Abortion Debate

[Nils]

In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think it just complicates matter talking about “justification”. It is enough to talk about morally right and wrong and legally right and wrong.

So I ask: Why are the parents morally wrong if they decide to kill a young fetus (say less than 22 week old)?

I have noticed some arguments in the debate here but I don’t think that they are are valid:

1. The slippery slope argument.
If that was valid it would have been noted in countries where abortion of young fetuses is permitted but I have never heard of that.
2. The fetus suffers when aborted.
Young fetuses don’t feel pain even if the nervous system is in place. The cognitive capabilities in the brain don’t exist yet. As someone said, the signal to the bell is there but nobody is at home.
3. The young fetus has lot of functions and organs that human beings have.
Even small mammals have these features and, what is more important, small fetuses don’t have all the capabilities of even small mammals as feelings, memory and elementary consciousness not to talk about the full consciousness of adult human beings.
4. Small fetuses look like humans. That may be true but what’s the significance? Even ape fetuses look like humans.

What remains is
5. It IS wrong to abort young fetuses!
But this is not an argument, only an ungrounded statement.

So again: What IS the argument?


(In the OP there is a reference to The Abortion Debate – Dr. Willie Parker vs Dr. Mike Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIpSmz ... e=youtu.be.
The argument from Adams is mainly the argument 5. above as far as I can see.
Ben Shapiro argues against abortion and uses a mixture of the arguments above but expresses all the time argument 5 without any motivation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs
Admittedly they also argue against late abortion which I think is much more difficult to defend. That is about aborting fetuses that have cognitiv capabilities and are can survive outside the womb. )

Nils

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

Yes, this is the argument 5 above. You say that it wrong to kill the young fetus, but why? I claim that the arguments for the wrongness of killing adults and old fetuses don't apply to young fetuses. Which is your argument(s) for not allowing parents to kill their young fetuses?
Nils

[Nils]

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

I believe many argue that though it is wrong to kill a person, the fetus isn't a person yet.

Ken,
I have tried this argument but as you note from Rich there are other definitions of 'person' so I think it is better to avoid the discussion of "persons" and instead focus on young fetuses (younger than 22 weeks) which lack essential features of adult humans and aren't viable outside the womb.
Nils

[RickD]

In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think it just complicates matter talking about “justification”. It is enough to talk about morally right and wrong and legally right and wrong.

So I ask: Why are the parents morally wrong if they decide to kill a young fetus (say less than 22 week old)?

I have noticed some arguments in the debate here but I don’t think that they are are valid:

1. The slippery slope argument.
If that was valid it would have been noted in countries where abortion of young fetuses is permitted but I have never heard of that.
2. The fetus suffers when aborted.
Young fetuses don’t feel pain even if the nervous system is in place. The cognitive capabilities in the brain don’t exist yet. As someone said, the signal to the bell is there but nobody is at home.
3. The young fetus has lot of functions and organs that human beings have.
Even small mammals have these features and, what is more important, small fetuses don’t have all the capabilities of even small mammals as feelings, memory and elementary consciousness not to talk about the full consciousness of adult human beings.
4. Small fetuses look like humans. That may be true but what’s the significance? Even ape fetuses look like humans.

What remains is
5. It IS wrong to abort young fetuses!
But this is not an argument, only an ungrounded statement.

So again: What IS the argument?


(In the OP there is a reference to The Abortion Debate – Dr. Willie Parker vs Dr. Mike Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIpSmz ... e=youtu.be.
The argument from Adams is mainly the argument 5. above as far as I can see.
Ben Shapiro argues against abortion and uses a mixture of the arguments above but expresses all the time argument 5 without any motivation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs
Admittedly they also argue against late abortion which I think is much more difficult to defend. That is about aborting fetuses that have cognitiv capabilities and are can survive outside the womb. )

Nils

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

Yes, this is the argument 5 above. You say that it wrong to kill the young fetus, but why? I claim that the arguments for the wrongness of killing adults and old fetuses don't apply to young fetuses. Which is your argument(s) for not allowing parents to kill their young fetuses?
Nils

It's not argument 5. Argument 5 is a statement, not an argument.
I explained why it's wrong to kill an unborn human being. Go back and reread what I said.

[RickD]

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

I believe many argue that though it is wrong to kill a person, the fetus isn't a person yet.

Ken,
I have tried this argument but as you note from Rich there are other definitions of 'person' so I think it is better to avoid the discussion of "persons" and instead focus on young fetuses (younger than 22 weeks) which lack essential features of adult humans and aren't viable outside the womb.
Nils

Nils,
Avoiding the discussion about "person", does nothing to counter the argument that an unborn human being, is by definition, a person. "Human being" and "person" are synonymous.

Avoiding the discussion about "person", does nothing but make you look like you're avoiding the discussion. I believe that the strongest argument against abortion, is as follows:

1) with few exceptions, it's wrong to kill a person
2) unborn human beings are persons
3) therefore, it is wrong to kill unborn persons

If you want to argue for abortion, you should take the strongest opposing argument, and deal with that. What you're doing, is taking the strongest argument against your position, and instead of dealing with that argument, you want to sweep it under the rug, and pretend the argument doesn't exist.

With any discussion, I think it's best to take the strongest opposing argument, and deal with that.

[Nils]

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

I believe many argue that though it is wrong to kill a person, the fetus isn't a person yet.

Ken,
I have tried this argument but as you note from Rich there are other definitions of 'person' so I think it is better to avoid the discussion of "persons" and instead focus on young fetuses (younger than 22 weeks) which lack essential features of adult humans and aren't viable outside the womb.
Nils

Nils,
Avoiding the discussion about "person", does nothing to counter the argument that an unborn human being, is by definition, a person. "Human being" and "person" are synonymous.

Avoiding the discussion about "person", does nothing but make you look like you're avoiding the discussion.

Rick,
Your definition is different from my and Ken’s definition. Ken wrote in #59: “I believe many argue that though it is wrong to kill a person, the fetus isn't a person yet.” and I agree but you apparently don’t. To avoid the tiresome debate arguing which definition is the correct one I prefer not using the word ‘person’ at all. I prefer debating abortion, not terminology.

I believe that the strongest argument against abortion, is as follows:

1) with few exceptions, it's wrong to kill a person
2) unborn human beings are persons
3) therefore, it is wrong to kill unborn persons

If you want to argue for abortion, you should take the strongest opposing argument, and deal with that. What you're doing, is taking the strongest argument against your position, and instead of dealing with that argument, you want to sweep it under the rug, and pretend the argument doesn't exist.

With any discussion, I think it's best to take the strongest opposing argument, and deal with that.

I agree that it’s best to deal with the strongest opposing argument and that’s what I’m trying to do.

You say that ‘person’ and ‘human being’ are synonymous so permit me to exchange the wording in you argument:

1) with few exceptions, it's wrong to kill a human being
2) unborn human beings are human beings
3) therefore, it is wrong to kill unborn human beings

If think we can agree on that human beings are born human beings and unborn human beings and the latter are young human fetuses (including human embryos) and old human fetuses (assuming that the limit between young and old is for instance week 22). Then we can rewrite the argument above as

4) with few exceptions, it’s wrong to kill
a) born human beings,
b) old fetuses, and
c) young fetuses.

I know the arguments for 4a and 4b but I don’t know any good argument for 4c. What I claim is that the arguments for 4a and 4b aren’t extended automatically to 4c which you seems to think. You have to motivate 4c separately. Young fetuses are different, in many important respects, to born human beings.

Nils

[RickD]

4) with few exceptions, it’s wrong to kill
a) born human beings,
b) old fetuses, and
c) young fetuses.

Nils wrote:
I know the arguments for 4a and 4b but I don’t know any good argument for 4c. What I claim is that the arguments for 4a and 4b aren’t extended automatically to 4c which you seems to think. You have to motivate 4c separately. Young fetuses are different, in many important respects, to born human beings.

Nils,

Your logic doesn't work. In my argument, A, B, and C, are all human beings. Persons. From the moment of conception, the fetus is a human being.

In your argument, the difference between old fetuses and young fetuses, is arbitrary, and inconsistent.

A 22 week old fetus may be viable if born in a hospital, in a developed country. And that same 22 week old fetus suddenly isn't viable, if born in the streets of a 3rd world country. So, now the argument logically becomes what the location of the baby when born, determines viability, which determines personhood. Which as you can see, is absurd.

Further, let's say we have two unborn babies. A 21 week old fetus(baby #1) which develops faster than a 23 week old fetus(baby #2). According to your logic, baby #1, which is further along in development than baby #2, is NOT a person, but baby #2 is.

I hope you can see the issue with that.

From the moment of conception, throughout development inside the mother's womb, to birth, until the moment of death, that is a living person.

Picking arbitrary times in a pregnancy, to suddenly claim the baby passes from not being a person, to suddenly becoming a person, is absurd, and illogical.

From the moment of conception, there exists a human being. A person. And killing that person, because he/she is an inconvenience, is simply wrong.

[Kenny]

In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think it just complicates matter talking about “justification”. It is enough to talk about morally right and wrong and legally right and wrong.

So I ask: Why are the parents morally wrong if they decide to kill a young fetus (say less than 22 week old)?

I have noticed some arguments in the debate here but I don’t think that they are are valid:

1. The slippery slope argument.
If that was valid it would have been noted in countries where abortion of young fetuses is permitted but I have never heard of that.
2. The fetus suffers when aborted.
Young fetuses don’t feel pain even if the nervous system is in place. The cognitive capabilities in the brain don’t exist yet. As someone said, the signal to the bell is there but nobody is at home.
3. The young fetus has lot of functions and organs that human beings have.
Even small mammals have these features and, what is more important, small fetuses don’t have all the capabilities of even small mammals as feelings, memory and elementary consciousness not to talk about the full consciousness of adult human beings.
4. Small fetuses look like humans. That may be true but what’s the significance? Even ape fetuses look like humans.

What remains is
5. It IS wrong to abort young fetuses!
But this is not an argument, only an ungrounded statement.

So again: What IS the argument?


(In the OP there is a reference to The Abortion Debate – Dr. Willie Parker vs Dr. Mike Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIpSmz ... e=youtu.be.
The argument from Adams is mainly the argument 5. above as far as I can see.
Ben Shapiro argues against abortion and uses a mixture of the arguments above but expresses all the time argument 5 without any motivation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs
Admittedly they also argue against late abortion which I think is much more difficult to defend. That is about aborting fetuses that have cognitiv capabilities and are can survive outside the womb. )

Nils

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

I believe many argue that though it is wrong to kill a person, the fetus isn't a person yet.

Yes, unfortunately people don't want to recognize the unborn as a person. We went through the same issue with slavery here in the US. Black Africans weren't recognized as persons, so they were denied the rights that every person is born with. We can only hope that in the future, the unborn aren't denied the rights that they deserve.

And there are people who believe that way. As long as there are differences between people, there will be those who believe some of those differences mean some are superior or inferior; and there really isn’t any objective means of proving that they are wrong, you might as well try to prove the sprinter isn’t superior to the long distance runner, the stronger person isn't superior to the person capable of child birth, or that the apple isn’t superior to the orange.

With the abortion issue, the question becomes; when does the sperm/egg combination become a person? You might say conception, but others might say when there is a heart beat, or when there is brain activity, or when it is capable of living outside the womb, or something else; and there isn’t any objective means of proving their standard of personhood wrong and yours right.

[Kenny]

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

I believe many argue that though it is wrong to kill a person, the fetus isn't a person yet.

Ken,
I have tried this argument but as you note from Rich there are other definitions of 'person' so I think it is better to avoid the discussion of "persons" and instead focus on young fetuses (younger than 22 weeks) which lack essential features of adult humans and aren't viable outside the womb.
Nils

Thanks but no thanks. I'm not really arguing my personal opinions, I'm arguing an opinion that I know exists and I kinda want to see where this goes.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieus, you say that this view in inconsistent but you don’t explain why. It is is not a clear cut black and white rule but very few rules are and that doesn’t make them inconsistent.
....
Besides, is which way is my view above a world view?

You would call yourself a Materialist would you not? More specifically, you believe that only what is physical exists.

And yet, you'd draw some immaterial distinction called "personhood", which ultimately boils down to some soulish attribute, to say that an unborn physical human life (less than 22 weeks) doesn't deserve the most basic HUMAN right -- the right to live and not be killed by someone else. All because it doesn't possess this soulish attribute aka "personhood".

Such is very inconsistent to a physical worldview. You must surely therefore not believe that only the physical world exists, right?

If you doubt that such materialism exists is one thing (and I can of course argue for that), but don’t say that it is inconsistent. And the obvious answer to your question in #7 “As an aside, I wonder where this invisible attribute called "personhood" exists in the body” is in the mind which is a property of the brain.

I don’t know what kind of materialism you think of but that is certainly not my version. To me, the material is all that exist basically, but on that psyche is formed. As Wikipedia says “Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.” Thus all mental things like feelings, consciousness, love, creativity, personhood, morality etc exist. You may call such things “soulish” but there is no need to have a soul to have such properties.

Yes, Materialism is the position that all things are reducible to the material world. So then, all those seemingly qualitatively and immaterial attributes you describe (feelings, consciousness, love, creativity, etc), which don't appear to have properties of mass, weight, shape, colour, taste, etc -- where are they? And you give a response to this question:

If you doubt that such materialism exists is one thing (and I can of course argue for that), but don’t say that it is inconsistent. And the obvious answer to your question in #7 “As an aside, I wonder where this invisible attribute called "personhood" exists in the body” is in the mind which is a property of the brain.

So then, your response is personhood is reduced to a property of the brain. Which or what property is this? Now of course it is here you might say "ahh, it's all much more complex than that." While you can't give a 1 for 1 correlation in the brain, that is, point to this part of the brain and say there's the person right there... as it is a process or state in which neurons are firing in the brain -- that they fire in this way, rather than that way (right??), which at least gives us some scientific objective grounding.

So then, regardless of what anyone perceives of another person, if a person's brain is firing off signals in a certain way, then they're a person... well, it'd make sense to use that consistently when it comes to human life in the womb.

But, do you Nils? You say you'll support a woman's right to have an abortion up until 22 weeks. Did you base your 22 week judgement based upon an analysis of brain development? Based upon some personhood argument, which now I've prodded you as being inconsistent to your worldview, you claim you're not as you based personhood upon the brain. So then, let's see how consistent this 22 week cutoff point is.

By six weeks of development there is neural activity. Perhaps maybe that's too primitive for your liking, such activity is only firing in a way that isn't really a way that'd be a person. What about feeling pain? Do persons or non-persons feel pain? Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She stated to congress that the neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development... This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity."

Now you might debate or disagree with 8 weeks. I've just quoted an expert in the field. But, I'm wondering. Did you come to your 22 week conclusion by consistently applying your belief that personhood is had as an attribute of our brain? Did you come to the conclusion that 22 weeks is the time a person exists based upon your study, understanding and knowledge of brain development?

It seems that you understand my materialistic world view (that’s good) but you don’t think that my reasoning that leads to the 22 week limit is consistent with my world view. I don’t understand why but perhaps that isn’t important. My reasoning IS based on the mental properties of the fetus. In the article with I referred to in the thread about N.Y. adopts law and again in post #30 above there is an overview of current research about the fetus’ cognitive capabilities. It seems to be a consensus that capabilities as feeling pain and being conscious occurs somewhere between week 22 and week 31. I choose the lower figure to be on the safe side. (Only neural activity isn’t enough, compare with Galvani’s experiments on frogs. The leg moved even when the frog was dead).

The answer to your two concluding questions is Yes.

Nils

I'm most certain it is not the case that feeling pain (which we both agree requires consciousness) doesn't occur earlier than 22 weeks, let alone 31 weeks. There are many previous staff in the abortion industry, now pro-life, who'll say the unborn child most definitely does recoil away from, for example, during a suction abortion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5THDmys8z30). This method is performed within the first trimester.

I'd encourage you to watch Abby Johnson's movie recently released.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBLWpKbC3ww

[PaulSacramento]

Let me put it this way:
Is stealing to feed your children morally right?
Is it justified?

In my book, if it's justified, it's morally right. But I've got a feeling you see justified as having to do with what is legal and morality right as what is fair; is this a correct assumption?

Ah, and here we have it:

In my book, if it's justified, it's morally right.

So, for a pro-choices, the justification for an abortion is that it is her body, so it is morally right, according to the above view, to take the life.

[Kenny]

Let me put it this way:
Is stealing to feed your children morally right?
Is it justified?

In my book, if it's justified, it's morally right. But I've got a feeling you see justified as having to do with what is legal and morality right as what is fair; is this a correct assumption?

Ah, and here we have it:

In my book, if it's justified, it's morally right.

So, for a pro-choices, the justification for an abortion is that it is her body, so it is morally right, according to the above view, to take the life.

The question I asked you had nothing to do with abortion. Again; how are you defining the difference between what's justified and what's right?

[PaulSacramento]

You know this thread is about abortion, right?

[Kenny]

You know this thread is about abortion, right?

Yes I know what the thread is about. But while discussing abortion, you mentioned actions that are justified, vs actions that are right; as if there were a difference. When I asked you what the difference is, you didn't give a straight answer. Right now all I'm looking for is an answer the my question, then perhaps I can understand the reasoning behind some of the responses you give.

[Nils]

4) with few exceptions, it’s wrong to kill
a) born human beings,
b) old fetuses, and
c) young fetuses.

Nils wrote:
I know the arguments for 4a and 4b but I don’t know any good argument for 4c. What I claim is that the arguments for 4a and 4b aren’t extended automatically to 4c which you seems to think. You have to motivate 4c separately. Young fetuses are different, in many important respects, to born human beings.

Nils,

Your logic doesn't work. In my argument, A, B, and C, are all human beings. Persons. From the moment of conception, the fetus is a human being.

In your argument, the difference between old fetuses and young fetuses, is arbitrary, and inconsistent.

A 22 week old fetus may be viable if born in a hospital, in a developed country. And that same 22 week old fetus suddenly isn't viable, if born in the streets of a 3rd world country. So, now the argument logically becomes what the location of the baby when born, determines viability, which determines personhood. Which as you can see, is absurd.

Further, let's say we have two unborn babies. A 21 week old fetus(baby #1) which develops faster than a 23 week old fetus(baby #2). According to your logic, baby #1, which is further along in development than baby #2, is NOT a person, but baby #2 is.

I hope you can see the issue with that.

From the moment of conception, throughout development inside the mother's womb, to birth, until the moment of death, that is a living person.

Picking arbitrary times in a pregnancy, to suddenly claim the baby passes from not being a person, to suddenly becoming a person, is absurd, and illogical.

From the moment of conception, there exists a human being. A person. And killing that person, because he/she is an inconvenience, is simply wrong.

Rick,
First about your terminology, earlier (#64) you said that “"Human being" and "person" are synonymous” but above you don’t seem to stick to your definition. However, I accepted and will use this definition (at least during this discussion) and will not use the accordingly superfluous word “person”.

I accept that there is a human being from conception. You say that killing the human being right after conception is “simply wrong”. That is what I listed as argument 5 in my post #57:
"5. It IS wrong to abort young fetuses!
But this is not an argument, only an ungrounded statement."

I now, as before, ask you to motivate your statement. Why is it wrong that the parents decide to kill the human embryo or young fetus? This is the important question. Those like me that are for abortion of young fetuses don’t think it is wrong. You do. Please motivate. It doesn’t suffice to say that “In my argument, A, B, and C, are all human beings. Persons. From the moment of conception, the fetus is a human being.” I agree that they are human beings, but that is not a complete argument. You also have argue why the rights we agree are applicable to A, born humans, also apply to C, young fetuses. That is far from self evident.

The distinction between a young and an old fetus is as most distinctions a bit arbitrarily but anyhow it is important and defenitely not inconsistent. There is a huge difference between a fully developed fetus and what I call a young fetus. The latter has no cognitive capabilities, no feelings, no memories, and no consciousness. When the fetus develops it will get these capabilities successively until it is fully developed. My intention is to set the limit between young and old fetus to a week when it is highly certain that the fetus don’t have any of these capabilities. According to the literature I read the fetus acquires these capabilities somewhere after week 22 but to me the exact week isn’t important (as I indicated earlier). It may occur somewhat earlier.

Viability outside the womb might also be a criterium but I think it is problematic because of the probable future medical developments where it may be possible to keep even an aborted embryo alive.

Nils

[PaulSacramento]

You know this thread is about abortion, right?

Yes I know what the thread is about. But while discussing abortion, you mentioned actions that are justified, vs actions that are right; as if there were a difference. When I asked you what the difference is, you didn't give a straight answer. Right now all I'm looking for is an answer the my question, then perhaps I can understand the reasoning behind some of the responses you give.

You don't think there is a difference between an act that is justified and one that is right?