Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Mouthwash]

Abortion is always justified by one of two reasons:

#1: That sapience determines moral value. This makes fetuses, being nonsapient, morally equivalent to a rock or other inanimate object. They're just some flesh, after all.

The problem here is that even if sapience were the basis for value, it doesn't follow that any nonsapient object would be valueless. Fetuses have the ability to develop sapience, an inherent capacity which is part of their nature. They may not be able to immediately exercise sapience, but this also applies to someone who is under general anesthesia, or in a coma.

Even if we argue that only *active* sapience counts, it would not apply to certain other things which are universally agreed to have value. It is considered acceptable to kill animals, but it is not considered acceptable to kill children below two years of age - even though their mental state isn't advanced much beyond than a chimpanzee's.

Finally, even fully-grown humans have varying degrees of sapience. The lives of those with Down Syndrome or other mental disabilities would not be as valuable as those of normal people.

#2: That women have an absolute right to complete control over their bodies. Therefore, since the fetus resides within her body, she has control over it, and may kill it if she desires.

This simply ignores the rights of the fetus. Yes, women are generally accepted to have rights over their bodies, but fetuses, being young human beings, also have a right to life. A woman's right to her body doesn't trump a person's right to life. Suppose that the atmosphere is a thinking, reasoning entity, and decides to suffocate all humans within itself even though they pose no threat to it. I think it is pretty clear that the atmosphere is not acting morally here.

A final point for those who think the right to bodily integrity is stronger than the right to life. Yes, women do, under your logic, have the right to kill their unborn child, and no one has the right to stop them, but this doesn't mean it is any less monstrous. You aren't doing it because the fetus poses a threat or hindrance to your body, you're doing it because you don't want the fetus to grow up and for you to be forced into an obligation. It's the same as the government rounding up and shooting homeless people on the grounds that productive citizens will not longer have to support them.

There. Can we all agree that abortion is hideously wrong now, and get on with our lives?

 

[BvBPL]

What about an obligation to reproduce and have children? That seems the source of the arguments against the practice. Of course the obligation to have children comes with an obligation to raise them as well, making it an obligation over time, rather than dealing with an instant of choice.

Additional, we do have moral obligations to other beings based on their sentience. We are obliged to avoid inflicting undue suffering on animals after all. Our obligation regarding sapient life is just higher (much higher). That said, I note that we generally afford very high protections (relative to animals) to people who may be less than sapient. The coma victim is not treated like a steer despite both packing sapience and the former possible not even being sapient. Ergo, the rule is not based merely on sapience but also on respect for the potential of the human to be sapient. There is an obligation to be humane to humans even when sapience is off the table.

 

[Kozmos]

So you wouldn't abort baby Hitler is what you're saying?

 

[Mouthwash]

What about an obligation to reproduce and have children? That seems the source of the arguments against the practice.

I've never heard that argument made. Anyway, unless the obligation is to have as many children as possible, it suggests that abortion is justified if you intend to have other kids.

 

[Arwon]

What do you mean by "worked". Abortion is legal in some form in nearly the entire world except for like half a dozen Catholic countries, and is available more or less on request and unhindered to about two thirds of the world's women. Clearly that argument is mostly being won.

 

[Mouthwash]

What do you mean by "worked". Abortion is legal in nearly the entire developed world. Clearly that argument is mostly being won except for some palces where Catholicism holds residual sway.

That has nothing to do with 'argumentation,' everything to do with people believing what is convenient for themselves. Are you really arguing that logic and reason determine what beliefs a population of billions holds? The arguments for slavery fail also, I expect you'd agree, but that didn't stop it from being universally accepted for thousands of years.

 

[BvBPL]

I've never heard that argument made. Anyway, unless the obligation is to have as many children as possible, it suggests that abortion is justified if you intend to have other kids.

It suggests that to you because your arguments here focus upon the intent if the actors as a virtue based moral system. If you instead took the stance of a consequentialist, the arguments would be noticeably different. Regarding an obligation to bear children, future intent may not evade that obligation when one considers that the future is unknown. Where the future is unknown and we have a duty to birth children then the obligation must be to have children presently and not wait because in a year a radiation cloud may cover our town, sterilizing us all.

Anyway, making a virtue based argument is a convenience for you.

 

[Arwon]

That has nothing to do with 'argumentation,' everything to do with people believing what is convenient for themselves. Are you really arguing that logic and reason determine what beliefs a population of billions holds? The arguments for slavery fail also, I expect you'd agree, but that didn't stop it from being universally accepted for thousands of years.

You still haven't told us what you mean by an argument working. I've got one pretty powerful demonstration of what it means for an argument to work. That's the sheer persuasiveness of it, as evidenced by the availability of abortion across a wide variety of social, religious, cultural, political and economic settings on every part of the globe. We also have, related to that, the world trending generally in the direction of greater support and availability. This shows us that the argument continues to get more persuasive across cultures and contexts. You are badly losing this argument.

Now if all you mean by an argument not working is that "Mouthwash thinks it's bad" then that's truistic and not a terribly practical place from which to begin.

 

[Atticus]

1. You make the case for sapience not being the criterion for value, but you don't tell what is the criterion. It's not enough to refute the counter arguments to make your point. You should also provide something that speaks for your point.

2. Sperm has also potential to become sapient. Should we protect it like unborn babies?

3. Are you ok with killing animals? Why killing them is ok, but killing fetuses not?

 

[Mouthwash]

You still haven't told us what you mean by an argument working.

How are you serious here? I mean, it works; is logically sound and can refute all arguments in favor of abortion.

The arguments for the availability of abortion are successful in a wide variety of social, religious, cultural, political and economic settings and the world is trending in the direction of greater support and availabiity, showing that the argument continues to be more persuasive.

Not on a strictly logical basis. People aren't operating as perfectly rational actors who hear all sides of an arguments. Abortion advocates see no contradiction in their arguments because of various fallacies and biases in their brains, not because they rationally examined the evidence. Popularity is never a gauge for the soundness of an argument, unless the poll is taken by specialists or scholars who have to study a subject before having an opinion.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

@OP:

I think you're being disingenuous by stating that these are the only two arguments in favour of abortion.

 

[Mouthwash]

1. You make the case for sapience not being the criterion for value, but you don't tell what is the criterion. It's not enough to refute the counter arguments to make your point. You should also provide something that speaks for your point.

I made that case to refute certain circumstances (like only actively exercised sapience being of value). That's why I was quick to argue that a potential sapience was equivalent to an active one.

Anyway, it's easier to rule out what is logically impossible than to assert something positive. I think it's compatible with a whole host of other ethical criterion, and I don't think it's necessary at all for me to have to select one.

2. Sperm has also potential to become sapient. Should we protect it like unborn babies?

It can't develop any sapience by itself. Neither can an egg. That's like saying that food ought to have moral value since humans would die without consuming it.

3. Are you ok with killing animals? Why killing them is ok, but killing fetuses not?

I'm OK with killing animals for valid or natural reasons. Sapience isn't part of their nature; they can never develop it, and an infant can. That's why the two are different.

@OP:

I think you're being disingenuous by stating that these are the only two arguments in favour of abortion.

I've yet to hear an argument that doesn't rely on them in some form or the other.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I've yet to hear an argument that doesn't rely on them in some form or the other.

Well at the very least your two stances are dealing in concrete moral absolutes rather than the weighing up of competing factors that actually happens in the real world.

 

[Lexicus]

The usual 'argument' for having an abortion is that the person in question is financially or otherwise unable to raise a child (often, it's another child as most women who have abortions IIRC already have one or more child).

Your #2 is also completely silly as by that logic you are suggesting someone should be legally compelled to donate blood and organs if it's required to save another person's life.

If you don't agree that you should be forced to do these things to keep someone else alive you certainly do not believe it's acceptable to compel a woman to bring a pregnancy to term.

We'll pass over in silence the usual silliness of men making pronouncements about abortion when they're not the ones who get pregnant.

 

[Atticus]

I'm OK with killing animals for valid or natural reasons. Sapience isn't part of their nature; they can never develop it, and an infant can. That's why the two are different.

You said that sapience isn't the basis of moral value.

As for your logic imagine that I claimed 4 not to be a prime number because it's even. You would counter that with saying "2 is even, and it's a prime". Would the conclusion then be that 4 is prime?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

We'll pass over in silence the usual silliness of men making pronouncements about abortion when they're not the ones who get pregnant.

God I hope we will. I predict certain people will be wittering on about that before too long though.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well at the very least your two stances are dealing in concrete moral absolutes rather than the weighing up of competing factors that actually happens in the real world.

If your argument is something like abortion lowering crime rates (which has been pretty much debunked anyway) than I ask you if it is acceptable to kill everyone who commits a felony-level crime.

All I'm asking is that you regard the killing of fetuses as equivalent to the killing of (innocent) adults, and reason from there.

The usual 'argument' for having an abortion is that the person in question is financially or otherwise unable to raise a child (often, it's another child as most women who have abortions IIRC already have one or more child).

Is it OK to kill a fully-grown adult, or an adolescent, or a toddler, for the same purpose?

Your #2 is also completely silly as by that logic you are suggesting someone should be legally compelled to donate blood and organs if it's required to save another person's life.

If you don't agree that you should be forced to do these things to keep someone else alive you certainly do not believe it's acceptable to compel a woman to bring a pregnancy to term.

Donating blood should certainly be an obligation, if someone's life is at stake, but donating organs would affect someone's health in an extreme way. Even it could be seen as right under consequentialism (which I don't wholly accept myself), it would never work as a law.

We'll pass over in silence the usual silliness of men making pronouncements about abortion when they're not the ones who get pregnant.

How about the silliness of making pronouncements about anything in the world that doesn't directly affect you? Because that's what we do here in OT.

You said that sapience isn't the basis of moral value.

I said: "The problem here is that if we take nonsapience to mean absence of value, it applies to other things which we do value." That's very different. For instance, claiming that sapience provides value doesn't mean it is the only metric for value.

As for your logic imagine that I claimed 4 not to be a prime number because it's even. You would counter that with saying "2 is even, and it's a prime". Would the conclusion then be that 4 is prime?

...I can't even begin to follow this. Sorry.

 

[Lexicus]

All I'm asking is that you regard the killing of fetuses as equivalent to the killing of (innocent) adults,

Why should we regard these as being the same?

Is it OK to kill a fully-grown adult, or an adolescent, or a toddler, for the same purpose?

Well, I don't think so. Others might disagree, there are plenty of capitalists on this board who insist people be allowed to starve to death if that's what's profitable for food producers or sellers.
Of course, the analogous situation is more like ceasing life support for a person who can't live independently, which people do all the time when they have medical power of attorney.

Donating blood should certainly be an obligation, if someone's life is at stake, but donating organs would affect someone's health in an extreme way. Even it could be seen as right under consequentialism (which I don't wholly accept myself), it would never work as a law.

If you don't believe people should be legally compelled to donate blood and organs to save lives, why do you apparently believe women should be legally compelled to bring pregnancies to term?

How about the silliness of making pronouncements about anything in the world that doesn't directly affect you? Because that's what we do here in OT.

I didn't say it doesn't affect men, since it does. What I said is that men don't get pregnant. And so you'll forgive me if I take your pronouncements on the subject of abortion less than seriously.

 

[Atticus]

I said: "The problem here is that if we take nonsapience to mean absence of value, it applies to other things which we do value." That's very different. For instance, claiming that sapience provides value doesn't mean it is the only metric for value.

Then it's not enough to say that it's ok to kill animals since they aren't sapient.

I think the ability to suffer or be afraid are the more important things than sapience when talking about morality.

...I can't even begin to follow this. Sorry.

Ok. Another example: suppose that I said that abortion is wrong because Jesus forbid it. You'd counter that Jesus' sayings aren't a valid reason to say something moral or immoral. This exchange would not prove that abortion is right.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why should we regard these as being the same?

Because I've made various arguments for such a view?

Of course, the analogous situation is more like ceasing life support for a person who can't live independently, which people do all the time when they have medical power of attorney.

I'm not familiar with the law in these cases, but I'm assuming that ceasing life support is not permitted if the person in question is conscious, or (if in a coma) is expected to regain consciousness at some time in the future.

If you don't believe people should be legally compelled to donate blood and organs to save lives, why do you apparently believe women should be legally compelled to bring pregnancies to term?

Because unlike donating organs (not blood), carrying a baby to term does not have permanent and severe effects on the woman's body. In fact, her body is designed to carry out that precise function.

I didn't say it doesn't affect men, since it does. What I said is that men don't get pregnant.

Yes, men don't get pregnant. What's the point of saying this, if not to claim that men can't understand abortion unless they have to deal with its alternatives personally?

And so you'll forgive me if I take your pronouncements on the subject of abortion less than seriously.

I'm afraid I don't see how my inability to get pregnant should affect my analysis of whether baby-killing is moral. If you're going to dismiss my arguments because of my gender, than you're roundly proving my point to Arwon that advocates of abortion aren't influenced by logic.

Also, should trans-women have their opinion on abortion taken seriously?

Then it's not enough to say that it's ok to kill animals since they aren't sapient.

I think the ability to suffer or be afraid are the more important things than sapience when talking about morality.

I disagree (think about the consequences of your viewpoint), but I also don't deny that feelings or sensations play some role in moral value. That's why I advocate killing animals under restricted circumstances, not merely by whim.

Ok. Another example: suppose that I said that abortion is wrong because Jesus forbid it. You'd counter that Jesus' sayings aren't a valid reason to say something moral or immoral. This exchange would not prove that abortion is right.

I still don't get how that pertains to this conversation.