Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

A side issue. Abortion is all about the religious belief that an early human embryo, not much different to a flatworm, has a full suite of cognitive and sensory abilities and must be treated as fully human.

So you feel that abortion is, at least in part, a religious issue? [NB I don't doubt that religious beliefs and views contribute to these matters, just as all the other beliefs and views people hold will also contribute.]

[LuckyR]

I, too, am open to the idea of eliminating the need for abortions altogether. I just don't see how it would be possible. What about rape, or worse, a girl raped by a family member. This horrible stuff happens. Ideally, medical abortions rather than surgical abortions would cover most such cases. We must make abortion available in such cases.

The other thing we need to do is to reduce the need for abortion by providing good sex education and making contraception more easily available. I include in that the morning-after pill.

We are in agreement that it would be better if the number of abortions was much fewer BECAUSE fewer women sought it out. However, IMO we need not use extreme examples such as incest/rape as "justifications" for the procedure. Those who agree with patient autonomy don't require in extremis rationalizations.

Also I agree that the practical ability to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy to zero is itself zero.

[LuckyR]

That's why antecedently planned BC used by thoughtful women (who else, right?) are the success stories in the abortion prevention universe.

Exactly so. ... Except that it's the failures to prevent pregnancy that are occupying our minds here, not the successes...?

Well the reality is that women who don't want to be pregnant at all are the majority of cases, however couples seeking pregnancy who happen to have pregnancies with anomalies are a substantial minority of cases.

[Sy Borg]

A side issue. Abortion is all about the religious belief that an early human embryo, not much different to a flatworm, has a full suite of cognitive and sensory abilities and must be treated as fully human.

So you feel that abortion is, at least in part, a religious issue? [NB I don't doubt that religious beliefs and views contribute to these matters, just as all the other beliefs and views people hold will also contribute.]

It's become one. There are also those who see it as killing innocents. So they agonise over the death of an embryo without a brain, and thus unable to suffer, and then unthinkingly eat a dead mammal, which could suffer, and no doubt did towards the end.

Still, while the above is ostensibly secular, the hard line between human and animal comes from religion and the idea that humans are divine, even when they have less brain than a flatworm.

[Pattern-chaser]

A side issue. Abortion is all about the religious belief that an early human embryo, not much different to a flatworm, has a full suite of cognitive and sensory abilities and must be treated as fully human.

So you feel that abortion is, at least in part, a religious issue? [NB I don't doubt that religious beliefs and views contribute to these matters, just as all the other beliefs and views people hold will also contribute.]

It's become one. There are also those who see it as killing innocents....

Sadly yes. It isn't a religious issue, but some religious extremists have adopted it as their pet cause. Abortion is not a difficult issue to understand. In theory, it is morally wrong, and should rarely if ever be done. In practice, from a purely pragmatic perspective, it is necessary. It is necessary because the tragedy of an unwanted baby, and all the undesirable things that go with that, far outweighs the wrong of abortion itself. Abortion is very much the lesser of two evils.

IMO.

[baker]

Still, while the above is ostensibly secular, the hard line between human and animal comes from religion and the idea that humans are divine, even when they have less brain than a flatworm.

Do provide sources from actual religious doctrines for the above claims.

"Humans are divine"? Where did you get that?? I've known many religious peple from many religions, and not one of them thought that I was divine. Bruhahaha!

But surely not for rich people. As the OP states, the two options are "a little unscientific poll", but they do indicate that the legality of abortion is actually primarily a status/class issue. Rich people will have safe abortions regardless of the legal status of abortion. But if abortion becomes illegal, then that's another thing with which the upper class can control and subdue the lower class.

A side issue. Abortion is all about the religious belief that an early human embryo, not much different to a flatworm, has a full suite of cognitive and sensory abilities and must be treated as fully human.

I've never seen any actual religious tenet which would state the exact thing you're claiming above that religions state.
There's often a difference between what someone who claims to be religious claims, and what a religion's actual doctrine states.
And then there's what a religion's actual doctrine states and what is actually practiced by its adherents.


Anyway, it looks like you've fallen for smokes and mirrors. Religious people use contraceptives and have abortions pretty much as commonly as the non-religious.
Like a good Catholic man once said, "I don't let my religious beliefs interfere with my sex life."

I laugh reading your posts. You get all worked up over something that isn't even the case. You do realize that, for example, in the past, Catholic convents served as abortion clinics for the upper class?

[baker]

A side issue. Abortion is all about the religious belief that an early human embryo, not much different to a flatworm, has a full suite of cognitive and sensory abilities and must be treated as fully human.

And as for "not much different to a flatworm":
Depending on one's ism, beings "not much different to a flatworm" are: blacks, whites, women, children, anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis, the poor, Jews, the Roma, Indians (the American ones, that is), the Slavic people, incels, fat women, and so on.

In other words, you're using the same type of supremacist argument as so many other supremacists.

[baker]

It seems to me the issue of abortion has become the epitome of a wedge issue. Common thinking seems to be that everybody jumps into one of two camps and almost everyone holds passionately and relatively extremely to that camp. In other words, the common public perception is that almost everybody is polarized on a one-dimensional scale. The thinking is: either you are pro-choice or you are pro-life.

Of course, this issue is so complicated with so many possible variables that it cannot reasonably be viewed one-dimensionally. But, more to the point, I maintain that despite public opinion and common perception it is actually quite obvious that almost everybody does NOT hold to a polar extreme on this issue. Rather I maintain that the opposite is clearly the case: almost everybody plainly disagrees with BOTH polar extremes and lay at various middle-points, thus disagreeing mostly on where to practically draw the line between our own internally conflicting ideals not disagreeing on such a fundamental, philosophical level.

Abortion is one of those hot topics that politicians use to mobilize the public. It's not about the problem of abortion itself, but about what a particular stakeholder hopes to achieve by pushing the topic.

[baker]

Though I'm open to your ideas on eliminating the need altogether.

That would require an openness to a theory of everything.

[Lagayascienza]

Everyone is probably open to eliminating the need for abortion altogether. But that is aspirational and most people understand that it is not a practical possibility.

This is reflected in the results of the poll here which indicate a that large majority of people are neither totally pro-choice or totally pro-life. That is, they see abortion as permissible is some cases and not in others. And where people do disagree, it is mostly about where to draw the line between morally permissible and morally not permissible. Few people are totally pro-choice or totally pro-life.

If the results of this poll were to be reflected in much larger state and national polls in the USA, and if abortion were a major issues in the next state elections, then those states which have made abortion illegal following the decision in Roe vs Wade , may see their GOP governments tossed out. They would go from red to blue and, hopefully, abortion would again be made legal.

And if abortion were a major issue in the next presidential election, then it may help the democrats. I'm hoping abortion will be a major issue.

[Sy Borg]

A side issue. Abortion is all about the religious belief that an early human embryo, not much different to a flatworm, has a full suite of cognitive and sensory abilities and must be treated as fully human.

And as for "not much different to a flatworm":
Depending on one's ism, beings "not much different to a flatworm" are: blacks, whites, women, children, anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis, the poor, Jews, the Roma, Indians (the American ones, that is), the Slavic people, incels, fat women, and so on.

In other words, you're using the same type of supremacist argument as so many other supremacists.

No, if an embryo only has no recognisable human features and just a few neurons, well, that's the situation. It's not miles different to a flatworm.

There is nothing supreme about being more sophisticated than a flatworm, unless you happen to be a microbe.

[Lagayascienza]

An embryo does not have personhood. It does not have neural development necessary for consciousness and mind. An early embryo doesn't even look like a human. It has a tail and gill slits and looks more like a tadpole or a reptile or a salamander. A very early embryo is nothing but a tiny spot like you'd see in a fertilised chicken's egg. There can be no personhood in any of these embryos. If that is so, then there is no moral argument for banning the abortion of such embryos.

[Sy Borg]

Ah, but at the moment of fertilisation a human soul enters the edifice and lies dormant until developed.

Reminds me Lana Wachawski's much-reviled movie Jupiter Ascending, where advanced aliens believed that the soul was represented by DNA. Once the egg is fertilised, to theists, even a blastocyst is divine while highly intelligent and sensitive animals like pigs are objectified.

I like the comparison between an early embryo and a spot on an egg. You can't fit a person in there :)

[Mounce574]

My opinion:
I stated C. First, the detriment to the teenager means that one of her family members is involved in a heinous crime from the start. THAT person should be punished severely. Second, if the baby is unlikely to survive and she is in danger of dying, then that is a subjective choice that she must make on her own.
The second issue- The baby is capable of surviving WITHOUT her and since there are people willing to raise the child, it should be ILLEGAL to ask for an abortion. Your statement was asking if it should be legal for her to have an abortion.

I believe that prevention is key and that abortion shouldn't be treated as birth control. If someone doesn't want children, there are elective surgeries and birth control that will negate that issue. There are a myriad of complications that abortion and pregnancy can cause. I have never had an abortion, nor have I been in situation where that was a decision I would want to make. What will the psychological impact be upon the person. If the baby is viable, then abortion at that point should be illegal. If the mother is at risk of dying before the baby is viable, then abortion is not debatable as BOTH will die.

[Lagayascienza]

My opinion:
I stated C. First, the detriment to the teenager means that one of her family members is involved in a heinous crime from the start. THAT person should be punished severely. Second, if the baby is unlikely to survive and she is in danger of dying, then that is a subjective choice that she must make on her own.
The second issue- The baby is capable of surviving WITHOUT her and since there are people willing to raise the child, it should be ILLEGAL to ask for an abortion. Your statement was asking if it should be legal for her to have an abortion.

I believe that prevention is key and that abortion shouldn't be treated as birth control. If someone doesn't want children, there are elective surgeries and birth control that will negate that issue. There are a myriad of complications that abortion and pregnancy can cause. I have never had an abortion, nor have I been in situation where that was a decision I would want to make. What will the psychological impact be upon the person. If the baby is viable, then abortion at that point should be illegal. If the mother is at risk of dying before the baby is viable, then abortion is not debatable as BOTH will die.

Mounce574, that the rapist or incestuous perpetrator should be punished goes without saying. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the unfortunate girl who has been the victim of rape or incest should be able to access a legal abortion even if the embyo is capable of surviving to term. You say she should not.

But who are you to dictate what a woman should be allowed to do with her own body? The embyo is not capable of surviving alone - it is only capable of surviving inside the woman's body on which it draws. You would force a girl who has been raped by her father to give birth to his child with whatever congential defects is is likely to have? I find that notion disgusting, frightening, apalling!

And on what basis do you believe that women generally should not have access to a legal abortion? If your beliefs are religiously based, then you should understand that many millions of people are not religious or, if they do have religion, their religion does not preclude abortion. What right do the religious who would make abortion illegal have to inflict their religious beliefs on others. I have read that more than a million abortions were provided in the USA in 2023 alone. What are you going to do, lock up a million women, along with their abortion providers, each year?

Then there is the fact that embyos are not persons. They are clumps of cells. An adult woman is a fully sentient person whose interests surely trump the continued existence of a clump of cells that lacks consciousnes and therefore has no interests. Why is it that some religious, who think they are taking some moral high ground by dictating the right to life of clumps of cells, also commonly believe in putting to death fully sentient adult humans?

The religious mind is a muddled one. And, IMO, a religion that would force an unfortunate girl who has been the victim of rape or incest to carry to term and give birth to the perpetrator's baby, with all its congenital likely defects, is the very model of cruelty and and evil.