Non-Religious Argument Against Abortion

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Oh, really. A fetus, not a person, has a characteristic in common with persons, a future like ours.

A foetus may have a future. But Marquis helps himself to the assumption that it has not just a future but a FLO. And that, of course, he takes to be a future the deprivation of which is a harm to the loser. But this just smuggles back in what you say he disclaims: that a foetus is already a person.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, really. A fetus, not a person, has a characteristic in common with persons, a future like ours.

No. It has a potential future, like the rest of us. For all I knew when writing this, I could have a heart failure and die before I finished typing this sentence. A fetus, likewise, could at any moment expire or be aborted. A sperm cell can at any moment be flushed out by a wet dream. Most eggs will eventually be thrown out with menstrual blood.

Why is the fertilized egg any more important than a not-yet-fertilized one? Just because it's fertilized? Couldn't I just as easily call masterbation murder by saying that "the sperm cells and eggs are fully formed and have a future just like you and me, but you murdered them by spilling your seeds in the sand!".

If I kill a person, or abort a late-term fetus, you can start arguing that I'm killing something of value.

I just don't get how it's murder to abort an egg and sperm cell that's together, when it's not murder for a guy to masturbate.

 

[Stone Island]

A foetus may have a future. But Marquis helps himself to the assumption that it has not just a future but a FLO. And that, of course, he takes to be a future the deprivation of which is a harm to the loser. But this just smuggles back in what you say he disclaims: that a foetus is already a person.

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.

 

[Stone Island]

I just don't get how it's murder to abort an egg and sperm cell that's together, when it's not murder for a guy to masturbate.

Sorry, we already answered this one.

 

[Stone Island]

The biggest flaw of his entire argument is how he won't admit that a fetus and a person are not the same, and do not experience the loss of a future in the same manner.

He does admit that a fetus is not a person! It's right there. It's explicit. It's the basis of his whole argument. I'm sorry if you can't see this, but really, it's the key to his argument. It's why he decided that he needed this argument.

That's really more of an opinion than a fact. Not everybody picked that option in the poll, after all. And I'm certain that they didn't poll any fetuses when they asked what they feared most about death. They probably didn't even ask the people what they thought was the greatest harm of death when it came to fetuses. It was asking people what people fear. It has nothing to do with fetuses, and fetuses and people are not the same.

I think you're pretending to not understand, probably because you so believe in abortion, and can't countenance any argument against it, that you're willing to suspend your critical ability:

Again, it's an argument from considered judgment. If we were to ask someone what the harm of being killed was, they would say it was the deprivation of their future experiences. Thus, the wrong or harm of killing is the loss of a FLO.

Again, if you're so hung up by the considered judgment aspect, I provided two arguments from Don Marquis. What's wrong with the second?

Note: fetuses aren't persons, they can't answer polls. Yet, they have a characteristic. That characteristic is a Future Like Ours. If ending our future is a bad thing, and a fetus has a future like ours, why is ending its future not a harm?

 

[Stone Island]

Oh, by the way, one of the reasons why Marquis wanted to avoid the notion of "personhood" as you will see from reading the full paper, is that it cannot adequately account for the wrongness of killing infants or small children, neither of whom is a person (in an adequately robust sense that doesn't include late-term fetuses) or has "hopes" for the future.

Peter Singer, of course, bites on this, and admits that infants have no particular "right" to live.

 

[Sun Countess]

I'm not pretending not to understand his argument - I'm merely disagreeing with it. That should be allowed, no? I happen to disagree with many of his basic premises. That should also be allowed. He states things as indisputable facts when they're merely his opinions.

I tried to read most of his paper linked above, and was seriously dismayed at how he misrepresented the positions of the prochoice movement. You noted here:

"personhood" as you will see from reading the full paper, is that it cannot adequately account for the wrongness of killing infants or small children, neither of whom is a person (in an adequately robust sense that doesn't include late-term fetuses) or has "hopes" for the future.

Infants and small children are people. Fully and completely people. I would love to find all the prochoice people who would argue that infants are somehow not people! They may be dependent people, and they may not be able to articulate their own hopes and dreams, but they can certainly articulate their immediate desires through different types of cries and other non-verbal communication. If I'd known he started his arguments with that ridiculous premise, I never would have read through to the arguments that you outlined in the OP. (I will say you did a pretty good job of digging through his word salad to summarize his arguments.)

Like I said before and will say for (hopefully) the last time, it may be an argument against abortion, but it's not a good one. He is certainly free to use it to keep himself from having any abortions.

 

[Stone Island]

Infants and small children are people.

In what way? Now, "person" may include non-human animals.

Infants aren't persons because:

They don't have language.
They can't form plans.
They aren't aware of themselves as existing in time.
They don't have hopes or dreams, etc...

Following Singer, a person has these characteristics: "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness." Infants do not.

Also, in what way is an infant a person such that a late-term fetus is not? They are just as dependent, just as lacking in sentience.

Given advancements in medical science, viability is being pushed back further and further.

The moment of birth seems so arbitrary.

By the way, what basic premise do you disagree with? All you've said is that a fetus doesn't fear death, as if that's against some claim that Marquis made.

 

[Neverfly]

I'm reminded of the Chicken or the Egg discussion on evolution going on over there (points) somewhere.
Where does one draw the defining line between the proto chicken and the chicken?

You can't draw it any other way but arbitrarily.

They way I see it, it isn't rocket science to understand that foolin' around is gonna make babies.

The argument that a woman has a choice about what she does with her own body is all fine and good, but isn't it a bit selfish to claim that the unborn child is her body? It's not. She can choose what to do with HER body maybe, but infanticide isn't really her body anymore is it? It's the BABY'S body now. This is the all time most lame and selfish justification I have ever heard. A five year old can refute it- like DUH!

The perversity if human depravity never fails to amaze me. We have this golden image of ourselves as kindly and empathic caretakers of the planet- yet our FIRST response to anything that scares, bothers, annoys or otherwise interrupts our selfish little wants is to- Kill It.
If you're illogically afraid of spiders- KILL IT!
If you're afraid of ANYTHING no matter whether the fear is a product of reality or your diseased imagination... KILL IT!
If your dog has too many puppies- Drown 'em in a bucket.

If a baby might inconvenience you- KILL IT!
Yeah... real sophisticated there...
It's not unusual to hear about some baby's body found in a dumpster somewhere...

I wasn't expecting to be a dad, especially not when UnWed and Young.
Yet, sure enough- I became one.

And I was scared too. I was not ready. Even if I was married at the time, I wouldn't have felt ready- but to be single and alone?
Yet, when I held him for the first time, I KNEW. It didn't matter if I was ready or not. I damn well better GET ready.

And it was not always easy. He was a good baby. He slept most the night and never threw his food. But even so, I had to learn all those parenting things like how to change diapers and what certain regular ol' infant symptoms meant. Like what it means when he cries for no reason or is gassy or whatever.
It wasn't unusual that I ended up calling up female friends and mothers at 2 am pleading for advice.



Yeah- Coulda been a coward.
...run off or put him up for adoption...
Hell no. He is My Son.

He and I are a team.

He makes my world ROCK - every day.


Whatever lame excuses people give for cowering out - trying to squirm free of finishing what they started- All I can say is that person is a Fool. Pure and simple.
When they are finished making statements that rationalize and justify- they are a deluded fool, nothing more.

 

[Sun Countess]

An infant is still a person, in the sense that it's a living human being. If I'm driving my car in the HOV lane with an infant in a car seat, that's allowed. There are two people in the car. I couldn't make the same claim with a police officer when I was pregnant.

Maybe there's a difference in how we're defining terms, but nearly all the prochoice people I know recognize that born infants are people, i.e. human beings. They have names, they have addresses, they have families, they have birth certificates.

I agree with you that fetuses that reach a point of viability have some right to life, even as the mother has the right to terminate her pregnancy. (Meaning I prefer an induced preterm delivery as opposed to abortion. This has been discussed somewhat in the ND thread, recognizing that most women opting for late-term abortions aren't using frivolous reasons, but are most often terminating pregnancies due to their own health concerns or due to a non-viable fetus.)

What do I disagree with when it comes to Marquis? I disagree that the loss of a future like ours is the most serious harm of death. It may be one harm, but not the only harm or the most grievous harm in every case. And I guess I haven't made myself clear, but I disagree vehemently that it's the loss of the material future that is the harm, but is rather the loss of our current hopes and dreams about that future ever being fulfilled.

For most of us, our future hopes and dreams aren't just a generic "future," but are often very specific, even if we don't at any point know the full extent of those dreams, which may shift over time. When we mourn someone's premature passing, or fear our own premature passing, we worry over the specifics, not just "oh it would suck to not.....have a future." We fear dying without ever having gotten married or having babies, or having grandbabies, or spending enough time with specific loved ones, or traveling, or writing a novel, or climbing Mt. Everest.


I used an analogy before regarding another shared future for human beings - a future life beyond the current realm. Many theists strongly believe that they have a future life beyond their time on earth, and have very real fears about those dreams not being realized, or fears of spending eternity in hell. I know at least a few atheists who had the hardest time letting go of the fact that their eternal future was not to be. They wanted to hang onto that future hope, even as they realized it was nothing more than fiction. Is it somehow immoral or harmful that they are now denied that eternal future? Of course not, since it never really existed, and it will never exist. The hope of it is gone, and that's where the harm or pain comes in. There needs to be an awareness of the loss for the person with the future for there to be a grievous harm in not achieving that future.

But really for me the bottom line is that it's not a fact that the loss of a FLO is the most grievous harm of death, even among adult human beings.

 

[Neverfly]

An infant is still a person, in the sense that it's a living human being. If I'm driving my car in the HOV lane with an infant in a car seat, that's allowed. There are two people in the car. I couldn't make the same claim with a police officer when I was pregnant.

Realistically... that has no bearing on reality. The fetus is still a person.
That argument as a claim that it's not person five days prior to delivery would be absurd- I'm sure we can all agree to that.

And let me be clear, I do not know WHEN to define when a cluster of cells becomes a person.

 

[Sun Countess]

Realistically... that has no bearing on reality. The fetus is still a person.

No. It's a potential person.

That argument as a claim that it's not person five days prior to delivery would be absurd- I'm sure we can all agree to that.

No again. Still just a potential person, though a viable potential person, able to live independently of its mother.

And let me be clear, I do not know WHEN to define when a cluster of cells becomes a person.

When it's delivered live from its mother's womb.

I've voluntarily and safely delivered two healthy full-term babies, and I didn't consider either of them people or persons until the moments of their births.

I will agree with you that not everyone has to agree to the definitions that I use, which is why I believe it's every woman's individual choice to decide whether or not to carry any zygote/embryo/fetus in her uterus to term. Just as I wouldn't force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will, I would never force a woman to terminate a pregnancy against her will (even those who risk their own lives in doing so).

 

[Neverfly]

No. It's a potential person.

No again. Still just a potential person, though a viable potential person, able to live independently of its mother.
When it's delivered live from its mother's womb.


I will agree with you that not everyone has to agree to the definitions that I use, which is why I believe it's every woman's individual choice to decide whether or not to carry any zygote/embryo/fetus in her uterus to term. Just as I wouldn't force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will, I would never force a woman to terminate a pregnancy against her will (even those who risk their own lives in doing so).

Ok, so YOU , Personally- draw the line at birth.

That's nonsense. It's not just a "potential Person" whatever the heck that means... Did you just invent that little term up off the top of your head? Seriously...
A "Potential Person" might be a sperm cell or an egg. THAT'S Potential.
The fetus already did done form into one. Drawing a line at the time it literally leaves the womb is just where YOU DREW it.
It doesn't alter reality.

If you really did agree with me about the definitions, You would not have claimed, "No. It's not a person. It's a potential person. A term I just made up."

So what about premies? Are they potential little people too?

Or do they get a magical head start on being People?

I must not be a person at all by your definition. I was never born.

 

[Sun Countess]

That's nonsense. It's not just a "potential Person" whatever the heck that means... Did you just invent that little term up off the top of your head? Seriously...

No, I didn't invent the term. I put two words together in a way that makes sense. A fetus (or embryo or zygote) is not a person, but has that potential if it comes to term. Until it's delivered from its mother's womb, it is not granted the rights or status of personhood. It does not have a birth certificate. It cannot be claimed on a tax return.

A "Potential Person" might be a sperm cell or an egg. THAT'S Potential.
The fetus already did done form into one. Drawing a line at the time it literally leaves the womb is just where YOU DREW it.
It doesn't alter reality.

I'm certainly not the only one who drew the line there. I've never even enacted any legislation drawing the line there! Where would YOU suggest that line be drawn?

If you really did agree with me about the definitions, You would not have claimed, "No. It's not a person. It's a potential person. A term I just made up."

Okay, first I don't remember agreeing with you about any definitions, so don't make it sound like I've changed my mind, and second I don't believe I ever said "A term I just made up." If you're going to quote me, quote me properly please.

So what about premies? Are they potential little people too? Or do they get a magical head start on being People?

No, preemies are actual people. Guess what? They're not even straw people. Nice of you to use them that way though.

I must not be a person at all by your definition. I was never born.

Wait. What? Are you posting this from your mother's womb? Or do you believe that you sprouted from a cabbage patch? You'll have to explain this one to me.

 

[Neverfly]

No, I didn't invent the term. I put two words together in a way that makes sense.

Oh, Ok!.

I didn't invent the term, "potential hippopotamus." I just put to the two words together in a way that makes sense.

Okay, first I don't remember agreeing with you about any definitions, so don't make it sound like I've changed my mind,

Right here:

I will agree with you that not everyone has to agree to the definitions that I use,

-- In other words, your personal definitions are not a world standard. Thus; you have no business claiming that an unborn fetus is not a human being as fact.

and second I don't believe I ever said "A term I just made up." If you're going to quote me, quote me properly please.

I did quote you properly using quote functions.

Wait. What? Are you posting this from your mother's womb? Or do you believe that you sprouted from a cabbage patch? You'll have to explain this one to me.

I wasn't born. Use brain- figure it out.

 

[Sun Countess]

I didn't invent the term, "potential hippopotamus." I just put to the two words together in a way that makes sense.

?? It makes sense to me.

- In other words, your personal definitions are not a world standard. Thus; you have no business claiming that an unborn fetus is not a human being as fact.

?? Confused again. Your previous post indicated that we'd agreed on terms, and you just quoted back something where I said not everyone had to agree with my terms. We haven't agreed on terms. I'm okay with that.

And the fact that there is no world standard on "personhood" or "humanness" shouldn't be news to anyone. The Catholic church (among others) argues that human life begins at the moment of conception, and others (including me) argue that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a human being until the moment of its birth.

I did quote you properly using quote functions.

Yes you did, and you also falsely quoted me saying "A term I just made up." I never said that. I understand it was just an attempt to make me look stupid, and that's okay.

I wasn't born. Use brain- figure it out.

Okay, now you're really trying to make me look stupid. I have been trying to figure it out. If you've been delivered of your mother's womb, you've been born. Was it by C-section? I don't remember arguing that a c-section wasn't a birth. I know lots of people born by c-section. Are you saying that you don't have a birth certificate for some reason? Honestly, I'm not trying to be thick. I'm just stunned that I'm having an internet exchange with someone who's never been born. Are you a computer program?

 

[Stone Island]

Another argument, this from Peter Singer:

1. It is wrong to take innocent human life.
2. From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
3. It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus

 

[steffanie]

Perhaps this has been covered, apologies if it has...

In my opinion it is the woman's choice if she will carry a fetus to term. Circumstances do play a role here. It might appear selfish and be considered murder by some people but what if the woman has been raped? Why should she have to give birth to a baby she conceived through a forced sexual encounter? Perhaps she was raped by a family member or gang raped. In these horrific circumstances i would not judge any woman for having a termination. But i will say do it early as it makes me uneasy to think of a fetus developing and becoming more human-like everyday. I don't know why i am okay with it early on as they are still a person. This can be a heated topic, i will say it again, it depends on the circumstances.

 

[Piero]

Another argument, this from Peter Singer:

1. It is wrong to take innocent human life.
2. From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
3. It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus

I don't like it either. What's special about being human? Is it wrong to disconnect someone who's been in deep coma for twenty years, with no hope of recovery, just because he/she is human? I think the relevant category is not human, but person, in the following specific sense of the word: a person is any entity capable of having desires. And yes, that includes some animals and future artificial minds.
What the arguments you've presented fail to grasp is that the whole point of morals is to avoid suffering. Once you start holding on to metaphysical notions such as "wrong", "innocent", "sacred" and such, the argument becomes hopelessly muddled, and you can reach conclusions that actually increase suffering instead of diminishing it.
Since an embryo has no nervous system, it cannot have desires, and hence cannot suffer. Why should it be morally unacceptable to kill it? Who suffers?

 

[Piero]

I don't know why i am okay with it early on as they are still a person.

Maybe because they are not yet a person?