Is abortion morally acceptable

[ribozyme]

I have to address “The Great Beethoven Fallacy” (Dawkins’ words not mine):

Peter and Jean Medawar had no need to doubt the truth of the story in order to point out the fallacy of the argument: ‘The reasoning behind this odious little argument is breathtakingly fallacious, for unless it is being suggested that there is some causal connection between having a tubercular mother and a syphilitic father and given birth to a musical genius the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste abstinence from intercourse.’ The Medawars laconically scornful dismissal is unanswerable (to borrow from one of Roald Dahl’s dark short stories, an equally fortuitious decision not to abort in 1888 gave us Adolf Hitler.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. Pg. 299

I will also ask what if we know the child will not grow up into a genius? If we know that for sure, then the Beethoven argument does not confer protection to mentally retarded children. But that is a conclusion you are not willing to accept.

 

[hasikelee]

This thread displays very well the reason to agressively resist arbitrary justification to kill any human for any reason.

The reason to prevent killing another human shouldn’t be based on whether they will be another Hitler, or whether they will be healthy or disabled, or whether they will be born into a poor home or rich home.

Humanity is the base line. We all have unique human dna. We all began at one point and continued to grow from that point and worked through the same stage from zygote to morula, from embryo to fetus, from infant to adolescent, from middle age to seniority.

As long as those supporting or opposing abortion want to talk about arbitrary, subjective, changing ideals and lines to measure other humans, we are all able to kill each other and ourselves for pitiful reasons.

 

[ribozyme]

As long as those supporting or opposing abortion want to talk about arbitrary, subjective, changing ideals and lines to measure other humans, we are all able to kill each other and ourselves for pitiful reasons.

But even in Singer’s utilitarian system, we are not even free to kill other people for “pitiful reasons”. In Singer’s system, he defines utility in the terms of preference satisfaction. So according to Singer, we must consider the interests and desires of others. Of course, since most humans have a desire to live, it is wrong to kill humans for no reason.

The main strength in Singer’s ethics is that it forces us to examine other people’s interests and do what is best for them. This, obviously, appeals to an egalitarian such as myself. However, it also seems that applications of Singer’s ethics has some undesirable consequences, which are permissable in his ethical system.

Of course, merely stating the we are human is presenting the sanctity of human life in the facade of a speciestic argument. There is no compelling reason for me to accept speciesism or the sanctity of human life.

I deny the sanctity of human life, not because I think I should have the virtue of exploiting other humans on the basis that I possess some characteristic (e.g. race, intelligence), but I denied it when I realized that I have no ontological worth (besides having interests and consciousness). I realized there is nothing special about me; I am merely a natural phenomenon. It has hard for me to accept that a divine personality loves me (or anyone else).

Sometimes, I think it would make no difference whether I got aborted or not.

 

[hasikelee]

But even in Singer’s utilitarian system, we are not even free to kill other people for “pitiful reasons”. In Singer’s system, he defines utility in the terms of preference satisfaction. So according to Singer, we must consider the interests and desires of others. Of course, since most humans have a desire to live, it is wrong to kill humans for no reason.

The main strength in Singer’s ethics is that it forces us to examine other people’s interests and do what is best for them. This, obviously, appeals to an egalitarian such as myself. However, it also seems that applications of Singer’s ethics has some undesirable consequences, which are permissable in his ethical system.

Of course, merely stating the we are human is presenting the sanctity of human life in the facade of a speciestic argument. There is no compelling reason for me to accept speciesism or the sanctity of human life.

I deny the sanctity of human life, not because I think I should have the virtue of exploiting other humans on the basis that I possess some characteristic (e.g. race, intelligence), but I denied it when I realized that I have no ontological worth (besides having interests and consciousness). I realized there is nothing special about me; I am merely a natural phenomenon. It has hard for me to accept that a divine personality loves me (or anyone else).

Sometimes, I think it would make no difference whether I got aborted or not.

Oh, I am not talking about divine love or sanctity smanctity.

In terms of legal inclusion and scientific standing, there is something specific about you. Not special; specific. Specifically, you are human and science can tell us when you came into existence and when other humans come into existence.

In the arguments surrounding abortion, all of them are arbitrary, subjective and opinionated. You say your reasons are not pitiful, or rather Sanger’s. Yet that is an opinion.

The one thing that is not an opinion is a human. And that human’s existence. So any other reason to justify killing a human is not factual, fundamental or objective.

“To do what is best for them” is all smoke. That requires you deciding based on reactions from others. I am sure the stereotype of a mother ruining her child’s life to do what is best can effectively show the hole in such an argument. To caim taking control of another human on the basis of doing what is best for that human is the epitome of arbitrary justification and arrogance.

I also hear some pity or sadness creeping up inside your relativist comments, such as there being no difference whether you were aborted or not. That is certainly untrue. Just you typing words on your computer is making a difference. Here you are interacting with people. If you were not here, no one would be interacting with you. I would not be typing these exact words at this exact moment.

You’re not trying to suggest that abortion is a plausible option because nothing matters, are you? Again, this is why I said that you are not talking about secularism or scientific ideals. This is relativism pure and simple.

 

[ribozyme]

“To do what is best for them” is all smoke. That requires you deciding based on reactions from others. I am sure the stereotype of a mother ruining her child’s life to do what is best can effectively show the hole in such an argument. To caim taking control of another human on the basis of doing what is best for that human is the epitome of arbitrary justification and arrogance.

I also hear some pity or sadness creeping up inside your relativist comments, such as there being no difference whether you were aborted or not. That is certainly untrue. Just you typing words on your computer is making a difference. Here you are interacting with people. If you were not here, no one would be interacting with you. I would not be typing these exact words at this exact moment.

You’re not trying to suggest that abortion is a plausible option because nothing matters, are you? Again, this is why I said that you are not talking about secularism or scientific ideals. This is relativism pure and simple.

I do think that preference utilitarianism does have an element of “relativism” because utility is defined as satisifying our subjective preferences (or preference satisfaction). I even showed some examples in this thread from Singer’s work that confirms this (such as Singer’s arguments for infanticide and abortion). Singer says it is wrong to abort or kill an infant when the parents want the infant (killing the infant without the parents consent would violate the concept of preference utilitarianism); otherwise there is nothing intrinsically wrong about such an action.

You are using “relativism” as a derogatory word. Of course a 100% relativistic system cannot allow ethics or morality as the concepts of morality are rendered to be merely subjective preferences. This prevents us from discerning right and wrong, as we do not know whose subjective opinion carries the most weight.

If you want to criticize preference utilitarianism, you have to show that is 100% relativistic. It is not because it recommends our actions conform to increasing utility (i.e. fulfilling others preference satisfaction). If it does not satisify the principle of utility, it cannot be considered moral in utilitarian ethics.

 

[ribozyme]

I think this might be helpful (although you need a fast Internet connection):

utilitarian.net/singer/

Go to the debate with Don Marquis. Personally, I found Marquis’ arguments more compelling. I thought Singer’s objections irrelevant to Marquis’ future of value principle. By not creating more embryos from totipotent cells does not harm anyone.

Because of Marquis presentation, I am not opposed to aborting fetuses with disabilities (unless they are severely disabled that it is not possible for them to have interests). See this for an example: utilitarian.net/singer/about/20030216.htm

 

[JimG]

Singer says it is wrong to abort or kill an infant when the parents want the infant (killing the infant without the parents consent would violate the concept of preference utilitarianism); otherwise there is nothing intrinsically wrong about such an action.

It amazes me that you do not RUN from such a philosophy! There is nothing “egalitarian” about making an infant’s life or death dependent merely on the parents whim. Certainly not egalitarian from the infant’s point of view.

Utilitarianism declares that some lives are worth less than others. Some lives are worthless. What a lie!

There is no difference between that, and Hitler deciding that some people don’t meet the standard required to live by reason of their race, or their disability, or their religion. It’s still based on someone else’s whim.

Here is the baseline: ALL human beings have ontological worth. Me, you, Peter Singer, even Hitler. We must decide what to do with our intrinsic ontological worth. We decide.

(In materialist philosophy, decision is an illusion. But ontologically it is real.)

 

[ribozyme]

Opps, I meant to say that I am opposed “to aborting fetuses with disabilities”. I accidentally put “not” in my last post in this thread. For example, Harriet McBryde Johnson is disabled and she has a valuable future. Marquis’ future of value argument does not protect all fetuses though.

For the typo…

Because of Marquis’ presentation, I am not opposed to aborting fetuses with disabilities (unless they are severely disabled that it is not possible for them to have interests).

Marquis’ argument appeals to me because it evades Singer’s objections on the sanctity of life.

I thank you all for your thoughtful comments.

 

[JimG]

Ribozyme,

Some day, if you are lucky, you will meet and perhaps marry a woman who will love you just because you are you. She will love you even when you don’t deserve to be loved. She will love you because you are the only person on earth just like you. She will like that you are smart, or that you can do certain things, but she will not love you for your utility.

God bless.

 

[ribozyme]

It amazes me that you do not RUN from such a philosophy! There is nothing “egalitarian” about making an infant’s life or death dependent merely on the parents whim. Certainly not egalitarian from the infant’s point of view.

Utilitarianism declares that some lives are worth less than others. Some lives are worthless. What a lie!

There is no difference between that, and Hitler deciding that some people don’t meet the standard required to live by reason of their race, or their disability, or their religion. It’s still based on someone else’s whim.

Here is the baseline: ALL human beings have ontological worth. Me, you, Peter Singer, even Hitler. We must decide what to do with our intrinsic ontological worth. We decide.

(In materialist philosophy, decision is an illusion. But ontologically it is real.)

Well, I do not see any reason to run away from utilitarian. I think Don Marquis argued that abortion can be immoral from a utilitarian prespective although Singer disagrees with Marquis. Marquis’ argument leads us to value a fetus, even if it has a disability, because it still has future value as it has the potential to enjoy life. As pointed out by myself recently, and yourself in the past, an excellent example of this is the life of Harriet McBryde Johnson.

Jim, what do you think of the Marquis’ argument?

 

[marci]

I think this might be helpful (although you need a fast Internet connection):

utilitarian.net/singer/

Go to the debate with Don Marquis. Personally, I found Marquis’ arguments more compelling. I thought Singer’s objections irrelevant to Marquis’ future of value principle. By not creating more embryos from totipotent cells does not harm anyone.

Because of Marquis presentation, I am not opposed to aborting fetuses with disabilities (unless they are severely disabled that it is not possible for them to have interests). See this for an example: utilitarian.net/singer/about/20030216.htm

I am so sad for you, ribozyme. I will not try to argue with you anymore about the morality of abortion from the utilitarian viewpoint, nor a spiritual one for that matter.

I will only say that I believe you are a special and precious being created in the image of God the Father, as are we all. From the saddest invilid to the strongest athlete, from the poorest peasant to the richest king, we are all born with sin, but our heavenly Father promises salvation to all who seek Him.

I will pray for you, that you may experience the peace of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I will pray that your heart will be touched by the Blessed Mother so that she may instill in you the hope that each new life brings, just as the Fruit of her womb brought hope to the whole world.

I will pray for you during the consecration at mass, that the Holy Spirit will direct your intellect to reconcile your reason with faith, and that you may find the truth you seek in our Merciful Savior.

In Christ,

Marci

 

[ribozyme]

I am so sad for you, ribozyme. I will not try to argue with you anymore about the morality of abortion from the utilitarian viewpoint, nor a spiritual one for that matter.

I will only say that I believe you are a special and precious being created in the image of God the Father, as are we all. From the saddest invilid to the strongest athlete, from the poorest peasant to the richest king, we are all born with sin, but our heavenly Father promises salvation to all who seek Him.

I will pray for you, that you may experience the peace of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I will pray that your heart will be touched by the Blessed Mother so that she may instill in you the hope that each new life brings, just as the Fruit of her womb brought hope to the whole world.

I will pray for you during the consecration at mass, that the Holy Spirit will direct your intellect to reconcile your reason with faith, and that you may find the truth you seek in our Merciful Savior.

In Christ,

Marci

I see were you quoted a thread where I made a typo… I meant to say I was opposed to aborting disabled… I accidentally put a “not” so please omit the “not” in the third paragraph. I hope this does not change your perception of me. I most certainly find Singer’s arguments against the notion of the sanctity of life compelling, but despite this I think one can argue that abortion is immortal from a secular perspective.

Reconciling intellect with Christian faith. I do not think they mix well. The skeptical epistemology of empiricism is incompatible with religion faith.

 

[marci]

I see were you quoted a thread where I made a typo… I meant to say I was opposed to aborting disabled… I accidentally put a “not” so please omit the “not” in the third paragraph. I hope this does not change your perception of me. I most certainly find Singer’s arguments against the notion of the sanctity of life compelling, but despite this I think one can argue that abortion is immortal from a secular perspective.

Reconciling intellect with Christian faith. I do not think they mix well. The skeptical epistemology of empiricism is incompatible with religion faith.

If you don’t mind, I will pray for you just the same.

 

[BobCatholic]

I do not think Singer is an evil person who wants to define all of humanity’s personhood away.

No. He’s just dehumanizing newborns. Someone else will take his work and take the next logical step.

Remember that WW2 saying I posted.

 

[BobCatholic]

The main strength in Singer’s ethics is that it forces us to examine other people’s interests and do what is best for them. This, obviously, appeals to an egalitarian such as myself.

How does dehumanizing one group of human beings appeal to an egalitarian? If it is permissable to dehumanize one, it is permissable to dehumanize many. Human rights for all or for none. There cannot be any in between.

 

[ribozyme]

How does dehumanizing one group of human beings appeal to an egalitarian? If it is permissable to dehumanize one, it is permissable to dehumanize many. Human rights for all or for none. There cannot be any in between.

But Singer does not “dehumanize” anyone. He states some groups of people should not be considered “persons” because they lack certain traits.

 

[JMJDevotee]

Who is he to make such a judgement?? All life matters, especially to God. And bc life is so important to Him, it should be that important to us.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[BobCatholic]

But Singer does not “dehumanize” anyone. He states some groups of people should not be considered “persons” because they lack certain traits.

Like what?

The little ones are 100% human beings. They have human DNA and are of the genus homo sapiens.

By denying this, he is going against science and dehumanizing the little ones.

The language he uses sounds exactly like what the Klan said about blacks.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Who is he to make such a judgement?? All life matters, especially to God. And bc life is so important to Him, it should be that important to us.

Pax Vobiscum

Clearly Peter Singer is someone Ribozyme respects very much… which is why he is always quoting him and his theories…

Mr. Singer appears to be a very interesting guy… that is, if you’re into beastiality and all…

The guy has some pretty whacked-out ideas… not even worth an argument in my book…

Peace.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Well, I do not see any reason to run away from utilitarian. I think Don Marquis argued that abortion can be immoral from a utilitarian prespective although Singer disagrees with Marquis. Marquis’ argument leads us to value a fetus, even if it has a disability, because it still has future value as it has the potential to enjoy life. As pointed out by myself recently, and yourself in the past, an excellent example of this is the life of Harriet McBryde Johnson.

Jim, what do you think of the Marquis’ argument?

What about the preference values of others besides the Parents? Grandpapa and Grandmama or me or Joe down the street? They all may have a preference value for life for that poor kid in the womb. Why is their value overridden by the mother’s value? Why does she have special rights just because she’s carrying the kid?

Does power come into play here? Mom has power over the fetus because she has the kid in her that’s why she gets to kill the kid? Does this belief system come down to naked power defining whose preference value gets chosen?

Stalin made a preference value choice that a lotta people needed to be killed. Why is his preference value more or less worthy than others?

Who defines value? Those with voice (power). So abortion is a natural focal point for this philosophy for none are so powerless than the unborn.

I think even if I did not have faith, I would still have to be Christian just for the attractiveness and utilitarian value of it’s belief system. Utilitarian in that it combines as another poster stated the whole person, the aesthetic and emtional and spiritual, while also giving meaning to discounted experiences such as suffering by most other philosophies and religions.