I'm in an ethics class and I am fairly sure we will be discussing abortion at some point, so I figure I should think about it a little bit. Plus I am pretty passionate about the issue in general.
1. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human person.
2. All living humans are human persons.
3. A fetus in and from a human mother is human (separate from the mother and not part of her body).
4. Therefore, a human fetus is a human person.
5. Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus (fertilized egg to just before live birth for the sake of this argument).
6. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
This argument is certainly valid. It's also sound but that is what we'll be discussing. I'll answer objections instead of trying to defend the premises from the onset. However, I would like to say that even if 1 is wrong, you would still need morally sufficient reasons for killing an innocent person which should be a pretty high bar. If you disagree with 2 then you better give some pretty good and impartial reasons. If you disagree with 3 go read a science book and 5 is pretty much the definition of an abortion.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You make statement and assumption that are just your opinion and according to the SCOTUS are not true.
So try again junior.
You may agree that judges can err when it comes to determining when life begins.
The topic of when life begins should be answered by Biology and not Law.
Are judges infallible? The closest thing to an assumption is premise 1 which is based off moral intuition and can be defended in a more in depth way. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't you a moral relativist?
1. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human person. CORRECT.
2. All living humans are human persons. CORRECT.
3. A fetus in and from a human mother is human (separate from the mother and not part of her body). TOTALLY INCORRECT.
Until 13th week, there's no neurological system, no sign of brain activity, nothing but a bunch of cells, with no connection in between whatsoever. There are plenty of natural abortions in this state, and women don't even notice that they've miscarriaged! NOT A HUMAN.
After the 13th week, neurons begin to move and established their first connections. STILL, NOT A HUMAN.
After the 23th week, we find the proto-fetus. Only 12% of them could live outside their mother's wound with modern techonology. And they should spend months in the incubator. HUMAN.
Of course, all of the other premises are completely WRONG.
As we discussed about morals, you are imposing your own opinion on someone else's decission, and with no proofs of anything more than your intuition and your religious background. These are simply facts.
I don't actually think you agree with 2, let me clarify what I mean by human. By human, I mean a human oraganism. I mean a distinct individual who has human DNA and is living.
Now a fetus is clearly a human organism. It has DNA from its mother and father and is self organizing. It grows and developes.
I think what you actually disagree with is my claim that a fetus is a human person i.e it has the same basic human rights like the right to life.
Btw we are all a bunch of cells. Basically, you are saying brain function is what makes us human. It's certainly a human trait which is a proper accident of humans but how about people who are retarded? Are they less human? ? If you say they are just as human as us then you aren't being consistent. Or how about when we fall into deep sleep and have very little brain function? It's just a pile of cells at that point
Another interesting fact is that people can regain brain function after being brain dead for a long time, so unless you believe in resurrections I don't think brain death or lack off brain function is a good way to determine if someone is living.
Also, lack of viability outside of the womb is a stupid objection since babies can't service without help from adults. By your logic most babies aren't persons either.
Furthermore, what the hell is a natural abortion that a women doesn't know occurred? A miscarage is not an abortion because no one is intending to kill the fetus.
Finally, you have the same exact DNA of a former sack of cells which you say wasn't a person. That sack of cells grew and self organized as an individual separate from your mother and father. There were no substantial changes that changed what you were, but only how you were. Brain function, size, maturity, a heart beat etc. are all accidental to humans. That's why they can vary or even be absent and yet we still believe those people are people.
P.s how about late term abortions.
Hi, Dumb Ox. Let me put it this way...
And I know it sounds awful, but that it is what it is: Until there's ZERO possibility of the fetus living outside a body, it's like a cancer. It lives inside you, but since it has no neurological connection, therefore, no nerve system, it doesn't feel anything. No brain, no heart, no lungs, no ears, nothing.... As I said, before the 13th week, many women don't even realized a misscarriage. It looks like another menstruation, like a regular bleeding.
Between the 13-23 week approx. Stil no brain, no lungs, no ears, no chance of living outside the body.
Are you serious??? Are you comparing these two things??? Babies who are born can't service without help, BUT THEY CAN LIVE!! They can breath, feel, cry... If you can live, you're a human. If not, you're a bunch of cells (and yes, we are a bunch of cells who CAN LIVE).
Well, in Spanish, "natural abortion" = "miscarriage". "abortion= abortion". So if you have an intended abortion or a miscarriage before 13th, there's no difference, it's just another blood stain in your panties (excuse my French), nothing more. There's no fetus in there.
Only when the mother's life in danger. She has enough time to choose before.
We women are the human beings in every state of the pregnancy. Don't forget that you're talking about our bodies, our rights!
I've never had an abortion, but I know women who had, and it's a very difficult decission, traumatic, horrendous, something they have to live with. You guys don't know what costs to a woman when she decides to end a pregnancy, it's something always done out of neccesity... so it's already hard enough to handle it, to have to add narrow-minded, non-empathetic and lack-of-compassion men who think their morals are better than ours and that a non-human has more right than us, real living human beings.
I'd like to add about late term abortions: and if the baby is already dead or will die before the end of the pregnancy.
Sure babies can live with help outside the womb and fetuses can't at a certain point. But they can live inside the womb so why kill them? A similiar line of reasoning could be said about young adults. Babies are dependent on parents in some ways to live but young adults are not. Therefore babies are not human but young adults are.
And again the fact that a baby can feel just makes us more emotionally connected with it. We don't have value as humans based off our bodily functions. Imagine a person missing all five or three senses. Are they no longer human and we can kill them for some gain? Use your line of reasoning concerning a fetus.
You have just said it: Babies who depend on parents are BABIES, so they are living beings, ergo HUMAN BEINGS.
It's not the same, and I'm sure that, with all the clues I've already given you, you can figure out why I don't think so by yourself.
I'm not trying to be rude or lazy, but man, you are just over and over again with the same arguments, you look like an acid reflux.
p.s. edited to fix grammar
That contains some subtle question begging (by calling an abortion killing). I know you believe that, and that is fine. But by phrasing your question that way you are begging the question (although in your defense you are probably doing it unconsciously).
Moral relativist? What the fuck is that? If you are suggesting that I am an activist trying to promote an idea about morality, then you are wrong. I know where and how morality came about. 3-6 are complete assumptions and just your opinion.
@DO .....
You seem to have it all down pat.... A operates B operates C and the rest is automatic ......
But you better be warned...you are heading into pretty muddy water. Your nice shiny morals are going to get all dirty.
"In 2009, a nine-year-old Brazilian girl became pregnant with twins. The girl's mother obtained an abortion for the girl and, afterward, Archbishop José Sobrinho said that automatic excommunication applied to the girl's mother and to the doctors who performed the abortion, prompting national and international criticism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case
"Paraguay senator says pregnant 10-year-old denied abortion 'became a uterus' "
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/10/paraguay-pregnant-10-yea...
"NEW DELHI — A 10-year-old Indian girl who was raped by an uncle, and then lost her legal battle to have an abortion, gave birth on Thursday to a girl."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/asia/indian-girl-10-who-was-rap...
"Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old dentist, originally from India, died on 28 October 2012 at University Hospital Galway in Ireland due to what was interpreted as complications of a septic miscarriage at 17 weeks' gestation, after having been denied an abortion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/child-denied-abortion-mother-asks...
This topic is very close to touching a nerve for me being a young lady of an age where I would consider children in my future,
And even though every ounce of my being despairs at people asserting their beliefs on others, I will try to remain composed and rational and make the following points.
- Where is the consideration for the women's human rights?
- Is there a breach of free will and the ethics that are intrinsic to it?
- Consider if it was your daughter and she was raped.
- Consider if the child would endure untold suffering and agony.
I would close in saying, as a women I don't feel anyone has any right to tell me what I can and cannot do.
This is not to say that it is something I would personally do, but to have this view forced upon me is evil.
What I find most repugnant is that this view is mostly promoted by people of a certain religious persuasion,
and having read the old testament I feel that theists have no grounds to attempt to hold the moral high ground,
The Midian war springs to mind instantly, And didn't the 'lord' not say "About midnight I will go through Egypt.
Every firstborn son in Egypt will die".
Now I shall follow your points:
1. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human person.
2. All living humans are human persons.
3. A first born son born from women is human
4. Therefore, a newborn male is a human person.
5. Murder for or by god is the intentional killing of a humans.
6. Therefore, murder is wrong.
Think about it. Can a mom kill her baby after it's been born? You would probably say no so there are things women can be told to do or not do. It all comes down to if a fetus is or is not a human person.
No, you still cannot tell a women what she can or cannot do! This is the problem with theism,
you ought to ask, reason and rationalise. You can tell me now to not reply but I have free will and so I shall.
And no it does not come down to that, that is grossly over simplifying a very deep and philosophical question.
I find it interesting that you appear to find it fine that your deity may do this but a women cannot, very interesting!
This would be parallel to telling men they cannot masterbate because that is murder.
So do you are do not agree we can tell women not to murder their babies? If yes, then we know that at least sometimes we can tell women (and men for that matter) what to do.
Murder a baby who is already born is not at the very least the same as getting rid of a bunch of cells with no organs, no consciousness, no nerves...
And I already answered you to this question, when we talked about objective morality -in very extended post in this thread. http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/2000-years-every-proof...
I'm not going to repeat myself.
To be fair, here, Lucy, non of the arguments presented were religious in nature. No bible verses, no church doctrine was mentioned.
As to your earlier objection about women's rights, I'll agree with you. But wouldn't you agree that around half of the aborted fetuses out there are female? What about their rights?
+1000
- Consider if it was your sister and she could die because of a pregnancy with complications.
- Consider if you get a girl pregnant and both of you are teenagers.
Yes it is. Thank you for posting it. This is BY FAR the best argument posted by a theists I've seen on this site. You conclusions almost follow from your premises (just need a couple of easy fixes, see below), your premises and conclusions are not muddled together; and while you didn't label them, you don't need to because you use the classic Therefore as a preamble to each conclusion. If I could give you a gold star, I would.
----------------------------------------
easy fix 1:
I'm guessing your meant to say:
Just to make it fit better with 2; because you have "living humans" and "human persons", so you need to tie the fetus in to one of those. Shouldn't fundamental change the form of your argument.
----------------------------------------
easy fix 2:
You also need something like:
So you can tie into 1. Again, I don't think this will fundamentally change the argument.
----------------------------------------
I wouldn't muddy the waters by attaching conditionals to your first premise. If that guy is wrong, this whole thing is not worth a hill of beans.
----------------------------------------
Of course, that's the rub. 1 and 3 are a little suspicious, IMO.
@orignal post from Dumb Ox
1. Agree (I could come up with an example of an exception, but for all intents and purposes here, I agree)
2. Agree
3. Disagree - a fetus is not a human, it is a fetus with the potential to become human.
4. Disagree (because I disagree with point 3)
5. Agree
6. Disagree (because I disagree with point 3)
.
.
How do you define a human?
I think you will find it impossible to include a fetus (especially a just fertilized egg!) in that definition of human, without expanding the human definition that would have to include other animals like the chimp or particular organs/cells within the human body or maybe even humans that are already dead.
You really dig yourself a hole when you try to include a recently fertilized egg is also a human. 3rd term fetuses you may have a shot at it, but a just fertilized egg is so far away from a "human" it is just comical to try to define it as human. All it is, is the potential to be human.
Okay so a human organism is an organism which has human DNA (almost always) from a human father and mother, is a living animal (has cell(s), grows, and reacts to stimuli).
After an egg is fertilized it then has half of its DNA from one parent and half from the other. Furthermore, it self organizes itself and grows into an adult. The basic DNA makeup does not change and it is the same thing as when it grows into an adult.
It's like an acorn growing into an oak. It's the same thing but only more developed.
I have a GREAT topic for your pseudo-ethics class. (By the way, do you know how many times a year we hear the "ethics class" line?) The topic would be based around this theory:
And by the way, the ONLY difference between the Islamic fundamentalism of ISIS or Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism and historic Christian fundamentalism is the point in time you are analyzing.
+1000. Mbrownec. Less moral lessons about abortions, and more parenthood planning and more looking after pregnant women with no resources.
Lol this is just ignorant.
No, parenthood planning and parenthood welfare is really the moon... while we are discussing about the finger.
I also have the same DNA (or at least RNA) as those fingernail clipping I threw into the trash the other day. Surely that does not make me a murderer.
Where does this argument stand on men masterbating? haha
Right, but your finger nails don't develope into an adult and they aren't an individual self oraganizing organism when you do cut them.
The debate about abortion is entirely with regards to when life begins. Abortion after a fetus can be considered a human being is accepted as wrong.
We must define when life begins enable to say when abortion should become illegal, which is a tricky subject. The presence or absence of a heartbeat is generally accepted as detaining whether or not a person or organism is alive or not. That is when we proclaim someone dead, and I see no reason we should use a different standard when determining if someone is alive.
Pages