Abortion

[surskitty]

Uh, if you don't want to have an abortion, don't have an abortion. That is why the pro-choice stance is called pro-choice.

 

[Dinru]

You don't have to have an abortion to not have a child.

All I really meant was that if a woman can't keep an abortion, she may choose to keep the child, which leads to more mouths to feed, which leads to more need for foodstamps.

 

[Harlequin]

Neither is abortion.

Adoption leaves a woman with a parasite inside her for nine months, the trauma of birthing it (or surgery to remove it once it can live outside of her body) and then the feeling of bonding with a baby she's given up.

Abortion means she has no parasite, no trauma and no bonding! (she might have some trauma from the abortion, but that was at least trauma she chose to have so.)

 

[Eloi]

Adoption leaves a woman with a parasite inside her for nine months, the trauma of birthing it (or surgery to remove it once it can live outside of her body) and then the feeling of bonding with a baby she's given up.

Abortion means she has no parasite, no trauma and no bonding! (she might have some trauma from the abortion, but that was at least trauma she chose to have so.)

I'm weary of calling all human beings "parasites".

 

[Cap'n Sofa]

A fetus takes its mother's nutrients and uses them as its own. I would call that parasitism.

 

[Eloi]

A fetus takes its mother's nutrients and uses them as its own. I would call that parasitism.

I feel humans take and give from each other to create human organizational structures, and to suggest the relationship between a child and parent is parasitic in nature is an idea that does not sit well with me.

 

[Music Dragon]

I don't think this really nulls the point which Danni made and which Butterfree was responding to. The point was that in one scenario, Butterfree's criteria for deciding whether a killing is bad seem to contradict our moral intuitions. You may just abandon the criteria and say that although killing a foetus is bad after all, it's less bad than the only alternative (forcing the mother to go through the painful process of giving birth). That is an argument. But it's not one that will convince any pro-lifers, because it's based entirely on your own personal weighing up of two immoral acts.

In any case, if this person really meets the aforementioned criteria - has no capacity to think or feel or dream or feel pain whatsoever and will be missed by absolutely no one - then I say go for it. Hurr hurr.

Counter-intuitive or not, I still don't think there's anything wrong about killing off a person who's not yet a person. I think the reason this feels morally objectionable to you is that you're not imagining the person correctly - or, rather, that you're imagining a person. This human has never been able to think or feel or do anything or have goals in life or dreams to fulfil. Even if he does recover there'd be nothing in his mind to recover; if he meets the criteria, then he has not a trace of thought or hope or personality in him. We're obviously not talking about a temporary state of mental inactivity (because then I'd be arguing that it might be okay to kill someone who's been knocked unconscious) - we're talking completely blank brain. This human is an empty husk - essentially a vegetable (and nobody ever complains when we slaughter innocent vegetables).

Of course, if we know that this person is about to be born for the first time in nine months' time, it would still be patently absurd to kill him, simply because there is no reason to, which is why the mother's pregnancy is a key difference - but, nevertheless...

 

[opaltiger]

I feel humans take and give from each other to create human organizational structures, and to suggest the relationship between a child and parent is parasitic in nature is an idea that does not sit well with me.

Only until viability. After that the foetus can survive on its own and is by definition no longer a parasite.

 

[Harlequin]

I'm weary of calling all human beings "parasites".

I feel humans take and give from each other to create human organizational structures, and to suggest the relationship between a child and parent is parasitic in nature is an idea that does not sit well with me.

Not all humans, just ones that inhabiting a uterus.

(Also, you don't have to get an abortion if you don't want one! If you disagree with abortions then you don't have to have them. It's, like, a personal choice.)

 

[Ruby]

Counter-intuitive or not, I still don't think there's anything wrong about killing off a person who's not yet a person. I think the reason this feels morally objectionable to you is that you're not imagining the person correctly - or, rather, that you're imagining a person. This human has never been able to think or feel or do anything or have goals in life or dreams to fulfil. Even if he does recover there'd be nothing in his mind to recover; if he meets the criteria, then he has not a trace of thought or hope or personality in him. We're obviously not talking about a temporary state of mental inactivity (because then I'd be arguing that it might be okay to kill someone who's been knocked unconscious) - we're talking completely blank brain. This human is an empty husk - essentially a vegetable (and nobody ever complains when we slaughter innocent vegetables).

All right, but even here, you're having to modify the criteria to make a moral distinction between those who have always been unconscious and those who became unconscious at some point (or, a moral distinction between those who will wake up with a "blank" mind and those who won't). Neither distinction is very convincing. The first one relies wholly on facts about the past, even though your underlying belief seems to be that only future outcomes matter when deciding whether a killing is wrong. The second assumes that a baby's mind is "blank," which just isn't true.

 

[Ruby]

But I'm guessing your next move will be to say that by "blank" you simply mean "having the mind of a baby," and in that case, yes, your argument becomes cogent.

 

[Eloi]

Not all humans, just ones that inhabiting a uterus.

All humans have inhabited a uterus at one point or another, to the best of my knowledge.

Only until viability. After that the foetus can survive on its own and is by definition no longer a parasite.

[sarcastic] Yes, because babies don't need nursing and cared for by people.

 

[surskitty]

It's still not a parasite at that point.

 

[Harlequin]

All humans have inhabited a uterus at one point or another, to the best of my knowledge.

[sarcastic] Yes, because babies don't need nursing and cared for by people.

I know I missed out the "are", but surely the rest of the present-tense sentence told you that I mean "currently inside a uterus at the time of being called a parasite"?

 

[Butterfree]

All right, but even here, you're having to modify the criteria to make a moral distinction between those who have always been unconscious and those who became unconscious at some point (or, a moral distinction between those who will wake up with a "blank" mind and those who won't). Neither distinction is very convincing. The first one relies wholly on facts about the past, even though your underlying belief seems to be that only future outcomes matter when deciding whether a killing is wrong. The second assumes that a baby's mind is "blank," which just isn't true.

The argument does not and has never allowed that people can be justifiably killed merely because they are currently unconscious. If you became unconscious at some point, then you had dreams/plans/etc. before that point, which means if you're actually on the way to recovery, killing you is to snatch away your ability to live out those plans every bit as much as killing you instantaneously while non-comatose would. Meanwhile, if your mind is basically nonexistent and has always been and you would merely gain one in nine months' time, you're in the same position as a fetus: nothing is actually being lost if you die, and though you still shouldn't be killed just for the hell of it, if your "re"covery required another person to unwillingly lend you any part of their body, then I would without question rule in favor of the one who is already a person.

 

[opaltiger]

[sarcastic] Yes, because babies don't need nursing and cared for by people.

They do. They do not, however, need their mother in order to breathe. Parasite means something fairly specific; please don't be offended by the term just because it has a colloquially negative connotation.

Also, since it seems everyone ignored me earlier, I will provide a direct link. Here is an excellent essay explaining why abortion should be allowed, even if we admit that abortion is murder.

 

[Music Dragon]

All right, but even here, you're having to modify the criteria to make a moral distinction between those who have always been unconscious and those who became unconscious at some point (or, a moral distinction between those who will wake up with a "blank" mind and those who won't). Neither distinction is very convincing. The first one relies wholly on facts about the past, even though your underlying belief seems to be that only future outcomes matter when deciding whether a killing is wrong. The second assumes that a baby's mind is "blank," which just isn't true.

But I'm guessing your next move will be to say that by "blank" you simply mean "having the mind of a baby," and in that case, yes, your argument becomes cogent.

By "blank" I mean "having no past experiences or memories whatsoever and, indeed, not previously having existed at all". So yes, "having the mind of a baby" is a good way to put it.

There is a moral distinction between the person who wakes up with some memory of his past life and the one who wakes up with such a blank mind: the former is still a person while comatose. Since he recovers after nine months with some or all of his mind intact, then it follows that his mind was intact during his coma, meaning that he was still alive, though temporarily unconscious.

If, on the other hand, the person in question will wake up after nine months with every trace of his previous life completely erased, then he is no longer the same person; the man he once was has been obliterated and is therefore not alive, and the person he will become after his recovery does not yet exist and is therefore not alive either. Hence he is not a person during these nine months.

 

[Rose]

If, on the other hand, the person in question will wake up after nine months with every trace of his previous life completely erased, then he is no longer the same person; the man he once was has been obliterated and is therefore not alive, and the person he will become after his recovery does not yet exist and is therefore not alive either. Hence he is not a person during these nine months.

Actually investigations have been made to see if in utero AKA. Fetal memory exists. They found evidence that fetus can show short term memory of up to 10 minutes after 30 weeks of development. There have also been claims from people saying they remember a small amount of time spent in there mothers womb. The conclusion is very controversial, but overall possible. The earliest results ever recorded was 22 weeks.

To say that a fetus is incapable of memory, and simple thought process while still in womb isn't that far fetched. I mean just think of the fetal position. Some assume this position when threatened because it makes them subconsciously think of time spent in the womb, and the safety it provides. Same as how a heart beat playing on a stereo has been proven to calm people down, all of that is a example of the ability to comprehend (At least on a lower level) and remember the time spent in the womb.

So technically there is a point in time during those nine months that a fetus can be capable of thinking, and remembering, at least for 10 minutes into the past.

 

[Lucas₇₅₅]

Ugh, this thread is longer than I thought. Forgive me if I mention anything that's been thoroughly disproven or something.

Anyway, I think abortion is wrong, in cases of irresponsibility. For example, if someone has unprotected sex and says "oh, I can just abort it. No big deal." I honestly don't know what to say in cases of rape. But in general, I think killing an embryo (or zygote or fetus or such) is like killing a newborn. After all, both of them are likely to survive, so anyone deliberately intervening specifically to stop it from surviving is killing it.
Honestly, isn't that the reason behind giving someone a double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman in some states?

EDIT: After reading Teh Ebil Snorlax's post, I do think abortion should be legal, though.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Actually investigations have been made to see if in utero AKA. Fetal memory exists. They found evidence that fetus can show short term memory of up to 10 minutes after 30 weeks of development. There have also been claims from people saying they remember a small amount of time spent in there mothers womb. The conclusion is very controversial, but overall possible. The earliest results ever recorded was 22 weeks.

To say that a fetus is incapable of memory, and simple thought process while still in womb isn't that far fetched. I mean just think of the fetal position. Some assume this position when threatened because it makes them subconsciously think of time spent in the womb, and the safety it provides. Same as how a heart beat playing on a stereo has been proven to calm people down, all of that is a example of the ability to comprehend (At least on a lower level) and remember the time spent in the womb.

So technically there is a point in time during those nine months that a fetus can be capable of thinking, and remembering, at least for 10 minutes into the past.

It is far-fetched, because the baby's brain does shit all until 30 weeks, when the cortical sub-plate goes away.

And wow, babies can remember things for ten minutes and then forget them. So they're a blank slate for ten minutes and then get erased. Makes all the difference, clearly.