1) The point of mentioning the metaphysical argument for biologically human life beginning at conception is to disprove any future argument which denies the humanity as a basis for abortion being moral.

Then.....I go on to argue against those who separate biological humanness from personhood

2) The free will part was a typo....you are right to say that free will has nothing to do with it. Some parts of this I wrote at odd hours and may have been less coherent than I would have liked to be.

I think what I meant to say.........is that the egg alone or the sperm alone cannot on their own produce a human being.

The only possibly legitimate exception is when the life of the mother is threatened. There, the principle of double effect becomes relevant, so that if the child is killed in an attempt to save the life of the mother without intending to harm the child, the abortion in that case is morally permissible. — Thorongil

I guess it would depend on what you mean by "life of the mother being threatened" since that phrase has been used rather loosely.

I would bring a few things to mind on that question......


1) An abortion especially if it is late term would take 3 days in preparation just to dilate the cervix enough for the procedure.

If a woman did have complications during a pregnancy that caused her to fall ill or have an impending health risk that could or is turning deadly, would a woman really wait 3 days to have an abortion in an abortion “clinic” or would she go to the emergency room of a hospital? ………of course she would.

2) Except for ectopic pregnancies, most medical problems for the mother during her pregnancy happen in the third trimester and are usually after the baby is able to be taken out of the womb by C-section and in many cases survive. And even in the case of ectopic pregnancies, you would never go to an abortion clinic to resolve that. An abortion would not change the ectopic pregnancy.

For such a problem, you would have to go to a hospital where they would remove the entire fallopian tube. Also, in those medical cases where there was an issue that threatened the health of the mother, having a D&E abortion would be equally as dangerous because it would not remove the true threat to the mother and the true cause of her symptoms.

Quite the contrary, having an abortion would worsen symptoms because it would exacerbate the true cause of her symptoms (which is NOT the baby in the womb but rather another issue for which pregnancy triggers the symptoms).

In cases of TRUE health risks to the mother (and I mean true health risks not just saying “health risks” as a catch all loophole) I would use the double effect rule. What I mean by “double effect” is that the intention has to be to save the mother and NOT to directly end the life of the baby. So what does that look like? Use the example of an ectopic pregnancy.

In such a case, the intention of the doctor would be to remove the philopian tube in which the newly conceived baby (fertilized egg) is attached. If the goal of the operation was to scrape out the newly conceived baby (fertilized egg itself, it would be immoral because the direct intention is to kill the newly conceived baby.

The other example I would use (courtesy of Ben Shapiro) would be the pregnant woman who has cancer. In her case the intention of the course of treatment (in this case chemotherapy) is to treat the cancer…….of which an indirect result is a miscarriage. I the direct reason was to cause a miscarriage, it would not be acceptable. Now how many babies do you think are able to survive outside the womb in the known cases where a health risk happened in a pregnancy?

The success rate of the hospital to save both the baby and the mother is extremely high. Most of all, complications in pregnancies are rare and many of them arise later in pregnancy. PLUS, the percentage where there is a medical complication in a pregnancy is so low in the United States that it would not even reach 1 percent.

Thus by using this example as a case for not making abortion illegal is bad logic. You are using a VERY obscure exemption that does not affect the main topic because the example is so rare. Such an argument is logically flawed and and fails to address an argument for the much larger case for abortion outside of extremely rare medical emergencies.

Correct......and I agree.......and I said as much below that when I talk about the analogies and the wrong of the rape not being used as an excuse for a second wrong (the killing of the child in the womb)

Thanks for the warm welcome and your thoughts on my philosophical work :) :) :)

I have not quote finished publishing the popup book version yet. I will tell you when I have finished it. :P

With all due respect.....that is not really responding philosophically or academically, but rather using a bizarre standard for writing on a website that is all about philosophy (which often requires lengthy definitions and explanations)

Have you ever read other works of the philosophers?