A Philosophical Arguement against Abortion

[MindOverMatter2]

1. Biologically speaking, I exist as a person now in virtue of my conception.
2. If we truly believe in right and wrong and correct moral conduct, then we must presuppose that human life has intrinsic moral value.
3. If human life has intrinsic moral value, and if you value my life now, then you must value my conception since i am the result of that conception.
4. If you value my conception, then you must agree that a human embryo has the same value as a person in virtue of the fact that it will become “me” in the here and now.
5. All of the potentialities of a person is contained in a human embryo, and it is evident that the human embryo is ordered to the development of a person, and it will develop to that end unless somebody or something stops it from happening.
6. In that respect, it would be correct to perceive the human embryo as being in fact a “person in development” in virtue of the end to which embryonic development is in act, which we know to be me in the here and now. Thus we are forced to conclude that to destroy embryonic development is to destroy a developing person.
7. It is intrinsically immoral to kill a person at any stage of development, regardless of whether they exist inside the womb or outside of the womb.

Conclusion: Therefore abortion is a form of infanticide and is thus murder.

 

[JohnDamian]

A very good post.

However, you need to add “and thus immoral” to the conclusion or point 3 and 7 are rather inconsequential.

 

[hatsoff]

1. Biologically speaking, I exist as a person now in virtue of my conception.
2. If we truly believe in right and wrong and correct moral conduct, then we must presuppose that human life has intrinsic moral value.
3. If human life has intrinsic moral value, and if you value my life now, then you must value my conception since i am the result of that conception.
4. If you value my conception, then you must agree that a human embryo has the same value as a person in virtue of the fact that it will become “me” in the here and now.
5. All of the potentialities of a person is contained in a human embryo, and it is evident that the human embryo is ordered to the development of a person, and it will develop to that end unless somebody or something stops it from happening.
6. In that respect, it would be correct to perceive the human embryo as being in fact a “person in development” in virtue of the end to which embryonic development is in act, which we know to be me in the here and now. Thus we are forced to conclude that to destroy embryonic development is to destroy a developing person.
7. It is intrinsically immoral to kill a person at any stage of development, regardless of whether they exist inside the womb or outside of the womb.

Conclusion: Therefore abortion is a form of infanticide and is thus murder.

A few observations…

(1) I hope you don’t intend this as a deductive argument, because it is not deductively valid.

(2) I have serious issues with your language. For example, I don’t know what you mean by “intrinsic value,” but I suspect that you have some kind of transcendent moral theory in mind which most skeptics are unlikely to share. I’m also not completely sure what you mean by the “potentialities of a person.” These terms do not appear to me to be essential to your rhetoric, but if they are, then you need to explain what they mean.

But this is the most serious issue for me…

(3) It is not true that I do—much less “must”—value the event of your conception simply because I value you the person. And if I did happen to value your conception event, I would not need to afford it the same weight that I do for my value of you as a person.

I hope that helps!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

(3) It is not true that I do—much less “must”—value the event of your conception simply because I value you the person.* And if I did happen to value your conception event, I would not need to afford it the same weight that I do for my value of you as a person.
**
I hope that helps! *

Your own conception event you must highly value, or you would not be here to value it.

So you should value the conception event of others if you are going to value your own, unless you are a complete narcissist!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

I hope you don’t intend this as a deductive argument, because it is not deductively valid.

Here is what I take to be MindOverMatter’s implied syllogism, which is valid as deductive logic.

All human beings must be valued at every stage of development for what they will become.
Unborn children are human beings.
Unborn children must be valued at their stage of development for what they will become.

You can disagree with each premise and the conclusion, but the logic is deductive and valid.

The minor premise (second sentence) cannot be argued, since the unborn child’s DNA is set and will be the same as long as the human being exists.

The only statement in the syllogism that you could possibly attack would be the major premise (first sentence). However, to say that a human being can be valued at some stages of development, but not at others, puts on you the burden of proving which stage of development should be valued and which should not … and why.

To say that the early stage of development (in the womb) does not require value is to say that because the child has no voice, and cannot speak for itself and the right it has to a full life, is to say only that you have the power to take the life of an innocent human being with impunity.

How is this different from taking the life of a more fully developed human being who is taking a nap and cannot speak for and defend himself as a predator approaches (the butcher/abortionist) with the intent to carve him up?

 

[hatsoff]

Your own conception event you must highly value, or you would not be here to value it.

I am here today regardless of whether or not I happen to value my conception event. As it happens, I have mixed feelings about it.

Here is what I take to be MindOverMatter’s implied syllogism, which is valid as deductive logic.

All human beings must be valued at every stage of development for what they will become.
Unborn children are human beings.
Unborn children must be valued at their stage of development for what they will become.

You can disagree with each premise and the conclusion, but the logic is deductive and valid.

Well, even this new syllogism is invalid in its current form, but there’s no need to fix it since I see what you’re getting at.

The only statement in the syllogism that you could possibly attack would be the major premise (first sentence). However, to say that a human being can be valued at some stages of development, but not at others, puts on you the burden of proving which stage of development should be valued and which should not

(emphasis mine)

If I make a factual claim (what can happen), then all I need to defend is the fact I assert, not any value judgment (what should happen). And it is patently obvious that people can decline to value unborn children, even if you think they should value them.

To say that the early stage of development (in the womb) does not require value is to say that because the child has no voice, and cannot speak for itself and the right it has to a full life, is to say only that you have the power to take the life of an innocent human being with impunity.

I’m not saying anything like that! I’m only talking about value judgments, here, and that is a matter of subjective personal motivations and happenstance.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

hatsoff, are you pro-life (being atheist does not necessarily mean pro-choice after all)?

Just wondering.

 

[hatsoff]

hatsoff, are you pro-life (being atheist does not necessarily mean pro-choice after all)?

Just wondering.

I prefer abortion to be a legal medical option for all adult pregnant women at least up to a certain stage of their pregnancy. I do not know which such stage is optimal, however, except to say that it must allow the woman ample time to discover she is pregnant, wrestle with the decision, and perhaps also to raise funds for the procedure.

I suppose that makes me pro-choice.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I prefer abortion to be a legal medical option for all adult pregnant women at least up to a certain stage of their pregnancy. I do not know which such stage is optimal, however, except to say that it must allow the woman ample time to discover she is pregnant, wrestle with the decision, and perhaps also to raise funds for the procedure.

I suppose that makes me pro-choice.

Yeah, that would. Thanks for answering.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

Well, even this new syllogism is invalid in its current form, but there’s no need to fix it since I see what you’re getting at.

No, it is valid. I used to teach introductory logic. The form of the reasoning is valid. It is the content you are disputing.

The above syllogism is equivalent to:

All A is B.
All C is A.
All C is B.

Valid.

But I think it is his major premise that you are disputing. You can’t devalue the unborn child without devaluing your own one time status as an unborn child. If your mother had not valued you, you might not be here.

So we should value others as we are glad we have been valued.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Everything comes back to Christ.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Personally, I like Dr. Peter Kreeft’s logical arguement a little better:

Either the fetus is a person, or not; and either we know what it is, or not. Thus there are four and only four possibilities:

1. that it is not a person and we know that,
2. that it is a person and we know that,
3. that it is a person but we do not know that, and
4. that it is not a person and we do not know that.

Now what is abortion in each of these four cases?

In case (1), abortion is perfectly permissible. We do no wrong if we kill what is not a person and we know it is not a person—e.g., if we fry a fish. But no one has ever proved with certainty that a fetus is not a person. If there exists anywhere such a proof, please show it to me and I shall convert to pro-choice on the spot if I cannot refute it.

If we do not have case (1) we have either (2) or (3) or (4). What is abortion in each of these cases? It is either murder, or manslaughter, or criminal negligence.

In case (2), where the fetus is a person and we know that, abortion is murder. For killing an innocent person knowing it is an innocent person is murder.

In case (3), abortion is manslaughter, for it is killing an innocent person not knowing and intending the full, deliberate extent of murder. It is like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street, which may be a drunk or may only be an old coat. It is like shooting at a sudden movement in a bush which may be your hunting companion or may be only a pheasant. It is like fumigating an apartment building with a highly toxic chemical not knowing whether everyone is safely evacuated. If the victim is a person you have committed manslaughter. And if not?

Even in case (4), even if abortion kills what is not in fact a person, but the killer does not know for sure that it is not a person, we have criminal negligence, as in the above three cases if there happened to be no man in the coat, the bush, or the building but the driver, the hunter, or the fumigator did not know that, and nevertheless drove, shot or fumigated. Such negligence is instinctively and universally condemned by all reasonable individuals and societies as personally immoral and socially criminal; and cases (2) and (3), murder and manslaughter, are of course condemned even more strongly. We do not argue politely over whether such behavior is right or wrong. We wholeheartedly condemn it, even when we do not know whether there is a person there, because the killer did not know that a person was not there. Why do we not do the same with abortion?

 

[rvilbig]

Personally, I like Dr. Peter Kreeft’s logical arguement a little better:

I agree; the apple argument is very good.

The soul in the fetus is like a person in a building:

1. If we know there’s a person in the building, blowing it up is murder.
2. If there’s a person in the building but we don’t know it, blowing it up is involuntary manslaughter.
3. If there’s no person in the building but we didn’t know it, blowing it up is criminal negligence (and vandalism).
4. If there’s no person in the building (yet) and we know it, blowing it up is vandalism of someone’s future building (Kreeft thinks this is okay, I disagree).

Every case is criminal and should be prosecuted.

Alternatively, outside of the courts, I like Bishop Hermann’s (of Saint Louis) proposal: link.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[hatsoff]

No, it is valid.

It’s close—very close, as we shall see—but still not quite there. Let’s revisit your syllogism:

All human beings must be valued at every stage of development for what they will become.
Unborn children are human beings.

Now, what can we conclude from these two premises? Quite simply, we conclude that

Unborn children must be valued at every stage of development for what they will become.

However, you have something slightly different (emphasis mine):

Unborn children must be valued at their stage of development for what they will become.

The difference is insignificant from a rhetorical standpoint. As I assured you before, I know exactly what you mean.

Anyway, moving on…

You can’t devalue the unborn child without devaluing your own one time status as an unborn child.

Sure I can. There is nothing forcing me to value every unborn child with the same weight. I can value one unborn child more than another if the whim strikes me, and the same goes for any other person (or deity).

Besides, as I pointed out above, there’s nothing forcing me to value my own conception event in the first place!

So we should value others as we are glad we have been valued.

That’s your own value judgment, but I do not share it.

The problem with the abortion debate is that it is typically not wrestled over matters of fact, but rather matters of value. Yet value is a subjective thing, differences between them not always (if ever) rationally resolvable. You can tell me what you think I should believe and how you think I should behave, but those are simply your own value judgments. If I don’t share them, or some kind of root values which can be used to support them, then that’s that.

 

[hatsoff]

Even in case (4), even if abortion kills what is not in fact a person, but the killer does not know for sure that it is not a person, we have criminal negligence, as in the above three cases if there happened to be no man in the coat, the bush, or the building but the driver, the hunter, or the fumigator did not know that, and nevertheless drove, shot or fumigated. Such negligence is instinctively and universally condemned by all reasonable individuals and societies as personally immoral and socially criminal; and cases (2) and (3), murder and manslaughter, are of course condemned even more strongly. We do not argue politely over whether such behavior is right or wrong. We wholeheartedly condemn it, even when we do not know whether there is a person there, because the killer did not know that a person was not there. Why do we not do the same with abortion?

As far as I know, it’s not criminal negligence according to United States law. And even if it were illegal in some particular place, to say that abortion is wrong where illegal because it is wrong to break the law is not usually the matter of concern. Rather, people want to determine the legal status of abortion, so that it will be legal or illegal, as their preference has it.

Maybe you instead want to say that (4) should be regarded as criminal negligence according to the law. Okay. But, as was the case for Charlemagne II’s objection, that’s just a value judgment on your part. It’s not a matter of fact which rational people might be obliged to acknowledge.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

As far as I know, it’s not criminal negligence according to United States law. And even if it were illegal in some particular place, to say that abortion is wrong where illegal because it is wrong to break the law is not usually the matter of concern. Rather, people want to determine the legal status of abortion, so that it will be legal or illegal, as their preference has it.

Maybe you instead want to say that (4) should be regarded as criminal negligence according to the law. Okay. But, as was the case for Charlemagne II’s objection, that’s just a value judgment on your part. It’s not a matter of fact which rational people might be obliged to acknowledge.

I’m not familiar with the law, but it seems to me like it would be criminal negligence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

Sure I can. There is nothing forcing me to value every unborn child with the same weight. I can value one unborn child more than another if the whim strikes me, and the same goes for any other person (or deity).

You can tell me what you think I should believe and how you think I should behave, but those are simply your own value judgments. If I don’t share them, or some kind of root values which can be used to support them, then that’s that.

From these two remarks it is clear that your morality is based on whim. Whatever you think is moral or immoral is moral or immoral. Whatever anyone else thinks doesn’t matter to you. Right?

 

[UnworthyApostle]

“From these two remarks it is clear that your morality is based on whim. Whatever you think is moral or immoral is moral or immoral. Whatever anyone else thinks doesn’t matter to you. Right?”

My friend, that is what is wrong with our world today. Everything is based on feelings, and not logic. Morality is based on self gratification; a woship of self you may say.

 

[hatsoff]

From these two remarks it is clear that your morality is based on whim. Whatever you think is moral or immoral is moral or immoral. Whatever anyone else thinks doesn’t matter to you. Right?

Well, the word “whim” implies carelessness and ill-appreciation, which are not usually associated with ethical positions, although they can be in some cases. I think it’s best to say instead that morals are based on passions.

 

[hatsoff]

My friend, that is what is wrong with our world today. Everything is based on feelings, and not logic. Morality is based on self gratification; a woship of self you may say.

Morality is very often involved with altruism, as it is in my case. I continually strive to treat other people with ever-greater love and respect.

 

[davidv]

Well, the word “whim” implies carelessness and ill-appreciation, which are not usually associated with ethical positions, although they can be in some cases. I think it’s best to say instead that morals are based on passions.

How are passions any less careless and ill-appreciative? Passions are often arbitrary and impulsive.