Is abortion homicide?

[निताइ dasa]

You haven't quoted anything from Foot where she argues that the “double-effect” doctrine justifies the repeated and intentional taking of a drug that is known to have an abortifacient effect.

Dear God, you actually want me to spell it out for you. Argue my principle. Look I've tried my best to extend the principle forward. I've given more then enough examples and explanations however you keep dismissing them with general sweeping statements like "this doesn't vaguely suggest" or there is "no moral or legal principle". Worse you give no actual refutation of my claims even from the articles I have posted. I won't reply further to this point.

Then you should quote them rather than misrepresenting what someone has actually said.

And I have. I've quoted Foot's principle. I am also a philosopher (although I am young) and I've also given forth an understanding of the doctrine of double effect and the reasons why I interpret as such. Other philosophers like Don Marquis, in his critique of abortion makes the similar distinction between abortion and contraception (and euthanasia).

That sentence doesn't even vaguely suggest any sort of distinction between “self-agency” and “will”.

Self agency means awareness of self and the actions one is propagating. Acting on principle means one needs both self agency and an awareness of moral principles. I argue quite evidently that chimps do not have an understanding of such moral principles, for reasons cited in the study (they have no complex culture). No Kantian in the right mind would give moral protections to non-humans independent from humans. That is why Kant calls his moral law the "law of humanity".

There is no society or government in the world in which infants are not citizens. Every country recognizes infants as citizens. No country waits until a person pays taxes to recognize him/her as a citizen. (And paying taxes has nothing to do with citizenship. E.g., persons who are not citizens of the US pay taxes to the US government.)

The right for a government to govern is dependent upon the consent of its citizens. This consent is the mandate which gives government the authority to create and execute legal policy. Citizen's give consent when they operate or give some service under the government (such as pay taxes) or when they engage in the social way of life. Others argue that a citizen is an individual capable of holding office or voting. However infants can do none of these, so there is no explanatory mandate why they should have any rights (from this view) nor why government has any interest to protect them on this basis. However the reason why they are given citizenship protections is because they will develop eventually the capacity for such behavior (to be citizens). I see no reason why we should arbitrarily only limit this definition to infants, but we ought to rather extend it to fetuses. This is why certain countries grant the unborn children the right to life. #politicalphilosophy101

That isn't even remotely analogous to intentionally taking a drug that is known to have abortifacient effects.

Endometrium=apple. Person 1 who takes the apple first, represents the women who modifies the endometrium for her intentions. As a result person 2 (who doesn't get the apple) represents the fetus who is deprived of the resources that are needed to survive (implantation into endometrium).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, I believe that abortion is homicide because I believe a baby to be human...

Is "human" the only question, or would it be more accurate to include the word "person?" Is an embryo or a fetus of, say, 6 or 60 days in utero a "human person?" What would happen to it if it should be expelled from the womb (happens all the time, actually, and without the intervention of anybody)? Nothing we know how to do today could keep it alive.

On the other hand, we know quite well that it is very often possible to save a premature infant, fairly well into the third trimester. It can't live on its own right away, perhaps, but then neither can the fellow who has just suffered a heart attack. I wouldn't withhold whatever medical assistance is needed to either of them.

It is not "homicide" to kill human cells that can't function outside the body -- otherwise, every guy who pleasures himself is guilty of a quarter million murders every time! (My conscience couldn't quite stand that, I think.)

See, your use of the word "baby" is the real problem. More than half of all fertilized ova are expelled for natural reasons from the female body before implantation or the end of the first trimester. To call all of those "babies" only serves to confuse the issue -- usually deliberately, by the way.

 

[Milton Platt]

So, I believe that abortion is homicide because I believe a baby to be human, but I believe that even homicide can be the lesser of two evils. I would rather my mother put me out of my misery than be an unwanted pregnancy.

Having been in multiple jails, psyche-wards, and chemical dependency centers, I know too often what becomes of unwanted pregnancies. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to the rule, but sociopathic tenancies run higher in people from broken homes, and I would rather be aborted than be the fruit of an unwanted pregnancy or raised in the dysfunctional households without a Father that are typically the ones getting abortions.

The people that are equipped and ready to raise children to be healthy productive members of society are usually not the ones going to the abortion clinic.

Do I think abortion is homicide? Yes
Do I think abortion is evil? Yes
Do I think it should be illegal? No, I consider it sometimes the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the most merciful thing to do both for the child and the mother.

Regarding the Poll question. Here is the definition for homicide:
hom·i·cide
(hŏm′ĭ-sīd′, hō′mĭ-)
n.
1. The killing of one person by another, regardless of intention or legality.
2. A person who kills another person.

I voted yes but that was because the question was ill-formed. Any time you kill a human, it is technically a homicide. But as a society, we like to put lipstick on a pig, if you will, by renaming it or rationalizing it when we feel there is justification for killing. I am not lobbying for or against a position here. But if you kill a man on the street, it is homicide. If he was trying to kill you and you killed him in self defense, it is not homicide. But he is still dead, is he not? So we now have "justifiable homicide". In a way, the death penalty is another form of "justified homicide". If we kill a member of an opposing army, it is not even seen as homicide, but then again, you have a dead person......

 

[Nous]

Dear God, you actually want me to spell it out for you. Argue my principle.

That's exactly what I've done. Again, if zygotes were persons, then taking a drug whose known normal actions is to prevent zygotes from living and developing further would be murder or manslaughter. The abortifacient effects of hormonal contraceptives are well known, foreseeable and desired by women who take them, therefore there is no exculpatory factor in the intentional act of taking them. It is no different than if a pregnant woman repeatedly and intentionally took some other drug with known and foreseeable abortifacient effects, which caused the deaths of fetus after fetus.

And I have. I've quoted Foot's principle.

Foot doesn't even vaguely suggest that intentionally taking a drug that has known abortifacient effects exonerates the killing of any zygote. The reason that you cannot quote where she argues such is because she doesn't.

Self agency means awareness of self and the actions one is propagating. Acting on principle means one needs both self agency and an awareness of moral principles.

The only statement of Kant's that you have quoted does not distinguish between “self-agency” and “will,” but, rather, only implies that chimpanzees who are aware of their own agency in the actions that they will are “rational beings”. You should try to assimilate that fact.

The right for a government to govern is dependent upon the consent of its citizens. This consent is the mandate which gives government the authority to create and execute legal policy. Citizen's give consent when they operate or give some service under the government (such as pay taxes) or when they engage in the social way of life. Others argue that a citizen is an individual capable of holding office or voting. However infants can do none of these, so there is no explanatory mandate why they should have any rights (from this view) nor why government has any interest to protect them on this basis. However the reason why they are given citizenship protections is because they will develop eventually the capacity for such behavior (to be citizens). I see no reason why we should arbitrarily only limit this definition to infants, but we ought to rather extend it to fetuses. This is why certain countries grant the unborn children the right to life. #politicalphilosophy101

If you wish to make an argument about why infants are supposedly not citizens, you need to begin by substantiating that infants are in fact not citizens. You could substantiate your claims by citing the law in Australia where persons are granted citizenship when they pay taxes.

Apparently you haven't understood how ridiculous your claims are.

 

[Nous]

It is not "homicide" to kill human cells that can't function outside the body -- otherwise, every guy who pleasures himself is guilty of a quarter million murders every time! (My conscience couldn't quite stand that, I think.)

See, your use of the word "baby" is the real problem. More than half of all fertilized ova are expelled for natural reasons from the female body before implantation or the end of the first trimester. To call all of those "babies" only serves to confuse the issue -- usually deliberately, by the way.

Well said, succinctly said, on the spot.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Foot doesn't even vaguely suggest

This is what I mean. Of course she suggests such a principle. Do even say she doesn't "vaguely suggest" shows you haven't read the article: Quoting directly from her article:

"The words “double effect” refer to the two effects that an action may produce: the one aimed at, and the one foreseen but in no way desired. By “the doctrine of the double effect” I mean the thesis that it is sometimes permissible to bring about by oblique intention what one may not directly intend. Thus the distinction is held to be relevant to moral decision in certain difficult cases. It is said for instance that the operation of hysterectomy involves the death of the fetus as the foreseen but not strictly or directly intended consequence of the surgeon’s act, while other operations kill the child and count as the direct intention of taking an innocent life, a distinction that has evoked particularly bitter reactions on the part of non-Catholics. If you are permitted to bring about the death of the child, what does it matter how it is done? The doctrine of the double effect is also used to show why in another case, where a woman in labor will die unless a craniotomy operation is performed, the intervention is not to be condoned. There, it is said, we may not operate but must let the mother die. We foresee her death but do not directly intend it, whereas to crush the skull of the child would count as direct intention of its death."

I have applied this doctrine to the act of contraception (similar to the act of hysterectomy) to show its moral difference from abortion.

The only statement of Kant's that you have quoted does not distinguish between “self-agency” and “will,” but, rather, only implies that chimpanzees who are aware of their own agency in the actions that they will are “rational beings”. You should try to assimilate that fact.

Okay, it seems the distinction isn't obvious to you, so Ill try another approach. Kant's theory of ethics is focused exclusively on humanity not other species. Trying to argue this interpretation of Kant's statement goes against his strain of thinking For example in his essay "Duties to Animals and Spirits", Kant himself writes:

"[So] far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are not autonomous [not capable of acting on principle] and are there merely as the means to an end. That end is man.”

I dare you to find one Kantian scholar the would interpret Kant in a way that suggests that animals are an ends independently of humans. Kantian ethics is distinct from other forms because of this view of human beings as the only ends. That is why Kant's 2nd Law clearly states:

"Act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means."

If you wish to make an argument about why infants are supposedly not citizens, you need to begin by substantiating that infants are in fact not citizens.

I do not need to cite any law to substantiate my claim, because my claims relates to the underlying premise of government. The relationship between government and citizens is that of reciprocation. I am arguing that in their current state, fetus' and infants cannot reciprocate, however they are still given citizen protections because reciprocation will occur in the future.


Hey at least our banter back and forth is getting shorter

 

[Nous]

This is what I mean. Of course she suggests such a principle.

Yours is a straw man argument. You quoted a portion of my sentence, then attempted to refute something that I didn't say. Here is my whole sentence:

Foot doesn't even vaguely suggest that intentionally taking a drug that has known abortifacient effects exonerates the killing of any zygote.

And using Foot's own words ("The words 'double effect' refer to the two effects that an action may produce: the one aimed at, and the one foreseen but in no way desired"), it is clear that the doctrine of "double effect" does not provide for a moral excuse for the abortifacient effects of hormonal contraceptives, because the intent and motivation by which a person takes a drug is for the drug to work as it is intended to work in its normal actions. The normal mode of action of hormonal contraceptives includes preventing all eggs that become fertilized from developing further into eventually viable fetuses. That is why the writer of the article I linked to earlier noted that many woman did not take such contraceptives.

The only statement of Kant's that you have quoted does not distinguish between “self-agency” and “will,” but, rather, only implies that chimpanzees who are aware of their own agency in the actions that they will are “rational beings”. You should try to assimilate that fact.

Okay, it seems the distinction isn't obvious to you, so Ill try another approach. Kant's theory of ethics is focused exclusively on humanity not other species. Trying to argue this interpretation of Kant's statement goes against his strain of thinking

Another straw man. So you do not dispute what I actually said.

I do not need to cite any law to substantiate my claim, because my claims relates to the underlying premise of government.

Then you need to inform governments across the world of your unique idea of "the underlying premise of government," since there isn't any government that denies citizenship to infants on the grounds that they do not pay taxes.

Hey at least our banter back and forth is getting shorter

Yes, apparently you gave up on the challenge to cite any empirical evidence by which to conclude that either human pre-viable fetuses or zygotes are "persons" any more than chimpanzees are persons. That solves that issue.

 

[निताइ dasa]

it is clear that the doctrine of "double effect" does not provide for a moral excuse for the abortifacient effects of hormonal contraceptives, because the intent and motivation by which a person takes a drug is for the drug to work as it is intended to work in its normal actions

'
It is not "clear" in the very least. There is a morally relevant difference between allowing harm (though contraceptive pills) and doing harm (through abortion). When a women takes a contraceptive pill, her intent is not to kill the fetus, but rather prevent pregnancy. The act of taking a contraceptive pill, is in itself not the action the kills the fetus (rather the fetus fails to implant and is deprived of resources, ). Hence, applying the doctrine of double effect, contraception pill taking is morally acceptable.

Foot argues the having a hysterectomy is morally different from having an abortion. A hysterectomy is analogous to taking contraceptive pills. Why? Because when a women gets a hysterectomy, her intent is not to kill the fetus. If fertilization has occurred the act of hysterectomy "includes preventing all eggs that become fertilized from developing further into eventually viable fetuses" (your words). Foot however argues that this action is morally acceptable, because the success of the hysterectomy is not dependent on the death of the fetus (while in abortion, the success is dependent on its death). In a similar way, the success of contraception is not dependent on the death of the fetus (because the death of the fetus is neither the intended, nor the means to such an intended ends). That is why there is a very strong case, in applying the doctrine to contraception and claiming it is morally different from abortion. Of course you can argue contrary, but to argue that it is "clear" that the doctrine does not apply seems to misunderstand the nature of the doctrine.

Of course my argument is an interpretation of the doctrine, but I believe it is a strong one. See, another case in which the doctrine applies is killing in self-defense. When we are attacked, and we defend ourselves and the aggressor dies, then our intended ends is not the kill the aggressor, but rather to prevent another state (namely our death). One could argue, that when a women takes a contraceptive pill (with thins the endometrium and prevents implantation), her action is in actuality that of self-defense against the fetus. It is not aimed to kill the fetus, but rather it is aimed to prevent the fetus from forcing her to enter into another stage (namely a state of extended pregnancy).While the act of abortion is intended not to prevent that state, but rather to come out of that state using death as a means to such an end. This, I hold to be a crucial moral difference.

s, because the intent and motivation by which a person takes a drug is for the drug to work as it is intended to work in its normal actions. T

The intent of person who takes a contraceptive drug is to prevent pregnancy. The unintended consequence is the death of the fetus. The intent of a person who has a hysterectomy is to prevent future pregnancy (or save their life). even if a fetus was existing in the uterus at that time, its death is only an unintended consequence.

Another straw man. So you do not dispute what I actually said.

You argued that Kantian Will applies to animal as much as it is applies to humans because you argued that will=self agency. I provided quotes from Kant himself, to show how this is not the case. Kantian Will (and hence the property of rational agency only applies to human beings, because it is only human beings who are capable of (acting upon principle). This is clarified in Kant's second law. In order to act upon principle, one must have a capacity to understand what a principle (moral law) is. Chimps and other non-humans to not have such an understanding. We are disputing here, what Kant means when he said "act on principle" and I have shown that his definition is consistent with my interpretation not yours.

unique idea of "the underlying premise of government," since there isn't any government that denies citizenship to infants on the grounds that they do not pay taxes.

If you read my later argument, the government givens citizenship because infants will become future tax-payers of members of its common way of life. You tell me an explanatory property from the principles of government, that grants an individual citizenhood. My definition of citizenhood explains why the government has a mandate to govern (due to the reciprocal nature of citizen, government interaction). If you want, I am happy to quote philosophers who agree with me.

Yes, apparently you gave up on the challenge to cite any empirical evidence

Keep repeating that same statement that my friend ahahah, doesn't make it true.. Morality is not an empirical issue. I believe your presented empirical evidence has failed to challenge my definition of person-hood. Instead you seem to have focused on arguing the semantics of "rationality" when I believe I have made clear the difference between humans and chimps.

 

[Nous]

The intent of person who takes a contraceptive drug is to prevent pregnancy. The unintended consequence is the death of the fetus.

The only rational assumption about a person's intent in taking a drug is that s/he takes the drug in order for it to work according to its normal and known modes of action. The abortifacient effect of hormonal contraceptives is one of the normal and known modes of action by which such drugs prevent pregnancy.

Your baseless claims about people's intentions for taking hormonal contraceptives are only due to your inconsistencies in what you approve of and disapprove of--you can't reconcile your approval of contraceptives with the fact that one of their normal modes of action is as an abortifacient, so you misrepresent the facts about why people take contraceptives.

In order to act upon principle, one must have a capacity to understand what a principle (moral law) is. Chimps and other non-humans to not have such an understanding.

Prove it.

If you read my later argument, the government givens citizenship because infants will become future tax-payers of members of its common way of life.

There is no country where citizenship is contingent in any way on paying taxes. Even infants and toddlers who are not expected to live are citizens.

Keep repeating that same statement that my friend ahahah, doesn't make it true.. Morality is not an empirical issue. I believe your presented empirical evidence has failed to challenge my definition of person-hood. Instead you seem to have focused on arguing the semantics of "rationality" when I believe I have made clear the difference between humans and chimps.

So there is no verifiable fact by which to conclude that pre-viable fetuses and zygotes are "persons".

 

[निताइ dasa]

The only rational assumption about a person's intent in taking a drug is that s/he takes the drug in order for it to work according to its normal and known modes of action

The mode of action of a contraceptive drug is to prevent a stage of pregnancy, not to end the life of a fetus. Your arguing is, semantics and only serves to widen thee goalposts of discussion. The abortive effect of contraceptives are not morally analogous to the abortive effects of abortion. because one allows harm, while one actively does the harm.

Prove it.

I don't have to prove anything. Our discussion was on what Kant meant by rationality. I have shown you, that Kant assumed that animals are not capable of acting on moral principle.

However in terms of proof, I have given you sufficient. I gave you evidence that humans have a much greater cranial capacity (and hence brain) and these permit complex traits in humans but not in non-humans. These include the presence of complex emotions (such as sophisticated empathy), the development of culture/language, and also the understanding of moral principles.There is a very strong basis to claim that right and wrongare concepts found only in human cultures not animals simply because that morality is a social construct. When a lion kills and eats someone, they don't contemplate on whether such an action is "right or wrong, or justified, or morally acceptable, rather their modes of action arise from instinct. Note though, I am only arguing for the definition of rational agenthood here, not whether animals have a right to life. I believe that animals do have a right to life, but the right to life of a human is greater.

It also doesn't help that science is blind in this matter. When dealing with principles of consciousness and its varied functions,. there is no meaningful l way that we can prove moral rationality with simply empirical means.

There is no country where citizenship is contingent in any way on paying taxes

citizenship is contingent on citizens supporting the government by a) provided services to society (like paying taxes) b) participating in the common way of life within that population. Infants can do neither, so it holds that citizenship extends not only to those individuals who currently can do the above, but those who will do the above in the future.

So there is no verifiable fact by which to conclude that pre-viable fetuses and zygotes are "persons".

Personhood is a moral concept, not an empirical one. We can only verify it by rational not empirical means.

 

[Nous]

The mode of action of a contraceptive drug is to prevent a stage of pregnancy, not to end the life of a fetus.

Have you changed your mind about fertilized eggs being "persons"?

The reason that a person takes a drug is so that it will work according to its normal mechanism of action:

MECHANISM OF ACTION

Estrogen/progestogen combination oral contraceptive; acts by suppression of gonadotropins, primarily inhibiting ovulation, and causing other alterations, including changes in the cervical mucus (increases difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (reduces likelihood of implantation).​

http://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/Levora-ethinyl-estradiol-levonorgestrel-3415.2792#moreLinks

Women take hormonal contraceptives because they desire that the drug perform in one or more of those three ways in order to prevent pregnancy.

Obviously the only reason you are trying to find a way to deny these indisputable facts is because the facts conflict with your beliefs. There is no worse reason the deny facts.

I don't have to prove anything. Our discussion was on what Kant meant by rationality. I have shown you, that Kant assumed that animals are not capable of acting on moral principle.

So your claim about non-human animals not have some sort of "understanding" just has no basis in fact.

citizenship is contingent on citizens supporting the government by a) provided services to society (like paying taxes) b) participating in the common way of life within that population.

False. Utterly, ridiculously false. That's why you cannot prove that your claims are true.

Every country in the world awards citizenship to infants in accordance with either the principle of jus soli or jus sanguinis. No country makes citizenship contingent on paying taxes. You need to educate yourself on the topics that you posting about.

False. Utterly, ridiculously false. Every country in the world awards citizenship to infants according in accordance with either the principle of jus soli or jus sanguinis. No country makes citizenship contingent on paying taxes. You need to educate yourself.

Personhood is a moral concept, not an empirical one. We can only verify it by rational not empirical means.

You haven't provided any rational argument by which to conclude your claims what a "person" is.

 

[निताइ dasa]

The reason that a person takes a drug is so that it will work according to its normal mechanism of action:

Please to not presume to lecture me on how contraception works. I am aware of exactly how it works. Certain contraceptives prevent ovulation (so fertilization does not occur, hence no violation of right to life). Hence this form of contraception is not relevant.

Other contraceptives.work by thinning the endometrium wall so that the fertilized fetus cannot implant. While such an action is a violation of the fetus' right to life, it is a justified violation, (according to the doctrine of double effect) because women intents not to kill the fetus, but rather takes the contraceptive pill in order to prevent the outcome of pregnancy (obviously carrying the child to completion etc).. Prevention of this fetus development is not the same as ending of fetus development. They are two different intents. A doctor may intend to prevent a disease, or a doctor may intend to diagnose and and fix someone who already has the disease. The two are not analogous. When a person kills in self defense, it is a justified violation of someone's right to life. When a person kills with the intent to end life, that is an unjustified violation of right to life and is punishable.

So your claim about non-human animals not have some sort of "understanding" just has no basis in fact.

Again, stop moving the goal post. You should've argued my definition of personhood from the beginning. However for some reason you got caught up in trying to show that Kant doesn't agree with my definition (when he does) and this has led to this useless back and forth banter..

Of course I have presented evidence (the studied on culture of hominem, increased cranial capacity) which support the understanding that humans are distinct from non-humans in that they can understand and act upon representations of moral law (moral principles).

Every country in the world awards citizenship to infants in accordance with either the principle of jus soli or jus sanguinis. No country makes citizenship contingent on paying taxes. You need to educate yourself on the topics that you posting about.

Both jus soli and jus sanguinis are principles of political philosophy which have been put forth by philosophers in an attempt to categorisize the assignment of citizenship. These principle do not explain however the nature of citizenship and government relationship. The claim I am putting forth explains why we have these principles and my explanation does not contradict with jus soli and jus sanguinis. jus soli and jus sanguinis are merely principles not explanations of why these principles should be accepted. These principle may contradict, or countries may use different forms of these principles. The explanation I am putting forth (of participation of common life) is not my own, but rather one of the fundamental theories of state rights and responsibility. It seeks to explain questions such as "What gives the state to regulate its members?" "Who are state members?". "What is the relationship between the state and its members?". I have studied the works of philosopher Michael Walzer, and I am putting forth his principle, as he states below (in his book Just and Unjust wars).

"The rights of states rest on the consent of their members. But this is consent of a special sort. State rights are not constituted through a series of transfers from individual men and women to the sovereign or through a series of exchanges among individuals. What actually happens is harder to describe. Over a long period of time, shared experiences and cooperative activity of many different kinds shape a common life. "Contract" is a metaphor for a process of association and mutuality, the ongoing character of which the state claims to protect against external encroachment. The protection extends not only to the lives and liberties of individuals but also to their shared life and liberty, the independent community they have made, for which individuals are sometimes sacrificed. The moral standing of any particular state depends upon the reality of the common life it protects and the extent to which the sacrifices required by that protection are willingly accepted and thought worthwhile. If no common life exists, or if the state doesn’t defend the common life that does exist, its own defense may have no moral justification. But most states do stand guard over the community of their citizens, at least to some degree: that is why we assume the justice of their defensive wars. And given a genuine "contract," it makes sense to say that territorial integrity and political sovereignty can be defended in exactly the same way as individual life and liberty"
.
Essentially state rights to govern over its members (known as citizens) draws from that fact that the citizens consent to be government. Just governance is not contractual, but rather through participation in common life. This participation in common life protections extends not only to current members, but future members as well. The arguement I am making, is i see no point to limit this to simply infants, but rather it should draw backwards to fetus'.. The terms just sanguinis and jus soli simply related to the category of citizenship (i.e american, or australia etc) that is given, not the scope of citizenship.