Is Abortion Ethical?

[..uuuuu.....]

facts are for informing, not persuading

 

[Deleted member 269706]

facts are for informing, not persuading

As much as I agree with your side on this issue (with varying differences), I do think that facts can and should be used to persuade. I mean it's a fact that Hitler murdered millions of people. That "fact" has persuaded me to think less of him as a human being. That "fact" is what led to the alliances that were formed to stop him, and ultimately protect peoples rights. Facts shouldn't be utilized for statistical use only. I mean every prediction, argument, research project, etc. are based around facts. At the end of the day, if you disagree with a fact, then you're wrong.

 

[Sehnsucht]

bb code? what is bb stand for?

BB Code is the set of codes and functions that determine how your text appears in a post. You can use BB Code to modify the presentation of your text. Normally, one uses the icons in your post toolbar to modify text, but you can turn on the BB Code Editor to edit the code directly (the editor can be accessed in the top right corner of the post toolbar).

@ Budget Player Cadet_ brought up this point because your text is very small and has a coloured font, which make your text harder to read. For comparison, this text you are reading right this moment is the default setting (i.e. I didn't change anything).

Whatever the reason for your text style, I must agree with BCP that it takes a bit more effort to read your posts. Not to mention that I use a light-coloured custom theme on this site, so your bright pink text is even more difficult to read on a light-blue/white background.

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

It could be tedious for me to revise and refine my posts (since it sometimes already takes a lot of time to write them XD). Since I haven't really tried it, I can't say. Though I think that I can start trying to go for concision, going forward.

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

everything is comparable,

but not everything can be compared (with each other)

True. Not everything is comparable.

But consider the following elements -- leaves, grass, a green apple, a lizard, and emeralds. These are all different objects, but the common denominator is the colour green. Things that share a common denominator in their traits are comparable, and so can be compared.

Personhood works the same way. Humans, androids, computer programs, extraterrestrials... these are all different things, but personhood serves as the thing that links them together. Personhood doesn't care about species, body type, material composition, origin, geography; if a thing is self-aware, whatever that thing is, then it may qualify as a person. So while humans and AIs are indeed different kinds of entities, if both are persons, then they can be compared and contrasted.

(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

Most people would be mistaken. Or at least, misled.

We are humans. Does that make us superior? Superior to what? Superior in which way? To say that humans are superior is an anthropocentric statement (i.e. a view revolving around humans). It's like geocentrism and heliocentrism (revolving around the Earth, and around the Sun, respectively). Anthropocentric tendencies is only to be expected, for we are humans and utterly experience the human viewpoint. Yet that, in no way, signifies that we are "superior" or "special" relative to anything else. "Humanity" is not specific enough of a criterion on which to base a scale of superiority and inferiority.

As for the rest, are you saying that "the soul" is the quality that has allowed humans to create computer technology, able to calculate things beyond human capacity? And that, if we did not have a "soul", we could never have developed supercomputers (or just digital technology in general)?

If that is your view, then how can we tell that this is all due to a "soul"? It could also just as easily be explained by our innate intelligence, granted to us by complex brains -- more complex than any other living thing on this planet, to our knowledge. If you have a powerful brain, chances are you'll be smarter, and so you could exploit your environment and its laws to produce some impressive things -- such as building machinery and robots and computer software.

The fact that we, as exceedingly crafty apes, have built machines does not indicate that we are superior or special, or that we have a soul. You could say that our brainpower is superior to the brainpower of other species on Earth. But that also tells us nothing about special-ness, or soul-ness; it's just the state of affairs. A plain fact.

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.

Yes. If ethics are about what we should or shouldn't do, and emotions often motivate us to do things, then ethics and emotions are interrelated. What people feel, care about, and/or believe will usually inform what actions they are inclined to take, and what they think they should or should not do for a given situation.

But ethics are not the same thing as values, or emotions. Ethics are a philosophical issue, and philosophy tackles general and fundamental problems of our experience, in ways which science, in its brute facts-based approach, can't always resolve.

You could devise a maximally objective moral philosophy, which is shown to be objective and most efficient by all logical and rational standards. The difficult thing is emotion and belief -- it's hard to radically shift views that are informed by past experience, personality, and other innate qualities. This doesn't mean there isn't a best solution to the abortion issue; it just means that it may be difficult to get everyone on the same page.

As for your final point, I see what you mean. It relates to my point above. The ethics of many are driven by emotion, values, and beliefs. So if someone sees something disgusting, or something they don't like, they will be inclined to label that thing as something to be avoided, or perhaps even unethical. However, as I recall mentioning, that something may be disgusting to the senses may not be sufficient cause to deem something ethical or unethical, logically speaking.

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.

Ah, yes. I said that I viewed abortion as not being unethical, and not being preferable (usually speaking). That isn't a singular scenario, though; it's my actual, global view on the subject. Abortion is not unethical. But if there are other options, then it would be preferable to choose those options over abortion. Because I agree with those that the terminating of potential lives is an unfortunate prospect indeed.

As for your last point, I will point to my previous section. Yeah, people may have an immediate, reflexive disgust to the notion of abortion. Just as they might have an immediate, reflexive disgust to the notion of vomiting.

The thing about emotion, though, is that it clouds judgement. You can't base your ethics purely on emotion and gut feelings, since we know, historically and from experience, that emotions can bias our judgements and thoughts. Emotion must be balanced and checked by reasoning (and vice-versa). Same thing with our senses. If we based our understanding of the world purely on our sensory experience, we'd think the Sun revolved around the Earth, or that the sky was a big dome over the land -- and people did believe such things at one point, because they had no way of independently verifying that their sense experiences described their actual reality).

So the fact that people began examining the issue of abortion under a more critical, analytical lens, does not mean the minds of the populace have been "clouded" by facts. Facts are hugely important; to deny facts is to deny our reality. And if done right, reasoning and logic alone cannot cloud our minds, either. Only emotion, values, beliefs, and other subjective qualities can bias and cloud our judgements, our opinions, and our ethics.

(Though cognitive biases created by the way human brains are structured are also key factors in bias)

[/quote]

As much as I agree with your side on this issue (with varying differences), I do think that facts can and should be used to persuade. I mean it's a fact that Hitler murdered millions of people. That "fact" has persuaded me to think less of him as a human being. That "fact" is what led to the alliances that were formed to stop him, and ultimately protect peoples rights. At the end of the day, if you disagree with a fact, then you're wrong.

I actually agree with uuuuu's formulation. Facts cannot persuade; not in themselves. They can only inform your positions, conclusions, reasoning, etc.

It is when facts are plugged into argument and reasoning -- in the same way that integer values are plugged into an algebra equation -- that facts can be used to persuade. Facts are like variables in an equation. But the underlying syntax of that equation is built around arguments, premises, conclusions, principles, and axioms, among other things.

Not to mention that persuasion is an emotional process. You can have arguments, premises, axioms, and so on. But if your goal is to make a compelling case for your point -- that is, you want people to care -- you have to tie your reasoning into values, desires, and interests, since you are trying to appeal to an audience to reconsider their positions.

 

[Sucumbio]

@ Sehnsucht Nah, your style is just my cup of tea. Verbose, detailed, well paced and most importantly, thorough.

However I'd like to address the possibility that only hunans can be persons.

Of course I'm referring to calling an AI a person. Because an AI is really nothing more than a giant hard drive and super fast search engine holding all the digital facts available [best case scenario] I'm hard pressed to consider it a Person. I base this decision on the notion that Emotional substance is required be a person.

 

[_Keno_]

@ Sehnsucht Nah, your style is just my cup of tea. Verbose, detailed, well paced and most importantly, thorough.

I definitely agree. He doesn't like to leave too many cracks uncovered in his views, so we aren't left wondering or with too many questions about his stance.

AI is really nothing more than a giant hard drive and super fast search engine holding all the digital facts available [best case scenario] I'm hard pressed to consider it a Person. I base this decision on the notion that Emotional substance is required be a person.

And brains are nothing more than a super-fast hard-drives (organic ones, but hard-drives nonetheless) that combine access to memories with hormones. If you agree that it's just a physical system, then it MAY be able to be recreated with metal and electricity rather than blood and bone. If you believe in something like a soul, your definition of person might differ vastly.

The major difference being, humans have a very messy memory and precision, whereas robotic counterparts do not. Our brains are ordered in such a way that memories and ideas overlap. If that is where creativity comes from, this overlap of memory, then maybe robots could not be quite as human as I would hope.

As for the abortion argument, I had never considered the idea that human babies aren't "persons." If you say that "all persons have the right to life," you might think "that's horrible to say that babies don't have the right to life!"

I wouldn't say all living creatures have the same right to life, but they do have "the right to not be killed without reason." This would just be for survival, such as hunting or self-protection.

These definitions do make abortion seem rather impersonal though. I will think more on this.

 

[Sehnsucht]

d'awwww, you guys :fairmaidenblush:

@ Sehnsucht
However I'd like to address the possibility that only hunans can be persons.

Of course I'm referring to calling an AI a person. Because an AI is really nothing more than a giant hard drive and super fast search engine holding all the digital facts available [best case scenario] I'm hard pressed to consider it a Person. I base this decision on the notion that Emotional substance is required be a person.

And brains are nothing more than a super-fast hard-drives (organic ones, but hard-drives nonetheless) that combine access to memories with hormones. If you agree that it's just a physical system, then it MAY be able to be recreated with metal and electricity rather than blood and bone. If you believe in something like a soul, your definition of person might differ vastly.

I do think AIs are an interest concept. Though I wonder if this might be better moved to another thread.

That said, here's a lengthy digression on artificial VS natural intelligences (whose thoroughness I'm sure you'll both appreciate ):

[collapse=ON REPLICATING PERSONHOOD]
_Keno_'s view mirrors my take on things. Under a naturalist framework (which I presently hold to), brains are just really fancy carbon-based computers. They may have been formed by the unguided process of natural selection, but it remains that they display certain base commonalities with computers. Most notably in how synaptic pathways are precisely like transistors -- they switch On or Off in long chains to produce long strings of code.

In artificial computers, we express these as 1s and 0s. In human brains, we have action potentials and the like. Even DNA is just a code, albeit with a four-digit system as opposed to a binary one. In any case, nature shows us that if you string together very long sequences of states -- binary or otherwise -- you can produce some pretty impressive things. In computers, we can see that if you have the right physical substrate (circuitry and etc.), you can generate sophisticated software, and also perform various functions. And in nature, if you have the right physical substrate (a brain), you can generate sophisticated software, and perform various functions.

If we know that nature has (at least once) created persons -- in the form of the human species -- why can't that be artificially be replicated, if we understand how physical principles interact to produce person-entities? As a result of this, I have zero problem conceiving of the existence of an artificially-created person, regardless of whether that person has a centralized form (e.g. an android/robot), or a decentralized form (e.g. a supercomputer mainframe).
[/collapse]

[collapse=ON EMOTION AND PERSONHOOD]
Under a naturalist framework, emotions are reactions to stimulus, an interplay between brain structure and processes, and hormonal and neurochemical balances. We feel that emotions are important and special, but that's because A) we experience emotion, so there's a certain bias there, and B) we are self-aware, so we can perceive our own emotions, granting a more intimate vantage.

But if nature managed to create entities that can emote, why could we not then create artificial entities that can emote -- if we, again, understand now "nature" did it with us (and other creatures)?

With that said, I do think that emotional capacity would likely figure into personhood. Emotions are what drive and motivate our actions and behaviours. If we were utterly emotionless, we would lack the ability to form preferences; one outcome would be just as good as any other. Your ability to form judgements based on values and desires would be severely impaired. And that's not an optimal survival strategy.

In sci-fi, robots and AIs tend to be depicted as emotionless, beings of pure logic. But logic that is divorced from emotion -- or some kind of metric that prioritizes one outcome over another, based on goals -- can't guide us. That's why we have to tell (non-sapient) computers what we want them to do. Search X, analyze Y, execute function Z. Without some kind of prompt, a computer would just sit there. A self-aware computer without a means to set such prompts and goals for itself would likewise be similarly inert.

I say that self-awareness is the base fundamental requirement for personhood, though, because without the self-reflexive capacity to be aware of one's emotions, then you can't process, differentiate, discriminate, or form preferences that lead you to take one action over another. If you can't do that, you can't have any real agency; and without agency, you can't really participate in a moral system (since morality is about choices made and choices experienced).

Basically all mammals have some degree of emotive capacity. But that doesn't make them self-aware (and thus, not persons). As such, emotions are not a fundamental requirement for personhood. You can have emotions without self-awareness. But, if you are self-aware, yet don't have some kind of preference- or goal-forming capacity, you'd never be truly compelled to act or react. Agency is thus severely limited, if not outright impossible.

You'd need both, then, I suppose -- self-awareness and a preference-capacity. Can't have agency with just one or the other. So perhaps I should amend by working definition of personhood to include both functions.

In short, you need agency to be a person -- that which is subject to and can perpetuate morality -- but to have agency, you need self-awareness and a preference-capacity, at bare minimum (another requirement would include sensory apparatuses, or some system that allows you to interface and react to your environment).
[/collapse]

The reason I write long things is because I don't tend to formalize my own thoughts. So I have to filter my thoughts through the rigour of investigation and reasoning in order to form some kind of coherent structure. The act of writing itself also forces you to put formless thoughts into a coherent structure (which writing provides).

Over the course of my tenure here at the DH, that has been my approach. I've been able to slowly formalize and refine my working ethical hypothesis (my particular brand of consequential ethics, which you may have seen me describe here and there). The reason I'm invested in this abortion topic specifically is that this topic is giving me a case against which I can test, modify, expand upon, and refine my hypotheses about ethics, personhood, and so on.

So these factors should largely account for why I write as much as I do, and the reason I approach debate in the DH as I do. In short, I'm using the DH as a sandbox/soundboard to formalize what I think/believe/etc. about things.

I thus hope you all can continue to indulge my excesses as I continue sorting out these heady concepts. 8D

As for the abortion argument, I had never considered the idea that human babies aren't "persons." If you say that "all persons have the right to life," you might think "that's horrible to say that babies don't have the right to life!"

I wouldn't say all living creatures have the same right to life, but they do have "the right to not be killed without reason." This would just be for survival, such as hunting or self-protection.

These definitions do make abortion seem rather impersonal though. I will think more on this.

The idea of killing our babies/fetuses is an unsettling one. Because, and for obvious reasons, we are wired to desire the survival of our progenies.

If I say that abortion on its own is not unethical -- that is, it doesn't matter, ethically speaking, if you do or do not abort a fetus -- does that mean that I should seek out or prefer abortion?

I don't think non-persons neither have a right to "life" or a right to "not be killed (without due cause". But, as I've mentioned both in this thread and elsewhere, an inconsistent application in our empathy does not, in the long run, serve our own ethical interests. So while a [dog and/or fetus and/or infant and/or etc.] may not be a person, why would you seek to harm or kill it, unless there are no better options available in the achievement of your goal?

It's on that basis that I don't find mistreatment of non-persons to be a preferable route. If you consistently mistreat non-person entities, you risk turning around and perpetuating those habits toward persons -- which is unethical.

 

[_Keno_]

d'awwww, you guys :fairmaidenblush:
I don't think non-persons neither have a right to "life" or a right to "not be killed (without due cause". But, as I've mentioned both in this thread and elsewhere, an inconsistent application in our empathy does not, in the long run, serve our own ethical interests. So while a [dog and/or fetus and/or infant and/or etc.] may not be a person, why would you seek to harm or kill it, unless there are no better options available in the achievement of your goal?

It's on that basis that I don't find mistreatment of non-persons to be a preferable route. If you consistently mistreat non-person entities, you risk turning around and perpetuating those habits toward persons -- which is unethical.

So what rights would you say non-persons have then? None? Then if I were do go out and skin a squirrel alive, I would be violating no rights, and therefore not performing an immoral action, correct? The risk of perpetuating those kinds of acts towards humans is, not necessarily guaranteed. Does the act itself hold no immorality?

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree, but I would say that non-persons have the right to no be harmed/killed without reason, though what reasons would qualify, I'm not entirely sure of yet.

 

[Sehnsucht]

So what rights would you say non-persons have then? None? Then if I were do go out and skin a squirrel alive, I would be violating no rights, and therefore not performing an immoral action, correct? The risk of perpetuating those kinds of acts towards humans is, not necessarily guaranteed. Does the act itself hold no immorality?

It would neither be moral, nor immoral.

A person, or an agent, is an entity that is both capable of intentionally making choices that affect other persons, and experiencing such choices (that is, the capacity of awareness and understanding of the experience and consequences incurred upon them).

So, we can see that morality is definitely relevant to persons. Yet (living) non-persons don't possess such capacities. They could act on instinct and reflex and other unconscious cues, but lacking self-awareness, they can't have intention or deliberation in their choices. And they can experience pleasure and pain and sense data, but they can't reflect on these experiences.

If you skin a squirrel (!), it would no doubt feel great pain. It would (conceivably) by virtue of instinct and sense that you must be some kind of predator. But would this squirrel understand that you are acting with intention, or be able to understand the implications of what's happening to it (e.g. "someone is violating my bodily autonomy")? You, as a person, would be able to conceptualize the squirrel's experience, to a certain degree, but morality is a two-way contract.

Would a squirrel be able to appreciate whatever help I give it? If not, then why would you help them? Why would you harm them? Unless for your own benefit or another's, or as part of the fulfillment of some goal. And likewise for harming it. You'd only harm it as part of the fulfillment of some goal. You act in the interest of yourself and/or others when dealing with persons, too, but because you are dealing with persons, there are more variables to consider.

Hence why I say the treatment of non-persons has no moral significance, one way or another. You can skin a squirrel, tame a squirrel, dress up in a squirrel costume and follow squirrels around. You could enforce animal cruelty prevention laws and encourage kindness toward animals. But prevention of cruelty (for instance) does not inherently follow from dealings with non-persons (whereas it can follow with persons, due to the definitions and relations of this ethical model).

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree, but I would say that non-persons have the right to no be harmed/killed without reason, though what reasons would qualify, I'm not entirely sure of yet.

Well, I certainly encourage you to find a justification for why non-persons have an inherent right to not be harmed/killed without due cause.

Myself, I don't see that there are any inherent rights, since that doesn't follow from my reasoning. Treating animals kindly, then, is not a requirement; it's optional. But it is an option I find preferable for myself, and one that I would encourage that others also take.

(And all of this ties to abortion etc. etc. ).

 

[Blue Ninjakoopa]

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.

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

When talking about whether or not the fetus has a right to live, we have to designate the point at which something "lives." Since I gave evidence that it's when the sperm meets the egg, a "fetus" is a person, and all people have the natural right to life, unless you personally don't believe in the concept of natural rights. If you don't, I'd ask you where you draw the line. Is a fetus only a person when it leaves the womb? If not then, at which point is it not a person while in the womb, and why?

In short, if you're going to say someone doesn't have a right to live, then you'd have to argue why that someone is not a person.

As far as "consent" goes, well, yeah. Which is why if you don't consent to getting pregnant, you protect yourself via birth control or having your partner wear a condom. Those are your responsibilities. But if you choose to have unprotected sex, saying "man I don't want to get pregnant" doesn't magically invalidate the life of the child in development. "Consent to remain pregnant" operates under the false premise that decision-making power is equally distributed between the mother and the unborn child, which is ridiculous. Why does the mother have the right to terminate a life when she's the one who initiated the process by which it was created (having sex without taking measures to prevent pregnancy)?

 

[_Keno_]

When talking about whether or not the fetus has a right to live, we have to designate the point at which something "lives." Since I gave evidence that it's when the sperm meets the egg, a "fetus" is a person, and all people have the natural right to life, unless you personally don't believe in the concept of natural rights. If you don't, I'd ask you where you draw the line. Is a fetus only a person when it leaves the womb? If not then, at which point is it not a person while in the womb, and why?

I honestly can't even imagine considering a fetus a person at the point of conception. ON ITS OWN, it has no traits, except for the potential to become a person, that would justify it being a person.

[collapse=Nonperson rights] I very much like Sehnsucht's defintion of person (although I still don't agree with the rights non-persons), and I would say that all living organisms that have developed a functioning brain have their own category (separate from trees, ants, etc) that still have SOME rights (let's call them 'creatures').

Why?
Sehnsuchts bring up the example of a fly being squashed, or perhaps even just hurt. Could such a basic organism reflect on it's injuries or could it understand the pain caused from it's bite? Definitely not.

When it comes to more advanced 'creatures', like those with a brain, I do believe they exhibit enough qualities to maintain SOME rights of a person, moreso than a fly at least.

Dogs, for example, may or may not be able to reflect on pain, but they can certainly remember the pain and the cause. Can they have empathy? While I'm not certain, I know that dogs who have done wrong can exhibit what appears to be guilt, or knowledge that they have caused trouble. Those are Sehnsucht's reasons for nonpersonhood, but I consider the ability to learn and the ability to feel pain major contributors as well.

Morally though, I can't accept that a creature with a developed brain has the same rights as a fly or plant. A dog being cause pain or 'killed' without cause is plainly immoral to me.

Overall, I think that there are three categories: nonpersons, persons, and 'creatures.' The only real rights I would say inherent to the 'creatures' are the rights not to be caused pain or death without cause (food, protection, or other survival needs).

I would only include a fetus as a nonperson, at least up there is an emergence of a functioning brain, in which case it would become a 'creature', but not yet a person. [/collapse]

 

[Sucumbio]

Why does the mother have the right to terminate a life when she's the one who initiated the process by which it was created (having sex without taking measures to prevent pregnancy)?

This seems to forget about instances of ****. Ergo, a woman who is impregnated against her will.

This is also seems to assume that a mother loses control of her body once the parasitic-like organism known as a fetus is quite literally introduced into her body (it's not as if it's like permanent teeth that just show up naturally).

So I guess I would counter your question with the same question. Why DOESN'T a mother have the right to terminate a "life" when she's NOT the person who initiated the process by which it was created?

And of course this delves into one the most misogynistic scenarios we have today: that a female in the years of her life during which she is ovulating, is by default "always on" in terms of pregnancy capability, and so should she become pregnant, despite whatever efforts to the contrary are made by her OR any of the potential fathers in her life, she MUST carry it to term or be a "murderer."

 

[Blue Ninjakoopa]

This seems to forget about instances of ****. Ergo, a woman who is impregnated against her will.

This is also seems to assume that a mother loses control of her body once the parasitic-like organism known as a fetus is quite literally introduced into her body (it's not as if it's like permanent teeth that just show up naturally).

So I guess I would counter your question with the same question. Why DOESN'T a mother have the right to terminate a "life" when she's NOT the person who initiated the process by which it was created?

And of course this delves into one the most misogynistic scenarios we have today: that a female in the years of her life during which she is ovulating, is by default "always on" in terms of pregnancy capability, and so should she become pregnant, despite whatever efforts to the contrary are made by her OR any of the potential fathers in her life, she MUST carry it to term or be a "murderer."

To ask me that, you'd need to first answer my question about how you define "life" and how you square something that is 100% confirmed human to not actually be human or equal on its own merits insofar as its right to live goes. Why would we define something that is human to not technically be life just because it doesn't have a brain or heartbeat yet?

"Always on" is a falsehood that ignores the decision-making ability of the mother, a falsehood which I would say is misogynistic. The truth is that women, especially today, can freely take measures to prevent a pregnancy, and are thus not technically "always on".

But you're right about **** when you talk about a fetus being intrusive in that case. **** is a scenario that can also be prevented, and women stopping ***** would be more common if we stopped seeing them as weak and unable to carry a weapon or learn to fight under the guise of "empowering" them.

Your last sentence is one of the reasons why I don't support a full-on abortion ban. The primary reason is that it will inevitably create a black market for the practice, since abortion is a service and services, like goods, thrive in alternative markets shortly after being outlawed. A black market for abortion is horrifying. The second goes back to the scenario of ****; as pro-life as I am, I think it's a hideous criticism of a woman aborting a child conceived through **** a "murderer" among the likes of John Gacy or Ted Bundy. Abortion should be available to women in emergency situations, among these (and the most common) is **** and another is when giving birth means the death of the mother and/or the child. In my view, the fetus is truly invasive in a **** scenario and loses its innocence, and is thus liable to be terminated. But a woman who agrees to unprotected sex with her partner shouldn't be allowed to change her mind and opt for an abortion because she knew she would get pregnant. She agreed to that responsibility.

Birth control, condoms, and abstinence need to be stressed as much more important, especially abstinence since it's the only method that works 100% of the time.

@ _Keno_ , your post implies that a fetus is a separate species from human. Why would that be, when we know that it actually is human? Its inability to reflect on its injuries at the time of conception doesn't negate its right to live to point where it can.

 

[Sehnsucht]

@ _Keno_ , your post implies that a fetus is a separate species from human. Why would that be, when we know that it actually is human? Its inability to reflect on its injuries at the time of conception doesn't negate its right to live to point where it can.

Since Keno was referencing one of my earlier analogies, I suppose I'll chime in.

No one here is saying that a human fetus is not human. We all agree here that a human fetus is A) a human organism, and B) qualifies as "life". These are both self-evident.

The distinction of interest, however, is not whether a human fetus is human (or alive), but whether it qualifies as a person. The category of personhood is useful to classify organisms that demonstrate (and share) certain perceptive qualities -- namely, the capacity for self-awareness, deliberate intention, and so on.

Humans are persons, since they are capable of those things. Likewise, it's strongly unlikely that a tree is a person, since a tree doesn't seem to have any components that could produce such sophisticated processes. Are there other non-human animals that classify as persons? There are animals that seem highly intelligent (such a dolphins and apes and the like), but their personhood has not yet been confirmed beyond doubt.

In any case, the reason the personhood distinction is relevant to the discussion of abortion, is that personhood introduces more variables to the moral equation -- because a person is capable of deliberately making a choice, and can fully reflect on choices made upon them. So if we are dealing with persons, we have to account for those added variables in our calculations.

Is a human fetus a person? When does it become a person during gestation, if at all? If a fetus is never a person during gestation, how can/should we treat it? If the fetus does attain personhood at some point, how can/should we treat it? And how do we account for the carrying mother, who most definitely qualifies as a person?

These are the questions that personhood entail, so it's necessary to address them.

So, hopefully this puts things into context. Keno's responses draw on similar notions of personhood that I've forwarded, which is why you might be confused (re: your notes on the obvious human-ness of human fetuses). In my posts made here thus far, I've been proposing that that the locus of moral consideration on this issue is in the personhood of the fetus.

Given all this, I would invite you to consider personhood in your reasoning (and perhaps even share your thoughts on what I've outlined above, if you care to).

 

[Blue Ninjakoopa]

@ Sehnsucht - Thanks for clarifying (and with quite the becalming tone, I might add), I will try my best to express my thoughts through answering the given questions.

Is a human fetus a person?

I would argue that it is because it has the potential to acquire what you've defined as personhood (a definition I agree with).

When does it become a person during gestation, if at all?

I knowledge on the process of birth is extremely limited; I don't know exactly when the unborn child starts to move, feel, think, etc., but I say that it is then that it acquires conventional personhood. The personhood it has beforehand is what I would describe as pre-personhood... or something. I'm bad with names, lol.

If a fetus is never a person during gestation, how can/should we treat it? If the fetus does attain personhood at some point, how can/should we treat it?

I think a fetus is always a person just because it develops the ability to do things you define a person as doing, things that flies or trees cannot. If we must apply a separate title to it, it would need to be distinct from a person and whatever a tree is.

And how do we account for the carrying mother, who most definitely qualifies as a person?

She is important to the equation. Equally important, I would say, but it's that equivalence that naturally forbids her from being able to decide on whether the life she carries should be born or not, especially at later terms. It is also due to this equivalence that she maintains the ability to terminate the pregnancy should it endanger her own life, since it is at that point that the fetus poses a threat and violates her right to live, even if it isn't conscious of it.

 

[Sucumbio]

as pro-life as I am, I think it's a hideous criticism of a woman aborting a child conceived through **** a "murderer" among the likes of John Gacy or Ted Bundy.

Hmm... Okay so if a mother is ***** her fetus is disposable but if not then she should carry it to term, is that it? I think you're assigning value of personal beliefs over that of pure logic. Simply put: a fetus does not know of its origins. So whether the dad is Barack Obama or Freddy Krueger, the new human gestating is innocent. It did not ask to be made. It couldn't. But a mother within whose body it resides can choose to have it unmade. It may seem callous, cruel or irresponsible, but in a world such as this, sentiment really has no bearing on the "right" choice. Either a woman can control her body or she can't. Either a fetus deserves to be protected by a third party advocate, or it does not.

 

[Blue Ninjakoopa]

You're right, there's no way to be selective about that, which is why I keep stressing preventative measures (preventing **** with self defense, preventing unwanted pregnancies through abstinence/birth control/condoms).

I do believe it is the state's job to protect all life. Being finicky about it was a logical error on my part.

 

[Sehnsucht]

@ Blue Ninjakoopa

Gonna collapse a response for tidiness.

[collapse=ON STUFF]

Is a human fetus a person?

I would argue that it is because it has the potential to acquire what you've defined as personhood (a definition I agree with).

So a fetus is a person because it has the potential to become a person.

If you're going with that phrasing, you have a contradiction. You can't be a person and "not yet a person" at the same time. So which is it? Is the fetus a person, or a not-yet potential person? Is a seed a tree, or a potential tree?

Potential is something that can be (but has not yet been) actualized or expressed. A probability, in other words. Since potentiality and actuality are different things, you can't conflate them as you have done above.

A potential person is not the same as an actual person, then. I suggest you pick one category or the other, and stick with that category in your argumentation. A human fetus can be one or the other, but not both.

When does it become a person during gestation, if at all?

I knowledge on the process of birth is extremely limited; I don't know exactly when the unborn child starts to move, feel, think, etc., but I say that it is then that it acquires conventional personhood. The personhood it has beforehand is what I would describe as pre-personhood... or something. I'm bad with names, lol.

That's part of the reason one can only make so much progress on this topic. The point at which a fetus gains personhood (if at all) has not yet been pinpointed by science. We have determined the points where the heart starts beating, when a fetus can start experiencing pain (nociception), and so on. But when does it become self-aware?

Without the empirical backing, we can only discuss possible scenarios. If a fetus is a person (or becomes one), then ethical considerations X apply. If not, ethical considerations Y apply. Yet I've found that, even if we are constrained to simple discussions of philosophy, one can still make a lot of headway.

As for your notes on the threshold of personhood, I don't think the mere act of being capable of moving, or experiencing emotions or sensations can constitute as signs of personhood. Not all things that move are persons, nor are things that possess sensory apparatuses. And emotions are reactions to stimulus, which drive and compel organisms to take action (as per preference-dislike, reward-punishment systems). A dog may feel happy, but does it know or understand that it's happy? That would require self-awareness.

Thinking may be a closer metric, though I have to wonder if a fetus' underdeveloped brain is powerful enough to engage in even the most rudimentary kind of thinking/self-awareness/consciousness/etc. I would venture that, even if a fetus were self-aware, its mind would be highly rudimentary, only minimally aware of itself, its environment, and the relationship between.

In short, I find using motion, sensory capacity, even pain reception to not be sufficient indicators of personhood. Thinking and emotive capacity, perhaps, but even then, there's enough doubt to muddle the issue. It's even harder to make a determination, since a fetus does nothing; it only gestates in a sealed, enclosed environment. Whatever thoughts and experiences a fetus possesses are bound to not be all that sophisticated.

If a fetus is never a person during gestation, how can/should we treat it? If the fetus does attain personhood at some point, how can/should we treat it?

I think a fetus is always a person just because it develops the ability to do things you define a person as doing, things that flies or trees cannot. If we must apply a separate title to it, it would need to be distinct from a person and whatever a tree is.

If you're still wondering why personhood deserves its own category, consider this:

If a dog barks at a child and makes the child cry, do we hold the dog morally accountable?

The impulse of most people would be to say that no, the dog is not accountable. The dog is an animal. It doesn't know any better, one might say. It operates purely on instinct. It doesn't necessarily understand that it was dealing with an entity possessing consciousness and thoughts and emotions, and that in the act of barking, it caused harm upon this child.

Perhaps this commonly held perception is because, on some level, we understand that we are people, yet some entities are not. By definition, non-persons can't reflect on their actions; they operate on instinct and reflex and impulse, and not on deliberate intent. So how can we hold such an entity to the same moral standard as an entity that can consider how their actions can affect others, and that can recognize that other persons beyond themselves exist?

It is in this way that personhood is relevant (if not central) to discussions of ethics. It's one thing to cause harm upon another out of unconscious instinct; it's another to deliberately, and with intent, cause harm upon someone, knowing that they are persons and will be able to fully experience that harm.

Given all this, I think you could at most say that a fetus is a potential person. That is, if all goes along without obstacle, this mass of cells will eventually attain self-awareness. But a full-on person? That seems less likely, by the definitions we're entertaining. If a fetus, at any point in its development, does qualify as a person, I suspect it would only just barely reach the passing mark.

And how do we account for the carrying mother, who most definitely qualifies as a person?

She is important to the equation. Equally important, I would say, but it's that equivalence that naturally forbids her from being able to decide on whether the life she carries should be born or not, especially at later terms. It is also due to this equivalence that she maintains the ability to terminate the pregnancy should it endanger her own life, since it is at that point that the fetus poses a threat and violates her right to live, even if it isn't conscious of it.

So you frame it as equivalency, such that, when it comes to who has the moral leverage, it's mother=fetus -- until one or the other's autonomy comes at the expense of the other.

Fair enough. Though there is a slight asymmetry at play, since the fetus requires the mother to survive, yet the mother does not need the fetus to survive. And what's more, the fetus necessarily uses resources taken from the mother's body (and not vice-versa). So this asymmetry should be accounted for, somewhere.

Currently, and given this asymmetry, I see the mother having the moral leverage in this relationship, even if only a slight one. So whether the fetus does constitute a person or not, in the end, the mother has the final say. Which is not to say one should go about getting abortions on a regular basis; it's instead that if abortion is necessary, it's not unethical to terminate the fetus.
[/collapse]

Another reason I've collapsed all this is because I have discussed these notions and arguments at length over the past few pages. So consider the above somewhat of a condensed primer of my stances.

And if you want a tl;dr version of my overall position, I find that A) it's not unethical to terminate your fetus, for any reason or justification, and B) even with that said, abortion entails the loss of a potential contributor to human activity and flourishing, so abortion is a less preferable option.

 

[Sucumbio]

You're right, there's no way to be selective about that, which is why I keep stressing preventative measures (preventing **** with self defense, preventing unwanted pregnancies through abstinence/birth control/condoms).

I do believe it is the state's job to protect all life. Being finicky about it was a logical error on my part.

Well, that's fair enough. Your viewpoint then, is that the State (governing body) has the right to protect an unborn fetus, the will of the mother notwithstanding.

I may agree with this, except for one or two things: Given that only women can be mothers, this means that a woman's rights are immediately affected from birth (as in their birth). All women. And this flies in the face of equal rights between all sexes and genders. Should the fact that a female is uniquely capable of pregnancy extend to her a special place in the eyes of the law? If so, then how can women expect to argue for "equal treatment?"

Also, as was stated previously, there's no separating the two (mother and unborn child), so a law passed to address one, must also address the other. The only way therefore to save all Fetus' from abortion is to overtly deny the choice of the mother in all instances.

Personhood arguments seem to be a dead end - many such amendments on the books and in contemplation, do not recognize someone in a persistent vegetative state as being a person, or even alive, for instance, based on technicality.

All this aside, I'm a bit skeptical of your attitude toward ****. It's not about whether or not a woman is capable of preventing the ****. It's about the ***** that get committed, regardless of the perseverance of the female. You can mandate karate for all girls in k-12 education and have armies of women walking the earth ready to break a man's spine should they try anything funny. But that's not to say **** still won't happen. So from a policy perspective, you STILL have to account for what to do in the situation of ****. This same line of thinking applies to your other "preventative" measures. All good intentions aside, and all precautions weighed and measured and implemented, unwanted pregnancy can still happen. So it's important to not dwell on the side-bar (well if she'd done this or that) and more important to focus on what to do IF an unwanted pregnancy happens.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

When talking about whether or not the fetus has a right to live, we have to designate the point at which something "lives." Since I gave evidence that it's when the sperm meets the egg, a "fetus" is a person, and all people have the natural right to life, unless you personally don't believe in the concept of natural rights. If you don't, I'd ask you where you draw the line. Is a fetus only a person when it leaves the womb? If not then, at which point is it not a person while in the womb, and why?

I'm not sure what you consider the natural right to life, to be honest. I grant rights under the general sense that I'd like to have these rights. I enjoy living, egocentric morality is irrational, ergo, I should grant the right to life to all others. However, this doesn't apply to fetuses. When I was a fetus, I was completely incapable of anything resembling thought. I was not self-aware (most infants do not become self-aware until over a year after they are born), incapable of feeling pain, or indeed anything else. I'm not sure I recognize that as a person, let alone worthy of rights. If I had been aborted, I would not have cared.

In short, if you're going to say someone doesn't have a right to live, then you'd have to argue why that someone is not a person.

Or explain my moral system and where this goes haywire. I reject the idea of fetal personhood. It is a potential person, nothing more. But whether or not I do this has absolutely no bearing on my main argument, and that is that a woman has bodily autonomy, and the fetus does not get to enforce its will on her.

As far as "consent" goes, well, yeah. Which is why if you don't consent to getting pregnant, you protect yourself via birth control or having your partner wear a condom. Those are your responsibilities. But if you choose to have unprotected sex, saying "man I don't want to get pregnant" doesn't magically invalidate the life of the child in development. "Consent to remain pregnant" operates under the false premise that decision-making power is equally distributed between the mother and the unborn child, which is ridiculous. Why does the mother have the right to terminate a life when she's the one who initiated the process by which it was created (having sex without taking measures to prevent pregnancy)?

Okay, first of all, condoms break. The pill is not 100% effective. Does the fetus suddenly stop being a person if they tried and failed to prevent the pregnancy? Seems a little silly to me, honestly. But no, seriously. Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to having a foreign entity use your body for the next 9 months. It just doesn't. Just like consenting to sex doesn't mean consenting to anal. Consent is fragile. The fetus did not sign a contract with you, it foisted itself onto you without your consent. If you want it gone, then that is your right. If you don't want to sacrifice your body for its sake, that is your right. If you decide "I want a baby" and then after a few months realize, "hang on, I don't want this", then there is nothing wrong with rescinding your consent. Consent is fragile. If I am ****ing my girlfriend and she tells me to stop, I do not get to keep going because she said yes earlier. Remember, we're talking about someone's bodily autonomy here; the comparison to sex is entirely apt.

 

[Blue Ninjakoopa]

@ Sehnsucht and @ Sucumbio , you've perfectly demonstrated why this topic is so difficult to approach. And I'm not saying you're both wrong or stubborn; you're both correct about ****, personhood, and morality leverage. Even if I am to say that a fetus is to be defined as a person since it will become a person, and that you can't really call it anything else, there still remains the personhood of the mother to take into account. Her body is still her property, and therefore @ Budget Player Cadet_ 's point about bodily autonomy can't be refuted.

The only thing I will say against Cadet's point is what he considers the fetus to be. "Potential person" has already been refuted. The bottom line is that the fetus is a person, technically, but so is the mother (and her personhood is more ostensive), and she maintains the right to terminate her pregnancy because she owns her body and played a part in the creation of the body inside of her. Also, you say you wouldn't care if you were aborted. You wouldn't be alive to care if you had been aborted, lol. I'm sure your view is unique, as I believe most people are glad they're alive and that if they could travel back in time to the point of them being born, they would be glad they were born. But there needs to be polling done to back this up.

I don't really have an argument to contest abortion, as much as I hate to say it. I'm personally against it, and would encourage every woman to keep on with her pregnancy, and if she doesn't want a child then she should practice abstinence or something, but none of this holds any water. Like Sucumbio said, dwelling on the side bar or "what could have happened" isn't a strong foundation for any argument because what did happen is what counts, and the "did" in this case is "got pregnant". The life arguments are all nullified once we consider the mother's life and her inherent ownership of her body.

 

[Legitimate Ted]

I happen to see this as a gender equality issue, actually. The thing here is not so much "Does a woman have the choice to deal with the kid?" as "Does a man have the equivalent choice to deal with the kid?", the answer to which, in 'MURICA, at least, is no.

If a woman gets impregnated and doesn't want the kid, then regardless of the man's desire, she can get rid of it. Which is fine, it's her body, if she doesn't want her nine months of misery, so be it, that's her decision.
However, if a woman gives birth, and the father doesn't want the kid, then that's too bad. If she wants child support money, she gets it. No "if"s, no "but"s, that's just the way it is. In 'MURICA anyway.

But my point on the presented topic has been made. "It's her body, if she doesn't want her nine months of misery, so be it, that's her decision."

 

[LarsINTJ]

I don't consider abortion to be on the same egregious level as adult murder, although it still utterly disgusts me (assuming the pregnancy is not life-threatening). It should never be socially acceptable to treat developing babies like inconvenient trash simply because their independence is merely potential. How heartless does one have to be to prioritize the immediate comfort of an irresponsible adult over the full life of a helpless baby?

Would you be grateful knowing your mother chose not to abort? All it takes is a little empathy for the kids.

If you don't want a baby then take necessary precautions. Fortunately those myths regarding failure of the pill are the result of unreliable data, i.e. subjects were dishonest.

Adoption is certainly a thing if someone does not possess the means to raise a child.

Note: socially unacceptable =/= illegal. I will not impede those who wish to carry out an abortion for petty reasons, but expect ostracism.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't consider abortion to be on the same egregious level as adult murder, although it still utterly disgusts me (assuming the pregnancy is not life-threatening). It should never be socially acceptable to treat developing babies like inconvenient trash simply because their independence is merely potential. How heartless does one have to be to prioritize the immediate comfort of an irresponsible adult over the full life of a helpless baby?

Loving the loaded language in there. "Like trash". "Irresponsible adult". However, their independence being potential is not the issue, the issue is their independence being currently impossible and fully dependent upon another.

Would you be grateful knowing your mother chose not to abort? All it takes is a little empathy for the kids.

If my mother aborted me, I wouldn't be here talking about it. At literally no point in my short, mindless existence would I have had the capacity to care, or even to recognize that I existed or had a "self".

If you don't want a baby then take necessary precautions. Fortunately those myths regarding failure of the pill are the result of unreliable data, i.e. subjects were dishonest.

Citation needed. The CDC quotes the typical use failure rate as being 9%. But beyond that, let's not make too many assumptions about the situation of people who aren't us and who we don't know, eh? Maybe she was on the pill and got a bad batch. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she thought she wanted a baby, but her financial situation changed - she lost her job, disaster struck, her husband walked out on her - to the point where she could not reasonably support it. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might get pregnant and not want to be pregnant.

 

[LarsINTJ]

If my mother aborted me, I wouldn't be here talking about it. At literally no point in my short, mindless existence would I have had the capacity to care, or even to recognize that I existed or had a "self".

That's a monstrous thing to say. I hope you grow to reconsider it.

Citation needed. The CDC quotes the typical use failure rate as being 9%. But beyond that, let's not make too many assumptions about the situation of people who aren't us and who we don't know, eh? Maybe she was on the pill and got a bad batch. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she thought she wanted a baby, but her financial situation changed - she lost her job, disaster struck, her husband walked out on her - to the point where she could not reasonably support it. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might get pregnant and not want to be pregnant.

Perfect usage of contraceptives in combination results in a success rate of over 99%. I'm far more inclined to believe the remaining <1% is due to dishonesty or recklessness rather than mysterious failures. Also, instances of fresh condom breakage occur after incorrect usage, they don't just randomly leak.

It's entirely irresponsible to go ahead with conception while being uncertain of your future financial stability.

Freak accidents are unfortunate, but I would still consider it preferable to have the baby rather than kill it depending on the circumstance, pass the baby off for adoption.

Like I said, whatever the reason, I will not stop people from getting abortions. Killing a potential person is not the same as murder.

 

[FirestormNeos]

When performed before a certain threshold is reached, all parties are involved use proper birth control, and they aren't constantly getting abortions (which they probably aren't if they're using proper protection), yes I'd say it's perfectly fine. However, I'd like to stress that people should still be allowed to have abortions carried out even if the second and third conditions above aren't met. Yeah, people could in theory just ignore responsibility altogether because they can just get abortions, but that should not be of the concern of any non-utopian government.

 

[Soup's On!]

When performed before a certain threshold is reached, all parties are involved use proper birth control, and they aren't constantly getting abortions (which they probably aren't if they're using proper protection), yes I'd say it's perfectly fine.

What threshold does the abortion need to be performed before? What's the abortion frequently before it reaches the not-fine amount?

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Abortion is a tough issue because our need for sharp legal distinctions conflicts with the fact of gradual growth from gametes to zygote to fetus to infant. Absolute pro-lifery is easy for me (as an atheist) to dismiss, since nothing morally interesting happens when sperm fertilizes egg. But pro-choicers face a similar dilemma: they may want to say that infanticide - but not abortion - is murder, even though nothing morally interesting happens at birth. Drawing the line at birth arbitrarily condemns one act (infanticide) as murder while allowing what is morally the same act (late abortion). How do you resolve this dilemma, pro-choicers?

You might argue that a fetus is a parasitic burden on the mother's body, whereas an infant exists independently of its mother; and that women's autonomy settles the moral issue. This view has some problems:

(1) a human fetus late in pregnancy (roughly the 3rd trimester) can survive outside of its mother, given proper care. This fact suggests that viability is a better cutoff than birth. We might amend the view to argue that a pre-viable fetus is parasitic, and therefore abortable.

(2) a human infant doesn't really exist independently of its parents or caretakers. Many of my friends are making babies, so they're all too aware of this complete dependence. Taking care of a newborn is obviously very difficult, and my friends have often had to cancel or dip out early due to lack of sleep. The burdens of childcare on new parents - especially single parents - seem to rival the burdens of pregnancy. Despite the extraordinary limits that an infant places on its parents' personal freedom, "bodily autonomy" is rightly seen as a poor excuse for infanticide. Why is the same excuse valid before birth (or, before viability)? Does physical containment within your body settle the moral issue?

 

[FirestormNeos]

What threshold does the abortion need to be performed before?

I'm no expert on this matter, so I can't provide any specifics on this. Maybe ask @ AfungusAmongus .

What's the abortion frequently before it reaches the not-fine amount?

If by "not fine" you mean "should be illegal," (which I doubt) then I suggest rereading my post for my thoughts on that.

If by "not fine" you mean "deserve to be called out on it by your folks," that would be up to the folks (friends/family/etc.) to figure out.

 

[Soup's On!]

But surely you have some threshold in mind, if it's one of your criteria on if it's fine or not.

I said "not fine" because you used "perfectly fine" in your post.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's a monstrous thing to say. I hope you grow to reconsider it.

Why? What's monstrous about the idea that I would not have cared if I had been aborted? It seems rather self-evident to me; after all, if "I" had been aborted (to whatever degree you could consider "me" existing in the first place before I became self-aware or conscious), what possible mechanism could exist for me to feel displeasure about it? A fetus is not even self-aware! Before the third trimester, it can't feel pain. So I would have had no knowledge of my future life, or even of my own existence; I would be incapable of feeling pain... So what's the problem here? I literally could not have cared; no part of "me" capable of caring existed or would exist in the future.

Perfect usage of contraceptives in combination results in a success rate of over 99%. I'm far more inclined to believe the remaining <1% is due to dishonesty or recklessness rather than mysterious failures. Also, instances of fresh condom breakage occur after incorrect usage, they don't just randomly leak.

Dishonesty... Recklessness... Circumstances out of your control (like getting stuck away from home over the weekend and not having brought your pills with)... Rotten luck (the cat got into your bedside table)... And your claim about incorrect condom usage may be true, but what are the odds that everyone knows how to use it correctly?

It's entirely irresponsible to go ahead with conception while being uncertain of your future financial stability.

Because, after all, every time a major financial catastrophe happens to a woman, she knows 9 months in advance!

Freak accidents are unfortunate, but I would still consider it preferable to have the baby rather than kill it depending on the circumstance, pass the baby off for adoption.

I don't see any moral preference either way; it is the woman's body and if she does not wish to carry the fetus to term, that is her right.

 

[Soup's On!]

But pro-choicers face a similar dilemma: they may want to say that infanticide - but not abortion - is murder, even though nothing morally interesting happens at birth. Drawing the line at birth arbitrarily condemns one act (infanticide) as murder while allowing what is morally the same act (late abortion). How do you resolve this dilemma, pro-choicers?

I understand the dilemma you ask to resolve is specifically about supporting late abortions while rejecting infanticide. But can't it be "resolved" by just going with it and finding infanticide okay? It can be taken as a matter of personhood, with the belief personhood doesn't happen during gestation. With nothing morally or personhood-ly interesting happening at birth, sure, post-birth abortions are acceptable. It becomes unacceptable at whatever age personhood occurs.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

can't it be "resolved" by just going with it and finding infanticide okay?

It's true that softening your view of infanticide softens the dilemma over abortion, but this is a tough pill to swallow. Although infanticide was common in some cultures, it feels morally problematic. It goes against basic virtues, such as compassion for the helpless, that our society legitimately needs to cultivate. And even if we do bite the bullet and shrug at infanticide, we're still left struggling to define moral personhood (and therefore murder) in the face of gradual human development. Morality is hard.

Legally, I unequivocally support women's rights to 1st trimester abortions without any waiting period, ultrasound, parental consent, or any such hurdles erected by well-meaning pro-lifers. But by the 3rd trimester the mother has had more than enough time (half a year) to make up her mind, the fetus is viable outside her womb, and it is capable of sensing pain. 3rd trimester abortions should generally be illegal.

 

[WindHero]

I'm gonna put out an idea to let people think on a bit:

How come people make such big deals over little things like dogs (putting them in strollers, "mercy-killing" them by putting them to sleep, prosecuting people for harming their animals),
Yet they have no qualms killing innocent babies, just because they aren't fully formed yet?

Convenience is nice, but it isn't worth a life, imo. And it's still alive during the period abortion is lawful. It's growing, and that is a sign of life. Plant saplings are a form of life.

 

[Planet Cool]

Have we figured out when, exactly, a fetus develops its brain / central nervous system? If so, then the fetus is little more than a cluster of cells before that point, and I see no harm in aborting it. Maybe I'm not informed enough, but I don't think having a heartbeat or responding predictable to certain stimuli (like a plant) qualifies a fetus for personhood.

And even after the brain / nervous system threshold, I think abortion is morally justifiable under certain circumstances, such as if carrying a pregnancy to term endangers the life of the mother.

 

[Ninj4pikachu]

At the end of the day I don't see how abortion is unlike any other form of birth control, the endgame is the same but you blocked the shot at the last second rather then before it got close to the goal.

Me and my girlfriend have had 2 abortions and thank god we did, were in college and there is no way we would be able to have kids and continue our education. I don't understand this arbitrary "it's wrong" argument. Who says its wrong? By what authority can you deem it as such?...

And I don't agree with the "adopt it out" argument. Our orphanages are already over run with children who don't have a home or family's. It feels like conservatives only care about babies when their in the womb. Once their born "good luck, your in your own now." What kind of life will some of these kids have? Kids raised in orphanages often never get adopted out and then where do they go?... Statistically they are less likely to go to college or get and hold down a good job. It seems unfair to give a child such an unfair start in life.

And what of the 14-18 year old parents?... You expect them to raise a child when they still have to raise their hand to go to the bathroom!... kids make mistakes and aren't always responsible enough to have protected sex. This is all the more reason they sure as hell aren't responsible enough to raise a child.

Abortion makes all these issues go away... Plus if I get a third one, the fourth is free! Lol jk (morbid humor) and yes I sleep very well at night.

EDIT: this is my first time posting in the debat hall so if I did something wrong please inform me of such.

 

[Nona]

Background information: 22yo female, and I use the combination progestin/estrogen birth control pills primarily for health reasons (as well as anti-babies). They have a success rate around 92% (theoretically up to ~99% with perfect use (https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-options/effectiveness) )

Abortion, I believe, should be saved for contraception failure or pregnancy complications (ectopic pregnancy, defects, Down Syndrome, sexual assault, etc); it's not unethical unless the mother was coerced or uses it as primary form of birth control, because the Plan B pills are readily available without a prescription and there's a form of preventative BC for everyone (implants, shot, IUD, etc. Planned Parenthood gives out free condoms, and offers emergency contraception among other services like prescriptions). I have no qualms about getting an abortion if the pill fails me. I know I'm too young and immature-- definitely not ready to raise a child.

Extra info: Every Spring at my college a group of pro-life people come in with very graphic abortion posters and hand out papers with biased information on why abortion is unethical. Typically they rely on shock value and interviews with women that regretted abortion to curb people to the pro-life side :/

 

[Reila]

Of course it is. A woman has all the right of deciding if she wants to keep a fetus inside her body or not, other people don't get to have an opinion on this. Well, except the father, assuming the fetus has one and that the father is engaged to the mother, but in the end the decision should be taken by the mother and said decision should be respected.

Plus, a fetus isn't even a person, it is just... a fetus.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

If we are to have laws, they must be designed with the aim to improve society, for it is the relationship of mankind with itself that gives birth to them. Any law that does not do so is by definition tyrannical (intentionally or not), in my view, for it oversteps the bounds of its reason for existence; it becomes something else for it does something else. Once it hinders or looks beyond where it came from, it's failing or overextending itself.

Establishing abortion as illegal is one such a case that it does not prevent disaster nor allow growth (outside of our population, which we really don't need to increase right now; adopt the kids we already have that are in need, future parents!). Even if we applied personhood to a fetus, I do not believe in enforcing rules for the sake of Kantian consistency. Consistency is overrated, it can cloud the purpose a rule was established in the first place. It's not the rules that are important, but what they are used for, where they came from.

 

[Foxus]

I believe it depends on what the abortion is used for.
No its not selling body parts for profit, those are propaganda fairy tales.

If its **** or incest, or a accidental pregnancy, I think abortion is a way out to clear the poor girl of going through the pains of labor, then the financial and mental repercussions of having a child (let alone the work it takes to put them up for adoption). Anyone who thinks a teen who experiments or exercises wrong judgment should go through this, just for pro life bragging rights, is beyond my comprehension.

So therefore abortion is ethical. Its keeping the woman from dealing with a unintended consequence and spares the child from coming into this world and dealing with a mother who never wanted to be a mother.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

To all the pro-choice people: where do you draw the line and declare a baby to be a person? Is it OK to kill a baby after birth? Is partial-birth abortion OK? What about other 3rd trimester abortions? Yes obviously abortion is a useful option for women but that doesn't begin to address the reasons people oppose abortion.