Non-Religious Argument Against Abortion

[Stone Island]

And I think now would be a good moment to restate my counter-argument.

1) Regardless of the universe model you choose to accept (multiverse or singleverse with probabalistic randomness), everything you do has an effect on the future.
2) It is inescapable that as many of these effects will be bad as good, including preventing the future existence of countless individuals throughout the universe.
3) Therefore it is impossible to measure the future net good or bad of any decision.
4) The effects of a decision on those living now can be measured.
5) Thus, these are the only effects that should be factored into a decision about abortion.

What is the horizon of when one can know the effects of one's actions and when one cannot know the effects of one's actions? To me, nine months does not seem impossibly distant in the future. In fact, we as a people make plans quite confidently years into the future. We reward and punish people for decisions they made years in the past with rewards and punishments that will have ramifications years into the future. Is that confidence misplaced? Why?

Is it not part of what makes murder wrong the fact that it will deprive someone of their future experience?

When I was younger, the night before Christmas morning seemed to last about two weeks. Now, with all I have to do, friends, family, etc., it seems like the time between Thanksgiving and New Years is two days.

 

[Belz...]

Allen Stairs writes,

Neither 1) not 2) is satisfactory. A sperm alone does not determine a being. Neither does an ovum. 3) counts too many beings. This sounds a bit odd, but in fact, we can strengthen point here.

I don't see a difference.

I used to be against abortion, mianly because of my Christian background. Then I realised I didn't have a reason to be against it, except for something that resembles your own argument.

It's only after arguing with someone about it that I realised that this line of thinking is meaningless, because it cannot be argued for convincingly, nor defined appropriately.

In the end, I have no idea, whatsoever, where to draw the line between "abortion is ok at this stage" and "no, no, not anymore!"

 

[Stone Island]

I don't who Peter Signer is, other than a person I probably shouldn't hire as a babysitter. But that's neither here nor there. You objected to my post that included the word person, so in the post that you actually quoted here I didn't talk about people, only about things that you shouldn't kill. So Signer's opinion of what a person is is a complete non-sequitur, unless you mean to imply that he also thinks a newborn baby is not a thing that you shouldn't kill. In which case he is, in fact, a crazy person and not to be included among "all reasonable people."

Marquis's argument isn't predicated on the unalyized notion of whether the fetus is or is not a person or a potential person. He grants the premise of most pro-choice philosophical theories: a fetus is not a person.

It's Peter Singer (Australian by birth, teaches at Princeton University in the USA) I meant to refer to. I misspelled his last name.

You should read Peter Singer's arguments and tell me why they aren't cogent, when, of course, they are very carefully reasoned and quite elegant in their way. Intuitively, I agree with you: Singer's argument is horrifying. His moral theory allows for infanticide. Yet, philosophically speaking, it's harder to determine what makes them horrifying and why they are wrong.

In any case, I tend to agree with the notion that "person" is an operational, not a strictly biological, category. There may be non-human mammals on this planet that qualify as persons. Newborns don't qualify as persons.

Newborns don't understand themselves to exist in time.
Newborns don't have future plans.
Newborns don't distinguish between themselves and others.
etc...

More on Peter Singer, Princeton University.

 

[Belz...]

This is why I love philosophers and philosophy. While I'm not so concerned about being right, I'm very interested in being less wrong.

I hate philosophers, usually, because they mostly just write words to pat themselves on the back.

Everything else equal, it's wrong to deprive someone of something of value.

Then I suppose the question is: what's "someone" ?

1. According to our considered judgments, what people fear the most about death is the loss of future experience.

Yes, because they're old enough to fear it.

4. The fetus is equally capable of sustaining a loss of future experience.

You've just changed your argument, here. The foetus does NOT fear death. You're drawing a parallel arbitrarily.

I don't think that a sperm or ovum alone are equally capable of sustaining a loss of future experience.

Of course it is, by your definition, because if left alone, they'll become a foetus!

 

[Stone Island]

I hate philosophers, usually, because they mostly just write words to pat themselves on the back.



Then I suppose the question is: what's "someone" ?



Yes, because they're old enough to fear it.



You've just changed your argument, here. The foetus does NOT fear death. You're drawing a parallel arbitrarily.



Of course it is, by your definition, because if left alone, they'll become a foetus!

It's not permissible to kill sleeping or unconscious people, even if they don't know that you will be depriving them of future experience. They will suffer a grave wrong regardless.

That sperm I left on your mum's face last night, if left alone, is going to become little more than a sticky mess.

Sorry, that was mean.

It's not until they become a fetus that there is anything with a future that will suffer a grave wrong.

 

[Steven Howard]

Marquis's argument isn't predicated on the unalyized notion of whether the fetus is or is not a person or a potential person. He grants the premise of most pro-choice philosophical theories: a fetus is not a person.

Are you even reading my posts? How is this a response to anything I wrote?

 

[Stone Island]

Are you even reading my posts? How is this a response to anything I wrote?

Singer is a reasonable, respected philosopher at a leading American university.
Singer argues that a fetus and a newborn are not persons.
Singer argues that it is okay to kill something that is not a person.

Marquis is a reasonable, respected philosopher at a leading American university.
Marquis argues that a fetus and a newborn are not persons.
Marquis argues that it is not okay to kill something that is not a person if that thing suffers the same kind of wrong as a person (and it is wrong to kill a person).

 

[Stone Island]

The reason I asked if you were an Objectivist is because of statements like this. Perhaps the fact that you're a lawyer helps Personally, I'm not that interested in philosophy, as I am in practicalities. Let's say that you convince me that abortion is as bad as murder. Heck, according to your OP, it's even worse than murder - we're robbing each baby of an entire lifetime of potential future experience! What should we do about it then, as a moral society? Should we jail parents who chose to have abortions, and the doctors who perform such procedures? What about IFV - those discarded embryos are potential humans too! If a woman miscarries (perhaps she is in an at-fault car accident) is that manslaughter?

I'm not a lawyer.

 

[sthomson]

Singer is a reasonable, respected philosopher at a leading American university.
Singer argues that a fetus and a newborn are not persons.
Singer argues that it is okay to kill something that is not a person.

Marquis is a reasonable, respected philosopher at a leading American university.
Marquis argues that a fetus and a newborn are not persons.
Marquis argues that it is not okay to kill something that is not a person if that thing suffers the same kind of wrong as a person (and it is wrong to kill a person).

Well then, it seems pretty reasonable to take a path somewhere in the middle.

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm sorry, I thought I read that you were in law school. But you have continued to avoid my questions.

 

[rocketdodger]

What is the horizon of when one can know the effects of one's actions and when one cannot know the effects of one's actions? To me, nine months does not seem impossibly distant in the future. In fact, we as a people make plans quite confidently years into the future. We reward and punish people for decisions they made years in the past with rewards and punishments that will have ramifications years into the future. Is that confidence misplaced? Why?

It is not as simple as that. When I say it is impossible to know the full effects of anything you do, I really mean it. If you can find a counterexample please share with me.

That being the case, any line you draw as to "when" it is acceptable to consider the effects of a decision to can be shown to be completely arbitrary. The only objective goalpost is the fact that there are people who are alive and aware of their existence now, and they are all that matters.

Is it not part of what makes murder wrong the fact that it will deprive someone of their future experience?

Not at all. What makes murder wrong is that it deprives someone who is aware that they will have a future experience of their future experience.

 

[Stone Island]

It is not as simple as that. When I say it is impossible to know the full effects of anything you do, I really mean it. If you can find a counterexample please share with me.

That being the case, any line you draw as to "when" it is acceptable to consider the effects of a decision to can be shown to be completely arbitrary. The only objective goalpost is the fact that there are people who are alive and aware of their existence now, and they are all that matters.



Not at all. What makes murder wrong is that it deprives someone who is aware that they will have a future experience of their future experience.

Given that all prediction is arbitrary, what's the operational difference between one hour or one minute in the future and one year in the future?

I don't think you mean to say that it would be permissible to kill sleeping people who are unaware that they will have a future experience of their future experience. Do you?

 

[Michael Redman]

It's not until they become a fetus that there is anything with a future that will suffer a grave wrong.

You are making a circular argument. You are defining a future worth protecting as that which a fetus possesses, and a future not worth protecting as that which is possessed by what precedes the fetus. You are then arguing that the fetus is distinct from that which precedes it because it has a future worth protecting.

 

[Stone Island]

You are making a circular argument. You are defining a future worth protecting as that which a fetus possesses, and a future not worth protecting as that which is possessed by what precedes the fetus. You are then arguing that the fetus is distinct from that which precedes it because it has a future worth protecting.

Persons have a future which it would be morally wrong to destroy.

Fetuses have futures like a person's.

Sperm alone does not have futures like a person's.

Ovum alone do not have futures like a person's.

 

[Stone Island]

Well then, it seems pretty reasonable to take a path somewhere in the middle.

Why? Perhaps neither theory is correct.

In addition, I think that their theories are mutually exclusive. In other words, there is no middle. Am I wrong?

 

[sthomson]

Why? Perhaps neither theory is correct.

In addition, I think that their theories are mutually exclusive. In other words, there is no middle. Am I wrong?

You have continued to refuse to answer my questions regarding the practicalities of Marquis' philosophical argument. I don't see the point in continuing to carry on a one-sided debate.

 

[Stone Island]

You have continued to refuse to answer my questions regarding the practicalities of Marquis' philosophical argument. I don't see the point in continuing to carry on a one-sided debate.

I didn't know we were having a debate. Why don't you present your argument. You could fill in my answers by imagining that I am much smarter and much more consistent than I really am. If you needed to make my argument, what would you argue when presented with your question?

 

[Michael Redman]

Fetuses have futures like a person's.

Sperm alone does not have futures like a person's.

Ovum alone do not have futures like a person's.

This is your conclusion. Where is the argument that gets you there?

 

[rocketdodger]

Given that all prediction is arbitrary, what's the operational difference between one hour or one minute in the future and one year in the future?

The time between making the prediction and checking to see if it was correct. You are misunderstanding my aim with this argument.

I am not saying it is impossible to predict whether an abortion will deprive a person of a future -- this is self evident and nobody can argue with it. What I am saying is that it is impossible to tell whether, in the long run, an abortion will deprive more or less other future people of their future. The same goes for ALL actions one takes at any instant in their lives. That being the case, it is an arbitrary decision to say that the future of the fetus is any more valuable than the future of the people who will exist only if the fetus is aborted, etc. Just like it is an arbitrary decision to say the people you prevent from existing by leaving for work 5 minutes later are worth more than the people you prevent from existing by leaving 5 minutes earlier.

I don't think you mean to say that it would be permissible to kill sleeping people who are unaware that they will have a future experience of their future experience. Do you?

No, I don't. People who are unconscious are simply a temporarily suspended consciousness. Killing someone in their sleep is identical to killing someone while they are awake and making it so fast that they are not aware of anything, I.E. making the duration of the death infinitessimal (or as small as need be to have the same effect given the latency of our neural system).

 

[Belz...]

It's not permissible to kill sleeping or unconscious people, even if they don't know that you will be depriving them of future experience. They will suffer a grave wrong regardless.

How will they suffer ?

I think you are confused about the legal reasons behind the anti-murder laws.

That sperm I left on your mum's face last night, if left alone, is going to become little more than a sticky mess.

Sorry, that was mean.

Actually, it was juvenile and stupid. Grow up.

It's not until they become a fetus that there is anything with a future that will suffer a grave wrong.

That happens to be another arbitrary distinction you like to make, but cannot justify.

 

[Belz...]

Persons have a future which it would be morally wrong to destroy.

Fetuses have futures like a person's.

Sperm alone does not have futures like a person's.

Ovum alone do not have futures like a person's.

I don't see why you're arguing a difference, here, by your own reasoning.

I suspect you are arguing from a religious perspective, one that you are yet to eschew.