In my view, abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. If conception is the all-consuming veto over human life's inception and beginning, then any line draw after conception is wholly arbitrary. Thus, I fundamentally believe that innocent human life should be protected at all developmental stages under the pretense that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is wrong & immoral.
Other users in this thread clearly believe that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is sometimes permissable.
So as soon as an egg is fertilized, it's immoral to do anything about it? What do you make of the multitude of lifesaving (and life-enhancing) benefits that embryonic stem cell research provides us with?
You said any lines drawn are arbitrary, but they're not plucked out of thin air. There's a stark moral difference between the termination of an unthinking, unfeeling mass of cells and a sentient second trimester fetus. Just as there's a stark moral difference between end the life of your brain-dead comatose mother and Larry (perfectly healthy) who lives down the road. The particulars are important in these kinds of things.
You religious at all? Or you just tryna be a 'hyper-logical' devil's advocate?
Rape victims can go fuck themselves, eh?
Mothers who would die from giving birth can fuck themselves, eh?
People who do everything in their power to not get pregnant while having sex can fuck themselves, eh?
Unwanted kids who get dealt one of the shittiest hands in life can fuck themselves, eh?
Making abortion illegal is just not the right answer in my view. People will search for other means, whether that means coathanger abortions or purposefully starving themselves to induce a miscarriage.
Forcing a kid into a world where he isn't wanted is more immoral than ending the possibility of life of an unthinking, unwanting entity, in my opinion.
Oh, boy. Obviously those are terrible instances, but circumstances don't change the calculus. As for the situation of where an abortion is the only way to save a mother's life, I've never found an example of it, yet it is raised all the time in the abortion argument because, of course, the pro-choice side is focused on the extreme cases.
Roughly 99% of abortions are done for convenience, with 40% of those abortions being by women who have had 2 or more abortions (UK.gov statistic 2019).
That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
Or do you believe that women should have the right to abort in all cases for whatever reason at any stage?
This isn't an argument. Murder still happens despite murder being illegal. Imagine if it wasn't illegal? There would be lots more murder. That's the point of the law, to decrease the number. No system or law is infallible, and there will always be abortions.
This is emotionally-reasoned. When exactly does an unborn-unthinking-entity make the transition from unthinking to thinking? I could probably guess that you'd be against killing an already born 25-week-old baby, yet are you for the right to abort a 27-week-old baby still in the womb?
Re-read my pretense. I'm against the deliberate killing of innocent human lives.
Obviously the things I mentioned are not the majority of cases, but making abortion illegal would definitely give two big middle fingers to all of them.
Also, just because you haven't seen stuff doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thought you would know this, being religious and all.
What is 'convenience'? I tried looking these stats up, UK.gov doesn't exist, you probably mean gov.uk. The query "abortion statistics 2019" brings up this page: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...and-wales-2019. I couldn't find the 99% stat, I guess you mean that 98% of abortions are carried out under Ground C?
Of course I would like every abortion to have a good reason behind it, it's not something I see as fun. But it is in my opinion a necessary evil.
The law against murder is there to reduce harm. I think making abortion illegal would not reduce harm, but increase it.
- The mother suffers through pregnancy and child birth
- The child most likely grows up without parental love
- Desperate mothers (and babies) die in botched coathanger abortions
Probably more harms but you get the point
I'll take the harm of ending the possibility of life for an unthinking, unwanting entity over all these harms any day of the week.
I thought it was pretty logical. Shit life or no life at all? We can't know what the baby wants so we have to make the decision for them. I'm on the side of no life at all.
As for the transition, we don't know. But you can't have thoughts or desires without a brain, right? I believe the brain starts forming around 4 weeks into pregnancy. We've been over late stage abortions already.
You acknowledged that innocent people would be put on death row. You are apparently okay with that, as you are in favour of the death penalty.
I care about rape victims and hope they deal with their trauma in the best way they see fit, but abortion isn't justified because the mother got raped. They're two seperate issues, totally unrelated from one another. As for people who try to prevent conceiving during sex, that's all well-and-good, but conception is always a possibility during sexual intercourse. When you have sex, you consent to the possibility of pregnancy (different from consenting to pregnancy). The responsibility falls on the two partners to carry out the pregnancy to full-term, and then they're free to put the baby up for adoption.
My apologies, yes I meant gov.uk. I should have sourced more clearly as you've mistaken my sourcing for the former point regarding the 99%. I was actually referring to the 40%.
Incorrect. The law against murder is there to reduce murder. The abortion law wouldn't be there to reduce harm, but reduce abortions. The utilitarian answer to abortion isn't something I'm invested in.
Of course, it makes it easier to take that position when you slap on "unthinking" and "unwanting" before it. Does an unthinking human adult have no value? What about a child who is unwanted? Do they have zero value as well? I don't think desire and the capacity for thought are logical or reasonable ways of measuring one's value as an objectively, existing human life.
I would have thought that the fact that the human life is incapable of giving consent to such an enormous decision concerning whether they should live or not is exactly why we should not be able to make such a decision? You couldn't possibly know what they want, since many babies conceived in the most awful and tragic of conditions go on to live happy, fulfilling lives. It's common to see pro-life people who were conceived in rape state that they're thankful that their mother didn't abort them.
Since you're pro-choice, what law do you believe is correct? Where do you personally draw the line? At 4 weeks?
I'm for the death penalty as much as I'm for our participation in the Second World War. Would you describe adherents of the US' participation in WW2 as "okay" with the taking of innocent life? No, you wouldn't, because there's a difference between acknowledging that a noble goal could end up with innocent deaths and being for a procedure that is intentionally designed to end innocent life.
Forcing a rape victim to give birth to the child of the man who raped her IS justified?
I doubt you're going to admit this, but it's definitely implied here.
I don't think it's fair to compartmenalize abortion to this degree, the laws will impact pairs of mothers and potential children. Not some abstract concept 'fetus' and another, totally unrelated abstract concept 'mother'.
Adoption does not give the same quality of life as a child with two loving parents. Sadness all around. Troubled child, traumatised couple, a society with an orphanage shortage.
As for the 40%, it does come off as concerning. But I don't think it's enough of a reason to deny abortions to all those who do need it.
I'm curious, what rules inform your deontologist argument against abortion?
I don't know what value has to do with this, but braindead adults are cut off from life support all the time. Of course an unwanted child has value, but I don't want a child to struggle with major feelings of unwantedness throughout their childhood, when that easily could have been prevented.
You can turn that argument all the way around. Making abortion illegal presumes that fetuses want to live, you couldn't possibly know that.
Also I believe that people born into tragic circumstances living happy lives are the exception, not the rule. The people that were 'abortion candidates' (sorry for the dehumanizing term, can't think of another way to refer to them) are adults now and (presumably) have a natural instinct to want to be alive. They have a personal bias.
Haven't given much thought to exactly which legalese I prefer, but 4 weeks seemed reasonable at first. Apparently most women find out they are pregnant 5.5 weeks in though, so it probably isn't so reasonable. Maybe the law should be paired with increased access to pregnancy tests at lower costs, and general sex education.
Once an egg is fertilised, human development has begun, thus moral implications simultaneously arise since - yes - an innocent human life is involved. As far as the benefits of stem cell research go, I prescribe to deontology, so benefits don't matter to me as much as the initial means which lead to the benefits in the first place. For example, I also oppose animal testing, despite the benefits that come from it all.
There is an emotional difference; not necessarily a moral difference.
Of course, any human being will prioritise a 4-year-old child over a zygote, but that doesn't negate the humanity or life of the zygote.
Drawing the line at conception is the most objective and morally-consistent position if you value all innocent human life.
I personally don't see it as relevant to the discussion since the pro-life position is consistent with atheism, but yes, I am religious.
The question doesn't really make sense since for me to justify it, I have to be proving something to be right.
That's quite a statement to make. Who are you to say adopted children have a lesser quality of life as opposed to other children? Parents of adopted kids can be just as loving as biological parents. Plus, this "quality of life" isn't exactly something tangible that can be measured or compared. How do you measure it exactly?
These outcomes that you're displaying (troubled child, sadness, traumatised couple, etc) are all negative assumptions to make. You seem to dismiss all the potential positive outcomes. But again, this is consequentialist argumentation; the primary thing that matters to me is that the baby is alive and hasn't been murdered in the womb.
I didn't think I'd need to source it since the 99% stat isn't exactly disputed at all. The vast majority of abortions are convenience-based, with rape and incest cases always being below 1-2% in all western countries where abortion is legalised.
Just from a quick google search. Page 113.
"Need" implies "necessity". Education purposes, job purposes, having other children already, can't afford to have the baby, unemployed, relationship problems, not ready... Do you consider these all instances where the mother needs to have an abortion? You consider an abortion necessary?
My deontological perspective means that I'm to treat everyone as an ends in themselves, not a means to an ends.
So you would have something like this:
1. He/she is an innocent human life
2. It is wrong to end innocent human life
3. Abortion ends innocent human life
4. Therefore abortion is wrong
Fairly simple. Your argumentation, on the other hand, comes from a consequentialist perspective, stemming from teleological ethics (basically the exact opposite to deontology). Thus, it's fairly evident we'll never agree on this issue. You value utility over duty.
While you never set the criteria for what constitutes "unthinking", in my head "unthinking" doesn't exclusively apply to braindead adults. Could also apply to the mentally handicapped, or somebody in a temporary coma for example. And your "unwanted" argument bases itself on the presupposition that abortion survivors will always feel unwanted and have disatisfying lives. Again, this is unmeasurable.
Exactly, we don't know what they want, so the onus is on you to justify killing them while being aware of the fact that you deprived them of future consent to say otherwise. Also, if your next argument is going to be, "but they can't consent in their present state, so it's okay to kill them", then I'd advise you not to make that slippery slope.
Human organisms fight for life at all developmental stages. Even in an abortion, the fetus/baby moves away from the suction tip.
If you want to play that game, I don't think abortion and the death penalty are analogous.