Abortion

[Gustaf]

Explain to me why I should be against it in secular terms in my personal life so I don't have to come off as a monster anymore when I say that I'm personally "pro-abortion" in many circumstances. I don't really want to have this view but I've found no convincing moral argument as to why abortion is immoral. Let's see if you guys can give me one.

I am a virtue ethicist, but to avoid rambling about subjective attributes of character I think one is best off making a habit of and internalizing, I would say from a secular standpoint most abortions are not morally objectionable until sometime early in the third-trimester of a pregnancy - at which point one would do well to take into account that a developing fetus/baby/whatever can begin to feel pain, and perhaps to some extent experience emotions and think. Until a human life is viable, however, it seems dubious to me to regard it as having full personhood for non-spiritual reasons.

Incidentally, one might also have moral reservations about abortion for reasons concerning why a particular abortion is being performed. Depending on ones political convictions, there may come a point at which a woman's privilege to choose conflicts with foundational principles of society. There is not necessarily a good or bad direction to err in when it comes to such conflicts of conscience, but it is worth bearing in mind that some of the concerns that come into play are secular in nature.

Do you remember who I might be thinking of in my post on the first page? A female virtue ethicist who has written on abortion. I think it's something like Rosetta Hurst, maybe.

[Redalgo]

Do you remember who I might be thinking of in my post on the first page? A female virtue ethicist who has written on abortion. I think it's something like Rosetta Hurst, maybe.

I am afraid not - sorry.

Most of my readings on the subject have been on Aristotle, whose ideas I adjusted quite a bit to mesh with my other views and compensate for flaws I see in deontological and consequencialist alternatives. Alasdair MacIntyre has wrote on virtue ethics, incidentally, but I imagine you are probably thinking of somebody else.

[Miles]

Im Pro-Life but not radically.

[TJ in Oregon]

Both a sperm and a fetus are clearly alive. The question isn't whether or not there is life, but whether or not that life is a human life. We, regardless of religious belief, afford a different level of protection to human life than we do to other types of life than other types.

So when does life begin?

It doesn't matter whether the person experiences pain, murdering them is still murdering them and is frowned upon in our society. A bullet to the brain is punished less than the slow dismemberment of a human only as the latter is an added act of torture not because we only consider murder wrong if the person experiences pain. The ability to experience pain does not make sense as a marker for when a human life begins.

Viability doesn't make sense as the point to determine that a life becomes human because viability is dependent on the technology available and whether a human life exists depends on the natural of the biological material. It doesn't make sense to say that a fetus at a particular stage of development is a human life today because of viability when a fetus at the exact same stage 20 years ago would not have been viable. Yet they are of the same biological structure. And this may change even more in the future.

You could take any arbitrary point along the development process and define that point as where a human life begins, but in doing so you neglect that the fetus had a very similar structure in the seconds previous to that point and the arbitrary definition is just that, arbitrary. Then it becomes apparent that the best answer is found by tracing the human person back to its very beginnings, to where it cannot be traced back further and remain a single instance of life, at the moment of conception. This is not a scientific answer so much as a philosophical one for the reason that science cannot provide and adequate definition of "human life" or "person" such as to give an answer to that question because those are not scientific terms. Yet they matter.

[Fritz]

Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to consume alcohol, as this will cause harm to the fetus?

[Oakvale]

My personal opinion on this - and I don't think it should matter all that much since, as a man, I'm never going to have to carry a [insert preferred emotionally-loaded term here] inside me for nine months - is that whether a fetus is or isn't "life" (not a concept I think we should necessarily fetishize, but I digress) isn't important - maybe a fetus is "life", but I don't think it follows that it's therefore wrong to end it.

I suppose there should be some kind of viability limit, which is (obviously) completely arbitrary, but that's inevitable considering we're having a ridiculous discussion about fuzzy, abstract concepts like "life" and "personhood" that are by definition arbitrary, and that will never be resolved because there aren't actually such thing as right answers. Let's come up with a messy, unsatisfying compromise for all concerned and move on. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

PS: FWIW, I think  that - slightly cliché at this point, admittedly - Flo Kennedy quote about how "if men could pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament" bears as much repeating as it gets.


EDIT: Quoting this for the ages -

Masturbation, although immoral

There are people alive in the 21st century who believes this? Okay.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I tend to put my trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life. I think at some point is becomes lift, but at conception, I haven't read anything that tells me it is a human life. Of course, I will probably go to hell for saying that, but oh well.

Why put your trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life as opposed to those medical professionals who have said a fetus is? 

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings. A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

It is interesting that you bring up natural rights here, as natural rights philosophy has been associated with the pro-life position since its development in the late medieval era. Man's nature is to be dependent and in a constant state of development. Much of the uniqueness of humanity comes from the fact that humans stay in a state of dependence to adults longer than any other species, and have a longer period of biological immaturity.  To limit the scope of human protection based on diversion from an idealized "self-owned man" is tantamount to a denial of human finitude, and thus mortality itself.

Man's development is only dependent when it exists inside the womb.  Afterwards, it becomes an independent process.  The "self-owned man" is not a diversion at all because rights are guaranteed to fully-formed, individual beings, not potential or collective beings.  A fetus- especially during the first few months when it is merely a mass of protoplasm that exists as part of the woman's body- do not, and should not have the same rights of the pregnant woman, and that of which lives inside another cannot claim the rights of its host.

Man's development is dependent throughout life upon the sources of its nourishment. If you lose your dependence, you die. That doesn't mean you're not an individual - Is a joey not a kangaroo because it hangs out in the pouch?  A fetus is a biologically distinct individual. An organism with millions and billions of specialized cells cannot accurately be called "a mass of protoplasm."

After a person is born, however, it no longer depends on living within the body of another for development or existence.  The resources that a person uses for survival cannot claim any rights of their own; water cannot claim it has the same rights as a person, a shelter cannot claim it has the same rights as a person, and an animal cannot claim it has the same rights as a person.  Such is not the case during pregnancy.  Potential people cannot claim the same rights as actual people, and potential must never be confused with actuality because they are two different things.  What can become an infant is not actually an infant, just like what can become a tree is not actually a tree.  Placing a bunch of cells under the same regards as an actual human being is neither practical nor morally just.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Masturbation, although immoral

There are people alive in the 21st century who believes this? Okay.

I scratch my head at some people here all the time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hypothetically speaking, what would our feelings be on the morality of aborting feti being gestated in vitro, were such a thing to become technologically feasible? They'd be, technically speaking, biologically independent of the mother (perhaps to a fault).

[Oakvale]

Masturbation, although immoral

There are people alive in the 21st century who believes this? Okay.

I scratch my head at some people here all the time.

I wish I'd noticed that I apparently switched from the plural of "person" to the singular halfway through the sentence. D'oh.

Hypothetically speaking, what would our feelings be on the morality of aborting feti being gestated in vitro, were such a thing to become technologically feasible? They'd be, technically speaking, biologically independent of the mother (perhaps to a fault).

I wouldn't personally have a problem with it, but I imagine a lot of people might.

I, uh, know that's not exactly an answer that's going to win me the Nobel Prize, but there you go.

[Free Palestine]

Hypothetically speaking, what would our feelings be on the morality of aborting feti being gestated in vitro, were such a thing to become technologically feasible? They'd be, technically speaking, biologically independent of the mother (perhaps to a fault).

You mean like in Brave New World, or how the Jove in EVE Online reproduce?  I could go for that.  Especially if we perfect cloning.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hypothetically speaking, what would our feelings be on the morality of aborting feti being gestated in vitro, were such a thing to become technologically feasible? They'd be, technically speaking, biologically independent of the mother (perhaps to a fault).

You mean like in Brave New World, or how the Jove in EVE Online reproduce?  I could go for that.  Especially if we perfect cloning.

I was actually thinking of a Japanese sci-fi detective novel I just read, and the general desirability of such a situation (low, I think, as it happens) wasn't really what I was asking about. For the people whose justification of the abortion right has to do with the fetus' dependency on another body, in this situation would they, and why would they, think that this justification would hold up?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Explain to me why I should be against it in secular terms in my personal life so I don't have to come off as a monster anymore when I say that I'm personally "pro-abortion" in many circumstances. I don't really want to have this view but I've found no convincing moral argument as to why abortion is immoral. Let's see if you guys can give me one.

I am a virtue ethicist, but to avoid rambling about subjective attributes of character I think one is best off making a habit of and internalizing, I would say from a secular standpoint most abortions are not morally objectionable until sometime early in the third-trimester of a pregnancy - at which point one would do well to take into account that a developing fetus/baby/whatever can begin to feel pain, and perhaps to some extent experience emotions and think. Until a human life is viable, however, it seems dubious to me to regard it as having full personhood for non-spiritual reasons.

Incidentally, one might also have moral reservations about abortion for reasons concerning why a particular abortion is being performed. Depending on ones political convictions, there may come a point at which a woman's privilege to choose conflicts with foundational principles of society. There is not necessarily a good or bad direction to err in when it comes to such conflicts of conscience, but it is worth bearing in mind that some of the concerns that come into play are secular in nature.

This is more or less my viewpoint.

Am I the only one that views the "abortion is inconsequential to me because I'm a man" argument to be bunk? Abortion or a lack of abortion will have consequences for males, even if they're not directly impacted by the issue. A man could be in a relationship and have a dispute with his significant other over abortion and it would still be an important concern for him even if he wouldn't have to struggle with the hardships of actually bearing a child.

I feel like the "I'm a man" argument is a way to avoid responsibility.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Pro-choice is the rational position - you can't say that the POTENTIAL for something is that thing. Abortion should be legal until life is in fact viable, which is up until the third trimester. To all pro-life posters, I ask of you - would you make masturbation illegal? Would you have people taken out of bed in the middle of night and thrown in prison for having a nocturnal emission? After all, sperm is POTENTIAL for life.

False analogy. Haven't we already addressed that argument (on this forum, no less)?

Masturbation, although immoral, does not present the same issue as abortion, because in the former there is no joining of a sperm and egg. I also dispute your description of a fetus as a "potential for life".

1. Lol at masturbation being "immoral".
2. If you take a sperm or a foetus out of its environment, it would die. Neither are viable life (well, the latter is, but only after 22-24 weeks, as I've said) and so it's nonsense to make a distinction between them if you're going to take the attitude that "potential for life" is the same as life itself.

You're confusing viable life with potential for life. The fact that a fetus isn't viable does not mean that it isn't a life or that it only serves as "potential for life". I'd argue that the status of a fetus as viable/non-viable shouldn't even be an issue at all.

(You also still haven't explained what you mean by "potential for life." A fetus can't be a potential for a human life when it is a human life already.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to consume alcohol, as this will cause harm to the fetus?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the arguments put forth in favor of prohibition.  Of course, there they decided to ban everyone drinking alcohol, not just pregnant women.  That suggests a simple-minded approach.  Instead of banning pregnant women from getting an abortion, ban everyone from getting them.

[traininthedistance]

My view is that, as long as the fetus can't survive outside of the womb, it is still quite literally a part of the mother, and her right to bodily autonomy should be absolute.  At the point where the fetus has developed enough to survive outside, which I guess is around the beginning of the third trimester in most cases, then it makes sense to consider it a separate individual human, who then is endowed with all the rights and protections of the law.

This is, by the way, far far earlier than most societies throughout history.  Infanticide and infant mortality were very common, and children were often not even named until a year or two old, when they had proved they already had a chance to "make it" in a much more difficult world.

And if you try to push this line back much further, you end up with a position that's impossible to reconcile with the science of the matter.  Something like half of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages, many of them even before the woman knows she is pregnant, so even without abortion a huge proportion of fertilized eggs will never develop to viability.  (To say nothing of the fertilized eggs which never even implant, probably even a larger proportion than that.)  And if there's a miscarriage, the fetus will often be reabsorbed by the mother: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_twin

Even more damning for the idea that "life begins at conception" is the existence of chimeras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29  Basically, two zygotes fuse into one individual, and yes human chimeras exist.  If I'm a chimera (and you may never find out unless you need a blood transfusion or you're born intersex or something), does that mean I have double the soul power of a normal person?!

I used to be very sympathetic to the "pro-life" view.  Then I learned some facts.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I tend to put my trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life. I think at some point is becomes lift, but at conception, I haven't read anything that tells me it is a human life. Of course, I will probably go to hell for saying that, but oh well.

Why put your trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life as opposed to those medical professionals who have said a fetus is? 

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings. A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

It is interesting that you bring up natural rights here, as natural rights philosophy has been associated with the pro-life position since its development in the late medieval era. Man's nature is to be dependent and in a constant state of development. Much of the uniqueness of humanity comes from the fact that humans stay in a state of dependence to adults longer than any other species, and have a longer period of biological immaturity.  To limit the scope of human protection based on diversion from an idealized "self-owned man" is tantamount to a denial of human finitude, and thus mortality itself.

Man's development is only dependent when it exists inside the womb.  Afterwards, it becomes an independent process.  The "self-owned man" is not a diversion at all because rights are guaranteed to fully-formed, individual beings, not potential or collective beings.  A fetus- especially during the first few months when it is merely a mass of protoplasm that exists as part of the woman's body- do not, and should not have the same rights of the pregnant woman, and that of which lives inside another cannot claim the rights of its host.

Man's development is dependent throughout life upon the sources of its nourishment. If you lose your dependence, you die. That doesn't mean you're not an individual - Is a joey not a kangaroo because it hangs out in the pouch?  A fetus is a biologically distinct individual. An organism with millions and billions of specialized cells cannot accurately be called "a mass of protoplasm."

After a person is born, however, it no longer depends on living within the body of another for development or existence.  The resources that a person uses for survival cannot claim any rights of their own; water cannot claim it has the same rights as a person, a shelter cannot claim it has the same rights as a person, and an animal cannot claim it has the same rights as a person.  Such is not the case during pregnancy.  Potential people cannot claim the same rights as actual people, and potential must never be confused with actuality because they are two different things.  What can become an infant is not actually an infant, just like what can become a tree is not actually a tree.  Placing a bunch of cells under the same regards as an actual human being is neither practical nor morally just.

So, what is your position on breast feeding?

Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to consume alcohol, as this will cause harm to the fetus?

The interesting thing about this question is that it points to the continuity between the fetus and the born child. You might say "It's her body she can do whatever she likes" but then once the child is born and has a damaging condition, has any wrong been done?
The government isn't competent to track the alcohol consumption of every pregnant woman, and I absolutely wouldn't want it to try. But at levels that would damage the child's development, it is an abrogation of that child's rights, and I think the law should have some role here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to consume alcohol, as this will cause harm to the fetus?

The interesting thing about this question is that it points to the continuity between the fetus and the born child. You might say "It's her body she can do whatever she likes" but then once the child is born and has a damaging condition, has any wrong been done?
The government isn't competent to track the alcohol consumption of every pregnant woman, and I absolutely wouldn't want it to try. But at levels that would damage the child's development, it is an abrogation of that child's rights, and I think the law should have some role here.

We've had pregnant ladies subjected to additional charges beyond basic drug use for using illegal drugs while pregnant.  Wouldn't be much of a stretch to do the same for heavy alcohol use during pregnancy.

[morgieb]

My view is "who cares?"

It shouldn't be the government's choice, rather the choice of the individual.

[courts]

My view is that, as long as the fetus can't survive outside of the womb, it is still quite literally a part of the mother, and her right to bodily autonomy should be absolute.  At the point where the fetus has developed enough to survive outside, which I guess is around the beginning of the third trimester in most cases, then it makes sense to consider it a separate individual human, who then is endowed with all the rights and protections of the law.

This is, by the way, far far earlier than most societies throughout history.  Infanticide and infant mortality were very common, and children were often not even named until a year or two old, when they had proved they already had a chance to "make it" in a much more difficult world.

And if you try to push this line back much further, you end up with a position that's impossible to reconcile with the science of the matter.  Something like half of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages, many of them even before the woman knows she is pregnant, so even without abortion a huge proportion of fertilized eggs will never develop to viability.  (To say nothing of the fertilized eggs which never even implant, probably even a larger proportion than that.)  And if there's a miscarriage, the fetus will often be reabsorbed by the mother: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_twin

Even more damning for the idea that "life begins at conception" is the existence of chimeras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29  Basically, two zygotes fuse into one individual, and yes human chimeras exist.  If I'm a chimera (and you may never find out unless you need a blood transfusion or you're born intersex or something), does that mean I have double the soul power of a normal person?!

I used to be very sympathetic to the "pro-life" view.  Then I learned some facts.

The hoff is back!

[Beet]

We've had pregnant ladies subjected to additional charges beyond basic drug use for using illegal drugs while pregnant.  Wouldn't be much of a stretch to do the same for heavy alcohol use during pregnancy.

Well they're qualitatively different because illegal drugs are already illegal. There's a huge difference between tougher sentencing for existing crimes based on circumstances, and creating an entirely new crime where none existed before. I am very wary of legislating on the behavior of pregnant women because it infringes on the same principle that legislating abortion infringes on, which is bodily autonomy. Essentially we are saying that as soon as a woman becomes pregnant, the State becomes the guardian of her womb and can tell her what to do. This is the same problem with all 'pro-life' reasoning.

Society should do everything that it can to encourage healthy behavior in pregnant women, but the line should be drawn at coercion. I would rather focus on providing pregnant women with the resources to do the right thing on their own; by encouraging employers to allow them to take time off work without penalty, for example. The US the only developed country where paid family and medical leave is not well established.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I must confess, while I have no problems with "right to choose" principle, I have some serious doubts about late-term, not to mention partial-birth, abortions.

[Oakvale]

Again, I may dedicate my short time on this planet to eradicating the phrase "partial-birth" abortion.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I must confess, while I have no problems with "right to choose" principle, I have some serious doubts about late-term, not to mention partial-birth, abortions.

I have thought more on the issue. I think if the pregnancy is the result of rape or any other form of sex where consent was not sought or granted, then the woman has EVERY right to have an abortion. The life of the mother must also be a key element in determining rights.

I'm fully supportive of the right to legal abortion in the first trimester, but once you get beyond that point, assuming the fore mentioned rape/incest/life of the mother issues are not there, a degree of responsibility comes into it. By 3 months, you know you're pregnant, if you cannot come to a decision? Then you should deal with the responsibility. Beyond that point, I think it should be based on a medical determination.

If the foetus has reached the point of viability outside of the womb, then induced birth/caesarian and adoption is the better option.

I don't understand why anyone would support late-term abortions for any other reason besides some kind of disability that would likely lead to almost immediate death at birth.

I suppose I'm trying to think about the rights as well as reasonable levels of responsibility.

But of course one way to avoid abortions is proper access to birth control and adequate family planning resources.

But this is purely personal.

[traininthedistance]

The hoff is back!

I don't get it.  Who (or what) was the hoff?