Argument for allowing early Abortion

[sayak83]

My consistent argument for allowing pre-20 week abortion is the mother wants it or if circumstances demand is as follows:-
1) Only presently existing beings (not future beings) have intrinsic right to life in the moral sphere.
2) Beings exist only when their physical stratum has the capability to host (or generate) complex consciousness with inner mental states (the mind, the self, etc.). This is a minimum criteria. It is the mind that defines a being as a being. (Justification here LINK).
3) The physical substratum of pre 20 week fetus has no such capability according to currently understood science. See Evidence here LINK. Original Article here LINK
4) Thus a pre-20 week fetus do not have an intrinsic right to life.
5) Given (4) mother's bodily autonomy and choices take precedence over the fetus prior to 20-21 weeks. Whatever right the fetus has (or does not have) comes from her mother (extrinsic or derived rights).
6) So if a mother chooses to, she can abort the fetus without any moral objections. Or she can carry it to term.
7) Post 20 week things get more complicated. And you will need justification of clear danger to the mother's life to justify abortion.

I would like to hear the arguments against these points.

 

[Spirit of Light]

My consistent argument for allowing pre-20 week abortion is the mother wants it or if circumstances demand is as follows:-
1) Only presently existing beings (not future beings) have intrinsic right to life in the moral sphere.
2) Beings exist only when their physical stratum has the capability to host (or generate) complex consciousness with inner mental states (the mind, the self, etc.). This is a minimum criteria. It is the mind that defines a being as a being. (Justification here LINK).
3) The physical substratum of pre 20 week fetus has no such capability according to currently understood science. See Evidence here LINK. Original Article here LINK
4) Thus a pre-20 week fetus do not have an intrinsic right to life.
5) Given (4) mother's bodily autonomy and choices take precedence over the fetus prior to 20-21 weeks. Whatever right the fetus has (or does not have) comes from her mother (extrinsic or derived rights).
6) So if a mother chooses to, she can abort the fetus without any moral objections. Or she can carry it to term.
7) Post 20 week things get more complicated. And you will need justification of clear danger to the mother's life to justify abortion.

I would like to hear the arguments against these points.

I speak only for my own views, so others will disagree with my stands.
But i disagree with all of the above. To me a life has begun in the moment the seemen and eg have attached to each other. And to me taking life is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I speak only for my own views, so others will disagree with my stands.
But i disagree with all of the above. To me a life has begun in the moment the seemen and eg have attached to each other. And to me taking life is wrong.

Why do you believe this? Do you have a good rational answer or is it just a mere belief? If it is a mere belief let me tell you about the fairies in your backyard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My consistent argument for allowing pre-20 week abortion is the mother wants it or if circumstances demand is as follows:-
1) Only presently existing beings (not future beings) have intrinsic right to life in the moral sphere.
2) Beings exist only when their physical stratum has the capability to host (or generate) complex consciousness with inner mental states (the mind, the self, etc.). This is a minimum criteria. It is the mind that defines a being as a being. (Justification here LINK).
3) The physical substratum of pre 20 week fetus has no such capability according to currently understood science. See Evidence here LINK. Original Article here LINK
4) Thus a pre-20 week fetus do not have an intrinsic right to life.
5) Given (4) mother's bodily autonomy and choices take precedence over the fetus prior to 20-21 weeks. Whatever right the fetus has (or does not have) comes from her mother (extrinsic or derived rights).
6) So if a mother chooses to, she can abort the fetus without any moral objections. Or she can carry it to term.
7) Post 20 week things get more complicated. And you will need justification of clear danger to the mother's life to justify abortion.

I would like to hear the arguments against these points.

I would have no problem with this. No elective abortions after that date, but the door must be left open for medically necessary ones. Your date is also very close to the date of the youngest premie ever. I do believe that was 19 weeks. But that was a rare exception.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why do you believe this? Do you have a good rational answer or is it just a mere belief? If it is a mere belief let me tell you about the fairies in your backyard.

Because taking life is wrong. But as i said, i dontvtell others what to believe or think about this topic

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because taking life is wrong. But as i said, i dontvtell others what to believe or think about this topic

So you are a vegetarian I take it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So you are a vegetarian I take it.

Yes i am.

 

[Heyo]

My consistent argument for allowing pre-20 week abortion is the mother wants it or if circumstances demand is as follows:-
1) Only presently existing beings (not future beings) have intrinsic right to life in the moral sphere.
[...]
I would like to hear the arguments against these points.

There is no such thing as an intrinsic right. Rights are constructs humans create through consensus and the ability to grant them. Having a right means nothing more than that the society granting the right has codified it, will possibly do something so you can keep it and will persecute the ones taking it away from you.
E.g.: in most countries you have a constitutional, irrevocable right to life. The moment you travel to an other country (e.g. the US) you don't have that right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes i am.

Okay, some rare consistency then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no such thing as an intrinsic right. Rights are constructs humans create through consensus and the ability to grant them. Having a right means nothing more than that the society granting the right has codified it, will possibly do something so you can keep it and will persecute the ones taking it away from you.
E.g.: in most countries you have a constitutional, irrevocable right to life. The moment you travel to an other country (e.g. the US) you don't have that right.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that at least on the books that most countries have banned the death penalty.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Okay, some rare consistency then.

Why rare?
I do not see a difference in killing a fetus/baby inside a mother that killing someone on the street, both are killings. So it is wrong to me.

 

[sayak83]

There is no such thing as an intrinsic right. Rights are constructs humans create through consensus and the ability to grant them. Having a right means nothing more than that the society granting the right has codified it, will possibly do something so you can keep it and will persecute the ones taking it away from you.
E.g.: in most countries you have a constitutional, irrevocable right to life. The moment you travel to an other country (e.g. the US) you don't have that right.

Moral truths exist regardless of whether they are acknowledged/codified or not (just like any other truths). Here moral truths are basically the set of true statements that are answers to the question: what is the optimal sets of allowed and disallowed behaviors that a set of interacting experiencing beings (of some description) can (or cannot) engage in order to maximize physico-mental well being and minimize suffering. There are true statements that you can make in order to answer this question. And they would be in the realm of moral truths.

Intrinsic rights are those rights that are conferred due to some property that is internal to the entity under consideration. Extrinsic rights are those rights that are conferred upon it due to its relation to some external morally relevant being(s). So for example the Mona Lisa painting has an extrinsic right for preservation because of its relation with actual beings who value its existence. It being a non-sentient entity has no intrinsic rights as such.

 

[sayak83]

Because taking life is wrong. But as i said, i dontvtell others what to believe or think about this topic

One can personally choose any stance. But a moral justification needs to be made and debate with rival stances when it is to be legislated or a person votes for this or that choice to make it a enforceable law for all.
As long as one does not do that, there is no issue.

 

[Heyo]

Moral truths exist regardless of whether they are acknowledged/codified or not (just like any other truths). Here moral truths are basically the set of true statements that are answers to the question: what is the optimal sets of allowed and disallowed behaviors that a set of interacting experiencing beings (of some description) can (or cannot) engage in order to maximize physico-mental well being and minimize suffering. There are true statements that you can make in order to answer this question. And they would be in the realm of moral truths.

Intrinsic rights are those rights that are conferred due to some property that is internal to the entity under consideration. Extrinsic rights are those rights that are conferred upon it due to its relation to some external morally relevant being(s). So for example the Mona Lisa painting has an extrinsic right for preservation because of its relation with actual beings who value its existence. It being a non-sentient entity has no intrinsic rights as such.

"Right" is a juridical term, it has nothing to do with morality.

And for the morality aspect: there is no "intrinsic" morality either. Every moral system has to be based on a set of axioms which can't be proven nor argued.

Btw: Disclaimer: I don't argue against a right to choose here, just your argument of "intrinsic" rights.

 

[Spirit of Light]

One can personally choose any stance. But a moral justification needs to be made and debate with rival stances when it is to be legislated or a person votes for this or that choice to make it a enforceable law for all.
As long as one does not do that, there is no issue.

Since i am a non political person, and only speak for my own view, my voice is not important in the bigger picture

 

[Ludi]

I am not sure what all these arguments are about, as God alone has the last word, so all of this is just humans failing to understand the Absolute Power of God.

 

[sayak83]

I am not sure what all these arguments are about, as God alone has the last word, so all of this is just humans failing to understand the Absolute Power of God.

This is true. Krishna will decide ultimately....no?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you believe this? Do you have a good rational answer or is it just a mere belief? If it is a mere belief let me tell you about the fairies in your backyard.

What is your good rational answer and what is rational?

 

[Brickjectivity]

My consistent argument for allowing pre-20 week abortion is the mother wants it or if circumstances demand is as follows:-
1) Only presently existing beings (not future beings) have intrinsic right to life in the moral sphere.
2) Beings exist only when their physical stratum has the capability to host (or generate) complex consciousness with inner mental states (the mind, the self, etc.). This is a minimum criteria. It is the mind that defines a being as a being. (Justification here LINK).
3) The physical substratum of pre 20 week fetus has no such capability according to currently understood science. See Evidence here LINK. Original Article here LINK
4) Thus a pre-20 week fetus do not have an intrinsic right to life.
5) Given (4) mother's bodily autonomy and choices take precedence over the fetus prior to 20-21 weeks. Whatever right the fetus has (or does not have) comes from her mother (extrinsic or derived rights).
6) So if a mother chooses to, she can abort the fetus without any moral objections. Or she can carry it to term.
7) Post 20 week things get more complicated. And you will need justification of clear danger to the mother's life to justify abortion.

I would like to hear the arguments against these points.

I have often seen these presented online. They are terrible arguments, because they do not state the problems women have. All seven fail every time to change any mind. Instead go back to basics and explain why women often have to miscarry and sometimes have to cause a miscarriage. Nature itself is the reason.

Also it is difficult to prove that a miscarriage isn't an abortion which leads to the problem of indictments against women who miscarry. Its not obvious who has aborted and who has had a miscarriage, at least not early on. Then this leads to the question of inspections. Should women be inspected, to make sure they haven't committed murder? Its an actual question that will come up if we criminalize early stage abortion. What about late stage abortions? These are (I am told) usually only done when medically necessary. Should we then have the sheriff attend during them to make sure they are medically necessary? Is that how God has ordered things?

Only after stating the facts can you discuss rationally about it. Only then can you show that you aren't defining away human life -- that nature itself requires women to have control of the birth process.

 

[sayak83]

I have often seen these presented online. They are terrible arguments, because they do not state the problems women have. All seven fail every time to change any mind. Instead go back to basics and explain why women often have to miscarry and sometimes have to cause a miscarriage. Nature itself is the reason.

Also it is difficult to prove that a miscarriage isn't an abortion which leads to the problem of indictments against women who miscarry. Its not obvious who has aborted and who has had a miscarriage, at least not early on. Then this leads to the question of inspections. Should women be inspected, to make sure they haven't committed murder? Its an actual question that will come up if we criminalize early stage abortion. What about late stage abortions? These are (I am told) usually only done when medically necessary. Should we then have the sheriff attend during them to make sure they are medically necessary? Is that how God has ordered things?

Only after stating the facts can you discuss rationally about it. Only then can you show that you aren't defining away human life -- that nature itself requires women to have control of the birth process.

I am somewhat confused as to how your reply pertains to what I wrote. How is miscarriage (natural or due to health concerns) relevant here? I was specifically discussing whether abortion is a moral practice for pre-20 week fetus even when there is no health concern for the mother.