Abortion and premature state of life

EpicTyrant

Hello folks. Abortion is either when you cancel the events that may lead to a creation of life or ending the premature state of an already existing life form. Why is this considered moral by human standards and not frowned upon? What is the difference between ending a premature state of life other than a fully developed one. Is it the lack of perceptive of reality and consciousness of the premature state of lifeform that makes it more bearable to perform an abortion for the carrier? Because the only thing that separates the premature life form from a fully developed one, is the passing of time. Do we take time into the equation of what we consider as an acceptable life form that fits into our moral part of the consciousness? If we didn't live in the present, but also could expand our perspective to the future, would we still consider the premature state of life as what it is, or would we consider it a fully developed life form, hindered only by the linear structure of time in which all things must pass?

Probably we haven't digged deep enough in the ethics of these questions, we merely scractch the surface in the general debate and it always turns into a political shitstorm about political agenda of conservatism and liberalism. Perhaps in this media, we can keep the question more true to the biological aspects and philosophical aspects of the subject.

What i would primary like to discuss here is, in which state of the process of creation of life, would you consider as an acceptable form of life that should fit into the equation of what we decide that fits into the judgement of our moral part when we make the decision to perform an abortion or not?

Rank Amateur

↪EpicTyrant

epic, small aside Are you familiar with Don Marquis argument on future of value? Below if not.

http://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/160/marquis.html

EpicTyrant

↪Rank Amateur

Yes i've now read some of it. It made me embark upon a journey questioning wether we really are in control of our own bodies. Our bodies are mostly autonomus and control themselves, we merely use these different functions to interact with the physical world around us. However, we posses some kind of control since we can choose what happens to it. In the same way the pro abortion woman in the article states that she has full control over her body which she has not. Her desire for pleasure has sparkled a chain of events that leads to the creation of life and thus placing another body in her responsibility. She no longer only has control over her own body, but she has the power over another body aswell. Who has the right to choose between existance and non existance? Can we really consider ourselves as moral beings when we have such power in our hands. I get it now that morality is in some cases more about damage control than actually something pure. Some of our hardest decisions in life is wether we choose between what's more egoistically comfortable for us or what is questionable considered as the "right" path to take.

tim wood

Abortion is either when you cancel the events that may lead to a creation of life or ending the premature state of an already existing life form. Why is this considered moral by human standards and not frowned upon? — EpicTyrant

All arguments against abortion that I've encountered are exercises in begging the question. If a person doesn't like terminating pregnancies, then they need merely either not get pregnant, and if they do, not have an abortion. Anything else is minding someone else's business. (Which is not in itself wrong - if gone about in the right way for the right reasons.) The problems with the above lie in the words, and thereby in the ideas and thinking they represent. Shortest way: what life is created? And what is - what does it mean to say - "the premature state of an already existing life form."

At this point in the modern debate on abortion, a debate roughly a century in, with all of the pain on all sides, the sheer stupidity of this argument is unforgivable, and can only have been offered by a troll, or someone so green they have no real idea of what they're talking - writing - about. Go do some research and some thinking!

Rank Amateur

↪EpicTyrant

read it all, we are on the same team. He is just outlining the case he will argue against.

tim wood

"An Argument That Abortion Is Wrong
by
DON MARQUIS

Don Marquis is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas. He defends the view that, except in unusual circumstances, abortion is seriously wrong.

The purpose of this essay is to set out an argument the claim that abortion, except perhaps in instances, is seriously wrong. One reason for these exceptions is to eliminate from consideration cases whose ethical analysis should be controversial detailed for clear-headed opponents of abortion.... Another reason for making these exceptions allow for those cases in which the permissibility of abortion is compatible with the argument of this essay.... When I wrongness of abortion in this essay, a reader she presume the above qualifications. I mean by an abortion an action intended to bring about the death of a fetus for the sake of the woman who carries it. (Thus, as is standard on the literature on this subject, I eliminanate spontaneous abortions from consideration.) I mean by a fetus a developing human being from "

This is from the referenced paper. Two paragraphs in and you realize that the writer of the paper is no professor of anything, not least because he or she cannot write a simple sentence. Go ahead and take a look at it. Such is the quality of the argument in this thread: incoherent!

EpicTyrant

↪tim wood

All objects are equal to time and hence must pass through it. A premature existing lifeform is a life form not yet fully wandered through the passage of time to be considered a "mature" life form, but it will be, unless denied by the actions of the Carrier

AJJ

If a person doesn't like terminating pregnancies, then they need merely either not get pregnant, and if they do, not have an abortion. Anything else is minding someone else's business. — tim wood

If a person doesn’t like murder, then they need merely either not murder, and if they do, own up to it. Anything else is minding someone else’s business.

Rank Amateur

↪tim wood

is this better

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Marquis.pdf

Rank Amateur

↪tim wood

are you familiar with prof marquis argument?

I can summarize it quickly if you are not.

Maw

Prior to around 23 weeks, the fetus is non-viable (cannot survive outside the womb), and lacks developed cortical functions which are the prerequisite to conscious perception (which also means that it cannot feel pain). This typically develops around 29 weeks of gestation. Doesn't seem reasonable to me that a non-viable, non-perceptive form of life is a 'person' with rights that outweigh the rights of the Mother.

tim wood

↪Rank Amateur

Much better, and worthy of a close read, which I will do. In passing I note this:

"The argument is based on a major assumption... [T]hat whether or not abortion is morally permissible
stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously
wrong to end. The argument of this essay will assume, but not argue, that they are
correct."

The essay seems to have weight even beyond this seeming fatal flaw - that's why I'll read it. But if this is Don Marquis, then what was the other article?

tim wood

↪AJJ

And I wrote immediately after that,

(Which is not in itself wrong - if gone about in the right way for the right reasons.) — tim wood

It must be you did not see it.

Rank Amateur

↪tim wood

the first one I grabbed in the search. Said by don marquis in the title. Mea culpa- I am familiar with the argument was just looking for a link to share , grabbed the wrong one

Andrew4Handel

I think Christians and Jews have a problem when opposing abortion.
Because if a child dies then they will go straight to heaven and be better off and not be exposed to sin and suffering.

If you believe in a heavenly eternity and that children won't go to hell then they are better off dying prematurely.

Then look at what Ecclesiastes says:

"A man may father a hundred children and live for many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he is unsatisfied with his prosperity and does not even receive a proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." Ecclesiastes 6:3

and

But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born. For they have not seen all the evil that is done under the sun. Ecclesiastes 6:3

Rank Amateur

The essay seems to have weight even beyond this seeming fatal flaw - that's why I'll read it. But if this is Don Marquis, then what was the other article? — tim wood

You are missing what the assumption is. It is not an assumption about the nature of the fetus itself. Just that the whether or not abortion is morally permissible is a function of the nature of the fetus. Either the fetus is such a thing that would make abortion immoral, or if the fetus is such a think that would not make abortion immoral

AJJ

↪tim wood

I was making the point that the “don’t like abortions, then don’t have one” argument is fatuous, even if you assert that it isn’t, because it doesn’t take seriously the moral issue that is the basis for opposing it.

Tzeentch

Abortion is very clearly a terrible thing. One denies a potential human being the chance to live. Perhaps the only chance they ever had. It is pointless arguing whether it is bad, because the statistics speak for themselves. According to this article, abortions are the cause of PTSD (19%), 25% see a psychiatrist after their abortion, sleep disorders (36%), anxiety (44%). Suicidality in women who suffer from such complications is a whopping 60% (with 28% attempting suicide). Risk of alcohol abuse doubles. 30 to 50% suffers from short and long-term sexual dysfunction and the list goes on.

Clearly, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with abortion. No matter how hard one tries to justify it, one can only lie to their own psyche for so long and it will inevitably return with a vengeance.

With that said, the problem is that there are no real alternatives. So while everything should be done to minimize the amount of unwanted pregnancies, abortions are a necessary evil when they do inevitably happen.

Andrew4Handel

Clearly, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with abortion — Tzeentch

No there isn't and the non academic fundamentalist website you link to discredits you.

Any mental problems health suffered after abortion can be easily explained by the stigma on having abortion.

Tzeentch

↪Andrew4Handel

Ah yes, non academic. I assume you have not even looked at the references then, have you?

Andrew4Handel

Abortion is very clearly a terrible thing. One denies a potential human being the chance to live. — Tzeentch

Presumably you have created hundreds of children then? If not then why are you denying them the chance to live?

Why are you denying them the chance to live in poverty? Why are you denying them the chance to commit suicide like a million+ humans do every year? Why are you denying them the chance to experience cancer or war?

Andrew4Handel

↪Tzeentch

Anyone can uses references whilst misrepresenting the findings of studies and selecting a few studies out of thousands.

I hope you are not coming from a Christian standpoint because I have just cited the scripture on related issues and can provide a lot more quotes.

The one quote I mentioned is that it is better to be still born than have a poor quality life.
Being a live is not a gift if you have a poor quality of life.

The bible contradicts itself on whether killing is wrong but it does not condemn abortion.

AJJ

↪Andrew4Handel

Your first quote omits an important line:

If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. — Ecclesiastes 6.3

It’s also worth noting that the despairing nature of Ecclesiastes is a dissent from the rest of the Old Testament.

I think Christians and Jews have a problem when opposing abortion.
Because if a child dies then they will go straight to heaven and be better off and not be exposed to sin and suffering. — Andrew4Handel

By the same token you could justify arbitrarily murdering people, which would of course be absurd thing for a Christian or Jew to justify to themselves.

Maw

↪Tzeentch

Pretty skeptical about this article as the author is a notable anti-abortion activist. A major methodological issue with such studies is that they often lack strong controls groups (e.g. if women who participated in the study had a pre-existing history of depression, etc.). The famous Turnaway Study, which was conducted from 2008-2010 with nearly 1000 subjects and was designed explicitly to avoid the methodological pitfalls of previous studies. It found, as have other studies conducted since then, that "women who have an abortion are not more likely...to have depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation," or other "detrimental effects on women’s health".

In fact, 95% of the women who participated in the study reported later that abortion was "the right decision".

Additionally, the study also found that women who were denied an abortion were:

More likely to experience serious complications from the end of pregnancy including eclampsia and death
More likely to stay tethered to abusive partners
More likely to suffer anxiety and loss of self-esteem in the short term after being denied abortion
Less likely to have aspirational life plans for the coming year

Tzeentch

↪Andrew4Handel

Of course. The old "I don't like your opinion so your academic findings must be forgeries."

And no, I am not a Christian. By your angry and irrational response I had actually almost taken you for a religious fundamentalist. I suppose following such rhetoric we should start killing babies in the ghetto then?

Tzeentch

↪Maw

Could you provide a link to the actual study?

Andrew4Handel

Your first quote omits an important line: — AJJ

No. I quoted one translation of the bible you are quoting another.

By the same token you could justify arbitrarily murdering people — AJJ

No because this only applies to children who are not at the age to be damned to hell. But it is true that killing someone may spare them suffering. Personally I was happier as a child despite having lots of problems and had I died then I would have died happier and also I was a Christian and believed in heaven.

The other Ecclesiastes quotes points out that a human will witness a lot of evil and suffering and may have been better not existing. Which is a reasonable point because there is a lot of evil and suffering and life is not Disneyland.

I think from a non theological standpoint that creating a child creates far more suffering than terminating a pregnancy or being childless. From a theological standpoint it is hard to justify creating a child who will be sinful, experience evil and may be condemned to hell.

Andrew4Handel

↪Tzeentch

I am angry because you quoted a clearly questionable website quoting disputed sources and without presenting an argument cited it as if infallible.

It would not logically follow that if a woman suffers from mental illness after abortion that abortion is wrong (especially considering most woman do not suffer these problems)

But also as I pointed out the source of the mental health issues could be societal stigma as well as many other thing such hormonal changes.

If people used contraceptives to prevent pregnancy that would be ideal.

AJJ

No. I quoted one translation of the bible you are quoting another. — Andrew4Handel

Your translation omitted an important line.

No because this only applies to children who are not at the age to be damned to hell. — Andrew4Handel

So it could be used to justify arbitrarily killing only holy people, then, which is also absurd.

I think from a non theological standpoint that creating a child creates far more suffering than terminating a pregnancy or being childless. From a theological standpoint it is hard to justify creating a child who will be sinful, experience evil and may be condemned to hell. — Andrew4Handel

This is an argument for not having children, not conceiving and then killing them.

Maw

↪Tzeentch

Here

Andrew4Handel

This is an argument for not having children, not conceiving and then killing them. — AJJ

I agree. But it is an argument against the idea that killing a fetus prevents someone having a fulfilling life because a fulfilling is not guaranteed. It opposes the claim someone is always robbed of something good by dying.

So it could be used to justify arbitrarily killing only holy people, then, which is also absurd. — AJJ

It is not a justification for killing someone it is pointing out that if you believe in heaven then killing someone is giving them a better life. Many Christians believe they are going onto something much better. And they and other religions value martyrdom also.

Your translation omitted an important line. — AJJ

The important thing about the quote is that being still born maybe better than living in some circumstances. I think you could undermine any interpretation of the bible by referring to another one.

Abortion and premature state of life

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions