Abortion

I believe that morally, it's equivalent to cutting your hair. It's attached to the woman's body, and everybody should have bodily autonomy.

Plus, it doesn't even feel pain before the 7 month mark. Even after that, a pig slaughtered for bacon probably feels more pain, as it has a fully developed brain.

What are your thoughts, and why?

 

The pain argument is worthless. I could kill the mother painlessly too.

The bodily autonomy argument doesn't apply well after birth. The legal obligation put on women continues to interrupt their autonomy after birth. Can a single mother go and drink booze while her baby is at home? No, even if it may be her body. The laws would penalize her for negligence if the baby harmed itself or died. She therefore has to take special restricted measures to make sure that doesn't happen. In fact, babies continue to be parasites on parents for years. Why is infanticide illegal? When developed pigs have proved to be more intelligent and capable than human toddlers, why is killing one considered a great tragedy/crime while killing the other is celebrated in a massive market? Why not farm human babies for various things like research?

In short: you completely ignore the real problem people have with it, and that is the value they have for human life in general. They don't care if a human is completely retarded, non-functional, without sensory pain, they still value that human life for some reason.

As for me, I value my own life primarily. As an extension, I value the life that helps me live in a world I like. Not all humans contribute to that, and there are certainly so many humans that I have no need to care about fetuses.

 

The pain argument is a by-the-way. What I really should have I said is that the fetus doesn't have conscious experience, and thus shouldn't deserve moral consideration.

Sure she can. The legal obligation put on women after birth has nothing to do with what she's allowed to do to her body, it has to do with her agreeing to care for a baby. If her drinking causes harm to the baby, or if her negligence causes harm to the baby, she's penalized for the harm to the baby.

If she doesn't want the baby anymore, she should be able to drop it off at the local orphanage.

Great point. I don't eat meat for this reason, and I'd be less offended if a baby died than if a pig died.

I understand the reasons, I just don't think they're valid. I believe that a being's capacity for conscious experience is what determines moral consideration, not the genes it possesses.

 

I think the real debate is at what point is the fetus considered life. For me, it's at conception, so abortion is murder to me. It doesn't matter if it's the woman's right, murder is illegal.

However, abortion is not a black and white debate. I personally believe that in rape and cases where the woman's life is threatened it's fine to abort, but those are very rare compared to the total number of abortions that occur every year ( less then 5% I believe, not 100% sure though).

So overall, I believe that it is not the womans right to abort, it is a life, and should be treated as such.

 

That's factually untrue. Fetuses are separate organisms that have their own unique DNA, it isn't a part of the woman's body at all.

 

Why should she be forced to do that much just because the fetus left the womb? Does the baby really have significant conscious experience (worthy of moral consideration), something it didn't have in the womb?

And if it's appropriate to force women to take special actions as an alternative to fatal neglect or euthanasia after birth, how is that significantly different than forcing them to give birth before? Is that then asking too much of them? It's their body and their choice, but not their time and their money?

Well, what makes moral considerations based on consciousness more valid than ones based on genetics? Seems like you've only broadened the scope to a wider genetic range, to beings with genes that permit a certain conscious capacity.

If the mother's life is at risk, I can understand a self-defense exception that permits killing someone, but I don't understand the exception for rape. Why would murdering someone be appropriate because a rape previously happened?

And I'm not sure the real debate is whether it's life or not. It's life at conception, that's a biological fact afaik. But are single-celled organisms life worthy of legal rights? That's the debate.

 

Why should a woman be forced to put herself through a terrifying and painful ordeal for 30 hours (child birth) simply because she was raped or her contraception failed or for whatever reason she fell pregnant. The reason she fell pregnant is really irrelevant because people experience emotional/mental distress over different situations.

I personally think a woman has full control over the matter as its her body and if she doesn't want to carry a child (which could be mentally distressing and physically painful) then she shouldn't have to. Although I am firmly of the belief abortions shouldn't be carried out late in the pregnancy.

There's enough children that aren't being looked after in this planet, why force someone to bring a life into this world when they don't have an emotional connection with them or the financial stability. The child will be miserable and also, there's enough unwanted children that need loving homes without adding to the problem by creating another life. The little babies get snatched up by couples wanting to start a family while the slightly older children are overlooked.

ppl stress the importance of the child's "life" and simply existing isn't really much of a life at all. It would kinder to be born into a loving, caring family who are completely ready and have the stability to support a child. This simply isn't always the case

Also I love how men always have some of the strongest opinions about this matter. It's amusing because they don't experience what the girl has to. All you have is speculation and you don't have any empathy for the woman who is carrying this precious "life". All consideration for the pregnant woman goes out the window while everyone desperately fights for the rights of this clump of dna and cells which hasn't formed a central nervous system or brain activity or even a heartbeat.

An abortion is extremely painful and traumatising for someone to go through and it isn't a decision that is taken lightly. My friend still gets these weird feelings when she thinks about it, she doesn't regret it because she knew it was the right thing to do and that she couldn't support a child while she was partying and had no money at the age of 15 with no solid relationships. but she still had slight doubts and wonders what would of happened if she didn't

I have the implant in my arm so it'd be highly unlikely I'd get pregnant but if it happened I would not keep it. Mental health/substance abuse/too young/not in a stable long-term relationship yet/no money/not emotionally invested in ever having children. If some man wants to tell me that I'm being forced to keep a child and have it inside me for 9 months because I need to give it up for adoption or else I'm a murderer and who thinks that me carrying a child is healthy for me or that child is completely stupid and quite frankly has a lack of human empathy.





Tldr- abortion is completely ok

 

The fetus is definitely considered life, but then again, so are the skin cells on your hand. Is it wrong to cut your hand?

It's physically attached. Consider genetic "chimeras" - people who absorbed their (non-identical) twin in the uterus, and thus have different DNA for different parts of their body. Is the fact that their DNA of, say, their appendix, relevant when deciding whether it should be removed?

Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She shouldn't be forced to do anything. By keeping the baby with her, and not giving it up for adoption, she's agreeing to take care of it. If she doesn't want to, she can drop it off somewhere else.

Well, you could look at it like that. I believe that moral considerations based on consciousness are the only relevant ones because in the case of non-conscious entities, nobody suffers. There's an innate part of me that will get upset if I see a human, a cat, or a pig getting hurt, but if somebody chops down a tree, I don't feel anything for the tree. I might have some environmental concerns if they're cutting down a lot of trees, but that's about it.

 

Firstly, the moral consideration is almost irrelevant here. Do laws reflect morality? No - and the abortion discussion is largely a legal discussion. That being said, the legal dimensions of abortion are very difficult. On the one hand, bodily autonomy must be considered. On the other hand, this is an organism that - especially in the later stages - is clearly a potential human being, and this has to be taken seriously.

Consider the following point. Let's say my mother, when pregnant with me, has a fight with some person, and that person punches her in the stomach, in such a way that my development is harmed and it impacts me when I have been born and grown. In such a case, I can later sue the person for damages to my person. Thus, the law clearly ascribes a degree of personhood to fetuses, for if I was decidedly not a person but a thing during my fetal stages, I would not be able to sue.

The difficult part is establishing exactly what this legal personhood entails, and therefore how the fetus ought to be treated at its various stages. Now, considering that it is illegal to kill a baby, I think it would be entirely inconsistent to not make abortion legal in let's say the last few weeks or so of pregnancy, during which time the baby is basically the same as it is when it comes out.

But there are some more relevant factors. Consider the uniqueness of the fetus-mother relationship. It is unprecedented legally, and it is therefore extremely exciting. It is a shared relationship; a true dependency of one organism over another, and the two occupy a shared space. Now, this has to be given due attention. A very fundamental legal principle is the idea of occupying a certain space - a person has to occupy a space. The fetus has to occupy this space. Thus, rejection of the fetus is expulsion from its place - this has interesting legal ramifications.

I have not fully composed my thoughts on this matter, but I just wanted to relate some of the considerations I've been thinking about. In the past I have felt myself drawn to the position you take, where the lives of babies are of less value than more intelligent animals. But I have found myself troubled by this moral analysis because it cannot make irrefutable claims about what to do, and it also clearly does not guide us in a legal analysis. Perhaps it is true that a mentally handicapped person or a baby is of less moral value than a pig, but even if this is true, it is not practically possible to be integrated into our legislation.

So as it stands, I think abortion is a very serious legal issue and should be permitted in most cases up until a certain stage of fetal development. As to what occurs after that point and what that point is, I have not yet fully worked out my thoughts.

 

I think it's really something that both the father and mother should sit down and talk about. However I do think that every child is born for some type of reason even if the father or the mother don't want to have the child. For example, you could not want to have a child, but say 5, 10, 20 years later you'll be glad you had that child and proud of who they've become.

 

I'm pro-choice all day long. I think a woman should have the right to decide, of course while including the father's opinion. At the end of the day, if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, it's still the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy. Her body, her right. Granted, there are women who get raped, end up pregnant, and keep the baby even when they are pro-choice. A baby is a choice and a commitment, not an anchor that must be kept if a woman accidentally gets pregnant.

Tell me why it's okay to tell a woman she has to keep a child for the rest of her life just because a condom broke or her birth control didn't work. If there's an argument that says, "You're having sex and are taking that risk," that's true. But you're also taking a risk of getting STDs (hopefully you trust your partner/s). HOWEVER, if you end up getting syphillis, should you leave it uncured just because it was your choice to have sex? Even if you have unprotected sex, you have every right to cure and/or treat an STD. Equally, there may be a risk of getting pregnant, but you should be allowed to abort a fetus.

Under any circumstances, aborting a fetus should be a woman's choice and should be a legal one. That being said, I do not support women who use abortion as birth control - that's absolutely outrageous and disgusting but it's still her right to use abortion three times a year if she ends up pregnant three times a year (even though there may be condoms and birth control used to prevent said pregnancies).

At the end of the day, a pregnancy is a pregnancy, a bundle of DNA, and an underdeveloped and unborn baby.

 

I take this to mean you admit that a baby is a different body and not a "part of the woman's body".

-Chimeras are two sets of DNA in one body, which is a genetic anomaly. We aren't talking about birth defects, we are talking about abortion, which is two sets of DNA in two bodies
-Regardless, removing their appendix doesn't kill them, abortions are specifically to kill the new organism.

Cut the doublethink. Abortions aren't performed on a woman's body and they aren't performed for the health of anyone. Abortions are a procedure to kill an unborn person.

Whether or not you think this is morally acceptable should be discussed. "Her body her choice" is just propaganda - it is neither her body and her choice would be to kill someone else.

 

Abortion is more than getting a haircut, it's taking a life away. Though i understand people that go through with it and don't judge them.
It's no simple matter, taking a decision like that.

 

Before the egg is fertilized, I assume you agree it's still considered part of the woman's body. After it's fertilized, nothing immediately changes about the egg except for its genetic code. It goes on to physically implant itself in the woman's body until birth - at what point is it considered another body, and not part of the woman's body?

Removing the appendix certainly kills the appendix, which in this case has its own DNA separate from the woman. I don't see the difference between that and abortion.

Would it be better then, if instead of performing the abortion directly on the fetus, they instead just surgically removed it from the woman's body and left it to die on its own?

Abortions certainly are performed for the health of the mother, in the rare cases where the mother's life is threatened.

You say "person", but what is a "person"? Is it something with unique DNA?

There's 2 sides to the "her body, her choice" argument. The other side is that since it's the woman's body, she cannot be forced to be host to a fetus, even if it is a separate body.

Swatting a bug is also taking a life away.

 

No, it absolutely immediately changes. The egg becomes a unique multi cellular organism and starts rapidly replicating and growing in size.

This is middle school biology.

The woman and the fetus are both distinct living growing multicellular organisms. You could consider the fetus a parasite, but it isn't "part of the woman's body" any more than a worm in your intestine is part of your body, and that killing that worm in your intestine is "no different than cutting your hair".

An appendix is an organ. A fetus is an organism. Like I said, your obscure reference to a rare genetic mutation is not a relevant analogy to a discussion on abortion.

Well, certainly abortions are grisly considering they crush and vacuum out the fetus, directly causing the death through violence.

So you ask would it be better to medically induce delivery of the premature fetus and allow it to starve/suffocate outside the womb? If the fetus was delivered at 9 months and the mother let the child starve a week later, would you be more morally appalled than if a doctor deliberately induced delivery for the fetus at 4 months old and threw it in the dumpster to starve?

Person refers to a human organism of unique DNA and body.

The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning - Should a woman be forced to feed her baby when it is born?

 

Swatting a bug is taking a life away yes, though i hope you see how much of an idiot you'd have to be to not see the difference.

I don't think abortion is a sin. I'm not against it. However it's not like swatting a bug. I'm with @Xier0 . at what point would you find it immoral? What age?

 

Okay, fair enough. I was under the impression that it first attached to the uterine wall, then started dividing. I accept your point.

Slightly, because a week-old baby can suffer to some extent, while a 4 month old fetus cannot.

I asked my question because you specifically mentioned that abortions were done to the fetus, which is correct. Would you prefer that delivery be medically induced?

Okay. Definitions widely vary for what constitutes "personhood", I just wanted to clarify what yours was.

No. By taking the baby home with her, she's agreeing to feed it, but she should be able to renege on that agreement by dropping it off at an orphanage.

I do see the difference, but you only said it was taking a life away. Clearly, not every instance of taking a life is wrong, so why is taking a life wrong in the case of abortion, in your opinion?

That's a great question. In my opinion, human development is a spectrum, and there's no hard and fast line when it suddenly becomes immoral to kill a child. I would think that as the child ages, it becomes more and more serious a crime to kill them until about age 3-4, at which point I would consider it equal to murdering an adult.

 

"Reduce pain in entities capable of feeling it" is generally a good moral principle that's a good starting point here.

The problem here is a potential slippery slope. How do we measure how much the organism minds dying? Most fetuses are healthy and (as evolution would suggest) fight to stay alive in the womb from external dangers. Fetuses that aren't healthy and are a harm to the host are also harms to themselves and can be aborted moral-free because it is aggressing against the host.

Even if the fetus hasn't yet developed neural activity to relay pain and suffering, is it fair to say that first developing fetuses still behave like any other simple organism that acts as if it wants to survive?

Is blending a baby significantly more evil than starving it? It's marginally more evil, but the concern is the outcome of fetus death, not the method of fetus death.

Would it be fair to argue that by having intercourse, she's agreeing to the possibility of becoming pregnant?

 

It's hard to measure how much an organism minds dying because so few animals have a concept of death. I like your earlier moral principle, "reduce pain in entities capable of feeling it". That gives us a better idea, because we at least have some conception of "how conscious" an animal is based on its brain structure.

That's fair to say.

Fair enough.

I wouldn't say she's agreeing to it. I'm sure virtually all women know that by having sex, they may become pregnant, but that doesn't mean they're agreeing to it. They may want the sex for the sake of sex itself.

 

Right. Now, going on a bit from this since we have an anchor- We clearly don't care about any pain that a tree suffers when we cut it down. We don't really care about causing pain to or even killing intelligent organisms (like swine and elephants, who are actually very intelligent) as long as we gain utility from them (food, hides, ivory etc).

While there are sects of tree-huggers and vegans, we can pretty much agree that everyone draws the line at causing pain to and killing other humans. Why? Because we are also humans, we can't hold a principle that harming and killing humans is morally acceptable if we do not want to be harmed or killed ourselves.

So in the case of abortion, do we suspend the moral rule of not wanting to kill other humans because the human is not capable of feeling pain? The only people affected by the death of the fetus are the fetus, the mother, and the father. If the mother and father consent to abort the fetus, should we allow it? The fetus didn't exist to consent to being conceived in the first place, and it can't consent to being destroyed. At what cellular complexity does the fetus gain human rights? Specialization of cells? Heartbeat? Neural activity? X months?

I took a medical philosophy class in University and this was a subject that seemed to have more questions than answers.

Everyone knows there's only one way to make babies. Everyone knows that there is a random element to it. I think it's fair to say that when one engages in intercourse that randomly produces babies, you are consenting to the possibility of the baby outcome. There are even multiple ways for both men and women to reduce the probability of having the baby outcome. All actions have consequences, are you allowed to kill a new person you created who is dependent on you for survival just because you didn't expect to lose the gamble of having sex?