Non-Religious Argument Against Abortion

[Neverfly]

- I agree. Not only women, though: people in general have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.
- I think the argument is not that the child in the womb is part of the mother's body; rather, it is an occupant of the mother's body. So, since the body belongs to her, she has the right to decide whether to allow the child to stay or not.

That argument remains a rationalization and a justification. It does, at least, admit that the childs body is separate although enclosed.

- Why "child"? You are assuming that whatever is inside the uterus is a child, and that's not necessarily the case. Before it has developed a brain, it is in fact just an organic "thing".

I agree, but a child is a child at any stage in its development.
After birth, children develop more and more all through childhood. Then they hit puberty.
I know forty year olds that still are developing... or resisting growing up...

Some women may abuse drugs, alcohol, etc. out of ignorance.

That would be the minority- by far.

Some because they can't help it.

By far, the majority. But irrelevant as to whether or not they should have the right to do so. Do they? Most normal sane people will chastize an addict or an ignorant drug abuser to get help and stop damaging the unborn child.

Some because they don't care.

Not caring does not give them the right to inflict harm. I am sure a great many harmful people do not care that they are inflicting harm. Yet, they still must pay for their crimes.
Bold Mine:

There are different contexts in which to judge that issue. Yet it seems contradictory that you can judge women for not taking appropriate care of themselves while pregnant, but you do not criticize parents who do not raise their children to the best of their abilities.
So, you appear to be more concerned with the welfare of something that may or may not be a person, than with the welfare of children who are definitely and undoubtedly persons.

Where on Earth did that whole argument come from?!
Seriously.
Have I missed something?
Your response to this statement had better contain quotes from me in which you clearly demonstrate when, how and where I have said or even implied any such thing.
It really looks like you just invented and made up some really weird accusation right off the top of your head.

 

[steffanie]

I'll be honest and say that i did judge her on that decision. She is still a good friend but has not travelled. This pissed me off, especially when i asked her to come across Europe with me last year. Grrrrr. lol.

 

[Sun Countess]

I assumed that it was understood that anything I post is simply my opinion, but here we go:

You seem to misunderstand.
The agreement was that there was no true defining term.
That it's not black or white- it's a gray area.
In agreeing with this- you cannot claim yours as factual... even if sticking two words together makes sense to you.

I do agree with you that it's a grey area, and different people draw the lines at different places. I am of the opinion that a fetus is not a person, and does not become a person until it is delivered live from its mother's uterus, by whatever means.

If I wanted to, I could probably make a pretty good and strong argument that an infant is not a person, either. It isn't until their mind develops enough to be self aware etc...
And even THAT will be debatable and hard to define.

You could certainly do that, but you'd have a hard time getting the courts to agree with you that a two-month old baby that someone killed was not a person. Marquis actually argues that infants and young children are not yet persons, but that they share a characteristic with persons in a FLO. I disagree with him.

When the areas are grey, we all have the right to try to enact legislation which supports our viewpoints. So far, it seems that most jurisdictions in the US (and Canada) support abortion through the second trimester. Past that, the fetus reaches a point of viability and laws have been enacted to protect their rights. I don't know of a single legal jurisdiction in North America that allows the killing of newborn infants.

The way I see it, if a person conceives, they have conceived and are stuck with the responsibility. Why take the cowardly easy way out and Kill It like a spider?
Oftentimes, abortions are not a matter of medical emergency etc- But of convenience.

That's a choice for each individual woman to make. I'm really glad the courts have so far agreed with my position on this one.

Just because you, personally, arbitrarily drew a line defining when a person is a person, does not give that line substance or reality.
All you're really doing is shifting the goalposts in order to justify killing a person, by claiming it is not a person.

So whose line does give the line substance or reality? I haven't shifted the goalposts. I've kept them at the same spot. I've never considered a fetus to be a person, not even when I was pregnant with one and was looking forward to its birth.

Let's take a look at my own personal line- It's back around the first trimester or so. To ME- a cluster of cells is not yet a person. So your line is further out then mine.
So why don't I support abortion up 'til the first trimester?

Because I am aware that I have also shifted the line. Knowing this, I refer back to the Only Known defining line- Conception.

Capitalising the name of the line doesn't give it any substance or reality. Some agree with you; others do not, but it's certainly not the only place one can define the line. How exactly is a fertilized egg in a fallopian tube a person?

So although I don't draw the line at conception- I cannot prove where the line falls.
I CAN prove where it doesn't.

I'd actually like to see that. Where does the line NOT fall?

I was a C-Section- thus I was never born.

By whose definition? Certainly not by mine. I thought I made that abundantly clear. If you've been safely delivered from your mother's womb, you have been born and are now a person. (IMO, don't want anyone to confuse my stated opinion with facts)

The Point is- This is what happens when a person arbitrarily draws lines in gray areas: People can take it to easy extremes.

When they're working with straw, sure, I can see that.

By your definition, I was never born. Therefor- I am not a person.
I'm sure you will disagree with that interpretation, but it is not my intention to defend it- Only to make it apparent that interpretations can be made.

But by my definition, very clearly stated (although I should have made it clearer that it was simply my opinion), you have been born. I honestly don't know how much clearer I could have made it.

Like the proto chicken vs. chicken thread- We cannot define, exactly, when a fetus becomes self aware- a person.
When you are left trying to make a decision to Do The Right Thing, stick with what you can define and do know. Don't just guess and then use that as a justification later.

I've always done exactly that. I stick with what I know and what I define, and thankfully the courts in this country agree that I still have the right to make decisions that affect my own body and my own reproduction. I respect that others may have different "realities" than mine and draw lines at different places and would never interfere in anyone else's reproductive choices.

 

[Neverfly]

I assumed that it was understood that anything I post is simply my opinion, but here we go:

When you said,

No. It's not a person.

That made it difficult.
You stated it as fact.

I do agree with you that it's a grey area, and different people draw the lines at different places. I am of the opinion that a fetus is not a person, and does not become a person until it is delivered live from its mother's uterus, by whatever means.

So you agree, then, that that is where you personally draw your line. Nothing more. It's your opinion, not necessarily scientifically accurate or fact.

You could certainly do that, but you'd have a hard time getting the courts to agree with you that a two-month old baby that someone killed was not a person.

You are having a hard time convincing me that a baby born today was not a baby yesterday.
That drawn line really is absurd. Just because you see it as valid only because you drew it there, does not make it any more realistic.

Marquis actually argues that infants and young children are not yet persons, but that they share a characteristic with persons in a FLO. I disagree with him.

I also disagree with him on those grounds.

When the areas are grey, we all have the right to try to enact legislation which supports our viewpoints. So far, it seems that most jurisdictions in the US (and Canada) support abortion through the second trimester. Past that, the fetus reaches a point of viability and laws have been enacted to protect their rights. I don't know of a single legal jurisdiction in North America that allows the killing of newborn infants.

yes and this supports my argument.
It does not support your claim that a baby born today was not a baby yesterday.

Simply put, that legislation is a compromise, because it must deal with so many opinions on the matter.

That's a choice for each individual woman to make. I'm really glad the courts have so far agreed with my position on this one.

It hasn't.

If a man beats up a pregnant woman in her third trimester and damages the child as well- He has charges of harming two people against him. Not one.

The courts do NOT say abortion is legal all the way up til the day before birth.

The courts do not support your opinion at all.

How exactly is a fertilized egg in a fallopian tube a person?

I already clearly stated that I drew my line at the last known point instead of guessing or waxing philosophically.

I'd actually like to see that. Where does the line NOT fall?

Prior to conception.

 

[Sun Countess]

You are having a hard time convincing me that a baby born today was not a baby yesterday.

Then I won't bother trying to convince you. I've delivered two babies and I was very aware that there was a difference before and after their births.

That drawn line really is absurd. Just because you see it as valid only because you drew it there, does not make it any more realistic.

How is drawing a line at birth absurd? A fetus isn't recognized as a person in the same way that a newborn infant is. If I'm asked how many people are in my party, I only count the actual people, and not the unborn.

The courts do NOT say abortion is legal all the way up til the day before birth.

The courts do not support your opinion at all.

Confused again. I support a woman's right to choose, and believe that a fetus has some right to life once it's past the point of viability, around the end of the second trimester. Unless I'm mistaken, the courts in most North American jurisdictions use that same standard? How is that not supporting my opinion? Even as the court will prosecute wrongful death in the death of a viable fetus, they still distinguish the fetus from a person with a name on a birth certificate.

And third-trimester abortions are not common, but they are still allowed in the US under certain circumstances. Nobody is being prosecuted for murder in those circumstances, and a fetus is still seen as a distinct entity from a full-born person.

 

[truethat]

Sun Countess that's an interesting point. Take the Lacey Peterson case, why is it that Scott Peterson was charged with murder for the dead baby if it would be an abortion otherwise?


I don't think you can label this issue so easily.

 

[Neverfly]

Then I won't bother trying to convince you. I've delivered two babies and I was very aware that there was a difference before and after their births.

For one, this statement doesn't even make any sense.
For two, you seem to be forgetting that I am also a parent.

How is drawing a line at birth absurd? A fetus isn't recognized as a person in the same way that a newborn infant is. If I'm asked how many people are in my party, I only count the actual people, and not the unborn.

Anecdotal?
A lot of people do count the unborn. Just because you do not doesn't mean that no one does.

Confused again. I support a woman's right to choose, and believe that a fetus has some right to life once it's past the point of viability, around the end of the second trimester. Unless I'm mistaken, the courts in most North American jurisdictions use that same standard?

If I am confused, it is because you keep moving the goalposts.
Earlier you were saying that a baby is not a baby until the moment it's born. As if that made any sense at all.
Now you shifted it to where the current court sees it- and then you claim that the court agrees with your position.

And third-trimester abortions are not common, but they are still allowed in the US under certain circumstances. Nobody is being prosecuted for murder in those circumstances, and a fetus is still seen as a distinct entity from a full-born person.

Yes, because they are treating it under extenuating circumstances. Just as a soldier is not prosecuted for murder after a war.
Yet, as a soldier myself who has been in combat, I am personally well aware that we were KILLING other people. It was a situation in which it had to be done. Just as if I killed a burgler that attacked my son.
Sometimes, one must kill.

But that has no relevance to the discussion.
It has no relevance to abortion being used as an escape. We have already completely covered the issue that abortion is, sometimes, a necessity. There was a recent case right here where a child was dying inside the womb. If that happened, it would endanger the mothers life. The childs death was not preventable but the mothers was. The child was aborted in the third trimester.


Additionally, you admit that courts will prosecute - First Degree Murder- of an unborn child.

 

[Darth Rotor]

FWIW, no heartbeat until three to five weeks, typically.

If your heart stops beating, you be dead. Huntster brought this to my attention, in a similar discussion before he was banned, so I did a little looking up at some Medical web sites.

If you make the decision within twenty one to thirty five days to remove the growing egg/sperm fetus dingus, there is no way I can arrive at you having killed a living person: it never had a neart beat, and thus was never alive. (My usual sarcastic comment on "is miscarriage negligent homicide" I'll forego this time around. )

Brain forms later, if I read the med info correctly.

As I stated roughly two years ago on these forums, the problem isn't abortion, the problem is getting pregnant when you don't want kids.

If you are not ready to have and raise children, don't get preggo, or don't get someone preggo. There are numerous ways to play it that way.

If one, upon screwing up the above matter is indecisive, I offer nothing but scorn. Being decisive is important. Don't fiddle fart around. The longer the growing goes on, the more risks to the lady, at the least, and beyond that, to prospective baby.

Make a f u r k k i n ' decision, since you was f u r k k i n' in the first place. And make it with alacrity. Within the first month, preferably, and certainly within the first trimester.

If you act quickly, (within that first month) there is no way you killed anyone.

It never had a heartbeat.

My two cents.

This thread necromancy has in no way added to my understanding of the topic. Sorry I read all seven of the pages.

Cheers, all.

DR

 

[Piero]

I agree, but a child is a child at any stage in its development.

That's something we disagree on. "Any stage" includes stages which nobody would ever call a child. In fact, I think it can be safely assumed that if you asked a pro-lifer to draw a zygote, they would not know how. Can you reasonably call a zygote a "child"? I don't think so.

Have I missed something?
Your response to this statement had better contain quotes from me in which you clearly demonstrate when, how and where I have said or even implied any such thing.
It really looks like you just invented and made up some really weird accusation right off the top of your head.

I was not being aggressive, Neverfly. "Accuse" is the wrong word here. I said that you appear to care more about the welfare of a foetus than about the welfare of fully-formed, independent children. Not because of something you said, but because of many things you didn't say. For example, your argument could easily (and more meaningfully) be extrapolated to include the situation of mistreated, undernourished, molested children, but you did not mention those issues.
Should women be allowed to drink, consume drugs, etc. during pregnancy? That's an important question, I think, but there are more pressing ones that hardly get any attention. For instance, should parenthood be a privilege, not a right? Should parents guilty of gross negligence towards their kids be sterilized? Should octomum be in jail? What can we do to alleviate the suffering of children with inadequate parents?
Another question which is seldom discussed: restricting the right to abort is tantamount to making pregnancy and delivery compulsory; whose interests are really at stake here? Let's say there is a pregnant woman who wants to have an abortion, but cannot because it is illegal. What has been accomplished? Forcing her to carry the child to birth just ensures that the child gets to be raised by an inadequate mother. Unless pro-lifers offer an effective solution to this problem, I don't think their arguments amount to much.

 

[Neverfly]

I was not being aggressive, Neverfly. "Accuse" is the wrong word here. I said that you appear to care more about the welfare of a foetus than about the welfare of fully-formed, independent children. Not because of something you said, but because of many things you didn't say. For example, your argument could easily (and more meaningfully) be extrapolated to include the situation of mistreated, undernourished, molested children, but you did not mention those issues.

Because I did not mention off topic and irrelevant issues in the thread? The topic is abortion. Not Child welfare as a whole. That you reached some outrageous deduction based on the lack of discussion of off topic issues speaks more of your imagination than what I have actually expressed in this thread.
What?!
This is absolutely, the most absurd, ridiculous and complete nonsense I have ever seen. Do you actually consider this a logical argument?
I've seen cattle excrete better.

The fact that you even thought you could base an argument on such a ridiculous straw man is mind blowing. Your quixotic tilting serves only to convince me that I should not bother reading your future posts.

Here:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Read it; learn it; live it.
As for the rest of your completely off topic straw men, I'll not bother addressing your points. If this causes you to later claim I don't care about the welfare of children, I'll just be ignoring you.
I doubt I would suffer any loss for it, considering how I just watched you don a red cape and leap tall conclusions in a single bound.

 

[Sun Countess]

Sun Countess that's an interesting point. Take the Lacey Peterson case, why is it that Scott Peterson was charged with murder for the dead baby if it would be an abortion otherwise?

Choice and viability are both issues here. Lacey Peterson didn't choose to have an abortion, and her unborn child had passed the point of viability.

For two, you seem to be forgetting that I am also a parent.

My statement (that there's a difference between a baby before and after it's born) does make sense, but maybe I can explain it differently. Before my babies were born, they caused me some physical discomfort, but both were very very quiet.

I haven't forgotten that you are also a parent. Was there not a difference between your son-in-the-womb and your son born alive? Were you holding and cuddling a baby in the womb? Were you cooing and rocking him to sleep? Did you have to attend to his needs for food and clean diapers?

If I am confused, it is because you keep moving the goalposts.
Earlier you were saying that a baby is not a baby until the moment it's born. As if that made any sense at all.
Now you shifted it to where the current court sees it- and then you claim that the court agrees with your position.

I honestly have not shifted any goalposts, but I'd be willing to concede that I don't always express myself as clearly as I'd like. I have stated - and will continue to state - that a fetus is not a person until the moment it's born.

I have also stated that I believe an unborn fetus has rights once it reaches a point of viability. So it's still not a person, but it could be a person that very day, if it's released from its mother's uterus. Hence, the prosecution of people who intentionally kill a developing fetus against its mother's will. Hence, the stricter laws regarding abortion in the third trimester.

 

[Neverfly]

Choice and viability are both issues here. Lacey Peterson didn't choose to have an abortion, and her unborn child had passed the point of viability.


My statement (that there's a difference between a baby before and after it's born) does make sense, but maybe I can explain it differently. Before my babies were born, they caused me some physical discomfort, but both were very very quiet.

I haven't forgotten that you are also a parent. Was there not a difference between your son-in-the-womb and your son born alive? Were you holding and cuddling a baby in the womb? Were you cooing and rocking him to sleep? Did you have to attend to his needs for food and clean diapers?

I honestly have not shifted any goalposts, but I'd be willing to concede that I don't always express myself as clearly as I'd like. I have stated - and will continue to state - that a fetus is not a person until the moment it's born.

I have also stated that I believe an unborn fetus has rights once it reaches a point of viability. So it's still not a person, but it could be a person that very day, if it's released from its mother's uterus. Hence, the prosecution of people who intentionally kill a developing fetus against its mother's will. Hence, the stricter laws regarding abortion in the third trimester.

Yes, I am beginning to think we are having far reaching differences in definition and interpretation.

For example: The differences between born or unborn- well there's similar differences between infant and toddler, toddler and child, child and teenager, teenager and grown up- moved out- gotta job and never freakin' calls.

But there is little difference in ALL of them as to whether or not it's a Person.

I LOVED my son when he was in the womb.
That has not yet changed in five years. Maybe if he turns into a crackhead someday, I might feel that love grow a wee bit strained...

Was my son a person before his brain developed? Before his heart was developed and beating as Darth Rotor points out?
Not really. No. He was a cluster of cells.

But you know... that really is the funny thing.

Because although that cluster of cells had not yet developed... It was the starting point.
To remove that cluster of cells is ALSO to remove my SON. The effect is exactly the same. My son is gone- removed- eliminated- No More. Finished. DEAD.
Now is this particular argument that I am making right now Logical?
No.
To quote Sarek, "My logic falters where my son is concerned."


I cannot properly express in words in this thread, to strangers reading on the net- the primal emotional response that accompanies that thought of harm being done to my son.
Even if I cannot logically support the notion that the cluster of cells is a person...
It's taking that person away all the same. The effect is the same. The loss is the same.

If you took away my son from my life right now- You would take him away before he grew into a man. Before he had a chance to develop into an adult- etc.
it's the same thing.

So when my son was a cluster of cells in the womb- You might claim he was a nonperson or just a clump of "Organic Matter".
It wasn't.
It was a clump of the greatest and most amazing thing in my life.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Uh, no. That's not what the argument says. The idea was that a person and a not-person have a property in common.

Try this reformulation:

1. If performing an action will prevent a being from having an FLO, then it is prima facie morally wrong to perform that action.
2. Killing a fetus prevents it from having an FLO.
3. Therefore, it is prima facie morally wrong to kill fetuses.
4. In the vast majority of abortions, there are no other moral considerations that trump the prima facie obligation not to kill a fetus.
5. Therefore, the vast majority of abortions are immoral.

You should read Marquis's full paper, btw.

All versions of the argument, Marquis's included, have the same defect: the crucial term future-like-ours is left ill defined, and the assertion that the foetus has a " future-like-ours" ( whatever that may amount to) is pretty much taken for granted.

The word ours is one of a suite of pronouns including the personal I, me and my,and the impersonal it. If you ask me to go back over my history, I may ( perhaps pointing to photographs) say " That's me when I was twelve" or " I was six months old then". What I cannot do is point to an image ( if there happens to be one) of a recently-fertilized egg and say " That's me". The only available pronoun is it. My history is not part of its future. My history began when its future ended.

 

[Neverfly]

If you kill this:


You're also killing this:


The effect is exactly the same.

 

[Neverfly]

If you ask me to go back over my history, I may ( perhaps pointing to photographs) say " That's me when I was twelve" or " I was six months old then". What I cannot do is point to an image ( if there happens to be one) of a recently-fertilized egg and say " That's me". The only available pronoun is it. My history is not part of its future. My history began when its future ended.

No. You could say that's Him or that's Her.
Of course you can't say it's you, no more than I can point to George Burns photo and say that it's me.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

No. You could say that's Him or that's Her.
Of course you can't say it's you, no more than I can point to George Burns photo and say that it's me.

Neverfly, would it help if I said that the image I meant is an image of what was inside my mother's womb a few months before I was born? Ma Burns doesn't come into the story.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly, would it help if I said that the image I meant is an image of what was inside my mother's womb a few months before I was born? Ma Burns doesn't come into the story.

yep. And maybe you wouldn't say it's you, but if I pointed to an ultra sound of me in the womb, I would simply say it was me.

What I cannot do is point to an image ( if there happens to be one) of a recently-fertilized egg and say " That's me".

The part in bold was what was misleading.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

yep. And maybe you wouldn't say it's you, but if I pointed to an ultra sound of me in the womb, I would simply say it was me.


The part in bold was what was misleading.

We can draw the line in different places, certainly, between it and me. My objection to the Marquis argument is that he seems not to see that there could be a line at all.

 

[Piero]

Because I did not mention off topic and irrelevant issues in the thread? The topic is abortion. Not Child welfare as a whole. That you reached some outrageous deduction based on the lack of discussion of off topic issues speaks more of your imagination than what I have actually expressed in this thread.

I disagree again. What's the point of discussing abortion, unless we have child welfare in mind? If child welfare is off topic and irrelevant, that would seem to contradict your own view of the occupant of the uterus as a child at every stage. So you see, it is not my imagination after all.

What?!
This is absolutely, the most absurd, ridiculous and complete nonsense I have ever seen. Do you actually consider this a logical argument?
I've seen cattle excrete better.

Oh, you flatterer: I'm sure you've seen much worse.
Yes, I actually consider it a logical argument (why would I post it if I didn't?)
And I'm glad I do not excrete as well as cows do (I save a lot of toilet paper and heartache).

The fact that you even thought you could base an argument on such a ridiculous straw man is mind blowing. Your quixotic tilting serves only to convince me that I should not bother reading your future posts.

Oh, no! Please read my posts! Please! Life has no meaning if you don't! Have you no compassion?

Here:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Read it; learn it; live it.
As for the rest of your completely off topic straw men, I'll not bother addressing your points. If this causes you to later claim I don't care about the welfare of children, I'll just be ignoring you.
I doubt I would suffer any loss for it, considering how I just watched you don a red cape and leap tall conclusions in a single bound.

Thank you. I always aim to please.

 

[Piero]

But you know... that really is the funny thing.

Because although that cluster of cells had not yet developed... It was the starting point.
To remove that cluster of cells is ALSO to remove my SON. The effect is exactly the same. My son is gone- removed- eliminated- No More. Finished. DEAD.
Now is this particular argument that I am making right now Logical?
No.
To quote Sarek, "My logic falters where my son is concerned."

This is absolutely, the most absurd, ridiculous and complete nonsense I have ever seen. Do you actually consider this a logical argument? I've seen cattle excrete better.

Hey! That's not fair! How come you are allowed to make illogical arguments and I'm not? Some people get to have all the fun...
(By the way, there's a Cow Pooing competition. Shall I send you a form?)