At what stage is abortion immoral?

[Ziggurat]

Did anyone in this thread ever actually treat fetuses or kids as a disease?

kerikiwi advocated doing exactly that. Weren't you paying attention?

I mean, the way other people have been talking about making love like it was a crime or sin that you had to "suffer the consequences for"?

And who did that? Looks to me like you're setting up a strawman.

Again, did anyone ever say otherwise?

No. But thanks for missing the point.

Agreed. Which is why I'm in favour of letting women have abortions. You don't rectify the fact that you had sex by giving birth to a kid before you're ready to give it a good upbringing.

So you kill them instead? If the fetus is a person, how is that better than giving them up for adoption?

...which it isn't.

According to you. And that, once again, is my point. You've taken the position that a fetus is a person, and the acceptability of an abortion flows from that position. All this stuff about punishing mothers (which, once again, is a meme amongst proponents of abortion, NOT opponents) or not being ready to raise kids is irrelevant, you don't need any of it to justify an abortion.

Conversely, if a fetus is a person, then abortion is NOT acceptable, and the arguments to excuse it (not punishing the mother, not being ready to raise a kid) cannot excuse the deliberate killing of a person.

So you can't escape the question of personhood when deciding the morality of abortion. And while you have your own answer to that question, that's all it is: your answer. It is not shared universally. Hell, I doubt even your own opinion on the matter is actually that black and white.

Seriously. It's an egg and a sperm cell. It doesn't suffer more than the eggs and sperm cells separately as they're thrown out of your body through menstruation, orgasms, or wet dreams.

The term "fetus" covers a pretty broad range of development, but a developing baby isn't called a fetus until the 10th week of pregnancy, at which point it's very far beyond the "egg and sperm" stage. Before that it's called an embryo, not a fetus, but even an embryo spans a large developmental range, including the development of a nervous system. And it isn't even a matter of "suffering": if I poison you in your sleep with carbon monoxide, you won't suffer at all when you die, but I've still committed murder.

 

[fuelair]

I do not say or imply "punisment" by my statements at all. I am saying "obligation", "responsibility".

Getting pregnant accidentaly is not a crime nor should it be punished. I am saying the once the process of development of a human being is initiated (in the case of accidental pregnancy as a result of consentual sex), we should have an obligation to that human life, that is, if we place an importance or a value on human life.

It is about not being hypocritical in the face of responsibility or inconvienance.

If I gave the impression of punishment, I appologise it was not my intention. I will endeavour to be more clear in my statement in the future.

Abortion does change the cosequences of an unwanted pregnancy, but not in a "good" way where the value of human life is concerned.

The points are related but I may not have expressed them clearly. I will try to do so in a separate post.

You are free to believe that way. And I have no quarrel with your right to believe that way. However if you directly (by preventing a desired by the woman abortion) interere OR indirectly (by passing or helping pass a law preventing abortions ) interfere we have a problem. Just exactly the same as I have no problem with you believing everyone should be xtian, xlim, xdist, xdu or whatever as long as you do not try to enforce it directly or indirectly. Or, more to the point I believe everyone should be free to believe whatever they want for themselves, but not free to force any others to act on those beliefs (with obvious exceptions for things generally accepted in advanced societies to be not good: stealing, killing,harrassing, graffittiing,molesting, scamming etc. - that group of things).

 

[Ziggurat]

Or, more to the point I believe everyone should be free to believe whatever they want for themselves, but not free to force any others to act on those beliefs (with obvious exceptions for things generally accepted in advanced societies to be not good: stealing, killing,harrassing, graffittiing,molesting, scamming etc. - that group of things).

That's a nice libertarian sentiment, and I largely agree with it. Small problem: it doesn't actually provide much guidance in the case of abortion. Even from a strictly libertarian position, the question of personhood cannot be avoided. Libertarians don't have a problem outlawing murder because murder infringes on the right to life of the victim. If a fetus is a person, then don't they have a right to live which is being infringed upon by abortion? Why, yes, they do. Which is why infanticide is illegal, and why damned few (if any) abortion advocates are trying to push for legalizing 9th month abortions.

Almost everyone agrees an infant is a person, and almost everyone agrees a 9th month fetus is a person. The disagreement starts getting larger the farther back we go, but given a conclusion that a particular fetus is a person, then prohibiting an abortion of that fetus is NOT simply inflicting your beliefs on the mother, it's protecting the rights of the fetus. It's the mother wanting to abort who is inflicting her beliefs on another person (the fetus). Adopting a libertarian position doesn't solve the difficult problem.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's amazing how hard people will try to keep alive the delusion that they are a 'good person' by trying to construct a moral dividing line based on arbitrary characteristics.

Abortion before the likely state of health of a foetus can be estimated, or after it is determined to be healthy, is about getting rid of a child which is considered inconvenient or incompatible with the mother's and/or father's envisaged future lifestyle. We allow it in these cases because it's done in private, it does not impact on anyone who matters to us and foetuses are very much weaker than we are.

ETA: Oh, and we might want to do it ourselves some day.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It's amazing how hard people will try to keep alive the delusion that they are a 'good person' by trying to construct a moral dividing line based on arbitrary characteristics.

Abortion before the likely state of health of a foetus can be estimated, or after it is determined to be healthy, is about getting rid of a child which is considered inconvenient or incompatible with the mother's and/or father's envisaged future lifestyle. We allow it in these cases because it's done in private, it does not impact on anyone who matters to us and foetuses are very much weaker than we are.

Oh look, another attempt to replace the word "fetus" with "child" in an attempt to dishonestly strengthen your position.

...

Nope, don't need it. We've got plenty of that crap already.

 

[MikeMangum]

.
Child neglect is ex-post-facto to birth.
I believe the subject is what happens and why and who is or isn't responsible prior to birth.
What may be "serious" to you might be peripheral to me, when it's not on topic.

A better example of begging the question is hard to find.

 

[MikeMangum]

You are free to believe that way. And I have no quarrel with your right to believe that way. However if you directly (by preventing a desired by the woman abortion) interere OR indirectly (by passing or helping pass a law preventing abortions ) interfere we have a problem. Just exactly the same as I have no problem with you believing everyone should be xtian, xlim, xdist, xdu or whatever refrain from killing their neighbor as long as you do not try to enforce it directly or indirectly.

For those people opposed to abortion, there is no difference between an abortion and killing your neighbor. But I guess we shouldn't advocate for laws making murder illegal.

 

[I Ratant]

A better example of begging the question is hard to find.

.
The topic isn't "Licenses required prior to being permitted to be a parent".

 

[quixotecoyote]

For those people opposed to abortion, there is no difference between an abortion and killing your neighbor. But I guess we shouldn't advocate for laws making murder illegal.

Well, such people are silly and shouldn't be in charge of serving soup, much less making laws.

<sperm=not a person>.................................................................<egg=not a person>
<sperm=not a person>.........................................................<egg=not a person>
<sperm=not a person>...............................................<egg=not a person>
<sperm=not a person>.................................<egg=not a person>
<sperm=not a person>................<egg=not a person>
<sperm=not a person>...<egg=not a person>
<fertilized egg=?>

Still not a person
​

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Oh look, another attempt to replace the word "fetus" with "child" in an attempt to dishonestly strengthen your position.

...

Nope, don't need it. We've got plenty of that crap already.

Not at all. Please read what I said.

This might help you understand:

When pregnant, women who do not want to take a pregnancy to term typically say "I don't want a child", not "I don't want a foetus". This is because, when they look into the future, they predict giving birth to a foetus will at some point turn into them having to look after a child.

 

[AWPrime]

Because an abortion kills the fetus and thus makes sure that it will never grow up and became a human being?

There is an argument I like to bring forth. In general women don't want to be baby factories, and thus will have a limited amount of children in their life. Thus it becomes a point of a current fetus in unfavorable conditions vs that of a future fetus in more favorable conditions.

Considering that wanted children that can be supported by the parents tend more to end better in life, we must conclude that banning abortion will have a detrimental effect on the future.

Wishful thinking? No, AWPrime. It's wishful thinking on your part to think you can just dismiss the claim out of hand. Concluding that a fetus is a person is a judgment call, just like the statement that a fetus is not a person is a judgment call. You are free to make that call as you see fit, but there's no way of getting around the fact that it IS a judgment call, and no way to prove that one answer is correct and one answer is not. That's why this issue is so complex and contentious. It may serve partisan interests to pretend that it's all cut and dry (and that applies to both sides), but the truth is that it's a damned difficult question.

You merely want to pretend that this is a difficult question. I can answer it easily. Lets take an brain-dead human on life-support, it shares many qualities with a human fetus. Its alive, has human dna, externally dependent on life-support and both aren't sentient. And because sentience is required for person-hood, both aren't persons.

I do admit that sentience develops after birth, but birth is an nice easy line to work with.

 

[MikeMangum]

Considering that wanted children that can be supported by the parents tend more to end better in life, we must conclude that banning abortion will have a detrimental effect on the future.

You mean wanted by the mother, or are you arguing that the father should have just as much say in the decision to abort as the mother? If the father doesn't want the child but the mother does, abortion isn't allowed? Or if the mother doesn't want the child, but the father does, abortion isn't allowed?

Curiously enough, males are responsible for the welfare of the child based solely on the act of sex, and can be held financially responsible before the birth of the child...in other words, while it is still a fetus.

ETA: Females are NOT held responsible for the welfare of the child based on the act of sex; they can choose to abort before the birth, and they can choose to put the child up for adoption after the birth. Women are only responsible for the result of a pregnancy if they choose to be, whereas a man is held responsible from the moment of conception. Is the man being punished for having sex?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Not at all. Please read what I said.

This might help you understand:

When pregnant, women who do not want to take a pregnancy to term typically say "I don't want a child", not "I don't want a foetus". This is because, when they look into the future, they predict giving birth to a foetus will at some point turn into them having to look after a child.

Yeah. Phrased that way, there's nothing wrong with it, morally. Although if you take that tack, adoption works against you pretty strongly in regard to the factual accuracy..

 

[AWPrime]

You mean wanted by the mother, or are you arguing that the father should have just as much say in the decision to abort as the mother? If the father doesn't want the child but the mother does, abortion isn't allowed? Or if the mother doesn't want the child, but the father does, abortion isn't allowed?

With the parents I mean any combination of caregivers, it is used as a general term. The end decision still lies with the mother as its her body.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Another reason why we allow the killing of foetuses for arbitrary reasons is that, because of the direction of time, we can be certain we will never be in the position of a foetus ourselves. The same cannot be said for unconcious patients on life support machines who are expected to make a recovery after a period of time, say 9 months. We all stand a chance of being in their shoes at some point in the future.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yeah. Phrased that way, there's nothing wrong with it, morally. Although if you take that tack, adoption works against you pretty strongly in regard to the factual accuracy..

An adopted child exists as a reminder that you did not want to care for a person who you are expected by society to want to care for. An aborted foetus (particularly in the early stages of pregnancy) can be rationalised as a lump of tissue.

 

[MikeMangum]

With the parents I mean any combination of caregivers, it is used as a general term. The end decision still lies with the mother as its her body.

Why the disparity in responsibility between males and females?

 

[Ziggurat]

Considering that wanted children that can be supported by the parents tend more to end better in life, we must conclude that banning abortion will have a detrimental effect on the future.

The benefits accrued to one person are not sufficient to justify harm done to another.

You merely want to pretend that this is a difficult question. I can answer it easily. Lets take an brain-dead human on life-support, it shares many qualities with a human fetus. Its alive, has human dna, externally dependent on life-support and both aren't sentient. And because sentience is required for person-hood, both aren't persons.

Even this answer is problematic. Consider a person with no current brain activity, but who will have future brain activity. Is killing them not murder? For example, let's say someone falls through ice into freezing water. Their body shuts down, their brain shuts down. They are no longer sentient. But they can be revived. They can become sentient. Would you not agree that it would be murder to put a bullet through their head while they are in this state?

I do admit that sentience develops after birth

How do you know? Hell, how do you even define sentience?

but birth is an nice easy line to work with.

So you'd be OK with aborting a 9th month fetus? If so, well, that puts you in a pretty small and extremist fringe group.

 

[quixotecoyote]

An adopted child exists as a reminder that you did not want to care for a person who you are expected by society to want to care for.

Well, I'd consider that they exist as children. But hey, if you want to make them into symbols of your moral crusade, that's your call.

An aborted foetus (particularly in the early stages of pregnancy) can be rationalised as a lump of tissue.

Truth is usually pretty easy to rationalize.

 

[uruk]

Others are addressing this, but I don't know if this has universal logical consistency. If one engages in risky sports and becomes wounded, is it immoral to mend one's wounds? I don't think addressing the consequences of risky behavior is inherently harmful, it depends on the morality of the way of addressing it, which brings us to your primary point.

A pregnancy is not the moral or biological equivilent of a wound. A wound does not result in a human being being born.

I do not believe this is a warranted assumption. For example, the same importance is not attributed to individual sperm and eggs. Nor is anyone going to great effort to rescue fertilized eggs that fail to implant. Given that I accept a being with a functioning brain deserves its own life, is there any quality besides that which separates a fetus from my other examples in your mind?

A sperm by itself will not develop into a human being, neither will an ovum by itself. It is when they are combined does a fertilized egg contain the enitire DNA sequence of a complete human individual.

A fertilized that fails to implant will also not develop into a human being as it will be flushed out durning menstration.

Once the fertilized egg has implanted in the uterine lining the egg has a positive chance of development. That is the point of viability. Before that point viability does not exist. Call it the "proper context" for the initiation of human development.

Of course any point along the way after implantation things can go awry and the fetus may abort on it's own. But that is nature not intention.

Given that, noone can truly say which implanted zygote or fetus will produce a baby and which will not. but I believe that the fetus chances and it existance should given some relative measure of protection under certain circumstances.