• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

So what makes abortion immoral?

It's when it experienced a decent amount of input from external sources.. when it begins to experience things.
 
rickolasnice said:
It's when it experienced a decent amount of input from external sources.. when it begins to experience things.
Click to expand...
I would beg to differ. I do not believe that a fetus is a human, but a fully developed infant, most definitely is.

Edit: Misread your post, my apologies.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
It's when it experienced a decent amount of input from external sources.. when it begins to experience things.
Click to expand...
If there's some threshold of sensory input that is crossed that defines a critical experiential boundary then isn't it strange that there is no clear change in behavior during early infancy to indicate it? If at one point after being born there is nothing that it is like to be an infant and the next there is suddenly something, namely our range of sense impressions (or insertion of a "soul" for some), I'd think that would be a shock to any previously "inert" physical system that underwent it.

It appears that human organs and nervous system structures are sufficiently elaborated prenatally to process auditory inputs from outside the mother's body, the feeling of the uterine wall, limbs rubbing against one another, gravity, etc. A fetus will also react to painful stimuli. Being born certainly adds many new dimensions to the array of sensory inputs being received and processed, but phenomenologically these appear to be additions to a continuum of pre-established experiential being rather than somehow constituting a human's "instantly accountable" sum total. Like another poster alluded to above, there is little difference between a fetus one minute prior to birth and an infant a minute after being born.

If one believes late term abortion is not immoral because a fetus is not a human then why could the same not be said up until some indication of self-awareness? Medical experiments performing surgery on live dogs used to be justified by appealing to Decartes' notion that animals lacking self-awareness could not experience suffering, though today we see that as a tragic and inhumane rationalization. It seems there is either a sliding scale of immorality to abortion dependent on our best estimation of the magnitude and sophistication of the killed entity's subjective being independent of its having been born yet or not, or it's an either/or proposition dependent on the presence or absence of some absolute being like a supernatural soul for which there is no decisive measure.
 
Last edited:
methamaniac said:
What is your belief?
Before or after birth.
You're goal post seems to be on skates.
Click to expand...

What are you on about?

There is no discrepancy between my posts.

If one believes late term abortion is not immoral because a fetus is not a human then why could the same not be said up until some indication of self-awareness?
Click to expand...

Would be impossible to define that point.. It definitely doesn't happen before birth.

Not that I think it'd be ok to kill a born baby.

For the record.. I haven't stated where i think the cut off point should be.. but it'd probably be around 24 weeks as there is evidence the foetus will have fully formed hearing.. starting the beginning of it becoming a person.

Just had to search at what it's set at.. seems im in agreement with law.
 
So just to pin your belief down,
as soon as the head of baby hits the outside world it becomes a life?
Until then it is not living right?
 
rickolasnice said:
Would be impossible to define that point.. It definitely doesn't happen before birth.

Not that I think it'd be ok to kill a born baby.

For the record.. I haven't stated where i think the cut off point should be.. but it'd probably be around 24 weeks as there is evidence the foetus will have fully formed hearing.. starting the beginning of it becoming a person.

Just had to search at what it's set at.. seems im in agreement with law.
Click to expand...
If the possession of a self-concept is what defines a person couldn't we use indications of its possession such as the "mirror test" as a rough guide to personhood to decide when killing an infant is morally roughly equivalent to killing a fetus though? If a mark is made on a self-concept possessing human or animal's face without their noticing it and they're placed in front of a mirror then the assumption is that they should recognize the mark as not belonging and react to it somehow. It isn't until 18 months after birth on average that 50 percent of children "pass" the mirror test, with a strong majority passing by 24 months. So indeed it doesn't appear to develop prior to birth, yet two years of age is long after most of us would consider it "murder" to kill a young human. There is clearly a lot going on subjectively in the mind of a one year old worthy of moral valuing and empathetic concern despite an apparent lack of internal identity.

This ambiguity about what we value in the subjective being of human life and how to apply it to those too young to communicate is why I suggested the "fetal viability" stage as a practical distinction of moral personhood. This is the point between the second and third trimesters when there is evidence it first becomes possible for the fetus to breath and take sustenance independently. Since we can't know when a person becomes "person enough" experientially by theorizing perhaps it makes more sense for a morally concerned abortion rights supporter hoping to err on the side of caution to hold that a human should be assumed to be fundamentally a person when natural evidence has indicated they have developed the minimal capacity to survive in a quasi-independent way at all as a human.

RichardMooner said:
I still don't see why it is a sin according to Biblical standards.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that so many who defer to the authority of the Bible believe life begins at conception when it states the soul enters upon "first breath." I assume this change has to do with changes in biological understanding and the way believers attempt to map the concepts together. The ancients didn't know about genetics and zygotes, and believed the sky was the residence of God. So it makes intuitive sense that the first breath of an infant would be considered taking in the "substance of the sky," as that is apparently an ethereal substance being taken into flesh. But once medical understanding advanced it probably got more difficult to believe something as reactive and dear to the emotions as a newborn didn't have a soul just a minute ago, and so the believed foundation of the person (the soul) was re-aligned with the observed foundation of individual biological organisms (the formation of a genetically distinct zygomatic cell during conception).
 
Last edited:
Who would have ever guessed that a major topic of differing opinions would be a sementical topic.
"At what point, is a human... a human"

Assuming that a fetus is "something", but not a person, is it still ok to kill it?

Is this "something" more valuable than an animal's life?

Now, what about killing animals.
Is ok to kill animals? Is it ok to kill baby animals? Is it ok to give an animal an abortion? What if the animal is only 2 weeks pregnent?

What about insects? What about bacteria? What about single celled organisms? What about the carbon atom?

You're arguing the wrong point. What it really comes down to is "at what point, is a life form's "life" sacred?

It's not something I can answer, or would even try. It's just one of the answers we will never really be able to know as humans.
 
methamaniac said:
So just to pin your belief down,
as soon as the head of baby hits the outside world it becomes a life?
Until then it is not living right?
Click to expand...

You really can't comprehend written word can you?

If the possession of a self-concept is what defines a person
Click to expand...

The fuck? Where did I say this? What is wrong with everyone today?
 
lazylazyjoe said:
You're arguing the wrong point. What it really comes down to is "at what point, is a life form's "life" sacred?

It's not something I can answer, or would even try. It's just one of the answers we will never really be able to know as humans.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the wrong point. Most of the discussion thus far has been in the spirit of that more universally stated question, just confined to humans. In any case we have a responsibility to try to answer it to the best of our ability because any conclusions or compromises we make or fail to make because we don't try nevertheless invariably effect those valued lives you speak of.
 
rickolasnice said:
The fuck? Where did I say this? What is wrong with everyone today?
Click to expand...
You said it "would be impossible to define that point" (achieving self-awareness) in reaction to my asking you why not consider infants morally equivalent to fetuses up to the point where there are indications of self-awareness. The mirror test is just such an indicator. Yet it doesn't signal self-awareness until around 18 months on average. You mentioned 18 weeks of age in regard to starting becoming a person, and said "it" definitely doesn't happen before birth. If "becoming a person" isn't becoming self-aware then what are you referring to happening at 18 weeks and why does it constitute a definite moral distinction that does not apply prenatally?
 
I said 24 weeks because that's when a foetus can hear..

That's when it can start experiencing meaningful external stimuli..

Before that.. what do you suppose the brain is doing?
 
Most of the discussion thus far has been in the spirit of that more universally stated question, just confined to humans.
Click to expand...

But life is not limited to humans. You can't argue for/against human life and just ignore every other form of life. Especially if a major point is when a non-human life becomes a human life.

Debating whether it's ok/not ok to kill a fetus based on the argument of whether it's a human life is erroneous.

The argument should be is it ok/not ok to kill any life. And if so, what lifeforms fall under "ok to kill" and which ones "not ok to kill"


@ricko: You would seem to say that any human and/or human fetus > 24 months is not ok to kill. All other life is ok to kill.

@psood: You would seem to say to any human and/or human fetus from fetilization is not ok to kill. All other life (if not self-aware) is ok to kill
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
I said 24 weeks because that's when a foetus can hear..

That's when it can start experiencing meaningful external stimuli..

Before that.. what do you suppose the brain is doing?
Click to expand...
so just to pin your belief down,
You firmly believe life begins at 24 weeks?
 
Who ever said abortion was immoral and no the religious crowd don't count. I don't consider it a life till it pops out of it's mom and it's the woman's choice whether she wants to keep it or not. Bringing religious based morality into it is just pointless.
 
paranoid android said:
Who ever said abortion was immoral and no the religious crowd don't count. I don't consider it a life till it pops out of it's mom and it's the woman's choice whether she wants to keep it or not. Bringing religious based morality into it is just pointless.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with law killing of an a pregnant woman's unborn baby is murder?
This is where I got in on discussion.
Like the screen name.
Just cause you're paranoid doesnt mean they're not after ya :)
 
@paranoid:
So, by your definition, any organic material that isn't gestated and then expelled from it's developing host isn't a 'life'?

Ok, let's go with that.
So, you are ok with everything else organic that isn't a 'life' to be killed?

Like I said, the line isn't 'when is a human, therefore we can't kill it' it is

Is it ok/not ok to kill any life. And if so, what lifeforms fall under "ok to kill" and which ones "not ok to kill"


BTW: I'm actually pro-abortion, but I really want to know where people draw the line between 'ok to kill' and 'not ok to kill'
 
lazylazyjoe said:
But life is not limited to humans. You can't argue for/against human life and just ignore every other form of life. Especially if a major point is when a non-human life becomes a human life.

Debating whether it's ok/not ok to kill a fetus based on the argument of whether it's a human life is erroneous.

The argument should be is it ok/not ok to kill any life. And if so, what lifeforms fall under "ok to kill" and which ones "not ok to kill"


@ricko: You would seem to say that any human and/or human fetus > 24 months is not ok to kill. All other life is ok to kill.

@psood: You would seem to say to any human and/or human fetus from fetilization is not ok to kill. All other life (if not self-aware) is ok to kill
Click to expand...

Well said..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top