The Ethics of Abortion

maxmanmin · 16時間前

Sam has actually commented on it, saying that with future (or maybe even current) technology you could make the same argument for the cells at the tip of your nose. They too, have the potential to grow and become a child. Does that mean that you are "terminating the right to life" when you scratch your nose?

Of course not. The mistake here, seems to me, is to try and find some clear line in the sand in terms of biology. The right frame for thinking about this issue is, as with every moral issue, consequentialism.

There is quite a bit of research indicating that abortions in many cases give huge payoffs to the would-be mothers, and society as a whole (crime rates correlate strongly with abortion laws). The price of abortion grows with the size of the embryo or fetus. At some point - different for each medical practitioner and mother - the price becomes too great to bear. The murder of a baby is a terrible thing to be held responsible for, and it becomes less of a burden to complete the pregnancy.

MeetYourCows · 15時間前

I think Peter Singer's position on this point is very persuasive. He argues that rights should be considered in a spectrum rather than as a dichotomy. As an organism becomes more self-aware, more capable of suffering, etc., the more the well-being of this organism should be considered and weighed against that of others.

In that sense, the well-being of the mother significantly outweighs the well-being of the fetus whether or not the fetus can be considered human.

swishcheese · 18時間前

Abortion needs to be taken on a case by case basis. It's like asking if violence is ethical or not... it depends on the situation at hand. It is very easy to make an argument that abortion can certainly be ethical, as there are a plethora of scenarios where the "good" a termination would be bring, outweighs the "good" of having the child - and this lens can be focused on the mother, the family, society, the planet, etc.

The real question is, is abortion always an ethical option?

TonyWrocks · 16時間前

I believe the large gray area itself necessitates deference to the individual circumstance. It is the height of arrogance to treat such a quandary so black-and-white - to force people to one side or the other when even the best arguments are inconsistent and emotion-laden.

Ultimately - if you don't believe in abortion, don't get one - and work to minimize the need for abortions. The most ethical thing to do is assure young people have information and 'equipment' to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

TheDebatheist · 18時間前

I think it's a prominent issue with the most breakdown in communication.

One side constantly parades a woman's 'right to choose' while rarely invoking the science. The other concentrates on the 'murder' of innocent 'children', without addressing bodily autonomy.

I find that the most infuriating element, is that Pro-Lifers have a more understandable position, I think. That is to say, if their underlying premise were true, I can see their conclusion as rationally justified and a reasonable source for moral outrage. But instead of engaging with this flawed premise (that the fetus is neither sentient or conscious, at least in the first trimester), advocates for abortion focus on a factor that is not persuasive nor morally crucial.

I think you elude to this issue in paragraphs 3 through 5.

does it not stand to reason that this clump of cells will one day become a child?

It's hard to see how this isn't a violation of the unborn's right to life.

Because Pro-Choicers would rather virtue-signal and pontificate about the rights of the woman (rights that I agree with, given what we know), this question lingers and remains inadequately addressed in the minds of the general public.

dvelsadvocate · 14時間前

Nobody has any rights other than the ones that we as a society uphold. They're not like some kind of intrinsic property of the universe that cannot be voided. We might say that humans have a right to have access to clean water. That means that we agree, as a society, to take steps to ensure that that is the case, and if someone's right to clean water was voided, we would react by restoring it. But if the consensus shifts and the society decides that they won't uphold that right anymore, then it's just gone.

I see morality as being kind of similar actually. There are evolutionary mechanisms that form the foundation of morality, so our sense of right and wrong probably isn't infinitely plastic, but there's room for a consensus-like rule creation like you see with rights. Whether or not we allow abortion is basically a matter of whether or not consensus gives the green light.

There are places where abortion of Down Syndrome fetuses is advocated, and in those places something like 98% of Down Syndrome fetuses are aborted. Then there are places where Down Syndrome fetuses are rarely aborted. What's the difference? The first country has almost no Down Syndrome citizens, the second has significantly more. The country that allows Down Syndrome abortions has not been smitten by a God or anything, and there's enough plasticity in our sense of morality that the society is ok with it and they haven't been left crippled with guilt or PTSD or anything.

Of course one of the big issues everyone has is where to draw the line between a bunch of cells and human being. Again, it's really only an issue of consensus I think, and the consensus will be informed by our biology to an extent. We are hardwired to interact with, and feel certain things toward other humans, and killing a baby that had already been born, for example, would probably not be possible for a healthy human to do without feeling immense guilt, unless it could be re-framed in their mind, like let's say in the case where it was medically necessary and they did it as humanely as possible. It just so happens that it's quite a lot easier to kill a bunch of cells because, to simplify it, we didn't evolve to empathize with bunches of cells.

That is my opinion, and it's only the foundation, I'm not suggesting that discussion on the finer points should be abandoned. Part of the consensus involves discussion. But I think many laypeople involved in the debate have difficulty fitting it into their moral framework without compromising consistency. Anti-abortion people can't shake the feeling that it's still killing a human, and many pro-choice people feel like they want it to be an option and it doesn't appear to cause harm to any conscious beings, but they have to use some gymnastics like creating a distinction between inside and outside of the womb, or fetuses that are still kind of bunch-of-cell-like and fetuses that look like actual babies, in order to fit it consistently into their moral framework.

Fibonacci35813 · 14時間前

I actually take a view that I don't know how many people agree with, but I find it consistent with 'caring about the well-being of conscious creatures'

Not only am I pro-choice, I think that in many contexts, it is moral to abort a child. When individuals are not prepared to have the child, financially or psychologically, it does nothing but promote harm that a few years would likely help.

Not to mention, we're struggling with the possibility of overpopulation. The world just doesn't have the resources, at this point (maybe technology will change that) to sustain everyone at a current Western standard.

The arguments against abortion are not convincing either. First, re: the potential of life argument: I doubt many people who use that argument would not be swayed by the situation in which aborting one child would lead to having two more. And if life was good for it's own sake, it would moral to have 10 kids.

Second: The idea that a fetus is already a life. Here's where I get controversial - I'd say aborting a young infant, assuming the procedure is painless (and assuming that the infant doesn't have a conscious representation of wanting to be alive - which is debatable) would be fine. At that point, they are still a conglomerate of cells, that happen to exist outside the womb. I don't see why the separation from mother, immediately changes the facts. I get the intuition. It definitely seems wrong, but I can't come up with a single reason that separation from the mother changes things.

InternetDude_ · 11時間前

The reason this issue is a problem from a secular point of view is that biology has, to this point, failed to draw a distinct line between being alive and not being alive. Put another way, we don't have a solid definition of what life precisely means. Whether it is at the beginning as a fetus, or at the end on life support the lines are ambiguous at best. We pronounce someone dead when their heart ceases to beat, but we can circulate blood artificially and keep brain activity going. Also someone can be brain dead but all other organic systems are functioning. The day science can resolve this is the day it becomes easier.

My point is if there were a scientific way we could precisely define life then we could say that abortion up to that point is ethical and anything after could be considered life terminating.

I tend to agree that potential for life is a dubious argument because every cell in the body contains DNA and could be used to create a new life full of potential. As Sam and the original poster said, scratching your nose is an effective holocaust.

I'm open minded though and prepared to be wrong on all this.

walk_the_spank · 16時間前

I don't feel like weighing in on this topic, but I will point out that Matt Dillahunty and Kristine Kruszelnicki, both atheists, had a debate about abortion. I think Kristine's arguments are weak, and she includes a graphic image in her presentation with no warning, but it shows this debate can happen outside the scope of religion.

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

PixyFreakingStix · 12時間前

I really think the concern over the well-being of a fetus is fabricated and comes from not understanding what well-being is.

Let's say someone could instantly kill you and you wouldn't notice or feel pain. Why is that wrong?

Well, it would impact other people in your life that love you and would miss you. So that's bad. Let's say we change it so everyone's memories would be altered such that they never knew you? Okay, so now why is it wrong? You'd prefer to be alive and violating your preferences is wrong in this case.

A fetus cannot have preferences. A fetus has less intellect than a cat or a dog, yet we're perfectly fine with putting those animals down. But you wouldn't steal a cat to put it down. That's the difference. And you can argue that a fetus has the potential for a rich life, but so do any cells we could clone. So that can't be the metric by which we judge this. What if we could engineer a super intelligent cat that has as rich a life as a human? What is the difference between an embryo and a fetus and a cat and a baby? Not much. The only reason you'd prefer an embryo to a cell we could engineer into a human is the naturalistic fallacy.

Incidentally, a baby can't really have preferences either, so it's possible killing a baby in this way is okay. But as I've argued before, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and "birth" seems like a pretty good line to do it.

Add to this all the very clear advantages to aborting a child you don't want (do I need to get into this?) and it seems to me that it's pretty obvious abortion is a good thing to allow.

cruxxingdown · 11時間前

The right to bodily integrity can and does trump another person's right to life.

Suppose your heart failed, and for some reason, the only way that you could keep on living was to attach yourself to my body and use my heart. Suppose it was not my fault at all that your heart had failed (re: rape or use of birth control that failed.) Or, suppose even, that you and I went for a run one day, and your heart failed due to us running together; so it could be argued that both I and you together caused your heart to fail.

Now you are attached to me for the next 10 months to use my heart, or you die. After 10 months your heart would start to work again on its own, and you could be detached from me.

Am I under an obligation to let you live attached to me for 10 months, either because your heart accidentally failed or we ran together and it failed due to that? I argue no, absolutely not. Sure, I could let you stay attached to me for 10 months, if I am so inclined. But if I don't feel like it, I have every right to detach you from me if I choose to do so. If you die as a result, that's a shame, but that doesn't make me obligated to let you use my body.

DrZack · 11時間前

You wake up one day. You are now attached to a famous singer. This singer has a rare blood disease and you're the only one who has the blood/antibodies/whatever to save his life. Unfortunately, you must be attached to the singer for 9 months, afterwhich you can safely disconnect yourself. Would you be in favor of having the government forcing you to be attached to the singer for 9 months? Would you be justified in removing the attachment to him even if it caused his death?

Citizen902 · 7時間前

Most Christians I've met tell me that the moment the sperm enters the egg there's some god magic that happens, and that's when it officially becomes a human life.

I don't know, because there is no easy solution...... I think that in most cases women have abortions because of difficult circumstances in their lives. Ask any social worker or police officer where troubled kids and adults come from, and they'll tell you it's from troubled parents. So from that perspective, it may be more ethical to terminate a pregnancy that they know they cannot provide for ether financially or emotionally...... And further to that point, it may be highly unethical for the religious right ( or anyone else against abortion ) to be both anti birth control and anti abortion, because what else is going to effectively prevent abortion? And no, abstinence isn't a realistic idea, and stats show how much teen pregnancy has declined in recent decades due to access to reliable birth control.

I just read today that Mike Pence tried to pass a law that would have forced women that had abortions or miscarried to perform a funeral for the fetus? Wtf......

makriath · 7時間前

My two cents:

The crux of the debate seems to be where to draw the line between "clump of cells" and "human being".

For me, I wouldn't consider something human if it has no capacity to think or feel.

To my knowledge, the 5th week of pregnancy is about the time when a nervous system begins to develop. So, I do believe that it is not immoral to have an abortion before this point. I am still murky about abortions in later stages.

foldertrash · 5時間前

isn't the abortion question kind of easy?

the second the sperm meets the egg it is not human. 30 minutes before the woman is about to give birth it clearly is a human.

so somewhere in between, there is the time to which the foetus can be considered human. the answer then, I think, must be when the fetus can feel pain or is conscious. and the answer for that, and correct me if I'm wrong, is in and around 16 weeks, and I think that is being conservative(source here and here) which seems like a perfect natural timeline for a cutoff point, considering that 91% of abortions are done in the first 13 weeks (that stat here and here again from for and against websites).

after that point, abortions should need a good valid reason and not just a change of mind. either the child is unlikely to survive, is severely deformed, or that the mother's life is in danger in some way. victim of rape is another perfectly understandable reason. the mothers right to life needs to be acknowledged to, and that includes her mental health.

TotesMessenger · 1時間前

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

[/r/badphilosophy] /r/samharris discusses abortion

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.} ^(Info ^/ ^Contact)

interestme1 · 59分前

Does that lump of cells have the right to one day be miscarried? Which is to say, if we can't know the fate of those cells beforehand, how can we terminate their right to life?

The implicit claim here that I haven't seen addressed by other comments is that we must take the future into account to decide what is morally correct in the present. This same claim is needed for some arguments for environmental protection or decisions in complex economic systems, and it's one I struggle with frequently.

The problem is that if you're not temporally bound (that is you consider the future as relevant as the past and present to moral decisions), you basically end up doing nothing and coming to the conclusion that even innocuous acts could be morally demonized.

Without going too wild though I'll just stick with abortion. Well why is the clump of cells put under more consideration than the sperm/egg from whence they came? In other words, wouldn't you have to consider birth control to also be an immoral hinderance of life? Couldn't that also be traced back to actually courting a mate?

Perhaps that seems extreme, but that's only because we generally only consider the present to be morally relevant to our decisions. This is perfectly reasonable, because we don't know the future. We don't know what kind of child that will be, what kind of person it would turn into, whether it will even live and what kind of suffering or joy it will experience. We could make a probabilistic estimate, which would probably lead us to the conclusion that it was a life worth preserving/creating/nurturing/etc (that is to say it would likely develop into the kind of consciousness we would protect by law). But if we're willing to do that there, then there's a precedent set to allow future estimates to influence present morality, which is inherently dubious and uncertain and leads to conclusions that may seem incomplete or unscientific.

So the conundrum here I think is deriving the principal of whether potential future should affect present decisions. You can't let go of it completely, because if you do things like climate change become nearly impossible to tackle. But if you let it encroach too much you're dancing in the wind.

samharris

調停者