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

[Vagueabsolute]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life. So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

Im especially interested in the perspective of those taking a stand against abortion.

I'm not sure if when you point to a "consequential perspective" you're referring to consequentialism as an ethical theory, because what you're describing here is not consequentialism.

In any case, almost anything could have been avoided if someone had not mated and brought to life the people that were active participants of those events. You end up with the old "blame it on Adam and Eve", which is pointless.

Yes i am indeed referring to consequentialism, in the sense of ethically judging an action by isolating it’s results. Perhaps i may have compromised the theory by replacing results for intended/expected/known result. Both killing a fetus and refraining from ever breeding results in a life not lead. This isn’t a scenario of Hitlers mother killing her child because it might commit genocide. His mother had no idea what tragedies her son would cause. Not having a child on the other hand is sure to deprave that child of life, the same way abortion would.
What I’m getting at is the absurd naivety of banning abortion and naming it murder. Im not blaming a couple for not having a child and I’m not blaming a mother for committing abortion.

There's an ambivalent use of the word "life" here, because one could argue that a foetus, since it is alive, is living a life, regardless of not being considered a human being yet. There's of course the idea of "human life" as the human experience of being in the world, outside the womb. If we use the first definition, the mere existence of the foetus implies that the only way to avoid its state of living is by destroying it. That doesn't seem to be similar to simply not mating, which doesn't imply the existence of anything alive, and does not require its destruction. Therefore they are not similar, ethically speaking, in terms of results. The destruction of something has obvious implications that are different to this something not being produced at all. They are different results.

If we stipulate the term life to simply refer to something being alive, and if we consider life to have a value in of itself, then surely abortion (as long as the abortion doesn’t cause pain or stress for the foetus, the mother or anyone else who might be affected) is preferable to never mating. Seeing as the foetus then would have gotten to live at all. This take, however, seems slightly ridiculous. I find it highly doubtful that the reason abortion is controversial is that it ends life. You don’t see the same controversy surrounding the swatting of insects. The main concern has to be that the child never gets to be born, and never gets to live a”full life”. And in that sense not having a child is the same as abortion. Also, destruction isn’t really fundamentally different from re-shaping something. What is relevant is what shapes something ends up taking or not taking. And regardless of whether a human foetus is aborted or just never conceived, the resulting outcome is that the person that said foetus would have grown up to become, misses out on taking shape.

[Sy Borg]

Nice analysis, vagueabsolute.

It's certainly not about "life". Many who oppose abortion favour the death penalty, legal assault weapons in urban areas and unjustifiable invasion of other sovereign nations. Of course, they are simply chasing that most valued of social assets in today's world - the moral high ground.

I suspect that many "pro-lifers" (who also ffavour AK-47s) have no concept of what a first term foetus is like, and they just imagine it's simply miniature version of a newborn baby. Thus, some will rate a human blastocyst over that of a sentient animal. There is also the religious component - that a human soul resides within tiny insensate embryos.

As you say, abstinence and abortion have the same outcome in a sense, except that the latter often involves suffering on the part of the woman undergoing abortion. Instincts don't tend to listen to reason.

[Samana Johann]

From a consequential perspective the difference between abortion, and not mating in the first place, seem nonexistent. Yet little to no drama sprout around the subject of not giving life. So, how would you compare abortion to not giving birth?

If not wishing to give way of taking birth, avoiding contact is the way it can't happen, good householder

Im especially interested in the perspective of those taking a stand against abortion.

Additionally, how would you compare these concepts with murder, is abortion morality differentiable from killing a more developed life form?

Abortion means killing a human being. Unwholesome action done either bodily by oneself, or by telling or giving sign to do, or even mental, by approve or joy with such deed. That's very importand to consider, as it has heavy impact on the doer.

[Samana Johann]

One should also think about the fact, how the todays average age of humans really stands. Further, the chance that a human being is killed by mother or father is about +1.000 times higher (once made fast count, coming to ~50 million kills by abortion a year) then the change to meet any other way of being killed.
Also considering the mythos that male are foremost in killing humans.

Sure, the huge goodness and willingless for own burden stays untouched as well. That alone, the act of carry out giving birth, make the debt and gratitude toward ones parents hardly to ever repay normally.

So some things yours might not have considered yet.

[baker]

If we stipulate the term life to simply refer to something being alive, and if we consider life to have a value in of itself, then surely abortion (as long as the abortion doesn’t cause pain or stress for the foetus, the mother or anyone else who might be affected) is preferable to never mating. Seeing as the foetus then would have gotten to live at all. This take, however, seems slightly ridiculous. I find it highly doubtful that the reason abortion is controversial is that it ends life. You don’t see the same controversy surrounding the swatting of insects. The main concern has to be that the child never gets to be born, and never gets to live a”full life”. And in that sense not having a child is the same as abortion. Also, destruction isn’t really fundamentally different from re-shaping something. What is relevant is what shapes something ends up taking or not taking. And regardless of whether a human foetus is aborted or just never conceived, the resulting outcome is that the person that said foetus would have grown up to become, misses out on taking shape.

At what point wouldn't you mind being killed?

[baker]

It's certainly not about "life". Many who oppose abortion favour the death penalty, legal assault weapons in urban areas and unjustifiable invasion of other sovereign nations. Of course, they are simply chasing that most valued of social assets in today's world - the moral high ground.

I suspect that many "pro-lifers" (who also ffavour AK-47s) have no concept of what a first term foetus is like, and they just imagine it's simply miniature version of a newborn baby. Thus, some will rate a human blastocyst over that of a sentient animal. There is also the religious component - that a human soul resides within tiny insensate embryos.

At what point wouldn't you mind being killed?

As you say, abstinence and abortion have the same outcome in a sense, except that the latter often involves suffering on the part of the woman undergoing abortion. Instincts don't tend to listen to reason.

What "instincts"?

[baker]

If not wishing to give way of taking birth, avoiding contact is the way it can't happen, good householder

But presumably someone is holding a gun to many people's heads, threatening to pull the trigger if they don't have sex.

[Samana Johann]

If not wishing to give way of taking birth, avoiding contact is the way it can't happen, good householder

But presumably someone is holding a gun to many people's heads, threatening to pull the trigger if they don't have sex.

Yes, such happens. All kind of things happen. The question was of what's the way to avoid, in and of itself, good baker. And not at all do all sexual contact have the intent to give way of birth either. So one action after another, and divided by doer as well.

[Samana Johann]

The action of taking life, with it's outcome for one, fruits for one, comes together by some factors to be complete the "kamma (action)" (note that even the intent, or approve, has it's similar effects).

1. being is actually alive being
2. knowing a living being
3. intentions to deprive (that includes taking such happen in account by approve)
4. effort (knowingly by oneself, assisting, telling, giving sign)
5. the effort causes the dead.

[baker]

The action of taking life, with it's outcome for one, fruits for one, comes together by some factors to be complete the "kamma (action)" (note that even the intent, or approve, has it's similar effects).

1. being is actually alive being
2. knowing a living being
3. intentions to deprive (that includes taking such happen in account by approve)
4. effort (knowingly by oneself, assisting, telling, giving sign)
5. the effort causes the dead.

But just to be clear:

According to Buddhism, it's not actually wrong for parents to abandon their children.

If a Buddhist woman gives birth to a child and leaves it out in the forest (where the child can be killed by the cold, hunger, or wild animals), this is not actually morally wrong, according to Buddhism.

Yes?

[Samana Johann]

The action of taking life, with it's outcome for one, fruits for one, comes together by some factors to be complete the "kamma (action)" (note that even the intent, or approve, has it's similar effects).

1. being is actually alive being
2. knowing a living being
3. intentions to deprive (that includes taking such happen in account by approve)
4. effort (knowingly by oneself, assisting, telling, giving sign)
5. the effort causes the dead.

But just to be clear:

According to Buddhism, it's not actually wrong for parents to abandon their children.

If a Buddhist woman gives birth to a child and leaves it out in the forest (where the child can be killed by the cold, hunger, or wild animals), this is not actually morally wrong, according to Buddhism.

Yes?

Doing wrong or unskilful for what ever reason, even for good, is still wrong.

Such a general question can not be answered, and cause and effects aren't a matter of defining one self as this or that.

Not helping, or not doing one's duties in relation, has it's effects. Such actions do, for the most have unskilful mind as cause (eg. based on greed, aversion, not knowing).

If one can't help, or would be required to do bad for such, than it's not wrong to do not help. In relation, the next step would be searching for one who could, and at least, if that isn't possible, stay with the intent to do and wish "may he, she soon get help".

[Samana Johann]

It's nevertheless always one's choice, doing good (giving (up)) or bad (holding on grasped). A person has no inherent duty to act as supporter, parent, could abort, cast away, not support. That's why parents are to be regarded as a childs first "God". Nobody has an inherent right to gain birth, or to become supported. That's alway more or less liberal or dependent goodness or even taking what's not given. Indebtedness, owing gratitude, duties, to go on smooth.

[Sy Borg]

It's certainly not about "life". Many who oppose abortion favour the death penalty, legal assault weapons in urban areas and unjustifiable invasion of other sovereign nations. Of course, they are simply chasing that most valued of social assets in today's world - the moral high ground.

I suspect that many "pro-lifers" (who also ffavour AK-47s) have no concept of what a first term foetus is like, and they just imagine it's simply miniature version of a newborn baby. Thus, some will rate a human blastocyst over that of a sentient animal. There is also the religious component - that a human soul resides within tiny insensate embryos.

At what point wouldn't you mind being killed?

As you say, abstinence and abortion have the same outcome in a sense, except that the latter often involves suffering on the part of the woman undergoing abortion. Instincts don't tend to listen to reason.

What "instincts"?

Maternal instincts.

As far as your first question, might as well turf me out now. It's been an ... interesting life and I've had quite a lot of it. I would not feel deprived or I was missing out. The best has already been done and I'm ready to go any time. All I ask is not to suffer too much along the way.

[Lagayascienza]

No, it can't be about "life" because many so called "pro-lifers" are also pro-capital punishment. They think its ok to deliberately kill fully sentient adult humans, but they are not ok with removing a blastosyst. And they are fine with our annually killing and eating billions of sentient animals, but not with the removal of a couple of human cells that have zero sentience. Where's the sense?

The point at which one wouldn't mind being killed is an interesting question. But it's probably hard for most to answer. Maybe the best answer is that we'll know if/when the time comes. If a person cannot have a peaceful and pain-free death, then it's hard to see why they shouldn't be free to choose the time of their passing, and it's hard to see why the means that would ensure an easy death shouldn't be legally and freely available to them - "the peaceful pill". Your body. Your life. Your decision.

So what's wrong with being mostly pro-choice when it comes to both the decision to give birth or not and the decision to die when we choose?

[baker]

At what point wouldn't you mind being killed?

As far as your first question, might as well turf me out now. It's been an ... interesting life and I've had quite a lot of it. I would not feel deprived or I was missing out. The best has already been done and I'm ready to go any time. All I ask is not to suffer too much along the way.

Then I need to clairfy my question:

At what point in the past wouldn't you mind being killed?