Non-Religious Argument Against Abortion

[Stone Island]

I wasnt making an argument against abortion. I was making a comment on my personal reasons for discomfort with it. A pregnancy isnt just any sneeze. It brings the posibility of a future for an individual. I happened to get such a future, but i would argue every day of the week for any womans right to decide for herself. Not because my fate could as well have been decided by the black plague 657 years ago, but solely because the pregnancy is happening inside a woman, and no one has the right to decide over anyone over ones own body. That ends it for me, discomfort or not.

Don't we, as a society, often, and uncontroversially, limit individual liberty based on moral considerations on a fairly regular basis?

 

[Michael Redman]

Again, we're not talking about a person's right to life. A fetus, like very young child, is not a person (according to most operational definitions of personhood) but like a young child has a FLO.

Well, to that extent, so does any mass of organic chemicals.

 

[Stone Island]

Well, to that extent, so does any mass of organic chemicals.

There is more to it than simply existing in time.

 

[Michael Redman]

OK, what, precisely, is the difference between something that has FLO, and something that does not?

 

[sophia8]

I wasnt making an argument against abortion. I was making a comment on my personal reasons for discomfort with it. A pregnancy isnt just any sneeze. It brings the posibility of a future for an individual. I happened to get such a future, but i would argue every day of the week for any womans right to decide for herself. Not because my fate could as well have been decided by the black plague 657 years ago, but solely because the pregnancy is happening inside a woman, and no one has the right to decide over anyone over ones own body. That ends it for me, discomfort or not.

Sorry about the wrong attribution. But it is an argument used by many anti-abortionists: "Mozart wouldn't have been born if his mother had had an abortion!"
To which there is no possibly reply beyond "So?"

 

[Stone Island]

OK, what, precisely, is the difference between something that has FLO, and something that does not?

Isn't it obvious? It's the future like ours. It's a qualitative assessment.

The next move, of course, is to say that a fetus's future is only contingent. A very high number of pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.

Of course, all futures, even the futures of persons at advanced stages of development, are contingent. I could, or you could, die suddenly, without warning, in the next few moments. Would that have made killing us yesterday less wrong? Only if you read the future. And there's a million dollars waiting for you if you can do that.

 

[sthomson]

Life doesn't begin at conception. This is religious dogma, the idea that God breaths life into an inanimate object, and thus each of us is a miracle. On the contrary, life began once, and continues.

The question is, at what point does a separate person exist?

A sperm is biologically alive. An egg is biologically alive. An embryo is biologically alive. Fungus is biologically alive. Every cell in our body is alive. Now, whether that little embryo in my womb is any separate from MY life is certainly debatable.

 

[JoeEllison]

I think we should consider eating fetuses, to put an end to the debate. If it tastes good on a bun, it can't be a person!

 

[Michael Redman]

Isn't it obvious? It's the future like ours. It's a qualitative assessment.

That doesn't answer my question at all. I'm not asking what a future is, I'm asking at what point you imbue a potential person with a future. A blob of organic molecules may have a human personhood in its future, if you wait long enough. So might a fetus (with a shorter wait). My question is, where do you draw the line?

 

[Dancing David]

Don't we, as a society, often, and uncontroversially, limit individual liberty based on moral considerations on a fairly regular basis?

No consequences are in place, Liberty is rarely restrained, except as a process in the legal system.

 

[Dancing David]

There is more to it than simply existing in time.

Really, what is the difference between a self catalyzing aggregate and a fetus?

Please use behaviors and avoid terms like 'consciousness'.

 

[Stone Island]

No consequences are in place, Liberty is rarely restrained, except as a process in the legal system.

You don't have a right to do wrong.

 

[tkingdoll]

As a woman, I can comfortably say that what happens to any baby I am carrying who can't survive outside of my womb (i.e. can't survive without drawing on resources from the human body of tkingdoll) has got eff all right to life, and is mine to do with what I wish. Which is pretty much not far off the legal limits on abortion terms, I'd say. Once the baby is big enough to theoretically be able to survive outside of my body, I'd be very uncomfortable with abortion, philosophically.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Anti-abortion arguments are philosophical in nature, unless there are economic factors such as population shortages to consider.

 

[Stone Island]

I'm not asking what a future is, I'm asking at what point you imbue a potential person with a future. ...My question is, where do you draw the line?

I don't know where to draw the line. This is the most important of the criticisms of Marquis's argument. Given the moral consequences involved, I tend to error on the side of caution.

I do know, however, that a biologically human fetus, which is not a person, has a future like ours. It is the destruction of our future which makes it wrong to kill us. In so far as a thing has a future like us, it shares with us the wrong-making characteristic of killing.

I don't know why "potential" would imbue any moral qualities to anything.

 

[Stone Island]

Really, what is the difference between a self catalyzing aggregate and a fetus?

What is a self-catalyzing aggregate? I am unfamiliar with this term.

 

[Stone Island]

As a woman, I can comfortably say that what happens to any baby I am carrying who can't survive outside of my womb (i.e. can't survive without drawing on resources from the human body of tkingdoll) has got eff all right to life, and is mine to do with what I wish. Which is pretty much not far off the legal limits on abortion terms, I'd say. Once the baby is big enough to theoretically be able to survive outside of my body, I'd be very uncomfortable with abortion, philosophically.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Anti-abortion arguments are philosophical in nature, unless there are economic factors such as population shortages to consider.

Is a two-week old baby any more self-sufficient than a fetus in any interesting way? It would have to live off the sweat of someone's brow. And yet we don't say that we could do with it what we wish. We also make fathers pay a portion of their income for 18 years, even if at no point in the child's development did they want said child.

Why is viability a definitive moral characteristic?

 

[tkingdoll]

Is a two-week old baby any more self-sufficient than a fetus in any interesting way?

I didn't say 'self-sufficient'. Your interpretation is precisely why I made the distinction here: "can't survive without drawing on resources from the human body of tkingdoll".

I don't care two figs if a two week old baby needs someone to bring it milk, it doesn't very specifically need me, unlike a baby I am carrying.

In other words, the growing baby inside me does not trump my rights to do with my body as I wish. I have found the best way to avoid this problem is to not get pregnant.

 

[Stone Island]

I didn't say 'self-sufficient'. Your interpretation is precisely why I made the distinction here: "can't survive without drawing on resources from the human body of tkingdoll".

I don't care two figs if a two week old baby needs someone to bring it milk, it doesn't very specifically need me, unlike a baby I am carrying.

In other words, the growing baby inside me does not trump my rights to do with my body as I wish. I have found the best way to avoid this problem is to not get pregnant.

You a morally responsible for your actions and for the consequences of your actions. Your desire to un-ring the bell, as it were, does not justify the destruction of a fetus's future, especially because it is you, not the fetus, which is responsible for the fetus's coming into being.

Again, why is viability a definitive moral characteristic? Why are you uncomfortable at the point of viability?

 

[sthomson]

I don't know where to draw the line. This is the most important of the criticisms of Marquis's argument. Given the moral consequences involved, I tend to error on the side of caution.

I do know, however, that a biologically human fetus, which is not a person, has a future like ours. It is the destruction of our future which makes it wrong to kill us. In so far as a thing has a future like us, it shares with us the wrong-making characteristic of killing.

At what point would you (or Marquis) argue a "biologically human fetus"'s right to a future outweighs a woman's right to control her body? Are women then just biological incubators? Should we forbid that women drink (or should I personally abstain from alcohol) on the off-chance that I'm pregnant and don't yet know it? If 4-cell embryos do indeed have the right to a future, then it would be morally corrupt for a woman to do anything that would jeopardize a potential foetus?

 

[sthomson]

You a morally responsible for your actions and for the consequences of your actions.

Women are morally responsible if they are raped?
Women are morally responsible if their partner lies about his use of protection?
Women are morally responsible if the condom breaks?

Edited to add: Women are morally responsible if they think that they can't get pregnant the first time, because their socio-economic background did not provide sufficient sexual education?

I agree with tkingdoll that abortion ceases to be a philosophical argument when there's a parasititic organism growing in my womb.