Argument for allowing early Abortion

[Spirit of Light]

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.

I do not own my body, just borrowing it in this life.

 

[nPeace]

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 argue that people with opinions about what constitute life, do not have the right to exert their opinions on such a serious matter.
Since they cannot demonstrate with sufficient certainly that life has not begun from the time a cell starts to divide, they should leave that decision alone, and allow "natural processes" to take their course.

An animal tries to impregnate its mate, for the purpose of carrying on its lineage.
That's the purpose of sex - procreation.

Birds do not build their nest for nothing.
Humans' promiscuous and selfish behavior should not be an excuse to have the right to be supported by people with opinions.

Would your argument change, if it was found that the fetus is conscious prior to 20 weeks... 10 weeks... 5?
Current neuroscientific evidence indicates the possibility of fetal pain perception during the first trimester

I doubt very much that would change the view of people interested in supporting their view based on personal feelings.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Moral truths exist regardless of whether they are acknowledged/codified or not
Hence why people with opinions do not have the inconsequential right to exert their opinions in the serious matter of life.
That rests only with the originator of "moral truth".
Who would that be?

 

[Windwalker]

I do not own my body, just borrowing it in this life.

We're not talking about God here. Do you believe the government owns your body? Does the government have the right to take over control of it from you, as in putting you into slavery, or harvesting your organs if it sees they have more value to someone else who has more money than you do? Will you respond to them philosophically when they come to harvest your lungs and liver because you're not as valuable as those who have more money and power than you?

 

[Polymath257]

We're not talking about God here. Do you believe the government owns your body? Does the government have the right to take over control of it from you, as in putting you into slavery, or harvesting your organs if it sees they have more value to someone else who has more money than you do? Will you respond to them philosophically when they come to harvest your lungs and liver because you're not as valuable as those who have more money and power than you?

Of course, to a certain limited extent they do have the power to control your body, and put you into involuntary servitude.

For example, the government has the right to conscript people for the military. It then has the right to send you into harm's way as it sees fit.

 

[Spirit of Light]

We're not talking about God here. Do you believe the government owns your body? Does the government have the right to take over control of it from you, as in putting you into slavery, or harvesting your organs if it sees they have more value to someone else who has more money than you do? Will you respond to them philosophically when they come to harvest your lungs and liver because you're not as valuable as those who have more money and power than you?

Nobody owns my body, it is just a body, but i do not allow harvest of my organs

 

[Koldo]

Moral truths exist regardless of whether they are acknowledged/codified or not
Hence why people with opinions do not have the inconsequential right to exert their opinions in the serious matter of life.
That rests only with the originator of "moral truth".
Who would that be?

I would argue that if moral truth originated from someone then it is an opinion.

 

[nPeace]

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

Last I heard, they aren't sure how to define life. So no. That's an opinion.

 

[nPeace]

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.

So a tree trunk is alive... so is the tail of a lizard. So if the lizard's tail is cut off, what died? And mangoes are alive.
Ah. Juicy mango. Come here. You're dead... because I am about to eat you. Lol.
Careful, we don't want to scare those vegetarian children with fairytale horror stories.

 

[sayak83]

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.

I do not see any line blurring. Actions performed by me is also part of bodily autonomy. Harvesting my actions is also harvesting my body. Constraints Or moral requirements of any kind are infringements on some autonomy or the other. The only question is how good or bad is the justification. Nothing else.

 

[Koldo]

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

What is the nature of the distinction you are drawing here?

Do you mean if someone refuses to help a dying person even though the cost would be absolutely minimal to them that doing so wouldn't be immoral?

 

[sayak83]

Moral truths exist regardless of whether they are acknowledged/codified or not
Hence why people with opinions do not have the inconsequential right to exert their opinions in the serious matter of life.
That rests only with the originator of "moral truth".
Who would that be?

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Moral truths are eternally existing abstract structures like all truths.

 

[nPeace]

I would argue that if moral truth originated from someone then it is an opinion.

Then you argue that there is no absolute truth, only relative. Yes? So truth changes, and there are no laws governing the universe. Yes?

 

[Koldo]

Then you argue that there is no absolute truth, only relative. Yes? So truth changes, and there are no laws governing the universe. Yes?

Truths in general or moral truths?

 

[Heyo]

Laws need to be based upon rational reasons.

In an ideal world. In the real world laws are only based on the power to declare them.

 

[nPeace]

Truths in general or moral truths?

Huh? Why separate the two? If there is ultimate or absolute truth, would that not include all truth?
So, for example, man's quest to find truth... is the truth what man determines to be truth (relative), or does the truth exist, regardless of what man determines (absolute)?

 

[Koldo]

Huh? Why separate the two? If there is ultimate or absolute truth, would that not include all truth?
So, for example, man's quest to find truth... is the truth what man determines to be truth (relative), or does the truth exist, regardless of what man determines (absolute)?

It is possible to maintain a non-cognitivist or relativist position regarding moral claims and, at the same time, some other position for other kinds of claims.

For instance, I can say that 'Killing people is immoral.' is not truth-apt and that 'My car is blue.' is

 

[nPeace]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Moral truths are eternally existing abstract structures like all truths.

Isn't that what I am saying... Therefore man's opinions should never be exerted upon anyone as truth... especially in such a serious matter involving life.
That rests only with the originator of moral law.
Do you disagree? Who would be the originator of moral law?

Would you care to mention the reason why you didn't respond to my comments to your OP?

 

[nPeace]

It is possible to maintain a non-cognitivist or relativist position regarding moral claims and, at the same time, some other position for other kinds of claims.

For instance, I can say that 'Killing people is immoral.' is not truth-apt and that 'My car is blue.' is

Okay, but that doesn't address what I asked.
Then you argue that there is no absolute truth, only relative. Yes? So truth changes, and there are no laws governing the universe. Yes?

 

[Polymath257]

What is the nature of the distinction you are drawing here?

Do you mean if someone refuses to help a dying person even though the cost would be absolutely minimal to them that doing so wouldn't be immoral?

I think we can give accolades for someone doing such heroics, but I don't think there is a moral requirement to do them.

To some extent, it depends on how 'minimal' it would be. So, I am certainly not required to give a kidney. I am not required to give blood. I am not required to give food if I am short. All these actions would be laudable, but they are certainly not morally required.

If all I am required to do is lend a helping hand for 30 seconds, sure. But that is nowhere close to being the case in our discussion.

And that is part of the point here. Going through pregnancy does NOT carry minimal cost: it carries substantial risk of death, pain, and long term consequences. In fact, the risk of death to the woman is far more than the risk of abortion. There is risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, bleeding out, etc. Under those circumstances, I do not think there is a moral obligation to preserve the pregnancy.

Once again, it may be laudable, but it is not required.