Non-Religious Argument Against Abortion

[Michael Redman]

This discussion has become rather tedious...

Yup. I'm out.

 

[Stone Island]

This discussion has become rather tedious, as Stone Island parrots other's philosophical theories without developing his own counterarguments. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that SI is writing a paper on this very topic and looking for a bit of help from the JREF posters!

Please. I began this thread with an explicit statement of someone else's theory. To accuse me of parroting now seems rather odd.

Originality in the development of my counterarguments? Why is this a relevant category of evaluation?

In any case, a reference to my motives seems to be besides the point.

I don't know anything about set theory and less about mereology so I'm at a loss to evaluate Harvey's argument, but it does seem interesting and if true it would provide an answer to the criticisms found here.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There is nothing special about human life, fetal zygotic or otherwise, other than our ability to imagine it is.

 

[rocketdodger]

Are these morally significant considerations given that we cannot in any way know one way or the other? We know about this fetus at this time. Future theoretical fetuses seem to have a lesser moral claim. You're right judgments about them are arbitrary. Currently existing fetuses are more concrete, and thus, less arbitrary.

Currently existing fetuses are only more concrete physically, not as a person-to-be. It can be shown that in both universe models (multiverse and singleverse) that the probability of a person being a certain person even a year from now is so small it is indistinguishable from the probability of a certain person 1000 years from now. That is why all that matters are consciousnesses currently in existence.

Since we agree that it's bad to deprive this person of her future at this time, and this fetus has a future like this person, isn't it also bad to deprive this fetus of its future at this time?

You have no idea what the future of the fetus will be. There will be "a person" who came from "the fetus" at all points in time, yes, but who that is is unpredictable. Just as unpredictable as who will be a million years from now. That is why I don't give more weight to either of them.

Oh, and regarding sleeping people. You seem to be missing my point. It's not whether you know you have a future like a person or not, it's whether you have a future like a person or not that is the main consideration.

Well I disagree. If I am not aware of my possible future, nor will I ever be aware of it, then there can by definition be no harm in depriving me of it.

 

[Big Les]

I remember my parents, when I was about 10, asking me what I thought about maybe having a baby brother or sister. I was adamantly against it, then later felt very guilty that I might have prevented a life from happening. They assured me that I hadn't, but clearly I had some input in preventing a future life from happening. To all practical intents and purposes, changing one's mind about having children is no different to an abortion when it comes to the "possible valuable life" argument. In my own life I worry that, as I plan currently to have no children, both my genes will die, and a life that might otherwise be worth living, won't happen. Whilst I think the former argument is rational and in line with biological/evolutionary imperatives, the latter is irrationality and misplaced guilt on my part, based upon my ability to imagine such a future life. The fact is, until that life not only actually exists, but has begun to amass experiences and form a personality and bond with other humans, it isn't practically speaking a human being. The only arguments otherwise are squeamish, religious, or based upon morals that one has almost certainly inherited from our religious past wherein any loss of even remotely viable life (even wasted sperm!) was seriously frowned upon, because if everyone did it, the birth rate would drop and there would be fewer people to till the fields or take over the reigns of power (depending upon your social position). In a society where birth rates are at least adequate, restrictions on abortion make as much sense as a "sex drive" campaign, and impinge upon the rights of the woman rather more.

 

[tkingdoll]

Skeptigirl's 'fish' comment has made me want to ask Stone Island if he's a vegetarian.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl's 'fish' comment has made me want to ask Stone Island if he's a vegetarian.

?????

Surely you have to elaborate here.

 

[Belz...]

As a skeptic, I evaluate arguments and evidence. I am non-cognizant of motivations. In other words, my argument or evidence will stand on their own virtues, regardless of my motivation.

Good. Why did you claim that non-existent people have a future ?

In this context, regarding the evaluation of Marquis's argument, I don't particularly care what the legal reasons behind murder is. I'm not a legal positivist. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Why is the legal reasoning behind murder relevant?

Because it's based on our collective view of morality.

Sperm in one hand and ovum in the other are among the things necessary to create a thing that has a future like ours. They are not, in and of themselves, sufficient for this task.

Foetuses are not sufficient for this task, either. They need the uterus.

 

[Stone Island]

I remember my parents, when I was about 10, asking me what I thought about maybe having a baby brother or sister. I was adamantly against it, then later felt very guilty that I might have prevented a life from happening. They assured me that I hadn't, but clearly I had some input in preventing a future life from happening. To all practical intents and purposes, changing one's mind about having children is no different to an abortion when it comes to the "possible valuable life" argument. In my own life I worry that, as I plan currently to have no children, both my genes will die, and a life that might otherwise be worth living, won't happen. Whilst I think the former argument is rational and in line with biological/evolutionary imperatives, the latter is irrationality and misplaced guilt on my part, based upon my ability to imagine such a future life. The fact is, until that life not only actually exists, but has begun to amass experiences and form a personality and bond with other humans, it isn't practically speaking a human being. The only arguments otherwise are squeamish, religious, or based upon morals that one has almost certainly inherited from our religious past wherein any loss of even remotely viable life (even wasted sperm!) was seriously frowned upon, because if everyone did it, the birth rate would drop and there would be fewer people to till the fields or take over the reigns of power (depending upon your social position). In a society where birth rates are at least adequate, restrictions on abortion make as much sense as a "sex drive" campaign, and impinge upon the rights of the woman rather more.

I don't think an actual skeptic, who is interested in high level critical thought, would so baldly and badly misstate Marquis's argument. It's a pretty simple argument that puts forth all the premises needed to judge whether it's compelling or not. You don't have to make up any spooky, or woo rationalizations to justify the fact that you aren't quite as open minded as you might have thought: just answer the argument.

Oh, wait. That's an appeal to an ad hominem basis of evaluation. Never mind.

If it's wrong to kill us, then... What? Why is it wrong to kill us? Is it wrong to kill us? What is the wrong-making nature of killing us? Are there any other things that are enough like us to make killing them wrong too? Why?

 

[Stone Island]

Good. Why did you claim that non-existent people have a future ?

Because it's based on our collective view of morality.

Nazi laws? Soviet laws? Slavery laws? Cannibal laws? Collective views are not immune to error. I want to explore the thinking behind the collective understanding. Why do people believe the things that they believe? Are they right, are they wrong, why?

 

[Stone Island]

Legal Positivism

h/t Keith Burgess-Jackson

 

[Belz...]

Nazi laws? Soviet laws? Slavery laws? Cannibal laws?

Yes.

Collective views are not immune to error.

And how do you go about determining what's an "error" when morality is concerned ? Morality differs from one place to the next. Abortion is no exception.

 

[Stone Island]

Yes.

And how do you go about determining what's an "error" when morality is concerned ? Morality differs from one place to the next. Abortion is no exception.

Laws have no necessary connection to morality. I would be willing to say, "Laws that legalize slavery are wrong in all places at all times, whether the people who passed or support those laws know it or not."

Yes, morality seems to differ from place to place. Then again, it really doesn't vary all that much. We all believe that it is wrong to kill us, absent some compelling reason. That's why Marquis's argument begins from that premise. Assuming that, what can we then infer? That still begs the question of whether there is a truth to the matter. If there is no truth to the matter, then I see the alternatives as either the Last Man or nihilism.

 

[cyborg]

We all believe that it is wrong to kill us, absent some compelling reason.

Well, that rather pushes the problem into what compelling reasons are doesn't it? And what is compelling would rather seem to be variable wouldn't it?

 

[Belz...]

Laws have no necessary connection to morality. I would be willing to say, "Laws that legalize slavery are wrong in all places at all times, whether the people who passed or support those laws know it or not."

Based on what ? Your own opinion ?

Like it or not, laws ARE based on morality. Either that of the legislator(s), or those of the voters or whatnot. Obviously, laws are supposed to protect something of value, which is the basis of morality.

If there is no truth to the matter, then I see the alternatives as either the Last Man or nihilism.

There is no objective morality. But that changes nothing. WE want a moral framework, and we create it.

 

[Stone Island]

Well, that rather pushes the problem into what compelling reasons are doesn't it? And what is compelling would rather seem to be variable wouldn't it?

Yes, and which are all incredibly interesting questions and discussions and subjects for philosophical investigation.

Which, in the end, aren't necessarily directly relevant to Marquis's discussion because in the case where carrying the baby to term is likely to kill the mother, Marquis has already stated that abortion is not morally objectionable (or only morally objectionable in the sense of doing a lesser evil to prevent a greater).

 

[Stone Island]

Based on what ? Your own opinion ?

Like it or not, laws ARE based on morality. Either that of the legislator(s), or those of the voters or whatnot. Obviously, laws are supposed to protect something of value, which is the basis of morality.



There is no objective morality. But that changes nothing. WE want a moral framework, and we create it.

So you don't believe in unalienable human rights? Slavery is right for some people? Nazi laws allowed Jews to be gassed and that was OK because there was no objective morality beyond the codification of their laws that we could appeal to?

 

[Belz...]

So you don't believe in unalienable human rights? Slavery is right for some people? Nazi laws allowed Jews to be gassed and that was OK because there was no objective morality beyond the codification of their laws that we could appeal to?

Nope. I never said it was "alright" or that I agreed with it. I'm simply stating facts. Opinions have nothing to do with this.

 

[Stone Island]

Restatement:

Non-Religious Argument Against Abortion
From, Marquis, Don (April 1989). "Why Abortion is Immoral". The Journal of Philosophy 86 (4): 183-202.

http://home.myuw.net/himma/phil241/trans7-1.htm
The misfortune of premature death involves a loss of the goods that make life worth living. On Marquis view, “the misfortune of premature death consists of the loss to us of the future goods of consciousness. What are these goods? … The goods of life are whatever we get out of life. The goods of life are those items toward which we take a pro attitude. They are completed projects of which we are proud, the pursuit of our goals, aesthetic enjoyments, friendships, intellectual pursuits, and physical pleasures of various sorts. The goods of life are what make life worth living” (190).

Accordingly, Marquis subscribes to the Future Like Ours Thesis (or FLO for short):

FLO: Killing a human is wrong because it deprives her of “a future like ours.”

Arguments in Support of the FLO theory.

The Considered Judgment Argument:

1. According to our considered judgments, what people fear the most about death is the loss of future experience.
2. If 1, then, according to our considered judgments, it is the loss of future experience that fully constitutes death as a grave misfortune to people.
3. Therefore, according to our considered judgments, it is the loss of future experience that fully constitutes death as a grave misfortune to people.
4. The fetus is equally capable of sustaining a loss of future experience.
5. Therefore, death is an equally grave misfortune for the fetus.
6. It is wrong to deliberately inflict a misfortune on a fetus that is as grave as death to people.
7. Therefore, it is wrong to deliberately inflict death on the fetus.

Another argument:

1. What makes murder the worst of crimes is that it deprives a person of her future experience.
2. If 1, then it is the worst of wrongs to deprive a being capable of future experience of all her future experience.
3. Therefore, it is the worst of wrongs to deprive a being capable of future experience of all her future experience.
4. A fetus is capable of future experience.
5. Therefore, it is the worst of wrongs to deprive a fetus of all her future experience.

 

[Steven Howard]

Did you just necro this thread by reposting the OP as if the entire conversation hadn't happened? What's wrong with you?