Argument for allowing early Abortion

[Brian2]

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.

Are you saying that a pre 20 week fetus is not alive? No. So if it is alive and all it needs is food and shelter to grow then it would be an undeveloped human being.
Are you saying that a person in a coma or a state where he/she cannot think is not a being and so we can kill him/her? Probably not.
Are you saying that someone who is disabled and cannot think very well is not a human? Probably not.
Why do you say that beings exist only when they are capable of complex inner mental states? It sounds like an arbitrary idea to me.
Arbitrary ideas like this exist for the time we can call a fetus a being, but imo it is an undeveloped being through till birth, just as a baby is an undeveloped being which needs food and shelter (and other things in an age appropriate way) to grow into a more developed being.
Drawing arbitrary lines has muddied the clear truth of a human being present from the start.
This is not to say that abortion should be banned, but is to say that the truth and seriousness of abortion should not be clouded with scientific artificiality.
Nothing against science of course except that all it can look at the physical and the motives behind a definition of when a fetus becomes human imo are not pure and cloud clear thought about it.

 

[Koldo]

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.

1) I don't agree that anything has intrinsic rights. I have never seen evidence that they exist.

2) I find the definition you have used to be weird, but I am going to follow along with it.

6 and 7) What if the mother decided to make use of substance X up to the 19th week of pregnancy and said substance is teratogenic? Would you say that is alright since the unborn doesn't have rights in the early phases of pregnancy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your good rational answer and what is rational?

We went over what rational is already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that a pre 20 week fetus is not alive? No. So if it is alive and all it needs is food and shelter to grow then it would be an undeveloped human being.
Are you saying that a person in a coma or a state where he/she cannot think is not a being and so we can kill him/her? Probably not.
Are you saying that someone who is disabled and cannot think very well is not a human? Probably not.
Why do you say that beings exist only when they are capable of complex inner mental states? It sounds like an arbitrary idea to me.
Arbitrary ideas like this exist for the time we can call a fetus a being, but imo it is an undeveloped being through till birth, just as a baby is an undeveloped being which needs food and shelter (and other things in an age appropriate way) to grow into a more developed being.
Drawing arbitrary lines has muddied the clear truth of a human being present from the start.
This is not to say that abortion should be banned, but is to say that the truth and seriousness of abortion should not be clouded with scientific artificiality.
Nothing against science of course except that all it can look at the physical and the motives behind a definition of when a fetus becomes human imo are not pure and cloud clear thought about it.

No one is claiming that a fetus is not alive. When you start with a false leading question the rest of a post can be ignored.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Then you may need to work on your moral reasoning. They are not even close.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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).

That loss of bodily autonomy at 20-21 weeks... would that be permanent, or would it only be temporary until birth?

For instance, say a 5-year-old child needs a kidney and the father is a match. Would the father have the right to refuse the kidney?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We went over what rational is already.

No, because I have heard about at least 2 different contradictory what a contradiction is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, because I have heard about at least 2 different contradictory what a contradiction is.

Then you should have pointed those out at the time. You may have misunderstood a post. Too late now.

 

[sayak83]

That loss of bodily autonomy at 20-21 weeks... would that be permanent, or would it only be temporary until birth?

For instance, say a 5-year-old child needs a kidney and the father is a match. Would the father have the right to refuse the kidney?

Losing a kidney is permanently debilitating, though survivable. Being a father, there is a moral imperitive here, though the debilitation weakens it from being a legally coercive imperative in my opinion.

A normal pregnancy is not permanently debilitating to that extent . Furthermore (assuming no rape), the pregnant person's voluntary act caused this dependent person to exist and the moral responsibility of the well being of the person does reside with her (and the father). Hence given causal responsibility and mild nature of the disability, the moral responsibility here is legally enforceable in my opinion. I am not talking of abnormal pregnancies that cause danger to health and life. There the situation can reverse, but needs a doctor's analysis.

Let me put it this way. If a person X needs a bag of blood to survive and if person Y is the only person in the world who can safely donate that specific blood Y, then there is a moral imperative and legally enforceable for person Y to do so. Person Y may however be compensated in some way for whatever inconvenience is caused due to this.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then you may need to work on your moral reasoning. They are not even close.

They are according to pacifist and religious reasons, if you disagree thats is of no worry to me, you are free to hold your views

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are according to pacifist and religious reasons, if you disagree thats is of no worry to me, you are free to hold your views

Laws need to be based upon rational reasons. If one cannot express themselves rationally then they should not be surprised when no one takes their personal beliefs seriously. That is why I brought up my "fairies in your backyard" argument. It shows that not only will others ignore irrational demands, they should ignore them.

 

[sayak83]

Are you saying that a pre 20 week fetus is not alive? No. So if it is alive and all it needs is food and shelter to grow then it would be an undeveloped human being.

It's not a person with the physical hardware to sustain a mind and therefore has no default right to food and shelter. What it will be if further material assistant is provided to it is morally irrelevant ( the reason why eggs and semen have no rights either).

Are you saying that a person in a coma or a state where he/she cannot think is not a being and so we can kill him/her? Probably not.

The layman term coma represents a lot of things. It may be the case of partial injury that has caused swelling and the brain has shut down temporarily for maintenance and healing. Here medical treatments can heal the injured person back to activity.

On the other hand there are cases where the brain structures have been irreversibly damaged and no longer sustain a mind. In the latter case the person has been destroyed and the body should be allowed to die.

Are you saying that someone who is disabled and cannot think very well is not a human? Probably not.
Why do you say that beings exist only when they are capable of complex inner mental states? It sounds like an arbitrary idea to me.

Brain hardware architecture to sustain a conscious mind. What else distinguishes beings from other living things (like bacteria)?
Other beings like dolphins, chimps etc. also have complex enough experiencing minds that they deserve rights. The moral theory here is not anthropomorphic. It is looking at a specific property of entities that makes them capable of having rights. Mentally differently abled beings are included if they have an experiencing mind. Otherwise what differentiates beings like us from grass?

Arbitrary ideas like this exist for the time we can call a fetus a being, but imo it is an undeveloped being through till birth, just as a baby is an undeveloped being which needs food and shelter (and other things in an age appropriate way) to grow into a more developed being.
Drawing arbitrary lines has muddied the clear truth of a human being present from the start.
This is not to say that abortion should be banned, but is to say that the truth and seriousness of abortion should not be clouded with scientific artificiality.
Nothing against science of course except that all it can look at the physical and the motives behind a definition of when a fetus becomes human imo are not pure and cloud clear thought about it.

It's not arbitrary at all. It's the most widely accepted idea of personhood in classical and modern philosophy.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Laws need to be based upon rational reasons. If one cannot express themselves rationally then they should not be surprised when no one takes their personal beliefs seriously. That is why I brought up my "fairies in your backyard" argument. It shows that not only will others ignore irrational demands, they should ignore them.

@Subduction Zone feel free to ignore my views and belief at any time. Honestly feel free

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone feel free to ignore my views and belief at any time. Honestly feel free

Or I could explain to you why you are wrong.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Or I could explain to you why you are wrong.

Wrong in your vew yes. As expected by the way..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong in your vew yes. As expected by the way..

Wrong morally as well. But you are not the one that you are proposing to enslave for months on end and then torture before sticking her with another dilemma.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Except that life does NOT begin: it continues through. The semen and egg are *also* alive. So, if you kill semen, you are killing human life.

The point here is that death is *defined* by brain death: the point where the higher brain functions stop working permanently.

Why not have the beginning of life correspond to when the brain *starts* to work, which is about 20-21 weeks into the pregnancy?

I would also point out that holding an unwilling person hostage is wrong as well. The fetus does NOT have the right to demand the use of another person's body even if the removal will kill it,

 

[Windwalker]

Yes i am.

Aren't carrots alive when plucked from the ground?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Losing a kidney is permanently debilitating, though survivable. Being a father, there is a moral imperitive here, though the debilitation weakens it from being a legally coercive imperative in my opinion.

"Debilitation" is your line?

How about donating a pint of blood, then? Right now, a parent has no obligation to give up a pint of blood or a hair on their head.

A normal pregnancy is not permanently debilitating to that extent .

Does your mother cross her legs when she sneezes? Many do.

If she does, I'll let you be the one to tell her that she isn't permanently debilitated.

Let me put it this way. If a person X needs a bag of blood to survive and if person Y is the only person in the world who can safely donate that specific blood Y, then there is a moral imperative and legally enforceable for person Y to do so. Person Y may however be compensated in some way for whatever inconvenience is caused due to this.

You do realize that this isn't the way the law works now, right?

So are you calling for a change to how we treat bodily autonomy generally, or are you only looking to restrict the bodily autonomy of pregnant people?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Aren't carrots alive when plucked from the ground?

Yes, but humans do need some form of food. I only speak for my choice of this. Others can do as they wish