This is a thread I started on the Sam Harris forum. There was a very interesting discussion that followed for a few hundred posts. This is the opening Post of that thread.
[Blue is reserved for Mod/Admin comments, as per rules. dougsmith – Admin]
Those opposed to abortion point out that the procedure amounts to killing a human being. The default answer given by those who would like to keep the procedure legal, is that a woman should have control over her own body. She should have a choice. I agree that women and for that matter anybody, male or female, should be able to control what happens to their own body. But discussion about whether a person should have control over their body is a different discussion from that of whether a aborting a fetus is morally wrong. That is the “disconnect" in the debate about whether abortion should be legally and morally allowed. It may very well be that the freedom to choose and the freedom to live are not reconcilable and will forever remain a moral dilemma.
This thread is not about prochoice. I am prochoice. I need no convincing.
This thread is about addressing the issue head on. Is it Okay to abort a fetus? Using the Prolife jargon, is it murder?
I have thought about this for a number of years. I often get into discussions with rational people who are prolife (the discussions do not degenerate into religious jargon or angry rants). I don’t feel I am convincing in defending the notion that it’s okay to abort a fetus. Nevertheless the point of the discussion always centers around whether or not a fetus (and for that matter a neonate) is a person.
I have hesitated to discuss this topic here. It is a tough topic to discuss in an un emotional way. I look forward to the criticism and advice that this thread may generate.
So here it is.
I do not believe it is wrong to abort a fetus because a fetus is not a person.
The word “person" is difficult to define. Some people might define a person as a human being who is self-aware. Even the meaning of the phrase “self-awareness" is not exact.
It takes years to become a person. You are not a person when you are born, although a baby is legally granted personhood at birth. I don’t know when a human becomes a person. I take care of some terribly challenged humans who may have minimal if any self-awareness. Maybe some people never attain personhood, at least in the philosophical sense. I don’t know if this is true or not.
The arguments here have nothing to do with the notion that the embryo receives a soul at the moment of conception and that’s what makes it a person. You have to believe there is a soul; It’s an article of faith. A soul is supernatural, and some of you know where I stand on that. “There are no such things as supernatural beings".
Seems like this is in the wrong forum, definitely not Pseudoscience. Couple of things that muddy the waters in these discussions. First, everyone is anti-abortion/pro-life. Unfortunately the cons have taken over those terms. The correct terminology is pro-abortion RIGHTS, and pro-choice or anti-choice. If the religious people would put their simple mindedness aside, they’d see that their ideology actually causes more abortions.
Anyways, this issue is sort of moot though since for the anti-choice folks it does boil down to a religious point. So there’s no common ground. The irony of their position, even granting them their religious idea of a soul, is that they aren’t even pro-life, they’re pro-birth. Their fight has to do with the selfish idea of scoring points for themselves so they’ll go to heaven. If they were truly worried about that child they’ll all have adopted the maximum number of children allowed, they’d be interested in the entire life of that child. Instead, once the kid is out, it’s pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps baby or you’re just another drain on society. Totally hypocritical - not sure how they live with themselves.
Cognitive dissonance, Cuthbert. I don’t understand it either. I think you nailed it with the scoring points comment. Once the child is born they don’t care enough to help. The ironic part is according to their Bible helping the homeless, the hungry, and the sick is how you score points. They ignore the Bible passage where Jesus rejects people who ignore the needy.
... First, everyone is anti-abortion/pro-life. Unfortunately the cons have taken over those terms. The correct terminology is pro-abortion RIGHTS, and pro-choice or anti-choice. The irony of their position, even granting them their religious idea of a soul, is that they aren't even pro-life, they're pro-birth.This thread is not about the label Pro-life, Pro choice, or even Pro-abortion. This thread is not about the hypocrisy of pro-lifers, not supporting the baby after its born. This thread is solely about, whether it is not wrong to abort a fetus, from a secular point of view. It may very well be that abortion is wrong. For the sake of this thread I am taking the side that it is not intrinsically wrong. But if abortion is wrong, why is it wrong? one possible answer is that when you abort a fetus you are “killing" a person. So my next question is why is a fetus a person? I don’t think it is. If I were a prolifer I would counter with the question “Why does that matter?", “who cares if a fetus is a person, it has the potential to be a person, therefore it should be treated as a person." I would point out that a good prolifer would substitute the word “baby" for “fetus"... They would do this for 2 reasons. 1. Many of them believe that a fetus is just a baby that hasn’t been born yet. and 2. The word “baby" has more emotional baggage. Rhetorically it sounds better to “abort a fetus" then to “kill a baby". It makes those of us that argue to keep abortion legal, look evil.
The primary reason given in opposition to legal abortion is that abortion is murder.
The use of prochoice arguments does not provide an adequate answer to that objection. It is only murder, if you consider the fetus to be a person.
I do not consider the fetus to be a person. I do not see any other way of rationally explaining why abortion should remain legal without using the argument that a fetus is not a person…. (or invoking the freedom to control your own body argument).
A fetus is a growing colony of cells that if left unchecked may become a person. But it is not a person. It may react to stimuli, it may resemble a person, but it is not a person.
It is cute, but it is only cute in the sense that it resembles a person. The cuteness of animals relates to their ability to resemble certain human particularities.
Watching a live ultrasound of a fetus evokes similar emotions that occur when one watches a kitten playing with its siblings or cuddling with its mother.
But in some ways a kitten is more human than a fetus. A kitten can interact and play, and a fetus cannot.
The fetus’s islands of cells even in the second half of gestation have not fully coalesced into a truly functional organism.
It is not a functional organism; if it were, than birth would take place within a few weeks of conception. Calling a fetus a person is a subjective act that is not related to the reality of what it can do.
If it is okay to abort a fetus then there would be no legal questions about whether it is permissible and the decision pertaining to who performs them would be administrative.
…and that is why I am addressing the issue of morality and not legality.
The discussion is test of whether a very tempestuous issue can be debated rationally and reasonably.
I have hesitated to discuss this topic here. It is a tough topic to discuss in an un emotional way. I look forward to the criticism and advice that this thread may generate. So here it is. I do not believe it is wrong to abort a fetus because a fetus is not a person. The word “person" is difficult to define. Some people might define a person as a human being who is self-aware. Even the meaning of the phrase “self-awareness" is not exact. It takes years to become a person. You are not a person when you are born, although a baby is legally granted personhood at birth. I don’t know when a human becomes a person. I take care of some terribly challenged humans who may have minimal if any self-awareness. Maybe some people never attain personhood, at least in the philosophical sense. I don’t know if this is true or not.A fetus is not a person.- This is a strange position IMO. While a fetus isn't a person in the sense an adult is, it's a potential person - going through an unavoidable developmental phase which all mammals must go through to reach personhood. I think abortion is always murder because you're ending a life - and life absolutely begins at conception. But not all murders are equal. The issue is some murders are more meaningful than others.
The word “person" is difficult to define. Some people might define a person as a human being who is self-aware. Even the meaning of the phrase “self-awareness" is not exact. It takes years to become a person. You are not a person when you are born, although a baby is legally granted personhood at birth. I don’t know when a human becomes a person. I take care of some terribly challenged humans who may have minimal if any self-awareness. Maybe some people never attain personhood, at least in the philosophical sense. I don’t know if this is true or not. The arguments here have nothing to do with the notion that the embryo receives a soul at the moment of conception and that’s what makes it a person. You have to believe there is a soul; It’s an article of faith. A soul is supernatural, and some of you know where I stand on that. “There are no such things as supernatural beings".I think the argument should be about when a fetus can be called a "human being", as opposed to a "person". As you pointed out, some human beings probably never attain personhood; i.e., they remain too handicapped over their entire lifetime. But we certainly would not support killing a human being because he/she is too handicapped. The "soul" argument cannot justify opposing abortion; as the soul is supposed to be indestructible. It is the body that decays when the soul leaves it. In other words a soul cannot be killed. These are according to beliefs that secular humanists do not have. I think when a life is self-sustainable but still in the mother's womb, it should have some rights; i.e., the government could have some say on the late-stage abortions. However, at all stages of pregnancy, the mother's decision should be final, as it involves her body. It should be recognized by the society/government that to abort a fetus is always a very difficult decision for the mother, and the decision to abort or not to abort should not be imposed on her by others.
I have hesitated to discuss this topic here. It is a tough topic to discuss in an un emotional way. I look forward to the criticism and advice that this thread may generate. So here it is. I do not believe it is wrong to abort a fetus because a fetus is not a person. The word “person" is difficult to define. Some people might define a person as a human being who is self-aware. Even the meaning of the phrase “self-awareness" is not exact. It takes years to become a person. You are not a person when you are born, although a baby is legally granted personhood at birth. I don’t know when a human becomes a person. I take care of some terribly challenged humans who may have minimal if any self-awareness. Maybe some people never attain personhood, at least in the philosophical sense. I don’t know if this is true or not.A fetus is not a person.- This is a strange position IMO. While a fetus isn't a person in the sense an adult is, it's a potential person - going through an unavoidable developmental phase which all mammals must go through to reach personhood. I think abortion is always murder because you're ending a life - and life absolutely begins at conception. But not all murders are equal. The issue is some murders are more meaningful than others. The use of the "murder" is the type of rhetoric that leads to the personalization and deterioration of discussion between the both sides of this issue. No wants to be called a murderer, infant killer etc. There is an emotional component to that word that undermines rational discussion. What do you mean when you say "life absolutely begins at conception"?
While a fetus isn't a person in the sense an adult is, it's a potential person .Do you consider a fetus to be a baby that hasn't been born yet?
The "soul" argument cannot justify opposing abortion; as the soul is supposed to be indestructible. It is the body that decays when the soul leaves it. In other words a soul cannot be killed. These are according to beliefs that secular humanists do not have.True. The soul is an article of faith. This thread is not about supernatural phenomena.
A fetus is not a person.- This is a strange position IMO. While a fetus isn't a person in the sense an adult is, it's a potential person - going through an unavoidable developmental phase which all mammals must go through to reach personhood. I think abortion is always murder because you're ending a life - and life absolutely begins at conception. But not all murders are equal. The issue is some murders are more meaningful than others.And god murders with all those spontaneous abortions The act of living requires murdering something (and living the American life style) someone. What's with the sanctimonious bluster - A fetus is a potentiality that has to pass all sorts of hurdles before it can take on the mantle of Personhood. Besides that, we murder persons justifiability all the time. Why your obsession with unborn life, what about neglected young lives or the lives of mothers. And if a fetus needs to be murdered - that's a hard personal choice for the mother and her chosen circle not for Society to decide. Certainly it's most inhuman for society to interfere with that most personal of situations. Ironically, our overpopulation is rapidly degrading the quality of life for most, so what's up with that? The right wing abortion bludgeon has nothing to do with any love of life, or innocence - it's ALL about power and control in one of its more sadistic expressions. A woman has a right to sovereignty over her own body including that little "parasite" that eventually becomes a beautiful baby, in a cruel uncaring society. Broaden your outlook, give this a read:
Abortion, Right and Wrong By Rachel Richardson Smith http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/10/abortion-right-and-wrong.html
Slight correction the bad guy won’t let me slip in
The right wing abortion bludgeon has nothing to do with any love of life, or innocence - it’s ALL about power and control in one of its more sadistic expressions.
A woman has a right to sovereignty and self-defense over her own body including that little “parasite” that eventually becomes a beautiful baby, in a cruel uncaring society.
Slight correction the bad guy won't let me slip in The right wing abortion bludgeon has nothing to do with any love of life, or innocence - it's ALL about power and control in one of its more sadistic expressions. A woman has a right to sovereignty and self-defense over her own body including that little "parasite" that eventually becomes a beautiful baby, in a cruel uncaring society.I'm prochoice. I do not need to be convinced. This thread is about whether or not it is okay to abort a fetus. Note the opening post.
This thread is trying to address the arguments of sincere people who consider aborting a fetus morally wrong.
It is my opinion that it is not.
I think the reason that some people are against abortion is that they consider the fertilized egg (and fetus) to be a person.
I do not.
I am certain that a fertilized egg is not a person. It has no self-awareness.
It cannot speak. It cannot let its needs be known to other cells that live nearby, much less to fully developed humans.
It has no beliefs, intentions, desires of its own; and it has no understanding of other people’s intentions, beliefs or desires.
It’s development and growth is solely dependent on a preprogrammed set of instructions from which it has no control.
It has no free will.
This thread is trying to address the arguments of sincere people who consider aborting a fetus morally wrong. It is my opinion that it is not. I think the reason that some people are against abortion is that they consider the fertilized egg (and fetus) to be a person. I do not. I am certain that a fertilized egg is not a person. It has no self-awareness. It cannot speak. It cannot let its needs be known to other cells that live nearby, much less to fully developed humans. It has no beliefs, intentions, desires of its own; and it has no understanding of other people’s intentions, beliefs or desires. It’s development and growth is solely dependent on a preprogrammed set of instructions from which it has no control. It has no free will.Those are all valid points. The only argument I have seen or heard against abortion is religious, even though the Bible does not specifically prohibit abortion. Abortion opponents consider abortion murder, so they constructed the argument that life begins at conception. If they thought about it they would realize that makes their god the world's leading abortion provider through spontaneous abortions and miscarriages. The Catholic Church even proscribes abortion in cases where an abortion would save the mother's life. That is morally reprehensible.
The only argument I have seen or heard against abortion is religious, even though the Bible does not specifically prohibit abortion. Abortion opponents consider abortion murder.There are many non-religious people who feel abortion is "murder". Pro-life has done a good job in convincing people of this, and they do so using non-religious arguments Those who support legal abortions have done a horrible job of countering those arguments. Using Prochoice arguments do not work. One has to counter the statement that abortion is murder with abortion is not murder because... and then give an answer. My answer is that murder relates to a person, and a fetus is not a person. There are other points such as, George Carlin once asked, “who decided that human life was sacred? Humans did of course! Note that Spartans killed any baby that was not perfect, they did not tolerate a person unable to care for themselves. what if Earth reaches a human population of 80 billion, can you see how abortion might become the norm and not the exception?
Pro-lifers often use milestones as a way of demonstrating that a fetus is a person.
As it pertains to a developing embryo, they pick certain points along the time frame of its development. They label each of those points as a specific milestone and dignify each point with some artificially bestowed attribute. As exemplified by statements “It now has a beating heart" therefore it’s a person. Or …you can count all 5 fingers, now it is human. Or … the neural tube has finally differentiated into an anterior bulge (brain), and now it is a person.
But in reality, fingers, eyes, heart, stomach, brain, ears, does not a person make.
What do you mean when you say "life absolutely begins at conception"?When the zygote is formed that's the beginning of that persons existence.
While a fetus isn't a person in the sense an adult is, it's a potential person .Do you consider a fetus to be a baby that hasn't been born yet?Yes.
Note that Spartans killed any baby that was not perfect, they did not tolerate a person unable to care for themselves. what if Earth reaches a human population of 80 billion, can you see how abortion might become the norm and not the exception?These are two of the most absurd arguments I have seen in the CFI forums. The human civilization has come a long way from the Spartans. In today's world, we humans through personal, familial, community and governmental resources care for our imperfect, and even severely handicapped, people; we care for people that are unable to care for themselves. Eighty billion or whatever the number may be, abortion is not, and will never be, the way to control population. Obviously there is a thing called birth control, where formation of unwanted fetuses is prevented. Nobody wants abortion, even the woman who gets an abortion wishes she did not get pregnant; she feels both guilty and sorry that she has to have an abortion. As we get better at medical sciences, we will get better at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and the need for abortion will go down further.