Abortion... is it morally neutral?

[dsayers]

I find most of the arguments nothing more than an intellectual exercise the purpose of which is to justify aggression against a completely vulnerable human being.

This is not an argument. Calling an embryo a "human being" is misleading and indicates your bias as well as a lack of curiosity. Which leads me to believe that the reason why you took issue to the actual arguments presented is because they didn't confirm your bias. Also, your use of the word "vulnerable" is an appeal to emotion. Vulnerability is not relevant when testing for aggression. The test for aggression is consent and an embryo cannot consent.

[EclecticIdealist]

After reading this lengthy set of posts I find most of the arguments nothing more than an intellectual exercise the purpose of which is to justify aggression against a completely vulnerable human being.  It is a fact that after fertilization the embryo is human.  Potential is irrelevant.  The embryo will never be anything other than a human being.

How many person's are a fertilized egg?

 

If a fertilized egg is destroyed, is it murder?

 

Every time a woman has a miscarriage, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

 

What is the proper sentence for a woman who gets an abortion?  15 years?  Life?

 

When we agree to justify our aggression against another human being we are complicit in all acts of aggression against other humans who for whatever reason are weaker than we are.

So if my child justifies hitting another child, does that make my child complicit in the Jewish Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, or only those that were weaker (smaller children and babies)?

 

A woman ( and I am one) is biologically designed to carry the new human to the level of development so that they are capable of existing outside the protected environment of the womb.  Even at that point, the newborn infant is incapable of sustaining life without another human willing to care for them until they are capable of caring for themselves.  The entire process of pregnancy and birth equip us to care for this helpless human.

What about those who adopt infants, as well as fathers, are they ill-equipped or unequipped to care for an infant, since they did not go through pregnancy and birth?

 

I posit that denying this biological imperative is the root of all aggression against humans including ourselves because it is contradictory to our deepest subconscious drive to live and perpetuate our species.  The damage that occurs when we deny our most fundamental reason for existence isn't something we necessarily recognize or are aware of but is profound.

Is it really our most fundamental reason for existence to perpetuate the species? If so, shouldn't women have as many children as they possibly can?

 

Abortion, is in direct opposition to our fundamental reason for being and is actually the ultimate aggression against ourselves and is therefore immoral.

How can one aggress against oneself since aggression requires the person being aggressed against not consent to the aggressing action?

[Predicar en desiertos]

Besides the debate on whether we would find it moral or otherwise, I can't help but wander if either way anyone has the right to stop such a thing from happening.

 

There is already a market for abortions, and people will keep doing it whether it is legal or not, which means that they do not think it immoral, or just do not care. I am one of those that doesn't quite care, but if abortion was legal, and there wasn't such a big stigma about it, many deaths related to clandestine abortions -quite a big problem where I'm from- would be avoided, because proper medical care would be enabled to the mother.

 

Legally speaking, given the risks of our current statist society, wouldn't abortion be a good solution for men? If abortion were legal, then logically the only duty of a man towards a pregnant woman would be to offer to pay half (or all, damn statists), of the abortion. Were she to refuse, why should he be forced to pay child support? (I'm against the whole concept of child support or family courts no matter the circumstances, but I'm trying to see how it'd fit into current society).

 

I'm not saying the morality of abortion is a moot point. I see good arguments going both ways, and it is a delicate issue. But no matter what we think about it, that does not give anyone the right to legislate on it. It seems objective that if the supply and the demand are there, it should be allowed to happen.

 

It does not seem to be a moral wrong, because the one who is subject to aggression is, as seen by those who wish to abort it, a parasite, or a problem, and not a human being. Then again, this last bit isn't a valid moral argument, since it's not universal, but I find it hard to find a universal standard for this particular matter, and so I try to be as pragmatic as possible.

[AncapFTW]

Besides the debate on whether we would find it moral or otherwise, I can't help but wander if either way anyone has the right to stop such a thing from happening.

 

There is already a market for abortions, and people will keep doing it whether it is legal or not, which means that they do not think it immoral, or just do not care. I am one of those that doesn't quite care, but if abortion was legal, and there wasn't such a big stigma about it, many deaths related to clandestine abortions -quite a big problem where I'm from- would be avoided, because proper medical care would be enabled to the mother.

 

Legally speaking, given the risks of our current statist society, wouldn't abortion be a good solution for men? If abortion were legal, then logically the only duty of a man towards a pregnant woman would be to offer to pay half (or all, damn statists), of the abortion. Were she to refuse, why should he be forced to pay child support? (I'm against the whole concept of child support or family courts no matter the circumstances, but I'm trying to see how it'd fit into current society).

 

I'm not saying the morality of abortion is a moot point. I see good arguments going both ways, and it is a delicate issue. But no matter what we think about it, that does not give anyone the right to legislate on it. It seems objective that if the supply and the demand are there, it should be allowed to happen.

 

It does not seem to be a moral wrong, because the one who is subject to aggression is, as seen by those who wish to abort it, a parasite, or a problem, and not a human being. Then again, this last bit isn't a valid moral argument, since it's not universal, but I find it hard to find a universal standard for this particular matter, and so I try to be as pragmatic as possible.

So, to paraphrase:

 

Besides the debate on whether we would find it moral or otherwise, I can't help but wander if either way anyone has the right to stop such a thing from happening.

 

There is already a market for SEX SLAVES, and people will keep doing it whether it is legal or not, which means that they do not think it immoral, or just do not care. I am one of those that doesn't quite care, but if SEX SLAVERY was legal, and there wasn't such a big stigma about it, many deaths related to clandestine RAPES -quite a big problem where I'm from- would be avoided, because proper medical care would be enabled to the RAPIST.

 

Legally speaking, given the risks of our current statist society, wouldn't SEX SLAVERY be a good solution for men? If SEX SLAVERY were legal, then logically the only duty of a man towards a pregnant woman would be to offer to pay half (or all, damn statists), of the RESULTING MEDICAL BILLS. Were she to refuse, why should he be forced to pay DAMAGES FOR RAPE? (I'm against the whole concept of DAMAGES or CRIMINAL courts no matter the circumstances, but I'm trying to see how it'd fit into current society).

 

I'm not saying the morality of SEX SLAVERY is a moot point. I see good arguments going both ways, and it is a delicate issue. But no matter what we think about it, that does not give anyone the right to legislate on it. It seems objective that if the supply and the demand are there, it should be allowed to happen.

 

It does not seem to be a moral wrong, because the one who is subject to aggression is, as seen by those who wish to RAPE it, PROPERTY, or a problem, and not a human being. Then again, this last bit isn't a valid moral argument, since it's not universal, but I find it hard to find a universal standard for this particular matter, and so I try to be as pragmatic as possible.

[dsayers]

Besides the debate on whether we would find it moral or otherwise, I can't help but wander if either way anyone has the right to stop such a thing from happening.

Whether or not someone stopping such a thing is justified depends on whether it's immoral.

 

@AncapFTW: Swapping it out for something we understand to be immoral is begging the question.

[rosencrantz]

If you adher to Libertarianism, abortion is not immoral. Rothbard summarizes the position in Ethics of Liberty: 

 

It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will

 

[AncapFTW]

If you adher to Libertarianism, abortion is not immoral. Rothbard summarizes the position in Ethics of Liberty: 

 

 

There are so many problems with that explanation.  First, contracts aren't the only way to determine if something should be allowed or not.  Children can't sign contracts, but it would be wrong to harm them.

 

Second, there is an obligation there, in the same way that if I invite someone onto my land they don't lose their rights.

 

Third, it isn't slavery to force someone not to harm (or kill) someone else.  The idea that I'm enslaving you by defending myself is ridiculous.

 

I would argue the opposite of your statement, that if you adhere to Libertarianism, abortion is immoral.

[Predicar en desiertos]

 

So, to paraphrase:

 

It does not seem to be a moral wrong, because the one who is subject to aggression is, as seen by those who wish to RAPE it, PROPERTY, or a problem, and not a human being. Then again, this last bit isn't a valid moral argument, since it's not universal, but I find it hard to find a universal standard for this particular matter, and so I try to be as pragmatic as possible.

 

Much like dsayers said, you're switching it for something we UNDERSTAND to be immoral, it does not prove that abortion is moral or immoral, though I do admit that it may poke a hole or two in my arguments, especially in that last paragraph. For the rest, it's not much of an argument to equate what -to many of us- is something that is up to debate, with something where the logical consensus is that it is morally wrong.

 

Whether or not someone stopping such a thing is justified depends on whether it's immoral.

True enough. It makes me wonder if, in a free society, it would be possible to enforce a ban on abortion.

 

@rosencrantz As for the Rothbard quote, while he is a respectable economist and this could be taken as an argument, it's not really a conclusive one, and Rothbard isn't an absolute authority. The argument may be a well worded one, sure, but neither an ovum nor a baby is an entity that is either rational or that can enter contracts voluntarily. Yet I'm pretty sure one wouldn't kill a baby. Not saying I disagree with Rothbard, since I'm pro abortion, but the issue of responsibility is still valid.

 

I mean, while a woman can give a baby away, why should she carry it in her belly for 9 months, with all the medical expenses that signifies?

 

The circumstances of the conception are surely also something to take into account. I'm assuming the moral implications of an abortion after rape and an abortion after drunken, unprotected sex are quite different. Then we must think whether or not a sperm cell and an egg are initiating the use of force by joining together inside an unsuspecting womb, and whether or not said gametes, now joined, can be disposed of without considering the abortion itself as the initiation of the use of force.

 

While we bash our heads against the wall -or each other, though I'm not sure I can tell the difference- with this discussion, which I do find fascinating, all I can do is hope that those who don't even ask themselves these questions are not denied proper medical treatment for a choice which none of us is yet truly morally justified to condemn. And I also hope that those who DO condemn it, are NOT forced to perform an abortion, or treat or do anything related to those who wish to have an abortion. A moral gray area should never be an excuse to impose on personal freedom.

 

>Sorry, went out on a little rant there

[dsayers]

It makes me wonder if, in a free society, it would be possible to enforce a ban on abortion.

When you consider the pre-cursors for a free society, you realize that things such as abortion, drug addiction, etc will not only be far less prevalent, but society at large will understand that these people are victims and need care, not violence.

[AncapFTW]

Much like dsayers said, you're switching it for something we UNDERSTAND to be immoral, it does not prove that abortion is moral or immoral, though I do admit that it may poke a hole or two in my arguments, especially in that last paragraph. For the rest, it's not much of an argument to equate what -to many of us- is something that is up to debate, with something where the logical consensus is that it is morally wrong.

They are both immoral for the same reason, you are treating another person as your property, someone you wouldn't consider a person in that situation.  In fact, the abortion is worse because you are taking someone's life, not just enslaving and assaulting them.

[Predicar en desiertos]

When you consider the pre-cursors for a free society, you realize that things such as abortion, drug addiction, etc will not only be far less prevalent, but society at large will understand that these people are victims and need care, not violence.

I do agree that ostracism and whatnot can and will help curb such behaviours. However, one cannot ostracize what cannot be seen or known, which is what happens today, with clandestine abortions. Then again, one can't completely stop moral evils. Though I do wonder how as a society we would go about helping people, no matter the circumstance in which the baby was conceived, who wanted to abort. Especially when we're still so divided on whether or not it's morally right or wrong.

 

They are both immoral for the same reason, you are treating another person as your property, someone you wouldn't consider a person in that situation.  In fact, the abortion is worse because you are taking someone's life, not just enslaving and assaulting them.

Considering how that 'person' is inside your 'property', I find that rather interesting. If you do that which may make babies and, in spite of all your precaution, a baby comes over, you ARE responsible for its inception. But it's still an unwanted organism in your body, even if it is a person (which is still up for debate).

 

Then again, since I'm not quite likely to get pregnant (and if somehow I do, then I'm in quite a pickle!), I can't help but feel a certain apathy towards both pregnant women and babies. Don't get me wrong, I do find the debate itself fascinating, but still...

[Blackout]

I think it is a mistake to use the presence of consciousness or lack thereof to determine whether one has a right to life. At the emergence of consciousness in a fetus, the order of consciousness possessed is also possessed by many non-human animals. At age 2, a toddler has the equivalent consciousness of a grown dog, but we would not consider them to be equally dignified. There must be something else that confers dignity to the toddler that the dog does not possess; either the potential for a higher order of consciousness or the categorical proposition that all human beings belong to a higher order of consciousness.

 

Neuroscience is making some inroads on the subject of consciousness and most scientists believe the cortex and claustrum are where consciousness originate. Stimulating certain regions can either generate conscious experiences or render a subject unconscious. Now suppose that scientists discover a way to selectively arrest certain processes of neurological development to prevent the emergence of consciousness and a rational mind. Would it be ethical to grow non-conscious human bodies for the purpose of harvesting organs for transplantation? If this scenario makes you feel uncomfortable, let me posit a possible reason: living human embryos possess the potential to develop into conscious beings with rational minds without external intervention and it is that intervention which robs it of intrinsic value.

 

@Predicar en desiertos

Would you agree that a mother has a duty to keep the baby alive after birth? If so, how do you reconcile that babies both unborn and born require the use of the mother's property (uterus, breast milk, clothing, shelter, etc) to survive?

[dsayers]

I do agree that ostracism and whatnot can and will help curb such behaviours. However, one cannot ostracize what cannot be seen or known, which is what happens today, with clandestine abortions.

That wasn't my point at all. My approach was prevention vs cure. Children who are peacefully raised will choose not to risk pregnancy prior to being ready for such commitments in every way. You were talking about how to deal with polio after polio has been cured. It's a non-issue.

 

Would you agree that a mother has a duty to keep the baby alive after birth? If so, how do you reconcile that babies both unborn and born require the use of the mother's property (uterus, breast milk, clothing, shelter, etc) to survive?

I'm not sure I understand the question. However, both parents voluntarily create a positive obligation to protect and nurture their child until such a time as it is able to do so themselves without their parents. It would be like asking how would we reconcile that McDonald's owes you the burger that you paid for. That was the deal. Could you point out how there's something that needs to be reconciled?

[Blackout]

I'm not sure I understand the question. However, both parents voluntarily create a positive obligation to protect and nurture their child until such a time as it is able to do so themselves without their parents. It would be like asking how would we reconcile that McDonald's owes you the burger that you paid for. That was the deal. Could you point out how there's something that needs to be reconciled?

 

I didn't phrase the question well enough. There is a line of argument in this thread that abortion should be permitted because the unwanted fetus is using the mother's property (the uterus) and the mother should be allowed to deny or withdraw her consent to be used this way. Based on this logic, why should a mother not be allowed to abandon an unwanted newborn since it continues to be dependent on the use of the mother's property to survive and the mother should be able to withdraw her consent to be used this way? Without bringing up when the fetus acquires its own rights, can this line of argument hold both that abortion is permissible and that child abandonment is not permissible?

[dsayers]

There is a line of argument in this thread that abortion should be permitted because the unwanted fetus is using the mother's property (the uterus)

You're combining two separate points. Phrased more accurately, 1) abortion is amoral because a fetus is not a moral actor and 2) the male donor cannot force the woman to carry to term because it IS her property, like all other cells on her person.

[Blackout]

You're combining two separate points. Phrased more accurately, 1) abortion is amoral because a fetus is not a moral actor and 2) the male donor cannot force the woman to carry to term because it IS her property, like all other cells on her person.

Moral agency is only attributable to rational actors. Newborns are also not moral actors so then abandoning them to die would also be Amoral by this logic.

 

I agree that the donor cannot assert any rights in this situation because neither the mother nor the fetus are his property. Why do you define the fetus as the mother's property? It is not comprised of the mother's cells; it is comprised of its own cells, it's own blood supply, and its own genetics.

[dsayers]

Newborns are also not moral actors so then abandoning them to die would also be Amoral by this logic.

I had JUST pointed out that it is immoral because it violates the voluntarily created obligation created to it. If you disagree, you can say that. Please don't try and talk with me if you're not also going to receive what I say. That's unjust.

 

Why do you define the fetus as the mother's property? It is not comprised of the mother's cells; it is comprised of its own cells, it's own blood supply, and its own genetics.

The oatmeal I am ingesting right now is not my cells either. However, assuming it was mine to eat when it was ingested, once in my body it is still my property because my body is my property. I had made this point already in this thread. I know the thread is long, but I would urge you to read the entire thing as this has all been covered already. Also, it's not MY definition; I'm merely observing reality and applying consistency in philosophical approach.

[ObserveandReport]

Moral agency is only attributable to rational actors. Newborns are also not moral actors so then abandoning them to die would also be Amoral by this logic.

 

I agree that the donor cannot assert any rights in this situation because neither the mother nor the fetus are his property. Why do you define the fetus as the mother's property? It is not comprised of the mother's cells; it is comprised of its own cells, it's own blood supply, and its own genetics.

To be precise, dsayers imported the language of "moral actors" into my initial argument. I used no such words. Mine is argument about the source of personal identity, and what it means to make moral judgments about something that lacks the necessary physical components to bear such an identity. The short of it being, that brains are the source of identity and without them, more constraints cannot apply (so long as there are no other minds involved). I survive a full body transplant. I do not cease to exist, nor do I become two people.

[dsayers]

brains are the source of identity

Animals and dead humans have brains. This is not sufficient.

[labmath2]

I had JUST pointed out that it is immoral because it violates the voluntarily created obligation created to it. If you disagree, you can say that. Please don't try and talk with me if you're not also going to receive what I say. That's unjust.

 

You are not answering the question sufficiently. Where and when does this obligation come into existence (what property of the mother or child gives rise to this obligation)? Why is there an obligation to take care of a child but no obligation to deliver the fetus?

[Gavitor]

If we really want to argue immorality, because abstinence is a valid choice for preventing the life of the child choosing to get pregnant and then choosing to kill said child would be immoral. You are not only killing an innocent person but you are also trying to avoid the consequences of your decisions by doing so.

 

Why is it ok to end someone else's life because you made a bad choice and want to avoid the consequences?

[rosencrantz]

Second, there is an obligation there, in the same way that if I invite someone onto my land they don't lose their rights.

 

You dont have positive obligations to somebody on your land. You can evict them when you want.

[dsayers]

You are not only killing an innocent person but you are also trying to avoid the consequences of your decisions by doing so.

 

Why is it ok to end someone else's life because you made a bad choice and want to avoid the consequences?

This is the same, tired begging of the question and poisoning of the well that's been refuted numerous times in this very thread. We're not talking about persons... still.

 

You are not answering the question sufficiently. Where and when does this obligation come into existence (what property of the mother or child gives rise to this obligation)? Why is there an obligation to take care of a child but no obligation to deliver the fetus?

Why poison the well by saying "gives rise"? Obligations don't emerge, they are voluntarily created. I don't have an obligation to feed you. If however I was to abduct you and tie you up--that is, removing your capability of feeding yourself--while knowing full well that without nourishment you will perish, I have created an obligation to feed you. Otherwise I'm not only a kidnapper, but then also a murderer. As a rule, nobody that engages in coitus is unaware of the facts that it could be tantamount to the creation of a new life, that said life cannot survive on its own, and therefore needs the protection and nurturing for many years until it can. So to answer your question, the obligation is VOLUNTARILY CREATED when two people choose to have sexual intercourse.

 

As for your second question, I could come up with a number of explanations. The most direct one though is that a fetus is the property of the woman who has homesteaded it and invested her resources into it. You would have to assail self-ownership itself to suggest that how she disposes of her property is not her decision.

[labmath2]

Why poison the well by saying "gives rise"? Obligations don't emerge, they are voluntarily created. I don't have an obligation to feed you. If however I was to abduct you and tie you up--that is, removing your capability of feeding yourself--while knowing full well that without nourishment you will perish, I have created an obligation to feed you. Otherwise I'm not only a kidnapper, but then also a murderer. As a rule, nobody that engages in coitus is unaware of the facts that it could be tantamount to the creation of a new life, that said life cannot survive on its own, and therefore needs the protection and nurturing for many years until it can. So to answer your question, the obligation is VOLUNTARILY CREATED when two people choose to have sexual intercourse.

 

As for your second question, I could come up with a number of explanations. The most direct one though is that a fetus is the property of the woman who has homesteaded it and invested her resources into it. You would have to assail self-ownership itself to suggest that how she disposes of her property is not her decision.

 

The assertion of self ownership is not enough to demonstrate the distinction between the obligation to nurture a child and the obligation to birth a fetus. The nurturing of the child requires the woman's properties which infringes on her self ownership. It is either the case that the obligation supersedes her self ownership (in which case the woman is obligated to nurture the child) or self ownership supersedes the obligation (in which case the woman can voluntarily abandon/relinquish said child). "As a rule, nobody that engages in coitus is unaware of the facts that it could be tantamount to the creation of a new life, that said life cannot survive on its own, and therefore needs the protection and nurturing for many years until it can." Why does sex which precedes both pregnancy and childbirth only create obligation in nurturing the child, but not in delivering the fetus? 

[dsayers]

The nurturing of the child requires the woman's properties which infringes on her self ownership.

Voluntarily created obligation... still. One cannot infringe upon their own property by definition. I didn't read the rest because if you're willing to say that somebody could rape themselves with no cognitive dissonance that that which is done to self is inherently voluntary, your bias is overwhelming and you are making your prejudice fit despite all reason.

 

You can believe whatever you want to believe. I choose to go where philosophy takes me because I value truth and consistency above all, regardless of how uncomfortable it gets.

[Worlok]

Here is how I see it.

 

You have a life form inside of your body that relies on you to survive. Whether it is inside of you or not, it relies on you to survive. A 10 year old relies on you to survive, and you can't kill it. It can't make legal decisions for itself, but you can't kill it. A fetus just happens to be in you. You have to breast feed it your milk that you own from your boob for it to survive. It can't make legal decisions for it, but...

 

A fetus or a cluster of cells is a living being. abortion is killing a living being. Killing an ant is killing a living being. The argument isn't about the killing. Consider the cost/value. Are you killing a living being? Sure. What is the value of the nature of the being? Ant, nobody gives a shit. All ants have more mass than all humans. They also live short lives and are generally irrelevant in every possible way. 1 ant does not matter at all ever. Fact. Human being... Unless a human being has committed an unnaturally heinous crime or you absolutely have to... You may not harm one. Ever. clearly, the value of an ant is as close to nothing as possible and the value of a human is as close to absolute as possible.

 

Abortion involves two life forms. Mother and child. Does the value of why a mother wants an abortion equal or outweigh the value of the other life form? If said life form is human, usually not. So, at what point does the child become a human? 

 

The entire thing is based on when a baby is considered a human. Papers cite a fetus's ability to feel pain at 20-24 weeks. A newborn baby isn't even self-aware. Skynet was self-aware. Your frontal lobe doesn't even finish developing until your early to mid 20's. A teenager is borderline retarded. Does a human have to have a fully developed consciousness? Does it need a consciousness at all? Does it need to be able to feel pain? If I push you down the stairs at 10 weeks and you miscarry, am I guilty of anything other than pushing you down the stairs? If a 1 month old is not self-aware and cannot be argued to have a consciousness, Am I allowed to shoot it between the eyes with 12gauge 3" 000 buck because it can't be said to have felt it or been aware of such a concept? Supposing the ability of the brain to perceive pain never occurs, can I kill the baby whenever?

 

When is the baby human. Only prior to that occurrence can abortion be morally neutral. It certainly isn't moral to kill something just because. An ant may not matter, but killing it still isn't moral. Prior to being human, abortion is specifically morally neutral.

 

Hurray, we solved nothing!

[dsayers]

You're asking a question that is easily and has been answered. You're also using an analogy that makes the truth pretty clear while pretending the answer is unclear.

[Blackout]

I had JUST pointed out that it is immoral because it violates the voluntarily created obligation created to it. If you disagree, you can say that. Please don't try and talk with me if you're not also going to receive what I say. That's unjust.

I was responding directly to your argument that “abortion is amoral because a fetus is not a moral actor” and applying the logical argument to something else that is not a moral actor. I agree that parents voluntarily create an obligation to care for their children and I would agree that the obligation is entered into at conception.

 

The oatmeal I am ingesting right now is not my cells either. However, assuming it was mine to eat when it was ingested, once in my body it is still my property because my body is my property. I had made this point already in this thread. I know the thread is long, but I would urge you to read the entire thing as this has all been covered already. Also, it's not MY definition; I'm merely observing reality and applying consistency in philosophical approach.

The oatmeal is not yours because you internalized it; you owned it previously. If you went to a jewelry store and swallowed a diamond, you couldn't claim you now own that diamond, right? The mother doesn’t own the fetus by virtue of it residing in her body, neither does she own it simply because it was created, in part, from her egg; a fetus is a separate organism. However, you certainly own your body and a woman owns her uterus, exclusively. I can’t force a mother to carry to term, but I can judge her for aborting the fetus.

 

So to answer your question, the obligation is VOLUNTARILY CREATED when two people choose to have sexual intercourse.

In conjunction with the first quote above, the logical conclusion would seem to be that abortion is immoral.

 

 

 

To be fair, the a mother can always give up a baby for adoption, but there is nothing comparable for a fetus implanted in the uterus. There is no good compromise between a mother’s interest and that of the fetus.

[dsayers]

If you went to a jewelry store and swallowed a diamond, you couldn't claim you now own that diamond, right?

If that diamond is owned by somebody else, then yes. If I find a bug in the wild and ingest it, it IS my property because I've invested my time and labor in it. A fetus is not a moral actor and has no prior owner, so the mother is the owner because it is part of her body and draws off of her resources autonomically.

[Blackout]

A fetus is not a moral actor and has no prior owner, so the mother is the owner because it is part of her body and draws off of her resources autonomically.

And yet if I were to accept that it is a part of the mother, the mother cannot "will" that part of her to any effect. That is to say, her brain has no direct nervous link to the fetus to affect ANY action. In so far as the fetus wills its own heart to beat, it owns itself.

[shirgall]

If that diamond is owned by somebody else, then yes. If I find a bug in the wild and ingest it, it IS my property because I've invested my time and labor in it. A fetus is not a moral actor and has no prior owner, so the mother is the owner because it is part of her body and draws off of her resources autonomically.

 

Possession and ownership are distinct concepts, however. Taking a diamond and swallowing it creates a debt to the original owner to the tune of his diamond, undamaged, and possibly recompense for the time you've had it, especially if the diamond was being used for something.

 

Thus, a fetus created by choice is both possessed and owned until it can exist independently. It is that moment of potential independence that I have long used as the demarcation line of self-ownership. That doesn't change the fact that the mother possesses the fetus until it is born. So, my position is that abortion is unjustified killing (murder) once the child could potentially be removed from the mother (without further escalation of the adverse effects to the mother's health with respect to pregnancy itself) and live independent of the mother, even before being born.

[dsayers]

And yet if I were to accept that it is a part of the mother, the mother cannot "will" that part of her to any effect. That is to say, her brain has no direct nervous link to the fetus to affect ANY action. In so far as the fetus wills its own heart to beat, it owns itself.

You cannot will much of what is occurring in your body right now. Beasts have heart beats so that is not sufficient, which has been covered already. You are arbitrarily making up standards at this point while I'm putting forth philosophically sound, consistent arguments.

 

What is your null hypothesis? What would be required for you to revisit the conclusion you entered this thread with? Consistency doesn't seem to be of interest to you and I find that irritating.

[Blackout]

You cannot will much of what is occurring in your body right now. Beasts have heart beats so that is not sufficient, which has been covered already. You are arbitrarily making up standards at this point while I'm putting forth philosophically sound, consistent arguments.

 

What is your null hypothesis? What would be required for you to revisit the conclusion you entered this thread with? Consistency doesn't seem to be of interest to you and I find that irritating.

 

My body reacts in ways, such as reflexively, that do not require my conscious volition, but they are nonetheless my actions. The point of that argument was to illustrate the direct link to one's own body that the mother does not have to the body of the fetus, thus any claim of ownership would first belong to the fetus. I think this concept comes from Hoppe and I'm not certain if it can be applied to the fetus, but I'm not making up arbitrary standards.

 

We've established that the mother owns her uterus and that the mother has a positive obligation to the child she voluntarily conceives. So if you can successfully argue that the mother owns the fetus and the fetus cannot own itself or that the fetus is not a human to be treated as an end in itself, then I will concede that the mother is within her right to abort. Everything I've argued and questioned pertain to one of these.

 

I'm not interested in consistency? My posts about consciousness, moral agency, and property pertain directly to how consistently logical arguments are being applied to the unborn fetus versus the newborn infant. I think most would agree that the reasons why a baby cannot be killed the minute after it is born also apply the minute before it is born. What about the day before, or the day before that one, or the day before that one, all the way back to implantation? I used to be comfortable with first term abortions, but that changed after we had our first child.

[dsayers]

So, my position is that abortion is unjustified killing (murder) once the child could potentially be removed from the mother (without further escalation of the adverse effects to the mother's health with respect to pregnancy itself) and live independent of the mother, even before being born.

My challenge to this is that it supposes involuntary extraction. Also, it is unclear to me what is meant by without further escalation. Every time a person's skin is punctured, death can occur. There is no surgery that cannot potentially end in death. I would argue that the mother's consent is still required.

 

Is this not a moot point though? I mean, isn't the decision that a pregnancy is unwanted determined more or less shortly after the pregnancy is discovered? With the exception of being medical complications later on, which would still mean it is the mother's choice since her body and her life are her property and she could submit to or refuse medical intervention.

 

My body reacts in ways, such as reflexively, that do not require my conscious volition, but they are nonetheless my actions.

I'm not sure why this is relevant, but it's incorrect. Somebody flailing about due to a seizure who strikes you is not guilty of assault because the action was not voluntary. Volition is a requisite to the ownership of an action.

 

The point of that argument was to illustrate the direct link to one's own body that the mother does not have to the body of the fetus, thus any claim of ownership would first belong to the fetus. I think this concept comes from Hoppe and I'm not certain if it can be applied to the fetus, but I'm not making up arbitrary standards.

Surely you're not arguing the fetus is in a position to own property. Self-ownership comes from the capability of reason. This is why animals are not moral actors. This is why it seems arbitrary to me.

 

I used to be comfortable with first term abortions, but that changed after we had our first child.

I understand that it's not a comfortable conclusion. I don't like it either. But I cannot turn my back on the fact that it is philosophically sound.

 

Once the fetus is birthed, it is no longer the property of its mother. It becomes what I will happily concede is a gray area of morality. It doesn't own itself, but it surely will. It is the only lifeform we know of that fits this categorization. When will it achieve self-ownership? It's a continuum based on its own understanding of self, the other, and its ability to formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences... in other words, reason. The parents are custodians in keeping with their voluntarily created obligation to the child. They are overseeing that person until such a time as they can fully claim ownership of themselves. THIS conclusion I'm quite happy with because it makes peaceful, egalitarian parenting philosophically sound. If you can find fault with any of this, I am all ears. But please stop putting forth any standard that would also describe a gerbil.

[tfwoods3]

The way I have always looked at abortion:

 

1. It doesn't matter when consciousness starts, it will be conscious and have a life at some point. Having an abortion is ending that life.

 

2. If time travel were possible, and I went back to talk your mom into an abortion, did I just murder you? That is science fiction, but it is still a real question. Why is it okay to do it to an unborn, but not okay to go back and end you.

 

3. There is always more people involved than just the mother in making the "choice".  At least 2, the mother and the doctor who decides to go in there and end it. If the doctor made the choice not to do it, and the mother didn't take matters into her own hands, this person would be born and have a life.

 

4. If a mother is pregnant with twins, is it okay to choose to abort one and keep the other?