A Philosophical Debate On The Problem Of Abortion

[Prodigal_Son]

Why does everyone do that here? You insult my intelligence, and then you plaster a smily at the end of it. It’s like punching someone in the gut and then handing them a box of chocolates. Do you think you could be more consistent?

Whenever I insult people’s intelligence, I like to put a at the end. It distracts them, and then I can slip in my mind-bogglingly indestructible arguments while they’ve got tomato on their hands.

There is no difference between a pending being and a potential being, as both are developing and are not actually significant at their current stage. I assume you understand that there is a difference between potentiality and actuality.

I just have a single question for you, Oreo. What’s the difference between a baby born at five months gestational age and a baby in utero at five months gestational age? Aside from the fact that the one (hopefully!) can breathe through its lungs, is there a difference?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why does everyone do that here? You insult my intelligence, and then you plaster a smily at the end of it. It’s like punching someone in the gut and then handing them a box of chocolates. Do you think you could be more consistent?

I think that i am very consistent. You too. The main difference being that all the arguments you have made are either flawed because they misrepresent my arguement or the meaning of words within a particular context, or they are just assertions that you claim to be correct. No, I think you are trying to insult my intelligence.

No, it is you who is heeding the old adage “If you run into a contradiction, make a distinction!” There is no difference between a pending being and a potential being, as both are developing and are not actually significant at their current stage. I assume you understand that there is a difference between potentiality and actuality.

Seriously, look them up. “Pending” and “potential” are synonyms. To say that one stage of potentiality is more important than another is entirely arbitrary.

A human embryo by functionality of its nature, has a human being as its functional end and is thus a necessary reality of the human embryo in terms of functionality and productivity. It is, productively speaking, the early development of a human being/person and will develop as such, until another human being who has been through the same process decides to destroy the embryo. Before pregnancy, the existence of a person is just a possibility that doesn’t have to happen in so far as it doesn’t follow necessarily as a function of somethings progressive nature. Its something that might happen if two people decide to have sex. The main difference between the two, is that in the first place you are destroying that which is productively speaking the development of a person in terms of the embryos functional end; and i think we both know this to be true. In the second place, before the event of a pregnancy there is no chemical production in place that leads necessarily to the construction of a baby; thus one is not destroying the biological development of a child by deciding not to have sex, because the child’s existence is only a possibility given that the correct events are put in place. One is not destroying that which is in the process of becoming a fully grown baby. An embryo is not just a potential child; its a pending reality. The words Pending and Potentiality in this respect is not synonymous, and nothing you say is going to change that. I am sorry if this upsets you. I have explained why they are different in respect of the human embryo. If you do not agree, thats fine, but nothing you have said here goes beyond the mere assertion that you know better.

 

[Oreoracle]

Whenever I insult people’s intelligence, I like to put a at the end. It distracts them, and then I can slip in my mind-bogglingly indestructible arguments while they’ve got tomato on their hands.

No! He distracted me with the cheesy goodness!

I just have a single question for you, Oreo. What’s the difference between a baby born at five months gestational age and a baby in utero at five months gestational age? Aside from the fact that the one (hopefully!) can breathe through its lungs, is there a difference?

I actually don’t approve of aborting after three months (unless the mother’s in danger). You see, I believe a being has moral worth when it becomes sentient. I’ve searched for the time that the fetus becomes sentient on the internet, and it seems to vary from 2-5 months. I’ve decided to give the pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt and make 3 months my cut-off line, as it is closer to 2 months than 5 months. (I think it’s safe to say that pro-life sites will claim it takes 2 months while pro-choice sites will say 5 months. And the agendas live on…)

I guess you were expecting a different response?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I actually don’t approve of aborting after three months (unless the mother’s in danger). You see, I believe a being has moral worth when it becomes sentient. I’ve searched for the time that the fetus becomes sentient on the internet, and it seems to vary from 2-5 months. I’ve decided to give the pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt and make 3 months my cut-off line, as it is closer to 2 months than 5 months. (I think it’s safe to say that pro-life sites will claim it takes 2 months while pro-choice sites will say 5 months. And the agendas live on…)

I guess you were expecting a different response?

I wasn’t really expecting any particular response. I just wanted to make sure you are being reasonable.

Drawing the line at consciousness/sentience has the advantage – to the utilitarian – that it has theoretical coherence. The problem, as you mentioned, is where exactly that line is drawn.

Also, consider an adult who receives anesthesia. He is awake during surgery, and yet does not remember anything afterward. We consider this moral, do we not? So, as far as pain goes, it seems we do not have a problem inflicting pain (or perhaps even terror) so long as this pain cannot be remembered (and, perhaps, isn’t experienced rationally). Is it consistent, then, to make such fuss about the pain of a fetus?

In essence, I am trying to push the issue. I myself think the only clear dividing lines are either a) the Catholic view, that it is incumbent upon the human person to consider life sacred from conception, or b) Singer’s view, that one becomes a person when they are self-conscious and capable of dread (roughly, 2 years old). The first view requires an ethic of *reverence *(to use Kant’s term); the second view entails the possibility of ethical infanticide.

 

[Betterave]

I wasn’t really expecting any particular response. I just wanted to make sure you are being reasonable.

Drawing the line at consciousness/sentience has the advantage – to the utilitarian – that it has theoretical coherence. The problem, as you mentioned, is where exactly that line is drawn.

Also, consider an adult who receives anesthesia. He is awake during surgery, and yet does not remember anything afterward. We consider this moral, do we not? So, as far as pain goes, it seems we do not have a problem inflicting pain (or perhaps even terror) so long as this pain cannot be remembered (and, perhaps, isn’t experienced rationally). Is it consistent, then, to make such fuss about the pain of a fetus?

In essence, I am trying to push the issue. I myself think the only clear dividing lines are either a) the Catholic view, that it is incumbent upon the human person to consider life sacred from conception, or b) Singer’s view, that one becomes a person when they are self-conscious and capable of dread (roughly, 2 years old). The first view requires an ethic of *reverence *(to use Kant’s term); the second view entails the possibility of ethical infanticide.

Ah, but why target just continuance of biological life for reverence? Why not have reverence for feminine corporal autonomy or for sexual liberation or for value autonomy or for the overweening holiness of the ‘maximum amount of overall happiness’? Why can’t we reverently kill children? Ahab did, many cultures have, even some modern abortionists, from what I understand, try to import a little reverence into their work (in the form of funerals and grief-counseling). We humans have reasons for ‘reverently’ killing adults sometimes, why not children and babies too? (I’m pushing the issue too… in case you didn’t notice!)

 

[Oreoracle]

I think that i am very consistent. You too. The main difference being that all the arguments you have made are either flawed because they misrepresent my arguement or the meaning of words within a particular context, or they are just assertions that you claim to be correct. No, I think you are trying to insult my intelligence.

You mean that I present your argument as clearly as possible and you don’t like it? Yes, I suppose if an argument makes no sense the best you could hope for is for people to not see it as it is so that they might have a chance of accepting it.

Until it is actual, a sentient being, in any other form, is only potential. You’re only asserting that the fetus must be valuable because it is at the stage in potentiality where it has physical form. You’ve completely disregarded my analogy of returning a rented movie that illustrates the absurdity of your argument and others like it. As an idea or as a cluster of cells, the fetus is not a sentient being for at least a couple of months. It doesn’t matter how close it is to being sentient so long as it isn’t.

Before pregnancy, the existence of a person is just a possibility that doesn’t have to happen in so far as it doesn’t follow necessarily as a function of somethings progressive nature.

True, but the same applies to the fetus. It is clearly part of our progressive nature to decide whether others will come to exist or not, since we’ve made these decisions for quite some time (throughout human history). What you’re doing here is simply an appeal to the “natural way”: you are arbitrarily dictating what is natural and what is not and then considering nature the moral standard without any explanation as to why. Everything that is, is natural. To suggest otherwise is to say that certain things are above nature. Is abortion unnatural? Is it supernatural? Why? Everything I see seems to be governed by predictable laws of nature, abortion included.

 

[Betterave]

True, but the same applies to the fetus. It is clearly part of our progressive nature to decide whether others will come to exist or not, since we’ve made these decisions for quite some time (throughout human history). What you’re doing here is simply an appeal to the “natural way”: you are arbitrarily dictating what is natural and what is not and then considering nature the moral standard without any explanation as to why. Everything that is, is natural. To suggest otherwise is to say that certain things are above nature. Is abortion unnatural? Is it supernatural? Why? Everything I see seems to be governed by predictable laws of nature, abortion included.

Exactly! There’s no reason why we shouldn’t beat our wives when they’re disobedient or expose our unwanted children, especially baby girls (and especially when we’ve started worrying about over-population so much). Such activities have gone on for-like-ever, they are totally predictable laws of nature, and people who think there are ‘moral laws’ against this kind of stuff should get bent. The one small error, Oreo, is that it has never been just about whether others come to exist or not, it has always also been about whether we allow them to continue to exist - that’s nature’s way! That’s why I get so mad when people beat up on Hitler: don’t they realize that there have been homicidal ‘supermen’ throughout human history? Such characters are natural, not supernatural, and there’s nothing demonic about Auschwitz or divine about Jesus of Nazareth. Everything’s just natural. Even the consistent belief, throughout human history (it’s soo predictable!), that not everything is ‘just natural’ - that’s just natural too.

 

[Oreoracle]

Exactly! There’s no reason why we shouldn’t beat our wives when they’re disobedient or expose our unwanted children, especially baby girls (and especially when we’ve started worrying about over-population so much). Such activities have gone on for-like-ever, they are totally predictable laws of nature…

What you quoted pertained to metaphysics, not ethics, so why don’t you take your sarcasm and shove it?

And no, the behaviors are not laws of nature, but they have occured as a result of predictable forces, called natural laws, being at work throughout history.

and people who think there are ‘moral laws’ against this kind of stuff should get bent.

We (all sentient beings, God included if he exists) create the laws. They are not objective and so they can’t be discovered as physical laws can. This is simply because morals do not describe the world as it is but rather assert how it should be.

The one small error, Oreo, is that it has never been just about whether others come to exist or not, it has always also been about whether we allow them to continue to exist - that’s nature’s way! That’s why I get so mad when people beat up on Hitler: don’t they realize that there have been homicidal ‘supermen’ throughout human history? Such characters are natural, not supernatural, and there’s nothing demonic about Auschwitz or divine about Jesus of Nazareth. Everything’s just natural. Even the consistent belief, throughout human history (it’s soo predictable!), that not everything is ‘just natural’ - that’s just natural too.

Define “natural.”

 

[Betterave]

What you quoted pertained to metaphysics, not ethics, so why don’t you take your sarcasm and shove it?

Well, well! Sorry you took it that way, I know it sounded sarcastic, but it was supposed to be a valid reductio ad absurdum of your view. Hopefully you can try to see that.

You wrote and I quoted: “It is clearly part of our progressive nature to decide…etc.” What do you mean by saying that what I quoted pertained to metaphysics, not ethics? That sounds like a very strange ad hoc kind of assertion to me! But maybe you have some defensible, just very idiosyncratic, way of dividing ethics and metaphysics. Please share. (Most people would take it to be obvious that metaphysics has very important implications for ethics, especially metaphysical questions surrounding the person, agency, free will, God, immortality, etc.)

 

[Betterave]

And no, the behaviors are not laws of nature, but they have occured as a result of predictable forces, called natural laws, being at work throughout history.

We (all sentient beings, God included if he exists) create the laws. They are not objective and so they can’t be discovered as physical laws can. This is simply because morals do not describe the world as it is but rather assert how it should be.

I’m sorry, but I thought that your first sentence here was my point!

To your second point, please explain:

1. How do moral laws escape your metaphysical naturalism?
2. Are you a moral realist? (You can’t be, surely!) Do you really mean to say that morals (really) assert how the world should be… or just that they are (subjective) assertions about how the world should be, assertions which are the result of the working of natural laws (and that, really, there is no particular way the world should be - it is just the result of a natural process - it is a big fat ‘IS’, and not an ‘ought’)?
3. How does your claiming that laws are non-‘objective’ (whatever you mean by that) creations of sentient beings help you to escape my reductio ad absurdum?

(As for a definition of ‘natural’, perhaps we should let that emerge in the course of the debate.)

 

[MindOverMatter]

You mean that I present your argument as clearly as possible and you don’t like it?

You present them in the way you want them to appear. In other words you have been making straw-men and redefining the meaning of words, so you can make it appear as if you have defeated the arguement. Anybody who can think clearly and read clearly will see my point. It is evident that you are avoiding a clear fact that i have explained several times in clear detail. The best that you can do is say that words don’t mean what they have always meant, in order to avoid the implication of my arguement.

Yes, I suppose if an argument makes no sense the best you could hope for is for people to not see it as it is so that they might have a chance of accepting it.

Anybody with enough sense and honesty will see that you are refusing to see the differential distinction between an embryo that is producing a person and the potentiality to become pregnant; and that refusal amounts to nothing more then a baseless denial and a confusion about how potentiality meaningfully applies in different and particular situations and what that means given the immediate reality of a productive process that acts for a distinct end.

Until it is actual, a sentient being, in any other form, is only potential.

When a women becomes pregnant, the resultant human embryo is in the act of becoming a living person. There is a distinct end in that process which most of us believe to be of value and understand to be personal, whether we are atheist or Christians, because we value a particular good which is the preservation of human life. All of us are the immediate and functional end of that embryonic process. I perceive people to be of value because thats what good caring responsible people believe, and thus i believe that any process that leads necessarily to a person in terms of function and end to be of intrinsic value because of that end, which is a living person, you and me. Just like killing a walking talking child, it is obvious to me that if you stop the embryonic process we destroy and prevent the productive life of a person whom would have eventually been walking and talking.

If you value people, you will not knowingly destroy me now in the present and neither would you destroy any development that leads necessarily to me once production is in effect. Similarly, if you and i both had key “knowledge” of events that necessarily led to my existence or your existence in the here and now, you wouldn’t want that knowledge to fall in to the hands of an evil time lord who had the power to destroy those events (thats assuming that you value your life in the here and now. I certainly do). This is a very simple, clear and responsible moral ethic, whether you believe in God or not; so long as you care about human beings. Anybody who is not a nihilist will see the good reasoning that is behind this.

You’re only asserting that the fetus must be valuable because it is at the stage in potentiality where it has physical form.

I suggest you keep re-reading my posts until you understand otherwise. Or admit that your a nihilist and admit that you don’t value human beings unless they give you a sensory buzz. If human beings have no value then there is nothing wrong with killing children regardless of whether they are born or not, and pro-choice activists are just as irrational for believing that they have any moral right to be valued as people beyond a fallacy or fantasy.

As an idea or as a cluster of cells, the fetus is not a sentient being for at least a couple of months.

Its irrelevant. One could argue that a person in a coma is not sentient, but merely has the potentiality for sentient activity. A person asleep is not talking or telling jokes or making you feel good about your meaningless existence. But rational people don’t claim that their lives are thus worthless and thus it is acceptable to remove their brains. Their functional end is “sentience”; and that is enough to render you arguments as being fundamentally fallacious.

It doesn’t matter how close it is to being sentient so long as it isn’t.

You keep making straw-men, but they don’t fool reasonable people. It seems to me that you are the one that is arbitrarily deciding what is morally acceptable and what isn’t.

True, but the same applies to the fetus.

Do you even know what a fetus is?

Is a fetus in the act of becoming a living person?

Google wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

It is clearly part of our progressive nature to decide whether others will come to exist or not.

Its our natural capacity to make choices in general. This in its self does not mean that therefore it is okay’s to choose whether you live or die at ones whim. Saying that one has the natural capacity to kill human beings, does not mean that its in our biological nature to kill human-beings. People have a choice. I think most reasonable people would agree with that.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter]

you are arbitrarily dictating what is natural and what is not

No i am not. I am merely pointing out what is true of nature in reality according to my experience. You are merely pointing out what is dictated to you by naturalism, and you are willing to swallow it because it suits you to swallow it simply because it serves your own personal invented end and agenda. I seek things that benefit me to, but I accept philosophical positions according to that which ultimately maximizes the good and welfare of human beings as a whole in respect of that which is reasonable and at the very least does not contradict human experience. The philosophical positions we choose can reflect our agenda and moral standing as people as-well as our ability to reason.

and then considering nature the moral standard without any explanation as to why.

Thankfully there are people in existence whom value the greater good of humanity as a whole (that which is greater then ones self interests), “blood donors” included. This is a debate between people who value the good such as the moral dignity of people. Its not, i agree, a debate that should take place between a nihilist and somebody who is willing to believe in right and wrong. If you truly and honestly value the greater good, then you will believe in it absolutely, and you follow it to its necessary end, despite its philosophical implications or any sacrifices it might force you to make. You would not chop and change as it suited you, or redefine the meaning of good as it suited you.

Everything that is, is natural. To suggest otherwise is to say that certain things are above nature.

First of all, besides the fact of whether or not there is really such a thing as moral truth, saying that everything that exists is “natural”, is not necessarily the same as saying that everything is “physical”. That is something you assume because you are use to hearing people speak of the physical in terms of the natural and the immaterial as supernatural. This is relatively true in terms of the greater to the lesser or contingent. But in reality that which is natural can be interpreted as that which is simply real as opposed to not real. One can speak of the natural state of things or the natural powers of things, and that might not have anything to do with that which is physical. In which case we can speak of different “types of nature”; for instance God is an “essential nature” or a “transcendent personal nature”. The contents of nature is a different question. However when we use the term “natural” in terms of physical events, scientists mean the physical state of things but they also mean events that occur or take place with out intellectual interference. Such is evident when one says that this event occurred naturally as opposed to “intelligent design”; volition. The point is there are different ways in which we can use the term “natural”. It is not exclusive to the physical.

The very discussion of about whether people should have abortions or not, presumes that there is such a thing as right and wrong and more fundamentally “freewill”, and people have these discussions because peoples experiences and feelings tend to suggest this to them despite what you think the real origin of such feelings and experiences might be. Most people on both sides believe that a violation of a real good is taking place. They believe that when one is found raping a small child, that this act is wrong, and that their belief that such an act is wrong is a “true” belief. Whether you want to accept it or not, both opponents are displaying a “metaphysical belief” that implies explicitly the existence of a transcendent good, which takes human beings far beyond the mere physical interaction of atoms, or “nature” as you interpret it to be. Like you and other posters have implied, if there is no good, then there is only “nature”; but this debate an’t about the objectivity or universality of morality. Thats a debate for another thread.

Another straw-man defeated.

Everything I see seems to be governed by predictable laws of nature, abortion included.

No scientist has ever claimed or proven that according to the empirical evidence all our actions are governed by the predictable laws of nature, abortion included. Any scientist that says otherwise, is practicing metaphysics; not science. Any claim to an intellectual proof that has come at the result of a person whom believes himself to have acted freely and thinks freely in the pursuit of such a proof is not to be taken seriously. He is to be thought of as even more delusional if he thinks that he can convince a free thinker, or to even know that what he or she has is proof, since each one of his or her thoughts is supposedly dictated by predictable laws, and thus they cannot voluntarily check. So again, it seems you are blindly following the garbage residue of philosophical naturalism. This very debate assumes freewill and freethinking. My experience, and the experiences of many others, including those who freely choose to do science and engage in debates such as these, strongly implies the opposite to what you are claiming.

Another straw-man defeated.

 

[Oreoracle]

As immature as you are, MoM, I really wanted to give you a thorough response. But that’s going to have to wait. My grandmother has been hurt. Bad. Even if I had time to post, I’m not the most friendly person right now, if you know what I mean.

I did want to comment on one thing before I go to see her. In your post, you quoted me as saying “Is the fetus in the act of becoming a person?” After reading my actual post, I didn’t see that question. You made it up just to make me look stupid. You quite literally put words in my mouth. Care to apologize?

 

[MindOverMatter]

As immature as you are, MoM, I really wanted to give you a thorough response. But that’s going to have to wait. My grandmother has been hurt. Bad. Even if I had time to post, I’m not the most friendly person right now, if you know what I mean.

I’m sorry to hear about your grandmother. I honestly hope things will turn out for the better. God bless.

I did want to comment on one thing before I go to see her. In your post, you quoted me as saying “Is the fetus in the act of becoming a person?” After reading my actual post, I didn’t see that question. You made it up just to make me look stupid. You quite literally put words in my mouth. Care to apologize?

All i did was “quote” your post, and that was what i saw on the quote-edit-page. I could not believe it my self when i saw it, you are obviously more intelligent then that; otherwise you would not have lasted this long. You are going to have to take my word for it that it was not my intention to be deceptive.

Peace be with you.

 

[Oreoracle]

You’re missing the point. What you quoted wasn’t anywhere in the post. I didn’t type that. I’ve read the post three times and I don’t see it. It wasn’t even a valid summary of any of my objections.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You’re missing the point. What you quoted wasn’t anywhere in the post. I didn’t type that. I’ve read the post three times and I don’t see it.

Then God knows what happened, because i had nothing to do with it. All i did was Quote the post, and respond to it. Take it as you wish.

 

[Oreoracle]

Then God knows what happened, because i had nothing to do with it. All i did was Quote the post, and respond to it. Take it as you wish.

I believe you, then. Come to think of it, since you seem to worry about what the audience thinks so much, it would be stupid of you to misquote me, as this would surely ruin your credibility. Given that, I don’t see why you would do it, so I guess you didn’t.

I’ll be back to reply later. I hope you weren’t offended that I accused you. If you were in my position, I imagine you would have responded similarly.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I see no benefit in accusing you. Perhaps its something which i wrote in the barrage of words, which i forgot about as i went to address other parts of your post, and then mistakenly thought it was yours as i began pasting the quote tags around specific sections of your post. I have a slight headache at the moment and i can be absent minded sometimes. In which case i honestly apologize to you ore-oracle, but i assure that it is in my best interests to reveal the truth about abortion in an honest fashion. It would be hurtful to me if people started thinking i was doing deceptive things such as what you imply. I have no interest in being deceptive. I am smart enough to know that a good reputation is everything for a philosopher.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’ll be back to reply later. I hope you weren’t offended that I accused you. If you were in my position, I imagine you would have responded similarly.

If it were me, i would be very upset. And if the error was my fault then i humbly apologize, and i hope that not to much damage has been done to my credibility.

 

[Betterave]

I am smart enough to know that a good reputation is everything for a philosopher.

I don’t know what it has to do with smart, but I’m sure Plato (and/or Socrates) was smarter than any of us and he seemed to believe that the philosopher doesn’t care at all about his reputation, he is in love with the true and the good, the opinions of slavish men don’t interest him at all.