What if you're pro-choice, but still think abortion is a very bad thing?

[classical_hero]

I think the problem is: condoms and pills are cheap, while abortion is expensive and infanticide illegal. The choice between the three is too obvious to state.

Exactly. We have so many alternatives to abortion that we really should not be talking about it. You also forgot another option, waiting until you are ready to have children, that being in marriage.

What defines a human being?

According to the dictionaries, it means genetically. And, yes, embryos are genetically human.

Does it refer to the ability to take care of oneself? Well, many adults and sick people need an outside source of air, food, etc. Surely people with IVs are human too?

Could it refer to size? Size a human does not make. A pygmy mouse is just as alive as a capybara.

So, what does it refer to? This is not a rhetorical question. I really am curious how one is to tell when an it becomes a human.

Many definitions exist as to when humans actually start living. All but one necessarily must be wrong. So, unless we define EXACTLY when it begins, we will end up killing many humans along with nons.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Apparently 90% of abortions are at or before the 12th week.

And, according to one site I found, the cerebral hemispheres differentiate around the fifth week. I don't exactly know when you can tell when they have a functional brain. However, that is pretty developed. And by the 8th week the embryo is pretty much completely finished. Just needs to develop bigger and more definitely.

Excellent work there. I have always wondered how people could even get those distinctions in the first place.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, what does it refer to? This is not a rhetorical question. I really am curious how one is to tell when an it becomes a human.

Well, what parts of your body could die, and you would remain human? What parts, if they died, would stop your status as 'human'?

What parts can be swapped with a dead donor, and you would still be human? What parts can't you swap with a dead donor, and still remain human?

It's seems that we should measure humaness based upon the appearance of those important body parts.

 

[classical_hero]

Well, what parts of your body could die, and you would remain human? What parts, if they died, would stop your status as 'human'?

What parts can be swapped with a dead donor, and you would still be human? What parts can't you swap with a dead donor, and still remain human?

It's seems that we should measure humaness based upon the appearance of those important body parts.

The problem you have is that you are referring to someone who is already human and has lost something. The fact that you cannot see the difference between. A human being is still a human being whether they have a heart or not. They are still classified as a human being, just a dead one, since it has not ability to function. Also a heart does not make a human, but it part of a human, the two are different, because we can live after our hearts have been taken from you. We can survive without many of our organ. While it is not a good life, they are still alive and as such they are still human.

A baby in the womb is part of the first stage of life and without it there would no life at. A human being is a human being right from the start and right until the end.

Also tell me which of these stages in the womb will classify as not being human for the unborn child?
http://www.silentscream.org/developm.htm

 

[El_Machinae]

So, you agree that the presence or absence of a heart has nothing (really) to do with 'personhood' right? We shouldn't judge personhood based on whether there's a heart or not; no matter the scenario. If we noticed that a wanted fetus wasn't developing a proper heart, we could (theoretically) implant an artificial one to keep it alive.

Regardless of whether a heart is there, what else has to be there for something to be a 'person'?

 

[Elrohir]

Actually, it's one of the standard arguments. Its classic presentation (I can't remember who formulated it) is to imagine that you wake up in bed one day to find another human being (whom you've never seen before) hooked up to you intravenously. You're told that he is very sick, and requires the support of your healthy system until he gets better. When he gets better, in nine months or so, he'll be able to leave, but until then he'll die if you unplug yourself to leave the bed.

It's far from clear that you have an unavoidable duty to stay in the bed until he gets better, even though leaving will kill him. Even less likely is that the government has the legal right to force you to stay in the bed-- even if we can agree that you must stay in bed, it doesn't seem right that you should face a penalty if you leave. There are reasonable limits to the assistance with which one may be legally required to provide someone else, and staying in bed for nine months is probably not covered. At any rate, you couldn't reasonably be accused of murder if you decide to deny your parasite access to your body; on the other hand you'd still feel pretty rotten about it, and would probably call it an evil. This is the perspective in which pro-choice people generally find themselves.

If that person is connected to you because you did something stupid (Like having unprotected sex) that you knew could result in this, but did it anyway then in that situation all I have to say is "tough luck". Life sucks, but you still have to accept the consequences of your actions, and you can't kill human beings simply because you don't want to be inconvenienced.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's OK to kill human beings simply out of convenience? I assume that you aren't, and that you don't believe fetuses are humans - in which case this entire line of argument is irrelevant, as the only issue that matters is when a baby is truly a human being.

I not a big fan of Gun ownership, smoking in public places or listening to Rap music, but I'd prefer those activities to be legal than have the Government arbitrarily ban those things. And abortion is far more private than any of those other issues.

They aren't comparable. It's one thing to believe something is inadvisable, or not something you want for yourself - it's another to believe it is morally wrong.

In a personal example, at my school several friends of mine, quite recently have gotten tattoos. (Three of them within a week, without any apparent warning or reason) I'm not a tattoo person - I'm not a fan, and I'm not particularly enthused by these people I know getting them. I would never get one myself. However, this, like your dislike of rap music or smoking in public places, is a personal objection, not a moral one. I personally object to tattoos because I don't particularly like how they look, and I don't like the idea of getting one - not because I think they are inherently immoral. Abortion, however, is the killing of a human being and is inherently immoral, thus it is not a matter of personal preference, but of morality.

The only issue in the abortion debate is "When does this 'fetus' become a baby, a human being with all the rights a normal human would have?" Any other argument is frivolous and irrelevant.

 

[Bill3000]

Abortion, however, is the killing of a human being and is inherently immoral, thus it is not a matter of personal preference, but of morality.

Except killing of a human being, in principle, is not inherintly immoral. Only certain types of killings.

 

[Elrohir]

Except killing of a human being, in principle, is not inherintly immoral. Only certain types of killings.

Good point Bill. Allow me to rephrase: Abortion is the killing of a human being who has committed no crime, or done anything worthy of death, and is thus morally, if not legally, murder.

 

[El_Machinae]

If that person is connected to you because you did something stupid (Like having unprotected sex) that you knew could result in this, but did it anyway then in that situation all I have to say is "tough luck". Life sucks, but you still have to accept the consequences of your actions, and you can't kill human beings simply because you don't want to be inconvenienced.
...
The only issue in the abortion debate is "When does this 'fetus' become a baby, a human being with all the rights a normal human would have?" Any other argument is frivolous and irrelevant.

This is certainly what the moral argument revolves around. But it's not really what the legal argument revolves around.

 

[CartesianFart]

Except killing of a human being, in principle, is not inherintly immoral. Only certain types of killings.

So you are saying that in "principle" that killing of a human being is not inherently immoral but killing human being of certain types with no "principle" or "principles" are justifiable?

 

[Elrohir]

This is certainly what the moral argument revolves around. But it's not really what the legal argument revolves around.

It should be.

 

[Bill3000]

Good point Bill. Allow me to rephrase: Abortion is the killing of a human being who has committed no crime, or done anything worthy of death, and is thus morally, if not legally, murder.

Except the problem is that even that is not inherently justified. I can simply point to euthanasia of a patient whose only future is that filled with intense pain on the way towards death, as an example of justified killing of a human being who has commited no crime, or done anything worthy of death.

And of course the proble mis that one would dispute your definition of abortion, because there is no consensus over whether or not something that is aborted is necessarily human - it's quite clear that you do, but it's not a philosophical consensus.

I could point to the argument that you found so reprehensible in another thread - the argument that there is a difference between a person and a human being, which can lead to the infanticide objection. Like this:

The infanticide objection points out that infants (indeed up to about one year of age, since it is only around then that they begin to outstrip the abilities of non-human animals) have only one of Warren’s characteristics—consciousness—and hence would have to be accounted non-persons on her view; thus her view would permit not only abortion but infanticide. Warren agrees that infants are non-persons (and so killing them is not strictly murder), but denies that infanticide is generally permissible.[13] For, Warren claims, once a human being is born, there is no longer a conflict between it and the woman's rights, since the human being can be given up for adoption. Killing such a human being would be wrong, not because it is a person, but because it would go against the desires of people willing to adopt the infant and to pay to keep the infant alive.

So you are saying that in "principle" that killing of a human being is not inherently immoral but killing human being of certain types with no "principle" or "principles" are justifiable?

I'm not talking about any particular type of killing which is justifiable - just that there are certain types of killings which can be justified. And as a result, you can't simply say that "the killing of a human being is immoral" is always true.

It should be.

Nope - because whether or not something is immoral does not necessarily mean that it should be illegal. Deontology is good for arguing principles, but it is not good for deciding stuff in practice - Consequentalist works much better there in general. Lying under the principle of sole personal gain is immoral - but we have not made it illegal. Some economic strategies used by companies in capitalist societies can be immoral, as they are served to not preserve the general interest of society, but the health of the company - but we do not make them illegal. Deontological arguments are not good for foolproof applications.

 

[angeleyes]

[....] The only circumstance in which I consider abortion morally acceptable is [....] when she is in such a condition that the child is better dead than alive (this may happen sometimes when the child is absolutely unwanted).[....]

In this case adoption is an alternative.

I'm undecisive myself

 

[Elrohir]

Except the problem is that even that[i/] is not inherently justified. I can simply point to euthanasia of a patient whose only future is that filled with intense pain on the way towards death, as an example of justified killing of a human being who has commited no crime, or done anything worthy of death.

There are always exceptions, or illusions of exceptions to rules and definitions. Generally speaking, as a society, we only kill those whom we believe deserve it - murderers, or enemy soldiers who threaten our nation, that sort of thing, not innocents who are merely inconvenient.

And of course the proble mis that one would dispute your definition of abortion, because there is no consensus over whether or not something that is aborted is necessarily human - it's quite clear that you do, but it's not a philosophical consensus.

I'm not saying that there is a philosophical consensus. However, that's where the debate should hinge, on whether an unborn baby is really a human being. Because if it is, as I believe, then abortion is not justified simply for convenience or economic concerns.

I could point to the argument that you found so reprehensible in another thread - the argument that there is a difference between a person and a human being, which can lead to the infanticide objection. Like this:

So do you actually believe infanticide is not morally objectionable?

 

[CartesianFart]

I'm not talking about any particular type of killing which is justifiable - just that there are certain types of killings which can be justified. And as a result, you can't simply say that "the killing of a human being is immoral" is always true.

So the application of the proposition of "the killing of a human being is immoral" is not always true in some particular cases then tell me,what is the criteria of providing a way to affirm or deny that "the killing of a human being is immoral?"

Meaning-what particular cases that are in a sense absolutely fixed in some way by being immoral and morally justified?

 

[El_Machinae]

It should be.

Fantastic; let's make Natural Family Planning illegal, then, shall we?

As well, we should criminalise any military activity that risks foreign infants, even if they are expedient.

 

[Bill3000]

There are always exceptions, or illusions of exceptions to rules and definitions. Generally speaking, as a society, we only kill those whom we believe deserve it - murderers, or enemy soldiers who threaten our nation, that sort of thing, not innocents who are merely inconvenient.

The problem is that if there is an exception to a maxim, then by definition that maxim cannot be justified. The idea that "I should not lie under any circumstance" for example, is worthless as there are circumstances in which lying is acceptable - thus it needs to be made more specific.

As well, there is at least one circumstance in which we already do kill innocents who are inconvienent - the lack of a public health care system neccesitates this, because a fatal disease can be genetic and the health of someone with that disease not dependent on how well he takes care of himself.

I'm not saying that there is a philosophical consensus. However, that's where the debate should hinge, on whether an unborn baby is really a human being. Because if it is, as I believe, then abortion is not justified simply for convenience or economic concerns.

Of course it wouldn't justified simply for convinience or economic concerns, as it would be more complex, and would be a matter of utilitarianism. However, the question "Does the woman’s bodily rights justify abortion even if the fetus has a right to life?" is not necessarily yes, either!

So the application of the proposition of "the killing of a human being is immoral" is not always true in some particular cases then tell me,what is the criteria of providing a way to affirm or deny that "the killing of a human being is immoral?"

Meaning-what particular cases that are in a sense absolutely fixed in some way by being immoral and morally justified?

How should I know? I'm not a philosopher, and am not knowledgable on the subject to decide.

However, the idea "the killing of a human being" is immoral is false for the simple fact that there are some types of killings which are considered acceptable.

So do you actually believe infanticide is not morally objectionable?

My own opinion on the matter is irrelevant, and will bring nothing productive to this debate as it will most likely result in an ad hominem attack. However, in that same paragraph, Warren gives a justification for the immorality of infanticide without resorting to the fact that it is a person.

 

[Elrohir]

Fantastic; let's make Natural Family Planning illegal, then, shall we?

As well, we should criminalise any military activity that risks foreign infants, even if they are expedient.

Stop being absurd. You won't convince anyone by saying such insane things. Natural Family Planning doesn't result in the death of anyone. You can't compare NFP to abortion unless you actually believe that individual sperm or unfertilized eggs should have rights. When you do, we can talk about that issue - but in the meantime, it's inane.

As for the military issue, that also isn't relevant at all. If you can't debate the actual issue El, then don't debate at all. Throwing up completely irrelevant issues is stupid, it's like the Chewbacca defense only without the Star Wars allusions. (So not as amusing)

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

I disagree-- the very thing the violinist analogy shows is that you can't simply throw out autonomy and convenience as irrelevant. The fact that a woman is responsible for the existence of the dependent being (this too being a foreseen but probably unintended consequence) is important, but not all-important. It must be weighed against other considerations, but it doesn't automatically tip the scales. Another important and limiting factor is that a fetus bears rather little resemblance to a human being, and I have a hard time ascribing personhood to it. A pregnant woman is responsible for the existence of a dependent something, but it appears to me that that something, being less a person than the violinist, is owed correspondingly less. This might easily counterbalance the responsibility objection, for example. (x-posted this bit with Erik)

Well yes and that brings up the idea of personhood indeed though I don't think the violinist argument really contributes anything to it. Personally personhood seems an either or thing and this seems to be in sharper focus if one believes in a soul as most people do. As I already said on this topic, the vague delineations and degrees implied by pro-choicers are not satisfying in anyway and can easily slip into having little defense against infanticide and eugenics at worst and at best just leaves the definition of humanity itself very fuzzy (leaving the possibility that we are in fact killing humans during some abortion but eh).

One danger in your case lies in your appeal to relationship ethics. If the mother-child relationship is a special thing whose uniqueness carries unique moral weight, then surely the opinions of an actual (or prospective) mother matter a lot more in a question such as this than do yours or mine. You can't both claim that motherhood has a special bearing on the moral issues and claim to dictate what that bearing is. If a mother's unique relation to her fetus is relevant, then you have to deal with the many mothers who think abortion is justified in their case.

Now wait, just because I pointed out that there's a unique relationship at the center of this debate, I, as not a direct part of it am somehow excluded from making objective judgments about it? Well, that's interesting because I always thought the Father-daughter relationship was a pretty important and unique one and yet I've always felt pretty comfortable opposing child molestation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Stop being absurd. You won't convince anyone by saying such insane things. Natural Family Planning doesn't result in the death of anyone. You can't compare NFP to abortion unless you actually believe that individual sperm or unfertilized eggs should have rights. When you do, we can talk about that issue - but in the meantime, it's inane.

I'm not being absurd, I'm just assuming that people have more knowledge than they do.

NFP tries to ensure that there's no pregnancy. It does this by timing sex so that (hopefully) the sperm does not meet the egg. That's all well and good. However, a side consequence is that NFP also ensures that if the sperm does meet and egg (and a fusion occurs, making an embryo) then the woman's body is not properly timed to be receptive to the embryo and rejects it.

This results in the embryo being flushed away instead of being implanted.

This is intentionally engaging in activity which might create human life (with the intention of not creating human life), but then exposing this human life to hostile conditions. Merely for the convenience of wanting unprotected sex without pregnany.

Please note that this is completely different that the 'acceptable loses' of trying to get pregnant with a 50% miscarriage rate. The goal is no pregnancy, with some accidental embryo deaths as a result.

 

[CartesianFart]

How should I know? I'm not a philosopher, and am not knowledgable on the subject to decide.

That didnt stop you for doing so by attempting to try.You don't have to be a philosopher(whatever make a person by somekind of label[philosopher] does not mean that what we are discussing is necessarily philosophy)to tackle this subject to make the right decision.

However, the idea "the killing of a human being" is immoral is false for the simple fact that there are some types of killings which are considered acceptable.

The word "killing" is probably the reason for this muddle.Lets say in some particular circumstances the word "human being" will be substituted for "belligerent" in a way to euphemize the meaning of killing a human being in cases of war.

So in consequence the meaning of "killing of a human being" is only applicable in murder cases and the meaning of "killing of a belligerant" is for war.

I find that there is no real definition of killing or other similar words but on how they are applied for certain circumstances based on a fixed premiss which give the subject its meaning.