Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Akka]

I wondered how long it would take to get to this.

(Still waiting on that rebuttal to the OP.)

Abortion debates were all the rage some years ago. And by "all the rage", I mean there was about one each week.
If they have died down and are now a rarity, it's because people have realized how pointless they are, and how tiring it is to make lenghty explanations for nothing. If you think you're the first to make such counters, you're quite a bit too optimistic I'm afraid

 

[Evie]

Certainly, but something which has the capacity for sapience must be valued at the same level that a sapient entity (i.e. a human) is. This is the point of my analogy to adults which are unconscious. Or do you have a counterargument?

Should the clay be valued as highly as the pot that is made from it? The uncut gem as highly as the jewel that can be cut from it? The paper as highly as the novel that can be written on it? The metal the same value as the car that can be built from it?

The capacity, or potential for a thing has never had the same value as the thing itself. You claim it must be, yet all of human history shows it doesn't.

You might respond that all these things need outside intervention to achieve that potential. So does the fetus. Specifically, the fetus need the outside intervention of a human mother to nurture and nourish it. Without that intervention, the fetus will, most certainly, fail to realize its potential.

 

[Lexicus]

A fine and dandy touchy feely approach that basically removes the ability to make generalized statements about abortion. It removes the logic from the conversation the same way as religion does.

I think making generalized statements about abortion is...generally...stupid.

Why even bother to save anyone's life, if we're all going to die eventually?

That was only a joke, but...really? Your obsession with forcing women to give birth actually would make you demand a woman bring a pregnancy to term, even if you knew the baby would die of starvation within a year or two?

Jeez...that is weird, man.

 

[BvBPL]

Should the clay be valued as highly as the pot that is made from it? The uncut gem as highly as the jewel that can be cut from it? The paper as highly as the novel that is written on it?

Maybe not, but the unfired pot is worth more than clay and the draft of a novel is worth more than paper. There is merit in things that move along an expected progression.

 

[Vectors]

I think people themselves are probably the best judges of whether they are 'able' to raise a child or not.



There is never such an unambiguous "expectation" in the case of pregnancy. According to Google between 30 and 40% of all conceptions end in the loss of the pregnancy. Barring serious cases where there is an obvious defect or condition which will lead to miscarriage or other problems, I don't know how readily we can predict whether a given pregnancy will come to term 'normally.'

60-70% is a pretty high likelihood

So, force the mother to bring it to term so it can starve to death within a few years? How far are we willing to take this fixation with forcing women to give birth?

You know that in the US there is huge demand for babies to adopt, right? If by six months they decide adoption there are plenty of services that will help find people who want to adopt. Seriously, if you go to most Catholic parishes they can connect you with people who deal in adoptions rather quickly.

 

[BvBPL]

I think making generalized statements about abortion is...generally...stupid.

Ignore the OP trying to shoehorn syllogisms into the discussion. Lexicus hits on the real reason why there are no good logic based arguments in the abortion debate.

Just look at the title if this thread. An argument that would work presumes it would work universally. As Lexicus points out, drawing a general statement about abortion isn't a good use of time.

 

[Princeps]

Sorry, but law and morality are not the same thing. Your democratically elected government can declare Poles to be Untermenschen, but that doesn't make it the case.

What use is speaking about morality then if it can't stop anything or affect anything?

Democratic laws are the system through which the people express their moral preferences. They are a good starting point for examining what people find moral.

We don't value humans because of their biological classification, we value them for their characteristics (sapience, sentience, natural agency, etc).

No. We value humans because they're human to us. Fetuses are not.

Also, I'm being VERY charitable to avoid comparisons between this and certain other invented classifications...

You are full of slippery slope fallacies. Do you have anything else? Like at all?

We're pretty safe in the assumption that people will know the relevant properties of what make fetuses non-human, and what make coma patients and down syndrome patients genuine human beings deserving of rights.

If the political system begins to justify killings, it's probably not going to cite the legality of abortion and suddenly categorize living human groups as fetuses.

Philosophers can come to all kinds of odd conclusions, but I've never understood how someone's intuitions could find baby-killing A-OK.

Well they're not babies. A nut isn't a little tree, it's just a nut.

Since your view is (by admission) driven by convenience rather than morality, why stop there? Down Syndrome is a burden to society, after all.

What? Like, how did you miss the word "palatable". I mean, it's right there in my post.

We're pretty safe in the assumption that people know the difference between down syndrome patients and fetuses.

 

[Evie]

Maybe not, but the unfired pot is worth more than clay and the draft of a novel is worth more than paper. There is merit in things that move along an expected progression.

But the unfired pot is worth less than the finished one ; the draft of the novel worth less than the edited novel ready for publishing.

There is value in things that move along an expected progression, but there is greater value in things that have completed that progression.

 

[Lexicus]

Ignore the OP trying to shoehorn syllogisms into the discussion. Lexicus hits on the real reason why there are no good logic based arguments in the abortion debate.

There can be more or less sophisticated and logical arguments on either side, but as with all moral arguments it ultimately boils down to premises that are assumed rather than reasoned out. It's fundamentally about emotion, not logic, as you said earlier.

As for policy, though, there is no good argument for making abortion illegal. The social outcomes are unambiguously better when abortion is safe and legal...and just btw I would favor social policy such as family allowance, paid leave, etc. that I hope would reduce abortions overall, because despite what the OP may think people who are in favor of abortion being legal, aren't necessarily in favor of abortion.

 

[BvBPL]

But the unfired pot is worth less than the finished one ; the draft of the novel worth less than the edited novel ready for publishing.



There is value in things that move along an expected progression, but there is greater value in things that have completed that progression.

So what? Applied to abortion that would only address those uncommon instances where someone's health is at risk and the abortion can salve that health issue.

 

[El_Machinae]

1) Seems to be a bit of a false analogy. Something can become significant at a point in time, due to new situations. Just because something can become something of value, it doesn't mean that the original item is significant.

A person is a four dimensional entity. You can assault a person before the person even exists, very easy. But if the fetus never becomes sentient, then it never becomes a person. It was a protoperson, for sure. But it's not a person. A rock isn't a statue. A seed isn't a tree. The moral status of a fetus changes according to its current physical status.

 

[Evie]

So what? Applied to abortion that would only address those uncommon instances where someone's health is at risk and the abortion can salve that health issue.

That'S not the argument I've been making at all, so...

Mouthwash is arguing that fetuses have equal value to full humans, and as such that killing them should be treated the same as killing a human. I'm demonstrating that his argument is built on a false assumption (that fetuses and grown humans have equal value).

It does NOT follow from what I'm saying that abortion is good, or that abortion should be permitted. I'm aware of that. It follows that one specific argument against abortion is wrong.

 

[BvBPL]

.

As for policy, though, there is no good argument for making abortion illegal. .

How about this?

The state is obliged to protect the lives of those under its care. (I think this is generally accepted)

This care extends to unborn lives as well. (As demonstrated by social output for neonatal care and the acceptance of legal causes of action and crimes related to harm against an unborn child)

Private autonomy interests of a person do not extend to permit physical harm against another (in other words, you right to act stops where my nose begins. Another generally accepted rule of liberal government and personal rights that has very few exceptions.)

Therefore it is not only in the states interest to protect the unborn, but the autonomous of the parent does not extend to terminating the unborn child.

 

[BvBPL]

But if the fetus never becomes sentient, then it never becomes a person.

A fetus is sentient. It is not sapient. An embryo or zygote is neither. Furthermore a non sentient human, like a coma victim, is a person.

Mouthwash is arguing that fetuses have equal value to full humans, and as such that killing them should be treated the same as killing a human.

are you sure that's what he's arguing?

 

[Lexicus]

How about this?

None of those are good arguments, a good argument would be something like 'abortion being legal causes more harm than its being illegal' and then would adduce evidence to that effect.

 

[civvver]

I think it's very hypocritical that the same people will jump all over a white cop shooting a black man, yet millions of black babies are aborted all the time and they don't bat an eye. Abortion is one of our most racist practices but no one brings that up ever.

The only thing pro life and pro abortion people will ever agree on is that we should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Better education and better and easier availability of contraception are needed so then no choice has to be made. Abortion should be an absolute last resort, not a first option in the off chance you get pregnant. Birth control has like zero downsides except maybe cost and it's not that expensive.

 

[Lexicus]

The only thing pro life and pro abortion people will ever agree on is that we should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Better education and better and easier availability of contraception are needed so then no choice has to be made.

So uh, you wanna tell the abstinence crowd or should I?

 

[El_Machinae]

A fetus is sentient. It is not sapient. An embryo or zygote is neither. Furthermore a non sentient human, like a coma victim, is a person.

A fetus becomes sentient in the 3rd trimester, certainly. But the phrase 'a fetus is sentient', as a catchall, is false. You'll note that my statement was if the fetus never becomes sentient.

As well, a coma victim is functionally different from a fetus in that it certainly was sentient. It's qualitatively different, in the 'having had sentience' is a feature a fetus does not have.

Once sentience occurs, there's a manifest shifting in the nature of the organism. The body now belongs to the sentient organism, and this ownership extends back in time to his constituents. No one thinks a sperm is morally significant, but if you were to poison the sperm that created me, it's clearly an assault on me. The ownership extends forwards and backwards, but only once my status as a person is actualized. You may poison sperm all you want, if they're disposed of.

So, the coma patient's body belongs to the coma patient, triggered when that patient had originally become sentient. We let people announce whether they will be DNRed, and we let them give commands on the disposal of their corpse.


A fetus cannot be compared to a coma patient, they're qualitatively different.

 

[Evie]

BvBPL:

Certainly, but something which has the capacity for sapience must be valued at the same level that a sapient entity (i.e. a human) is.

Yes, I am, in fact, reasonably sure he is making that argument.

 

[civvver]

So uh, you wanna tell the abstinence crowd or should I?

Let's both shout it out together, abstinence is unrealistic and not fun at all.

I am catholic and I don't believe in abstinence, I believe strongly in birth control (aside from sterilization), and I don't believe at all that our only reason for existing is to pro create. It's a reason but definitely not an obligation, more like a benefit you should check out cus it's pretty cool. When people say children are a blessing from God, I believe that's true, but that doesn't make them mandatory.