the idea of using it as a form of birth control, but at the end of the day, who am I to judge?

 

[M.C.Jeducation]

Has anyone ever thought to ask themselves, "Will this woman having an abortion affect my life in any way directly or indirectly?" 9 times out of 10, the answer will be no. If someone's choice has no bearing on your own life, why even care to begin with? Besides, the human population, at over 7 billion people, is already out of hand, so as far as I'm concerned, abortion isn't as bad a thing as people make it out to be, especially if the unborn child isn't developed enough to be deemed "a person" (as one puts it). I'm still not fond of the idea of using it as a form of birth control, but at the end of the day, who am I to judge?

Gomez from what I've read of your posts in this thread I think we agree on the topic of abortion, however I disagree with your assertion that because something does not affect my life directly or indirectly then I shouldn't care.

If someone went out and decimated the population of Africa this would not really affect my life directly or indirectly. However I don't think that this means that I shouldn't care about it. If something is unjust but doesn't affect you directly it is still unjust.

I apologise If i have misinterpreted your statement by the way, I have just come off exams and am not sure that my brain is even working right now.

 

[Braydon]

Whether or not abortion is ethical really depends on how developed the baby is, obviously if you tried to abort a baby after 8 months it's pretty much equal to killing a newborn. (I'm not saying that happens it's just hypothetical) On the other hand if you had an abortion after two weeks the baby is still just a little ball of cells with no brain.

There should be a legal limit to how late you can have an abortion but I'd have to look into when a child's brain is sufficiently developed to say when I think the cut off should be.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Please forgive me for my long-*** replies.

I don't want to delve too greatly into infanticide, since that isn't quite on-topic. But I will say that we are most certainly wired to not want to kill our babies -- and for obvious reasons (i.e. if we consistently killed our babies, we would harm long-term population stability). But does the fact that we are wired for certain behaviours means that such behaviours are, or are not ethical? Or that they are ethically justifiable? Sometimes, perhaps, but sometimes not. Our human natures don't necessarily always align with a logically-consistent morality. Which is why we can't always simply accept our gut feelings; added reflection and reasoning will be required, lest we fall prey to our biases.

As such, Infanticide lacking moral value one way or another (i.e. being neither good nor bad) may not sit well with our pro-baby wiring, but that may not be sufficient reason to say it's bad in all cases. Though I, personally, would nonetheless advise against it unless absolutely necessary. When would it be necessary? Probably in very few cases. And even then, I wouldn't say that I'd expect such a thing to be clean and easy.

I'd also like to reiterate, if I haven't made it clear already, that I do not currently know whether an infant is a person, or when personhood. Same for fetuses/embryos. I have, thus far, been speaking in terms of hypotheticals. If a fetus (and/or an infant) is a person, then the moral implications are X; if it isn't, then the moral implications are Y. Until science elucidates these things beyond reasonable doubt, we can only speak in uncertainties and probabilities. I'm not current on the science of this issue, anyway; as such, I can only discuss this topic on a philosophical ground. Which isn't too bad at all, because on this topic, we can certainly build coherent positions on argument and reasoning alone.

So, just to make all that clear.

I understand where you stand on the "person-hood" status of an infant and such, I was just making the comparison between infanticide and an abortion. I see them as very similar acts, and wanted you to know how I felt on the issue. I simply feel unjust treating one different than another. I have a hard time when there are two very similar acts going on, and we say that X is okay, but Y is wrong, when X and Y are very similar issues. For some reason it just feels offputting to me. To put it into perspective: if infanticide was a norm in our culture, than I would be able to agree more with the act of abortion. (Disclaimer: I do not support infanticide).

Abortion forgiving people for irresponsibility? Would that not depend on the circumstances of pregnancy? Was a woman who was sexually assaulted being "irresponsible"? What of genetic and medical complications that endanger the mother and/or make the fetus non-viable, on no fault of the woman's own? What of strong (and even valid) concerns that bringing a child into the mother's environment would not be feasible, with the mother not being able to care for the fetus and no other options are available?

By "irresponsibility", there is a connotation that the mother has had some fault in the formation of the pregnancy. That there were factors in her control, but she, through carelessness or recklessness, mismanaged them. Maybe a woman gets pregnant because she neglects birth control, or decides to be daring one night, or gets drunk and has her judgement impaired. If the mother did not intend for pregnancy to occur, are you saying she must now "life with" this consequence? That she must now endure roughly nine months of arduous biological processes against her own desires and will?

My view, similar to the one outline above, is that I do agree with you -- terminating a potential person is less preferable than to allow that potential to come to be. If you have the option between abortion and adoption, why not go with adoption, unless some combination of factors make that either too risky or too

But I also think that the procedure should be available and legal, because I also think we should respect the bodily autonomy of women. The compromise with this is that, yes, a woman could use abortion as a convenient way to get rid of a pregnancy (unless we put into place regulations that limit what kind of reasons one may have an abortion). But by banning abortion in all cases, some mothers would be forced to endanger their lives (in the case of complications), forced to bring to term irreparably defective fetuses, and/or incur psychological/emotional burdens by birthing a fetus they had not consented to have (in the case of sexual assault, bring forced to birth something that will remain a perpetual reminder of their assault).

And what's more, if abortion is not available for women, then some women may resort to seeking the services of unlicensed practitioners (i.e. "back-alley" abortions). Or worse yet, try to induce an abortion on their own. The danger in this, naturally, is that without the proper medical equipment and/or knowledge, you incur much greater risk on your person. With legal access to licensed, regulated, and professional clinics, the risks of these dangers diminish significantly.

So ultimately, I think abortion is undesirable, and that other options are best considered before it. But I also think that on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, it would be better to have abortion legally available for those that need it (and perhaps want it, in some cases), since otherwise you permit the risks entailed in back-alley abortions, and eliminate abortion as an option for those for which it is necessary/justified (unfortunate a prospect thought that may be).

As I said to "uuuuu" above, I'm not saying we should be having abortions. I'm not advocating this as the go-to option. I'm saying it should be available, if a mother needs it. Would you agree with me on that much? That the price of banning abortion out-weighs the benefit of having it available?

We may disagree on a purely philosophical, ethical perspective, but we are discussing ethics as a function of real-world application and pragmatics. In the end, it's the real-world consequences and application that matters, so better to be on the same page in practice, even if we aren't on the same page in theory.

I certainly sympathize with your stance. I would never say that abortion shouldn't be a heavy thing to consider, or a heavy burden to bear. It does go against our usual impulses and wiring to incur harm upon our young, unborn or no. But I'm more interested in the positions that can are logically/rationally justifiable, over those that "feel" right.

My current position is where my trail of reasoning has led me; I hope that, even if you do disagree on some points, that I have explained the "math" behind my ethics clearly and without confusion. I think that this, in the end, is more important than whether we do ultimately cause one another to revise our views, or cause one to change their stance from one camp to another. I hope that you'll agree.

There's no schedule or timetable to these things. It's not like any one of us is obligated to be here. So please do carry on at your own convenience. 8)

When I originally wrote the statement "It forgives people for irresponsibility." I was obviously referring to people messing around in the bedroom. Of course there will be instances of ****, genetic complications, and all that, but that's another story, and I don't think we need to get into that issue. But back to the point I was making, a better way to explain it would be: I think that abortion as a form of birth control is irresponsible. Take this scenario: A girl and her boyfriend are messing around > the girl gets pregnant > girl decides to get an abortion. That's what grinds my gears. Generally speaking, I hate it when people get away with something when they are the main cause of the problem. I see this in the same light. For example, it's like when a murderer gets away with a murder because no proper evidence was found. It's just not right, and people will abuse the system where they can.

One thing I see a lot of, pro-choice advocates tend to say things such as, "we aren't saying that we want to kill fetuses. No one WANTS to kill fetuses." And I completely understand that point, and I believe them when they say it. But I think a lot of those pro-choice advocates don't understand the pro-life mentality either. Pro-life advocates aren't saying, "she must pay for her consequences", and they certainly are not saying, "she must live with this until she dies." Several pro-life advocates (at least myself), would simply rather see a life given rather than a life be taken. Because at the end of the day, as I stated in my first post, it is a living being, regardless of whether or not it's a "person". Afterall, what is 9 months to a lifetime?

With the above said, I can't stand against the act of abortion in those "special cases". If a woman's life is in danger because of her pregnancy, then it would be more clear to have an abortion. It would cause more pain and sorrow to lose a wife, a friend, a sister, an aunt, etc. than to lose a fetus. And of course, removing a defective fetus harms no one (though if this is the case I wouldn't consider it an abortion...) When it comes to ****, I really don't know where I stand on that issue due to my current stand point, and like I said above, that's a whole different argument that I'm not up for getting into right now.

I am familiar with the self inflicted abortions or "back-alley abortions", and I agree, that is extremely dangerous and a horrible issue nonetheless. But, what are the statistics on the women who go for this? I can't imagine it'd be higher than 5% for all "unintentionally impregnated" women, and even that's probably stretching it. Though if I am wrong, and this statistic is higher, and this is shown to be a really big issue, then perhaps I would have to change my view on this specific point. But what of poorer women? What if a woman cannot afford an abortion? Then she will still resort to these horrible self inflicted abortions all the same.

I do understand your views, and like I said above, there are special cases where an abortion seems like it is the closest thing to a "right answer". But at the end of the day, an abortion is literally a life or death situation. In my mind, life should almost always be valued over death. Allowing abortions to happen freely contradicts this mentality.

One last thing: I have a family friend from church, an older lady. She has four kids who are all pretty much grown up, the youngest is 17 and a close friend of mine. This friend recently told me something about her mom: she had an abortion at one point in her life. Why is this important? Because she has been struggling with the guilt of having an abortion for decades; it his her biggest regret in life, and faces depression because of it. You see, in the moment, an abortion may seem like the right answer, but it just might come back to haunt you. This is obviously not the only case of regret, there are millions of women struggling with this, a simple Google search can reveal that much. You see, I'm not pro-life because I only care about the baby, but because I also care about the lasting effects it MAY (but won't always) have on the woman. I just wanted to bring up this lesser mentioned topic.

If someone's choice has no bearing on your own life, why even care to begin with?

It's my choice to think the way I do, so why do you care? My thoughts don't affect your life.
People dieing in other countries don't affect your life, so why would you care?
We're not going to be alive in 100 years, so why bother preserving our planet?
"If someone's choice has no bearing on your own life, why even care to begin with?"
Probably because you're a decent human being, and you want to see good things happen to the world. Because you want to fight against injustices and help the world be a better place, even if it doesn't directly affect you.

And just to throw it out there, there's a theory known as the butterfly effect. The smallest change can have the biggest impact. Though if you don't believe in fate then I suppose you wouldn't care too much about this.

 

[Braydon]

And just to throw it out there, there's a theory known as the butterfly effect. The smallest change can have the biggest impact. Though if you don't believe in fate then I suppose you wouldn't care too much about this.

However weed is apparently immune to this effect.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

However weed is apparently immune to this effect.

Hey watch. Watch this.

*waves hand*

I might have just been responsible for the 2017 typhoon which completely levels Tokyo. When are they coming to take me away? Yeah, there can be unexpected consequences. History is full of unfortunate examples of people who didn't or couldn't have known better - the same guy invented leaded gasoline and CFCs. But chaos theory is not a reason to just do nothing.

 

[Braydon]

Hey watch. Watch this.

*waves hand*

I might have just been responsible for the 2017 typhoon which completely levels Tokyo. When are they coming to take me away? Yeah, there can be unexpected consequences. History is full of unfortunate examples of people who didn't or couldn't have known better - the same guy invented leaded gasoline and CFCs. But chaos theory is not a reason to just do nothing.

Except there's plenty of evidence that smoking weed will lead to bad things, and the odds of waving your hands causing a typhoon is so astronomically unlikely it is essentially impossible.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Except there's plenty of evidence that smoking weed will lead to bad things,

And as soon as you make a cogent argument, we can talk about those.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I understand where you stand on the "person-hood" status of an infant and such, I was just making the comparison between infanticide and an abortion. I see them as very similar acts, and wanted you to know how I felt on the issue. I simply feel unjust treating one different than another. I have a hard time when there are two very similar acts going on, and we say that X is okay, but Y is wrong, when X and Y are very similar issues. For some reason it just feels offputting to me. To put it into perspective: if infanticide was a norm in our culture, than I would be able to agree more with the act of abortion. (Disclaimer: I do not support infanticide).

None of this to say that an unborn life is or is not better (or is worth more or less) than a born life. It's just that the rules necessarily change depending on the circumstance. The approach to treating with a person will invariably be different than the approach in dealing with a non-person -- and this, on account of what they are and what they (can) do.

There is also the added factor of biological dependency. A fetus is dependent on the uterine environment to a far greater degree than a born infant. So that has to be considered.

They are two similar scenarios, true. But if we apply our "ethical math", and see that X is okay and Y is wrong (for instance), even though X and Y are highly similar, then that's just the way of things. I see no issue with this kind of thing, since I'm interested in the conclusions and consequences yielded in the application of reasoning/evidence/propositional relations/etc./etc. -- no matter where this process may lead us.

When I originally wrote the statement "It forgives people for irresponsibility." I was obviously referring to people messing around in the bedroom. Of course there will be instances of ****, genetic complications, and all that, but that's another story, and I don't think we need to get into that issue. But back to the point I was making, a better way to explain it would be: I think that abortion as a form of birth control is irresponsible. Take this scenario: A girl and her boyfriend are messing around > the girl gets pregnant > girl decides to get an abortion. That's what grinds my gears. Generally speaking, I hate it when people get away with something when they are the main cause of the problem. I see this in the same light. For example, it's like when a murderer gets away with a murder because no proper evidence was found. It's just not right, and people will abuse the system where they can.

I totally agree. In fact, I stated as much on a few occasions that I find abortion as convenient birth control to display a mentality that seems, if not irresponsible, then at least careless. I do think that one should approach sexual conduct responsibility, much as one (ideally) approaches alcohol consumption responsibly, or any other leisure activity.

As for murder and the law, if you have negligible evidence to show that a suspect did indeed commit a murder, then you can't prove that they did it, and so you can't hold them (even if they did commit it). This is a compromise that was made for the purpose of law and justice. If you start charging and sentencing people based not on evidence, but on suspicion, then you would risk sentencing people for crimes they did not commit, or for the incorrect charges.

The price of this system is that sometimes, people can "get away" with their crimes on account of lacking substantiating evidence. It is unfortunate, true. But until we find a more apt means to determine the innocence or guilt of a suspected party, this is the way it'll have to be.

One thing I see a lot of, pro-choice advocates tend to say things such as, "we aren't saying that we want to kill fetuses. No one WANTS to kill fetuses." And I completely understand that point, and I believe them when they say it. But I think a lot of those pro-choice advocates don't understand the pro-life mentality either. Pro-life advocates aren't saying, "she must pay for her consequences", and they certainly are not saying, "she must live with this until she dies." Several pro-life advocates (at least myself), would simply rather see a life given rather than a life be taken. Because at the end of the day, as I stated in my first post, it is a living being, regardless of whether or not it's a "person". Afterall, what is 9 months to a lifetime?

With the above said, I can't stand against the act of abortion in those "special cases". If a woman's life is in danger because of her pregnancy, then it would be more clear to have an abortion. It would cause more pain and sorrow to lose a wife, a friend, a sister, an aunt, etc. than to lose a fetus. And of course, removing a defective fetus harms no one (though if this is the case I wouldn't consider it an abortion...) When it comes to ****, I really don't know where I stand on that issue due to my current stand point, and like I said above, that's a whole different argument that I'm not up for getting into right now.

I would also rather see a life given than a life taken. As a Pro-Choice advocate, my ideal scenario is that through comprehensive sex ed, access to other options, and responsible sexual ethics and conduct, that the prevalence and need/desire for abortion is minimized. But as a procedure, abortion should nonetheless be available. That's all there is to it, on my end anyway.

Because if we do promote a culture of sexual education and responsibility, the likelihood of unintended and unwanted pregnancy would dwindle, and so the prevalence of abortion would consequently lower as well. The way to go about promoting such values is a bit of a different discussion, but it remains that you can't have as many abortions if people aren't getting as pregnant (nor go for abortion as much as other options).

There are also socio-economic factors that likely play into all this (e.g. finances, class, poverty, access to services, etc.). Improvement of issues there would, conceivably, impact the prevalence of abortion. If mothers thought they could afford to bring a child into the world with greater ease, then I imagine abortion will not seem as desirable a prospect.

I am familiar with the self inflicted abortions or "back-alley abortions", and I agree, that is extremely dangerous and a horrible issue nonetheless. But, what are the statistics on the women who go for this? I can't imagine it'd be higher than 5% for all "unintentionally impregnated" women, and even that's probably stretching it. Though if I am wrong, and this statistic is higher, and this is shown to be a really big issue, then perhaps I would have to change my view on this specific point. But what of poorer women? What if a woman cannot afford an abortion? Then she will still resort to these horrible self inflicted abortions all the same.

As said before, I'm just discussing this notion on purely philosophical grounds. I'm not quite so savvy on the hard numbers of it all.

And I'm also not an American, so I can't speak to the situation in the States. I could, however, offer the Canadian perspective, since that's where I live.

But to do so, I'll have to do a bit of digging and research for stats and sources. So if you would indulge me, I can showcase some general findings in a future post, and we can discuss the implications of those stats there. How does that sound?

I do understand your views, and like I said above, there are special cases where an abortion seems like it is the closest thing to a "right answer". But at the end of the day, an abortion is literally a life or death situation. In my mind, life should almost always be valued over death. Allowing abortions to happen freely contradicts this mentality.

One last thing: I have a family friend from church, an older lady. She has four kids who are all pretty much grown up, the youngest is 17 and a close friend of mine. This friend recently told me something about her mom: she had an abortion at one point in her life. Why is this important? Because she has been struggling with the guilt of having an abortion for decades; it his her biggest regret in life, and faces depression because of it. You see, in the moment, an abortion may seem like the right answer, but it just might come back to haunt you. This is obviously not the only case of regret, there are millions of women struggling with this, a simple Google search can reveal that much. You see, I'm not pro-life because I only care about the baby, but because I also care about the lasting effects it MAY (but won't always) have on the woman. I just wanted to bring up this lesser mentioned topic.

I noted earlier above that I agree with the life > death thing, so no contest there.

And your anecdote does not surprise me. Not only am I aware that having an abortion can incur a (lasting) sense of guilt and depression, but I don't expect abortion to be a lively, cut-and-dry affair.

Yet even so, I would hold to my model -- that it should be available, for those that need or want it. The fact that abortive procedures would be available does not necessarily dictate how a mother approaches the issue, however. It does not prevent a woman from going for an abortion when there may be other options, nor does it prevent a woman from making a choice (abortion) that seems proper in the moment, but which she later regrets.

If a woman wants to get an abortion, she implicitly accepts whatever consequences come out of it. But should we prevent a mother from making that choice? It's another compromise we must face. Better to have abortion available (with the price that some women may regret the decision), than to have it not be available (with the price that it's out of reach for those for whom abortion is in fact the best or most viable option).

It's much like alcohol, in this respect. The fact that liquor is available does not prevent you from drinking too much and later regretting it. But to ban it outright, or impose severe limitations, seems counter to the spirit of agency -- that we, as agents, can freely choose to do something, with the expectation that we'll have to deal with the consequences of our choices. So it would go for alcohol, and so it would go for abortion (as it would go for various other things).

In short, my Pro-Choice ethic is greatly informed by notions of agency, autonomy, consent, and cost-benefit considerations. We've been discussing personhood a lot, but personhood is only relevant in relation to the autonomy and agency of the mother (and perhaps the fetus, if personhood applies).

It's my choice to think the way I do, so why do you care? My thoughts don't affect your life.
People dieing in other countries don't affect your life, so why would you care?
We're not going to be alive in 100 years, so why bother preserving our planet?
"If someone's choice has no bearing on your own life, why even care to begin with?"
Probably because you're a decent human being, and you want to see good things happen to the world. Because you want to fight against injustices and help the world be a better place, even if it doesn't directly affect you.

And just to throw it out there, there's a theory known as the butterfly effect. The smallest change can have the biggest impact. Though if you don't believe in fate then I suppose you wouldn't care too much about this.

I don't think the butterfly effect is all too relevant, especially because chaos theory is so broad in its applications.

But nonetheless, having a selective application of one's empathy is something I too disagree with. Things happening abroad may not have any immediate or tangible impact on one's own life, but that does not reduce the importance of those things. Being selective in the issues and (groups of) people you care about, or think are important, seems a bit of a risky habit to develop, ethically speaking.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

It seems that we have both come full circle in our arguments. I believe we both have similar stances, the main difference is the perspective and previous life experience that has lead us to where we are on this issue. (I come from a religious background, and I see the lady who had an abortion on a weekly basis, therefore I have a natural bias against it, but far less extreme than some). I can't speak for you, but I assume your background is a bit different than mine. Nonetheless, it was a fun debate, and you have helped strengthen my good points, and exploit my weaker ones. For that, you have my thanks! I don't see much else for us to debate on this topic without the arguments beginning to sound repetitive. I will be lurking around this thread as I do find many of the points of discussion extremely intriguing, especially those regarding personhood.

 

[Sehnsucht]

It seems that we have both come full circle in our arguments. I believe we both have similar stances, the main difference is the perspective and previous life experience that has lead us to where we are on this issue. (I come from a religious background, and I see the lady who had an abortion on a weekly basis, therefore I have a natural bias against it, but far less extreme than some). I can't speak for you, but I assume your background is a bit different than mine. Nonetheless, it was a fun debate, and you have helped strengthen my good points, and exploit my weaker ones. For that, you have my thanks! I don't see much else for us to debate on this topic without the arguments beginning to sound repetitive. I will be lurking around this thread as I do find many of the points of discussion extremely intriguing, especially those regarding personhood.

Yeah, it seems we've now reached the point of pure value-clashing. At this juncture, there's not much else we can do -- trying to convince the other party that they should wholly abandon their set values for another set won't amount to much. There's only so much words on the Internet can do; it will take actual IRL experiences to start making major shifts in the things we find should be valued and encouraged.

So indeed, goodbye, so long, farewell. A debate need not end in someone changing their mind; achieving a mutual understanding is a worthy goal in its own right. 8DDDD

:4metal:

EDIT: Though it occurs to me that I did promise to look into the state of abortive affairs in Canada. I will be sure to tag you when I present my findings.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Gomez from what I've read of your posts in this thread I think we agree on the topic of abortion, however I disagree with your assertion that because something does not affect my life directly or indirectly then I shouldn't care.

If someone went out and decimated the population of Africa this would not really affect my life directly or indirectly. However I don't think that this means that I shouldn't care about it. If something is unjust but doesn't affect you directly it is still unjust.

I apologise If i have misinterpreted your statement by the way, I have just come off exams and am not sure that my brain is even working right now.

It's my choice to think the way I do, so why do you care? My thoughts don't affect your life.
People dieing in other countries don't affect your life, so why would you care?
We're not going to be alive in 100 years, so why bother preserving our planet?
"If someone's choice has no bearing on your own life, why even care to begin with?"
Probably because you're a decent human being, and you want to see good things happen to the world. Because you want to fight against injustices and help the world be a better place, even if it doesn't directly affect you.

I'm talking about aborting an unborn fetus, not what happens around the world. I suppose it's partly my fault, however, as I probably should have specifically said "a woman having an abortion" in place of "someone's choice", but then I never counted on people misconstruing the crap out of what I said.

And just to throw it out there, there's a theory known as the butterfly effect. The smallest change can have the biggest impact. Though if you don't believe in fate then I suppose you wouldn't care too much about this.

As one who doesn't believe in fate, yeah, I don't really care about it. I am aware of the theory, however.

 

[Blue Ninjakoopa]

To answer the question: yes, the issue of abortion is ethical because discussions surrounding it involve women's rights as well as the right to life for the fetus, and any discussion involving life, rights, and whether or not one is equal to another is ethical.

I'm going to add that I find Budget Cadet's point interesting; if we consider a fetus to be separate life and that everyone has a right to their property (first and foremost their bodies), then a fetus technically has a "parasitic" relationship with its mother, which violates her right to manage her body. My question is this, though: Is the fetus conscious of this relationship? When conceived, does it think about its options? "I can leave this place and grow and develop in Lanette's PC, but instead, I'm going to absorb nutrients from my mom and influence drastic changes in her body against her will." I don't think so. Additionally, the fetus wouldn't have come into existence without the actions of the mother, unless it was conceived through ****.

And while it's important to point out that abortions are safer than giving birth for the mother if you're in the pro-choice camp, if we consider that the unborn child is "living" (of which there is scientific evidence) and has the inherent right to live, then every abortion involves a death and is thus not safer overall.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

everything below is in respone to @ Sehnsucht

1. shorten your responses.

2. true, i didnt make very clear why i brought souls into the discussion .

i mentioned it because i was trying to prove a point:

that you cant compare the morality of killing a fetus;

based on his/her/its(?)/the fetus' intelligence when you compare his/her/its(?)/the fetus' intelligence with a robot/ ai.

3. i dont think you understand my main point.

if you squished an egg of a chicken,

you killled it right?

yes,

most people would say that.

so ,

because we are mammals,

and can kill a fetus simply by taking a pill,

without having to watch it(you know) die inside of you,

some mothers can say it is ethical.

but if were egg-laying creatures, our abortions would be basically egg-squishing.

understand yet?

because we can abort without it being unpleasing, digusting, or sickening, people cannot realize right from wrong

i may agree on it being a choice,

further details on that would be more helpful, ty

happy blessed easter

 

[..uuuuu.....]

To answer the question: yes, the issue of abortion is ethical because discussions surrounding it involve women's rights as well as the right to life for the fetus, and any discussion involving life, rights, and whether or not one is equal to another is ethical.

I'm going to add that I find Budget Cadet's point interesting; if we consider a fetus to be separate life and that everyone has a right to their property (first and foremost their bodies), then a fetus technically has a "parasitic" relationship with its mother, which violates her right to manage her body. My question is this, though: Is the fetus conscious of this relationship? When conceived, does it think about its options? "I can leave this place and grow and develop in Lanette's PC, but instead, I'm going to absorb nutrients from my mom and influence drastic changes in her body against her will." I don't think so. Additionally, the fetus wouldn't have come into existence without the actions of the mother, unless it was conceived through ****.

And while it's important to point out that abortions are safer than giving birth for the mother if you're in the pro-choice camp, if we consider that the unborn child is "living" (of which there is scientific evidence) and has the inherent right to live, then every abortion involves a death and is thus not safer overall.

thank you, now everyone is a parasite.

 

[Sehnsucht]

everything below is in respone to @ Sehnsucht
1. shorten your responses.

Umm...no?

My goal is to explain myself to the degree I think is necessary to get my point across. I seek to cover all the relevant details, and to ensure that I have adequately shown the reasoning behind my points.

Now, obviously, if someone writes a titanic post (which I have done on a few occasions), the risk is that they will muddle their point, and the clear message will blend into the walls of text. Should one not take their reader's patience into consideration? But on the other hand, if a reader is not willing to commit to reading and understanding another's points, can the author of the post be faulted? The author and the reader have to meet halfway, otherwise you can't have a dialogue.

I can concede that I could work to become more concise. But I cannot, in good conscience, simply start writing single-sentence responses. Both because that doesn't come naturally to me, and because by doing so, I risk leaving out important details, or risk misinterpretation and confusion by not explaining myself enough. Does a point not deserve its due attention and consideration?

If this doesn't sit well with you, then I'm afraid that, unless I take great measures to cater to your personal sensibilities, that you'll have to work with me, here.

2. true, i didnt make very clear why i brought souls into the discussion .

i mentioned it because i was trying to prove a point:

that you cant compare the morality of killing a fetus;

based on his/her/its(?)/the fetus' intelligence when you compare his/her/its(?)/the fetus' intelligence with a robot/ ai.

Robots and AI are incomparable to embryos and fetuses? If we are discussing personhood, and it is possible to have non-human persons, then it follows that robots and AI are indeed comparable to fetuses -- that is, if we are focusing on how personhood works, and to whom it applies.

Robots and AI in themselves are not otherwise relevant to the discussion of abortion. If I invoke robots and AIs, it is only as examples to showcase the implications and properties of the concept personhood.

3. i dont think you understand my main point.

if you squished an egg of a chicken,

you killled it right?

yes,

most people would say that.

so ,

because we are mammals,

and can kill a fetus simply by taking a pill,

without having to watch it(you know) die inside of you,

some mothers can say it is ethical.

but if were egg-laying creatures, our abortions would be basically egg-squishing.

understand yet?

because we can abort without it being unpleasing, digusting, or sickening, people cannot realize right from wrong

If you squish an egg, and there is something alive inside, you have killed that thing.

That would indeed be the case. I do agree that this follow logically.

As for the rest, this is what I'm getting:

"Squashing an egg and having a (mammalian) abortion both involve killing a life-form. But the reason some people think (mammalian) abortion is ethical is because we don't actually have to watch the abortion happen, or use our own hands to crush and squash the fetus. Since the fetus resides internally, a mother does personally not have to witness their fetus being liquefied/dissolved/broken apart/sucked out/etc.

And because of this, abortion is unethical, because it is the equivalent of taking an egg in your hand, squeezing until it cracks, and letting the yolk run down your arm. People have a hard time telling right from wrong when they are not personally required to witness the effects of their actions with their own eyes, so abortion is like turning a blind eye toward the true revolting nature of your moral transgressions."

Is this your argument?

If so, it doesn't serve as a strong one for any case. That a mother can or can't visually observe their own abortion and the undoing of their fetus doesn't tell us whether abortion should or should not be pursued.

Is this a some kind of "appeal to disgust"? A lot of people find Brussels sprouts unsavoury, but that does nothing to change its health benefits. Likewise, being able to visually and internally see an abortion in action doesn't change that you're ending a life-form either way.

What we are interested is not whether abortion does terminate a life-form (because abortion necessarily does). We are interested in whether it permissible to do so, and under what circumstances. So saying "abortion shouldn't be done because it is icky and gross" is not a strong argument. The fact that something is, or is not, icky or gross tells us nothing about whether we should or should not do that thing.

Do you understand what I mean by "tells us nothing"? I mean that facts alone have no moral information. "Some people have green eyes, therefore we should kill green-eyed people". How does could you arrive at that conclusion? There is a gap in this reasoning; the argument is incomplete.

So appealing to some state of affairs (e.g. "abortions are revolting", "a mother can't see through her abdomen to witness her own abortion") isn't enough to make an argument. In fact, your current argument is technically incomplete. How have you arrived at your conclusion (abortion is unethical) purely by appealing through the facts you raise (X is the case)?

As for having to witness something personally to know that something is wrong, I disagree. I do not have to witness murder, nor commit murder myself, to know that murder is unethical. Because you can use reasoning and argumentation and evidence to show why murder is unethical, and thus ought to be avoided.

Likewise, you can use reasoning/argument/evidence to show that abortion is, or is not, ethical -- without ever having to witness someone else do it, undergo one yourself, or actually take a close look at what an aborted fetus looks like. So far, I have tried to follow reasoning to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion -- and that conclusion, at least so far, is that abortion is both not preferable and not unethical.

Lastly, do you think I could have made the above points in just 3-4 sentences, or whatever? If so, how would you have written it, if you consistently find that I'm writing more than I need to?

i may agree on it being a choice,

further details on that would be more helpful, ty

happy blessed easter

You want further details on my position? I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for clarifications, first. What is it that you want to know, or want to have clarified? What do you mean by "choice", here? The mother's choice? I'm unsure.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

To answer the question: yes, the issue of abortion is ethical because discussions surrounding it involve women's rights as well as the right to life for the fetus, and any discussion involving life, rights, and whether or not one is equal to another is ethical.

I'm going to add that I find Budget Cadet's point interesting; if we consider a fetus to be separate life and that everyone has a right to their property (first and foremost their bodies), then a fetus technically has a "parasitic" relationship with its mother, which violates her right to manage her body. My question is this, though: Is the fetus conscious of this relationship? When conceived, does it think about its options? "I can leave this place and grow and develop in Lanette's PC, but instead, I'm going to absorb nutrients from my mom and influence drastic changes in her body against her will." I don't think so. Additionally, the fetus wouldn't have come into existence without the actions of the mother, unless it was conceived through ****.

But all of this is ultimately irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the fetus is conscious of the relationship, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy. It doesn't matter whether or not the mother is responsible for the situation, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant.

And while it's important to point out that abortions are safer than giving birth for the mother if you're in the pro-choice camp, if we consider that the unborn child is "living" (of which there is scientific evidence) and has the inherent right to live, then every abortion involves a death and is thus not safer overall.

Yeah, it's that second premise I'd contest. Does a fetus have the right to live? I doubt it.

@ Sehnsucht say what you will about your style, but there is a certain art to brevity.
@ ..uuuuu..... say what you will about Sehnsucht's style, but the BBCode you apply to your posts makes it downright difficult to read. Seriously. I have to strain my eyes to read your posts and there is no reason for that to be a thing.

 

[Sehnsucht]

.
@ Sehnsucht say what you will about your style, but there is a certain art to brevity.

Oh, no doubt. As I said, I could probably stand to be less verbose.

Though I'd also like to think that being comprehensive has its pros as well.

I think part of the problem, if there is one, is that I structure my thoughts sequentially as I write. If I maybe went aside to write and rewrite, I could whittle things down. Though I also don't have a habit of writing multiple drafts.

Whatever the case, I've acknowledged this potential foible, and those who can say as much as I in fewer words have my envy.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

@ Sehnsucht As much as I agree or disagree with your points, I can never not admire how much effort and precision you put into your posts. Personally I find more thought provoking information in the longer posts, especially yours, so I'd say keep it up with the longer posts. It's not like making more points is going to hurt a discussion board

 

[Sehnsucht]

@ Sehnsucht As much as I agree or disagree with your points, I can never not admire how much effort and precision you put into your posts.

It's a habit I formed over a few years of discussing and speculating and theorizing on television show forums. And I also have ambitions of professional authorship. So I write a whole damn lot -- and whether any of it is worth a damn remains to this day an open question.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

bb code? what is bb stand for?

sehnsucht, can I say that it would be a tedious act to revise your writing?

about ai's (and i am venting off to another topic)

everything is comparable,

but not everything can be compared (with each other)

(the venting off into another topic part):

whether you believe in a bigbang (that goes hand in hand with evolution),

or Jesus,

most peoples will say that humankind is superior.

we cant imagine not being superior,

we cant imagine being a plant, per se;

living a life to unevietably be fed to humans.

you cant answer the question:

what if i was born a worm? (well, you couldnt because a worm cannot comprehend its own existence(?)

so what if we suddenly became that.

its a paradox, it cant happen.

but wait!

we can make machines that outdo everything humankind has ever done!

so there has to be something, something that defines us different!

(Note: probably will never happen thank God)

that "something" is a soul

... for some reason i feel like i missed something

back on topic

you said that you do not have to witness it to know it is unethical..

that is true half of the time.

ethics.. go hand in hand with our emotions

ethics are values,

so i can understand how different people have different ethics,

so then is it possible that we just have different ethics?

maybe there is no answer to the "is abortion ethical" question (without delving into religious standards )

"appeal to disgust"

i brought it up for the minds that confuse ethics with emotions (though, i must say i seemed like one of them)

when you (in general) say: "..doesnt seem ethical,"

that is saying: "..doesnt look ethical,"

which is saying: "..doesnt give the appearance of being ethical."

so right there everyone knows that it turned into a feelings thing

ok, i hope that makes more sense to you.

my "clarifications"

i was asking for a scenario where abortion was neither unethical nor desired (forgot your wording)

last point: feelings on abortions change over time.

i am almost sure that everyone (at the first time hearing: "abortion"),

was disgusted/ totally against it

but over time as people discussed it,

people's minds were clouded by "facts" and this is why it is controversial today.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

bb code? what is bb stand for?

sehnsucht, can I say that it would be a tedious act to revise your writing?

about ai's (and i am venting off to another topic)

everything is comparable,

but not everything can be compared (with each other)

(the venting off into another topic part):

whether you believe in a bigbang (that goes hand in hand with evolution),

or Jesus,

most peoples will say that humankind is superior.

we cant imagine not being superior,

we cant imagine being a plant, per se;

living a life to unevietably be fed to humans.

you cant answer the question:

what if i was born a worm? (well, you couldnt because a worm cannot comprehend its own existence(?)

so what if we suddenly became that.

its a paradox, it cant happen.

but wait!

we can make machines that outdo everything humankind has ever done!

so there has to be something, something that defines us different!

(Note: probably will never happen thank God)

that "something" is a soul

... for some reason i feel like i missed something

back on topic

you said that you do not have to witness it to know it is unethical..

that is true half of the time.

ethics.. go hand in hand with our emotions

ethics are values,

so i can understand how different people have different ethics,

so then is it possible that we just have different ethics?

maybe there is no answer to the "is abortion ethical" question (without delving into religious standards )

"appeal to disgust"

i brought it up for the minds that confuse ethics with emotions (though, i must say i seemed like one of them)

when you (in general) say: "..doesnt seem ethical,"

that is saying: "..doesnt look ethical,"

which is saying: "..doesnt give the appearance of being ethical."

so right there everyone knows that it turned into a feelings thing

ok, i hope that makes more sense to you.

my "clarifications"

i was asking for a scenario where abortion was neither unethical nor desired (forgot your wording)

last point: feelings on abortions change over time.

i am almost sure that everyone (at the first time hearing: "abortion"),

was disgusted/ totally against it

but over time as people discussed it,

people's minds were clouded by "facts" and this is why it is controversial today.

This is what your post would look like if you didn't artificially shrink the text to make it a huge pain in the ass for anyone to read. Seriously. Stop doing that. It's one thing if you don't know how to make a paragraph, but this is just silly.

Now that I see what you're actually saying... What?

We cannot put ourselves in the brain of other creatures, because we have no idea how they think or operate. This does not mean we are somehow special, and this by no means necessitates anything supernatural. A dog could just as little put itself in our brain. Far from not being special, this makes us really quite ordinary. We are not "superior" to other species, we simply value our own kind higher due to our evolution as a social species. Our ability to make machines is interesting but in no way sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. This is not proof of a soul.

Also, "people's minds were clouded by 'facts'". What kind of statement even is that. Seriously.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

but..

what is "bb"

question: are you religious

"people's minds were clouded by "facts"

keyword "facts"

 

[Claire Diviner]

"people's minds were clouded by "facts"

keyword "facts"

You put the word, "facts", in quotation marks, as if to say that the facts we've detailed are dubious. Why don't you elaborate on your definition of "facts".