Argument for allowing early Abortion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

People that find abortion repugnant do so at a visceral level. They aren't interested in arguments about freedom, autonomy, or neural maturity. They won't even read that further once they realize what it is.

I am pro-choice. My argument doesn't look like yours, but it assumes like you do that there is a time in a pregnancy when abortion is a moral option. For me, the procedure becomes immoral if the fetus is mature enough to experience terror and lethal pain. Before that, the question for me is, who will make the decision whether an early term pregnancy comes to term, the pregnant woman, or the church using the power of the state?

Notice that there is no reference to whether the fetus is called a person, human, a human being, a child, or alive. Arguments based in definitions don't change the moral calculus. The moral status of the act doesn't change for me n matter how those questions are answered.

Intrinsic rights are those rights that are conferred due to some property that is internal to the entity under consideration.

I agree with others about inherent rights. There are no rights except those enumerated and enforced by human beings. This is apparent when others speak of God-given rights. If we had waited for God instead of crafting a Bill of Rights, we'd still be waiting.

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.

That happens to be my position as well - utilitarianism for crafting societies (and the Golden Rule for personal interactions) - but I can't call that anything more than a subjective judgment. I can't tell you why I value those things or care about others, just that I do. Sure, they promote human well-being, and that is a worthy goal in my estimation, and that approach has practical value to those who root for humanity, but it is just an inescapable intuition, not something that I can call a truth as I use that word. It's an is-ought problem. Truth is on the is side, moral values on the ought side. I can't connect them. I can't call any should statement truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

You seem to be dealing with dissent better. Congratulations.

You used to consider it attack, and were very bothered by it. You started many threads expressing your angst and pleading for consideration.

This attitude will make your experience of RF more pleasant. Earlier, you suggested that you were looking at religion less. And it seems that you are turning to engaging the world around you more, what with your art and business, your girlfriend, and even blue hair. I think that that was an excellent choice.

You probably already know my opinion about there being such a thing as too much religion in one's life. The evidence is all over RF. You've got the believers who seem rational, well-educated, critical thinkers, and who really aren't distinguishable from the secular humanists except when they tell you they are theists. They seem happy and well adjusted.

Then there are those who start thread after thread with some religious purpose - perhaps to tell us how wrong science is, or how immoral atheists are, or to offer a flawed proof of God, or to promote their religion's grim predictions for the future and the need to get right with God.

You were there for a while, and you seemed unhappy. Now you're not, and you seem happier. Assuming that you agree, I hope you noticed that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you are a vegetarian I take it.

Vegetables are alive, and can respond to their environment. Ever watch sunflowers turn towards the sun?

 

[Spirit of Light]

You seem to be dealing with dissent better. Congratulations.

You used to consider it attack, and were very bothered by it. You started many threads expressing your angst and pleading for consideration.

This attitude will make your experience of RF more pleasant. Earlier, you suggested that you were looking at religion less. And it seems that you are turning to engaging the world around you more, what with your art and business, your girlfriend, and even blue hair. I think that that was an excellent choice.

You probably already know my opinion about there being such a thing as too much religion in one's life. The evidence is all over RF. You've got the believers who seem rational, well-educated, critical thinkers, and who really aren't distinguishable from the secular humanists except when they tell you they are theists. They seem happy and well adjusted.

Then there are those who start thread after thread with some religious purpose - perhaps to tell us how wrong science is, or how immoral atheists are, or to offer a flawed proof of God, or to promote their religion's grim predictions for the future and the need to get right with God.

You were there for a while, and you seemed unhappy. Now you're not, and you seem happier. Assuming that you agree, I hope you noticed that.

I think I have calmed down a lot this year yes and your understanding of my situation is very well said.

 

[Windwalker]

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

Carrots require food as well. They, like all lifeforms, extract nutrients from some source or another. All of it is the conversion of energies to run the body, from a carrot to a human being. My point is, all living things, from vegetables to people, are alive.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Carrots require food as well. They, like all lifeforms, extract nutrients from some source or another. All of it is the conversion of energies to run the body, from a carrot to a human being. My point is, all living things, from vegetables to people, are alive.

Humans do not live air alone, i chose to eat veg3tarian and not animals/meat if others choose to eat meat that is up to them, i have no need to tell others what is right for them

 

[Windwalker]

Humans do not live air alone, i chose to eat veg3tarian and not animals/meat if others choose to eat meat that is up to them, i have no need to tell others what is right for them

Plants do not live on air alone. I'm not aware of any living thing that can do that. All life requires food. Plants convert energy from the sun into food for their bodies through photosynthesis. Animal lifeforms convert energy from other living things into food for their bodies through digestion, be that eating living plants, or eating living animals.

I'm not suggesting vegetarianism is wrong, of course. One may choose not to eat animal life forms on moral grounds, and that's perfectly fine. But the argument should not be because plants aren't alive, because that is not true. They are alive. Nor should it be because plants don't eat food, because that is also not true. They do eat food. A better argument might be because you don't want to eat a sentient creature, one with a mind. But even then, plants also possess an awareness of their environments and one another, as evidence shows. So you can consider that a form or rudimentary "mind" as well.

I think what it really comes down to is this. People may not want to eat living animals, because we can relate to them more than we can to a carrot as a sentient being. And that's fine. I can see being a vegetarian, but it would be for that reason, as it's a little more true to the reality of things. I would never be a hunter for that very reason, for example.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

I strongly disagree here. There is no such moral imperative. At most it is a moral recommendation, a preference

 

[Windwalker]

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.

So you believe a person does not have a right to their own body and the government has the right to tell you what to do with it? That is at least consistent with denying a woman the right to her own body. I think this used to be the basis for slavery in this country, denying people the right to their own bodies.

 

[sayak83]

I strongly disagree here. There is no such moral imperative. At most it is a moral recommendation, a preference

Reason?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Plants do not live on air alone. I'm not aware of any living thing that can do that. All life requires food. Plants convert energy from the sun into food for their bodies through photosynthesis. Animal lifeforms convert energy from other living things into food for their bodies through digestion, be that eating living plants, or eating living animals.

I'm not suggesting vegetarianism is wrong, of course. One may choose not to eat animal life forms on moral grounds, and that's perfectly fine. But the argument should not be because plants aren't alive, because that is not true. They are alive. Nor should it be because plants don't eat food, because that is also not true. They do eat food. A better argument might be because you don't want to eat a sentient creature, one with a mind. But even then, plants also possess an awareness of their environments and one another, as evidence shows. So you can consider that a form or rudimentary "mind" as well.

I think what it really comes down to is this. People may not want to eat living animals, because we can relate to them more than we can to a carrot as a sentient being. And that's fine. I can see being a vegetarian, but it would be for that reason, as it's a little more true to the reality of things. I would never be a hunter for that very reason, for example.

Plants do have life yes, unfortunatly I do have to eat something, and it is a personal choice i make to not eat meat.

I do not try to get others to think like me.

 

[sayak83]

So you believe a person does not have a right to their own body and the government has the right to tell you what to do with it? That is at least consistent with denying a woman the right to her own body. I think this used to be the basis for slavery in this country, denying people the right to their own bodies.

I believe that if person A can save the life of a person B with only minor cost of time and resources and chooses not to do even when aware of this fact, that is tantamount to direct harm. There are many cases like this. If you see a man dying due to road accident and you are the only person around and if you do not help, or call 911,then you are morally culpable in abetting that person's death.
I do not see a difference between this and the blood donation case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes.But we do have to kill to eat. Even vegans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plants do have life yes, unfortunatly I do have to eat something, and it is a personal choice i make to not eat meat.

I do not try to get others to think like me.

That was not the point. And no one is trying to convince either you or any of your loved ones to get an abortion

 

[Windwalker]

Plants do have life yes, unfortunatly I do have to eat something, and it is a personal choice i make to not eat meat.

I do not try to get others to think like me.

That's all I was trying to say. I prefer to eat less meat, though not pure vegetarian myself. Of course I respect vegetarian diets. I would probably prefer it myself at some point, I just can go all the way at this point.

The point is, to say that you can't abort a fetus because it is alive, isn't anymore of an argument than saying you can't eat plants because they are alive too. That's not a valid argument. Why we would choose to not see a fetus as a "person" is more the real issue, not if it's alive or not.

The question is not "Does life begin at conception?". The question is "Is a collection of human cells considered a "person"?" That's the only debate, really. Is a fertilized egg a person? Is a fertilized egg a chicken? At what point is a fertilized egg a chicken, and at what point is a fertilized egg a person? Is an egg a chicken? Is a fetus a person?

Those are the real questions. Not all this other stuff.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes.But we do have to kill to eat. Even vegans.

I buy my food in supermarked, so no i have not killed it. I eat what i see right for me, if you disagree with my choice that is on you, not on me

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's all I was trying to say. I prefer to eat less meat, though not pure vegetarian myself. Of course I respect vegetarian diets. I would probably prefer it myself at some point, I just can go all the way at this point.

The point is, to say that you can't abort a fetus because it is alive, isn't anymore of an argument than saying you can't eat plants because they are alive too. That's not a valid argument. Why we would choose to not see a fetus as a "person" is more the real issue, not if it's alive or not.

The question is not "Does life begin at conception?". The question is "Is a collection of human cells considered a "person"?" That's the only debate, really. Is a fertilized egg a person? Is a fertilized egg a chicken? At what point is a fertilized egg a chicken, and at what point is a fertilized egg a person? Is an egg a chicken? Is a fetus a person?

Those are the real questions. Not all this other stuff.

My personal view is that i see abortion as wrong morally, to me.

If others feel differently, that is for them to deside, not my discussion

 

[Windwalker]

I believe that if person A can save the life of a person B with only minor cost of time and resources and chooses not to do even when aware of this fact, that is tantamount to direct harm. There are many cases like this. If you see a man dying due to road accident and you are the only person around and if you do not help, or call 911,then you are morally culpable in abetting that person's death.
I do not see a difference between this and the blood donation case.

The difference is calling 911 does not invade your body, harvesting your blood. One's personal body, is their body. If you say the government has a right to harvest your body, you are now in a slave state. You don't have a right to your own body. That's radically different than civil responsibilities. If you blur that line, you could easily justify slavery.

 

[Windwalker]

My personal view is that i see abortion as wrong morally, to me.

That's fine of course. But why do you consider it morally wrong? As I've said, it can't be because you see it as a life, as any thing you eat has life in it. Is it because you see a fetus as a person? Are you defining an embryo as a person?

Note, I'm not offering my opinion on my views here. I'm simply clarifying what the actual questions actually are. A moral choice, usually has some rational basis for it. Considering it a person would be one.

But the question then is, is it really clear what defines what a person is, as opposed to an egg and sperm? We generally don't call an egg a chicken. We see it as a "pre-chicken", don't we? How is that different from a human fetus then? It seems rather inconsistent and arbitrary where we choose to make such distinctions. Doesn't it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the question is, is it really clear what defines what a person is, as opposed to an egg and sperm? We generally don't call an egg a chicken. We see it as a "pre-chicken", don't we? How is that different from a human fetus?

I'll sometimes call chickens "eggs with legs" just because I enjoy rhymes.