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

[Newme]

SpiralOut, The bottom line, foundation of basic ethics, is respecting what is best for all involved. "Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good." The greater good is that we don't kill each other. This is so very basic, Spiral! How can you justify killing another human being?

A child is defined as a "developing human being." Just because a child is not finisted developing, you seem to assume their life is less valuable. And you ignorantly assume that children killed by abortion cannot feel their bodies ripped apart. Yet, by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems are intact, including the central nervous system (pain sensors), so by the time many abortions are performed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart, limb by limb, leaving the head by itself. That is not the greater good, nor right action.

Obviously, you're not a doctor and likely did not rip a child apart yourself - but you may have paid someone to do it. If you hadn't, I believe you'd be more ethically reasonable about this.

[LuckyR]

SpiralOut, The bottom line, foundation of basic ethics, is respecting what is best for all involved. "Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good." The greater good is that we don't kill each other. This is so very basic, Spiral! How can you justify killing another human being?

A child is defined as a "developing human being." Just because a child is not finisted developing, you seem to assume their life is less valuable. And you ignorantly assume that children killed by abortion cannot feel their bodies ripped apart. Yet, by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems are intact, including the central nervous system (pain sensors), so by the time many abortions are performed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart, limb by limb, leaving the head by itself. That is not the greater good, nor right action.

Obviously, you're not a doctor and likely did not rip a child apart yourself - but you may have paid someone to do it. If you hadn't, I believe you'd be more ethically reasonable about this.

Really? Who signed off on that sole, all encompassing definition?

Anyone who claims to know what fetus' can and can't feel is fooling themselves (and likely trying to fool others).

[Newme]

SpiralOut, The bottom line, foundation of basic ethics, is respecting what is best for all involved. "Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good." The greater good is that we don't kill each other. This is so very basic, Spiral! How can you justify killing another human being?

A child is defined as a "developing human being." Just because a child is not finisted developing, you seem to assume their life is less valuable. And you ignorantly assume that children killed by abortion cannot feel their bodies ripped apart. Yet, by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems are intact, including the central nervous system (pain sensors), so by the time many abortions are performed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart, limb by limb, leaving the head by itself. That is not the greater good, nor right action.

Obviously, you're not a doctor and likely did not rip a child apart yourself - but you may have paid someone to do it. If you hadn't, I believe you'd be more ethically reasonable about this.

Really? Who signed off on that sole, all encompassing definition?

Anyone who claims to know what fetus' can and can't feel is fooling themselves (and likely trying to fool others).

Medical dictionaries define child as "an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant." A child is a developing human being who is still growing.

Anyone who claims to know that a fetus cannot feel is fooling themselves and is ignorant of child development, which clearly indicates that by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems (including the central nervous system/pain receptors) is intact. So, by the time many abortion killings are performed, the child CAN FEEL his/her body being ripped apart. Why do you ignore facts?? Because they are inconvenient and make you feel bad? What if more people ignored facts they didn't like? How would you like to be on the receiving end - having YOUR body ripped apart, because someone CHOSE to ignore your physiological development of PAIN and deemed your life not worthy of allowing to continue on??

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Really? Who signed off on that sole, all encompassing definition?

Anyone who claims to know what fetus' can and can't feel is fooling themselves (and likely trying to fool others).

Medical dictionaries define child as "an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant." A child is a developing human being who is still growing.

Anyone who claims to know that a fetus cannot feel is fooling themselves and is ignorant of child development, which clearly indicates that by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems (including the central nervous system/pain receptors) is intact. So, by the time many abortion killings are performed, the child CAN FEEL his/her body being ripped apart. Why do you ignore facts?? Because they are inconvenient and make you feel bad? What if more people ignored facts they didn't like? How would you like to be on the receiving end - having YOUR body ripped apart, because someone CHOSE to ignore your physiological development of PAIN and deemed your life not worthy of allowing to continue on??

Uummm... you do know that dictionaries are specifically designed to give one liner answers to folks with absolutely no clue of the vaguest generalities on whatever word or topic is being covered, right?

Your highlit piece is clearly not directed at me since I never claimed to have such unknowable knowledge, you did (hence my original post).

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Keiran,

I want it to be legal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date (of birth) to get an abortion even though doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily otherwise and even though many safe, healthy, loving families are willing to adopt the would-be newborn immediately and even pay the woman significantly for that.

Choice B

Many people consider aborting the baby is a murder. But for some reason it doesn't shock me at all that the woman would have the freedom of doing what she wants with her body, and it rather shocks me that others think she should be forced into doing something she clearly does not want to, i.e, giving birth to the baby.

[It's not really a murder at all to me when we're talking about a being that will never exist anyway if we chose to abort him.]

Let's remember that if she had wanted to get an abortion, she could have done so any of the other 9+ months of her pregnancy. She is 5 days past her due date.

Where do you draw the line then? Can she kill the baby two seconds after giving birth but before they cut the umbilical cord?

What if a woman suddenly decides she wants an abortion when the top baby's head is a centimeter out? Can she just stab the baby in the skull with a knife then?

At what point is it more murder than just abortion?

-- Updated 11 Dec 2015 05:32 pm to add the following --

As to the other recent replies, the issue of nerve development in an 8-week-old fetus seems off-topic. None of the 3 options in the poll is in regard to pregnancy at 8 weeks. If you want to discuss abortions that occur around the eighth week of pregnancy please start a new topic and discuss it there. In this topic, please explain your vote in the poll and how you feel about the scenarios listed in the poll.

[LuckyR]

Just to be clear an "abortion" of a previable 20 week fetus is identical in practice to a routine induction of labor for a wealthy (or unwealthy, for that matter) woman's post term pregnancy. What leads to the death of the 20 weeker isn't the procedure itself, it is that the fetus can't survive outside of the mom, this is not the case at 40 1/2 weeks gestation. So the Original Premise is a non starter.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Just to be clear an "abortion" of a previable 20 week fetus is identical in practice to a routine induction of labor for a wealthy (or unwealthy, for that matter) woman's post term pregnancy. What leads to the death of the 20 weeker isn't the procedure itself, it is that the fetus can't survive outside of the mom, this is not the case at 40 1/2 weeks gestation. So the Original Premise is a non starter.

@LuckyR I'm sorry, I've looked through your posts, and I didn't catch your answer to the poll. What's your answer? A, B or C?

I'm not sure why you mention an abortion at 20 weeks. That is not only of the options being discussed. We are talking about abortion within the first week or abortion at 9+ months. (There are many other more general topics about abortion on the forums if you wish to discuss that there. )

-- Updated 17 Dec 2015 11:27 am to add the following --

Safely delivering a baby requires a lot work and medical attention that is very different than merely removing the baby in a way that kills the baby. If there is any disagreement on this, I would ask for a credible source that states the abortion of a non-viable fetus is literally identical in medical procedure to the careful baby-life-preserving work of doctors at delivery.

[LuckyR]

Just to be clear an "abortion" of a previable 20 week fetus is identical in practice to a routine induction of labor for a wealthy (or unwealthy, for that matter) woman's post term pregnancy. What leads to the death of the 20 weeker isn't the procedure itself, it is that the fetus can't survive outside of the mom, this is not the case at 40 1/2 weeks gestation. So the Original Premise is a non starter.

@LuckyR I'm sorry, I've looked through your posts, and I didn't catch your answer to the poll. What's your answer? A, B or C?

I'm not sure why you mention an abortion at 20 weeks. That is not only of the options being discussed. We are talking about abortion within the first week or abortion at 9+ months. (There are many other more general topics about abortion on the forums if you wish to discuss that there. )

-- Updated 17 Dec 2015 11:27 am to add the following --

Safely delivering a baby requires a lot work and medical attention that is very different than merely removing the baby in a way that kills the baby. If there is any disagreement on this, I would ask for a credible source that states the abortion of a non-viable fetus is literally identical in medical procedure to the careful baby-life-preserving work of doctors at delivery.

You are out of your depth, my friend. Delivery of babies happen every day in the absence of doctors or medical technology of any kind. In fact, vaginal delivery predates medicine itself.

So, yes the induction of labor for a term nonviable fetus and that of a viable infant is more similar than different in actual practice, but for the sake of this thread, could be literally identical.

As to my answer to the "poll" your second scenario makes no legal or medical sense and thus cannot be answered in its current wording.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

You are out of your depth

Ad hominem fallacy.

Safely delivering a baby requires a lot work and medical attention that is very different than merely removing the baby in a way that kills the baby. If there is any disagreement on this, I would ask for a credible source that states the abortion of a non-viable fetus is literally identical in medical procedure to the careful baby-life-preserving work of doctors at delivery.

So, yes the induction of labor for a term nonviable fetus and that of a viable infant is more similar than different in actual practice, but for the sake of this thread, could be literally identical.

Like I said in my previous post, I would ask for a credible source that states the abortion of a non-viable fetus is literally identical in medical procedure to the careful baby-life-preserving work of doctors at delivery.

As to my answer to the "poll" your second scenario makes no legal or medical sense and thus cannot be answered in its current wording.

Of course it can be answered. Do you want a woman to be legally required to not kill a fetus at 9+ months when she is past her due date? Or do you want to be illegal for a woman to abort the life-creating pregnancy process by killing the fetus while it is still inside of her at 9+ months when she is past her due date? The vast majority have voted for the former.

[LuckyR]

You seem well versed in Philosophical argument protocol.

I will defer to your expertise in this area. By the same token as it happens I have spent the last quarter century in the field we are discussing. If you continue to try to disagree with my life career experience, which you are free to do, then actually it is you (without experience in this area) who needs to supply outside expert opinion to support your musings.

I am not trying to "win" this discussion since that holds no challenge for me (or any other professional), rather I am trying to shoehorn the concepts you are seeking to explore into a framework that more accurately reflects actual practice.

[Voiceofwisdom]

Abortion ought to be legal because I believe in the freedom of the individual to make decisions about their bodies, regardless of what society thinks about those decisions.

[msieber]

Thanks for your reply Hypeduptrutle!

As of now 83.5% of the people on Agree or Disagree? agree with my statement: "I want it to be legal for a poor teenager who was impregnated from being raped by an immediate family member to abort one-week after conception, if carrying to term is unsafe and a genetic disorder is detected."

That's roughly what I would have expected. But I was shocked to find out that most people disagree with this statement: "I want it to be illegal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date to get an abortion if doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily and adoption is available."

I thought the vast majority would also agree with that one. Not only was not the case, but most actually disagree. That's only as of now, and it's not a scientific poll.

Can anyone provide any support for this position? I'm assuming that you all still want infanticide to be illegal; am I wrong about that? What argument is there for legally allowing a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date to get an abortion (i.e. kill the fetus in the womb) if doctors are sure that the healthy baby would otherwise be delivered safely and relatively easily and adoption is available when infanticide is illegal?

Scott,
I chose option B and no I'm not a fan if infanticide nor am I truly supportive of the person wanting said abortion. My support for this unfortunate position is:
At first, as it seems most did, I agreed that I would like to come to a conclusion in between extremes and I would still like to be able to come up with one but I haven't yet. I wanted to come up with a sort of logical timeframe past which abortion would be in the clear zone of immorality. I suppose I sort of did so but not in the way that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside because I promise I have no secret affinity toward baby-killing. The first factor I took into consideration is the adult human's basic right to do what one pleases with their own body...I want to make an exception if the side affect is harming a full term baby but I am not finding a way around disengaging the right to do what one pleases with their own body as long as it isn't negatively impacting the surrounding beings. The reason I am not putting said infant in that category (of surrounding beings) is because it is still growing within the mother, inhabiting an organ in another living being (organ being the key word, how can you tell another weather they can/cannot harm their own organs regardless of what is inside...if I accidentally ate the only copy of a (uncopiable) key to the room containing controls to our nations most powerful nuclear weapon while having dinner with the president, can any authority figure then tell me what I must do with my stomach? must I not still be free to poop it out, undergo surgery to quickly subdue panic, or rip my stomach out and burn it destroying its contents if I so chose?) and at this exact point is unable to be cared for by anyone else other than its mother if she choses to. I would like to use the fact that the baby is stated as being past-due to create the argument that the baby is officially past term and therefore can no longer be covered under the umbrella of being a mere organ inhabitant but rather a person that should have been a breathing, pooping, boob sucking creature with basic rights of its own as of 5 days ago. But what stops me here is the fact that there is no real "due-date" per say but the due-date is rather an approximation based on size observed in the first ultrasound and the mother's last menstrual cycle which could be wildly off, spot on, or somewhere in between...even if we had an exact date of conception the entire expected gestation term is an approximation as well so I cannot bring myself to say that as of specifically 5 days ago the mother has lost the decision because a nurse/dr decided that's around the time the baby would be expected to arrive. There is also the lingering thought that we are generally considered to be over-populating our planet as a species driving so many others to extinction due to our need for territory and natural resources and there are many children already fully detached from their parent in dire need of a home (who already facing the daily challenges of not having one) that these eager adopters can chose to provide for instead. It may seem like I am gravely ignoring human emotion and well-being while blindly looking at definitions and "facts" to reach this conclusion but here's my stance on the emotional aspect: for some reason it seems that this mother may be reluctant to the option of adoption considering she still prefers the abortion over this choice..so drawing the conclusion that this mother will not be adopting out this baby, do any of us truly think the person wanting to kill their full term baby will be a beneficial parent to their developing offspring?! In reality we don't know, she could have a change of perspective and extreme love for said child once it passes that threshold and make the decision to try to care for it to the best of her abilities from that point on or she could soon find the proper meds to balance her brain chemistry alleviating those thoughts of wanting to be rid of the baby but that is not a chance I would want to see a baby involved in if it could have been prevented...hell if we make it impossible for the mother to find someone willing to medically perform the procedure, she may just decide to try it at home risking a much more traumatic death of the baby or she may wait until the baby is already out and is easier for her to dispose of improperly considering she doesn't seem to have much consideration for the feelings of the baby now anyways and that isn't guaranteed to change once its delivered. I think it would be a potentially good idea for the doctor to recommend having a tubal ligation done at the time of or after the abortion to prevent any more child-bearing inconveniences to this person(if only we could just force that, right?! you unethically abort a child, then you have your chance taken away to procreate more? too bad that goes against this whole argument of free will over one's body not being governed..) The one last string I can try and grasp in order to try and save this infant's life is trying to construct a policy giving the father parental rights to the child bearing half of its DNA from him, beginning at a certain stage of the pregnancy(I would think it would need to be a relatively far along point in the gestation period due to the severity entailed in taking another's innate human rights away) once a DNA test has been done confirming the relation; this may sound far-fetched but I think it could be possible if we consider the father as the only other person with possible say in what happens to the baby (we'll stick to the specific scenario with the 5 day past-due baby) and we give him the option to override the mothers right to her body in order to save his own offspring at such a far along point in term, in turn negating her parental rights to the child from before day one and making him the sole parent on the birth certificate.
I have an extreme feeling that this would never work because among other arguments it blatantly contradicts the whole premise of giving the mother free will to do as she choses with her body. Though if we are making the decision to limit that free will anyways by setting a no return date for one's pregnancy and more or less forcing one to deliver the baby past after a certain point in the gestation period then why can't we consider something along the lines of my hypothetical policy? Maybe we cannot logically consider limiting abortion or the above-stated hypothetical policy? At the end of the day I of course can't claim to know the answer but I am eager to hear your opinion of my train of thought.

[msieber]

SpiralOut, The bottom line, foundation of basic ethics, is respecting what is best for all involved. "Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good." The greater good is that we don't kill each other. This is so very basic, Spiral! How can you justify killing another human being?

A child is defined as a "developing human being." Just because a child is not finisted developing, you seem to assume their life is less valuable. And you ignorantly assume that children killed by abortion cannot feel their bodies ripped apart. Yet, by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems are intact, including the central nervous system (pain sensors), so by the time many abortions are performed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart, limb by limb, leaving the head by itself. That is not the greater good, nor right action.

Obviously, you're not a doctor and likely did not rip a child apart yourself - but you may have paid someone to do it. If you hadn't, I believe you'd be more ethically reasonable about this.

Must we assume the only method to abort the pregnancy is by ripping apart the infant while it can still feel pain? Let me go ahead and clarify that in my conclusion on my post I was hypothetically using less torturous means of abortion...ie- injection of a substance into the amniotic sac resulting in death before you start ripping off body parts.

[ThomasHobbes]

Take two ridiculously absurd opposing statements at the most banal and extreme ends of a idea and try to pretend that we all have the same opinion.

1) I wish the entire world end in a massive nuclear conflagration ending all life in earth.

2) I wish all weapons and sharp object be destroyed and every human be forced to love one another and kiss their enemies no matter what they have done to them.

SEE!!! We are all in the same page.

[ThomasHobbes]

Abortion ought to be legal because I believe in the freedom of the individual to make decisions about their bodies, regardless of what society thinks about those decisions.

Even if the baby would easily survive outside the womb and could make a childless couple happy through adoption?
You would rather kill a viable foetus five days past due?