Thread: Abortion Ethics

Well.

Most people are not going to rally behind the idea of ending actual life. Most pro-choice camp members consider abortion permissible because it occurs before life begins (and the debate over when that is rages on!), and most pro-lifers oppose abortion because they believe life has begun and it is being ended, which is murder (a colorful word they like to throw around in captions beneath photographs of mutilated fetuses).

It's a harder argument to win if you say that a woman's right to convenience is greater than the right of her child to live. Again, we wouldn't feel comfortable ending the lives of children who have already been born but couldn't breathe alone, for example. Or even healthy children who have been born. It wouldn't be okay, because that's a life and to end it would be murder, which is the most vile act we can commit against one another. If you truly believe that life begins in that same manner and on that same level at conception, I can understand why you'd vehemently oppose abortion. I think you'd be wrong about that definition of life, however.

Well, the life of an individual being certainly starts at conception, but of course the conceived foetus is at that point no more alive than a tree.

(Also, once again, you are merely claiming that murder is the most vile act we can commit against one another; I completely disagree.)

There doesn't seem to be a satisfcatory point post-conception but pre-birth at which we can say that the foetus is now alive. One point is viability -- i.e. the point at which it could survive outside the womb as an independent being -- but as time and technology march forward, the line of viability becomes earlier and earlier and indeed foggier and foggier.

The only point that is satisfactory, to me, is personhood. Personhood -- as opposed to being-a-human -- makes a being's life valuable, and the potential for personhood is why the killing of foetuses and babies is unideal (but not impermissible).

Originally Posted by gwahir

Well, the life of an individual being certainly starts at conception, but of course the conceived foetus is at that point no more alive than a tree.

Does it begin at conception? At conception, two gametes are swapping DNA and forming into a zygote. Is that the beginning of an individual life? This is a rhetorical question, really. In my view, to call something "life" when one means "alive like a tree/skin cell/bacterium" is a little misleading.

Originally Posted by gwahir

(Also, once again, you are merely claiming that murder is the most vile act we can commit against one another; I completely disagree.)

(Fine, ignore that part of my post. Murder isn't good and is to be avoided. That's the social contract. I happen to think it makes very good sense. Are there more vile things? Who knows - you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not really the point of what I was saying. Forgive me for using the phrase "most vile"!)

Originally Posted by gwahir

The only point that is satisfactory, to me, is personhood. Personhood -- as opposed to being-a-human -- makes a being's life valuable, and the potential for personhood is why the killing of foetuses and babies is unideal (but not impermissible).

So you think it's "unideal but not impermissible" to kill any child under the age of three? Supposedly that's around the age we start to become self-aware, which is the closest thing to "personhood" I can imagine. I realize I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, and it's hard to put much heart into it because it's not that important to me, but I just don't see how this argument for the pro-choice camp works. When is someone a person?

Originally Posted by solecistic

Does it begin at conception? At conception, two gametes are swapping DNA and forming into a zygote. Is that the beginning of an individual life? This is a rhetorical question, really. In my view, to call something "life" when one means "alive like a tree/skin cell/bacterium" is a little misleading.

Well, perhaps, but there doesn't seem to be another one that holds up to any scrutiny. Heartbeat is arbitrary, brain activity is speciesist.

Originally Posted by solecistic

(Fine, ignore that part of my post. Murder isn't good and is to be avoided. That's the social contract. I happen to think it makes very good sense. Are there more vile things? Who knows - you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not really the point of what I was saying. Forgive me for using the phrase "most vile"!)

Hah, I'm actually not nitpicking. I think murder has no impact on the person you're murdering.

Radical, no? But a subject for another thread.

Originally Posted by solecistic

So you think it's "unideal but not impermissible" to kill any child under the age of three? Supposedly that's around the age we start to become self-aware, which is the closest thing to "personhood" I can imagine. I realize I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, and it's hard to put much heart into it because it's not that important to me, but I just don't see how this argument for the pro-choice camp works. When is someone a person?

Someone's probably a person at about three. When they have an idea of who they are, who other people are and some kind of conception of time (so that they are able to have preferences -- the ability to have preferences, I think, makes you a person). Killing a child of under three -- assuming it was instantaneous and painless -- doesn't hurt the child, but the people who are attached to it. It is an incredibly vile thing because of the inconceivable pain it'd cause those people, not because it is ending the life of a being who, after the act, would not be around to suffer for it afterwards.

All right. This is going into the direction of a very different topic and I'd probably really enjoy it, but let's not derail the thread. Since I think it's just supposed to be about paternal rights and whatnot.

*spanks everyone*

Back on topic, thx.

GOD DAMMIT well can we all just agree that the man probably knows best ok.

I think that if a baby is concieved and the mother wants an abortion but the father does not that the woman should have the baby and let the father raise the child. She should sign over parental rights and not be held liable for child support etc. I feel this way because no matter how you slice it a human life is still a human life regardless of which stage of life it's in. If you don't want a baby then take the proper steps to prevent it instead of "killing" it after the fact.

Originally Posted by Kittens!

Sorry to derail the thread again, but I need to respond to the earlier post. I assumed you held religious beliefs because that would be the only rational reason to believe that life begins at conception (even if religion is technically irrational). Logic would dictate that human life begins when the conscience forms in the brain, because a conscience is the main factor that separates us from animals.

No, that's faulty logic. The consciousness of a foetus is nowhere near advanced enough to distinguish it as "human". Human life begins when a creature that is of the species homo sapien can be considered "alive", which is really either conception or first heart beat (take your pick) -- the human person's life begins when it becomes a person, which is when it can distinguish time and has an idea of itself, as Solecistic said, at about 3 years old.

A human foetus is less sapient than a crab. There is no meaningful reason why the life of a foetus (or a baby) is more valuable than the life of a crab EXCEPT inasmuch as it has far more potential.

A Complete Epiphany on Abortion - Casual Discourse

I'd love to hear you elaborate on your views in the above thread, they sound very interesting.