Abortion - Focused on a Particular Question

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This is one of those issues that is talked to death and where people can’t help but jump right into the issue itself when it is brought up, rather than focus discussion on a single aspect of the argument. But I’m going to try.

In the mainstream abortion debate I find the two sides talking completely past eachother. The mainstream “pro choice” side keeps asserting the right of the mother to choose, without even seeming to address the question of whether the fetus may be considered a person or not. The mainstream “pro life” side keeps asserting that it is immoral to terminate a pregnancy under most or all circumstances, focusing on the right to existence of the fetus analogous to born humans in a society. They fail to addresss the “realities” and predicaments that many women face when pregnant.

I don’t see the mainstream debate as recognizing that there is likely a “first question” or “priority question” to resolve FIRST in the abortion debate before determining it’s morality. If we don’t I can’t see how there can ever be any real discussion in the mainstream debate (and maybe there never will be).

So we basically have abortion arguments that are fetus-centered or involve the “right to life” question and those that are “mother-centered” or involve the “right to choose”. Since neither appear to have an intersect, I think one group of arguments must be prior to the other in deciding the issue once and for all. So I think to myself - what questions need to be resolved first, whether the fetus has a right to life or whether the mother has a right to choose? The answer to this question will depend on many factors, not the least of which will be that which identifies more fundamental rights consistent with the moral practice of our society.

Now before I weigh in on this myself, I want to point out that, regardless of what group of questions you feel are more paramount (if you accept my reasoning that one group must hold priority over the other) it DOES NOT REQUIRE you to conclude that abortion should be generally allowed or generally prohibited. For instance, you can find that the “right to life” group of questions are more paramount yet believe that abortion should be allowed because the fetus does not possess those qualities that justify a right to life sufficient to overthrow the mother’s right to choose. Conversely, you can believe that the “right to choose” questions are more fundamental to the debate yet still try to create a social framework that discourages the choice by providing government assistance to unwed mothers, etc, all based on the principle that the fetus should have every chance to be born, or feel that the choice should be limited in some ways based on your analysis of the type of choice being made.

In short, I maintain that the “right to life” questions have priority to be resolved over the “right to choose” questions because:

  1. It is consistent with current moral practice that when evaluating the morality of a particular action the question centers around whether or not the action is justified when weighed against the rights of the subject itself to life. For example, when sentencing a criminal that criminal’s own rights as a person are weighed against the nature of the crime to determine punishment. No one would say that a serial killer would have the right to choose murder as being paramount. Only after the rights of the criminal against the crime are evaluated may the criminals rights to choose come into play.

  2. It is consistent with the fact that laws by definition restrict choice in many ways in order to protect what are deemed to be more fundamental rights. I don’t have the right to choose where to park my car, and there are no unanswered questions as to rights to life in such instances, let alone instances in which rights to life are in questions.

  3. It is consistent with the practice in similar moral questions debated in history. For example, the American slavery debate in the 19th century was a debate between the rights of the individual states and its members to choose slavery vs. the rights to life and happiness of the prospective slave. Don’t think I bring up slavery because I think it also supports prohibiting abortion. It is important to note that even though the right to life of the slave was determined to be the more predominant question to answer, it did not settle the fact at that time of whether African Americans had the same rights as white people. It took 100 more years for that to be recognized. In the case of abortion, the “right to life” questions may be more predominant but you still may conclude that the fetus does not have a right to life or the same degree of such a right, thereby concluding that abortion is allowable in most or a few circumstances.

Because I feel this way, i think there is one telling implication if you believe that the right to life question predominates - you cannot be of the belief that “I think abortion is wrong personally but others have the right to do it” and maintain you are consistent with years of moral practice and jurisprudence in this society. If you believe the right to life question predominates, you’re personal beliefs must be aligned with your belief for what is right for everyone. For instance, it is horribly inconsistent in our society to say that “a person who commits serial murder with no mitigating circumstances may be objectionable to me but it cannot be legislated against”; this is because you would not allow yourself to be murdered at the whim of the murderer, so your statement is morally contradictory.

If you belive the right to choose category predominates, then I believe that you have already concluded that the right to life question is settled mostly or completely against the fetus, otherwise you run into the moral absurdity identifed in the preceding paragraph.

Of course it is utopian to even think that both sides can agree on even this question, but logically I believe it is the starting point based on how the mainstream debate has proceeded and it also tries to prevent the “talking past eachother” phenomenon which has arisen from so much animosity over the issue.

2

From the way you made your arguments, this is already a poisoned well discussion. I really don’t know why you want to discuss it, since you’ve already set up the arguments for both sides for the purposes of an anti-choice agenda.

3

I’m not a big fan of pro-choice, but if the mother life is in danger then she has the right to abort the fetus.

4

Just because the OP sets it up his way, is no reason to accept his set up.

I do not, because as a Buddhist, more primary questions are 1) What effects, if any, beyond social or legal would occur? 2) Is human life confined to one lifetime? 3) Does the act alone determine any effects, or does motive come into play? 4) Why “rights” centered polarity; are there other ways to frame the approaches?

etcetera

5

Why does the OP define abortion as aborting the fetus, when most abortions occur during embryonic stages of development?

Because a fetus looks more like a “Person”?

6

Well, conflating morality with jurisprudence can lead to confusion. I might not park on a corner (that’s otherwise legal) because I believe it’s a dangerous place to do so, and I may petition the council to rezone the area according to my beliefs, but others have the right to park there. There is right and wrong, and good and bad, and the two don’t always coincide (unless you’re a hardline deontologist).

If you wish to engage in the argument rather than talk past others, you can hold tentative beliefs that you do not think should override others’ rights. I may believe that a foetus should probably be granted personhood after the first trimester, but concede that my definition is based on gut feeling - or one of many values, or that the protections accorded to personhood are gradual and not discrete, or whatever - and hold a higher limit (say, 20 weeks) as an acceptable minimum for a social rule, given the rights that are weighed against it. Yet still feel that abortion under 13 weeks should be allowed, while choosing personally not to exceed that and advising/guiding others not to.

Laws are grey and mutable at the edges (unless you’re a hardline deontologist) - what’s ‘acceptable use of force’? What would a ‘reasonable person’ do under such circumstances? I don’t think it’s unreasonable or hypocritical to hold yourself to higher standards than you demand as an ethical social minimum.

Your example is some way from the grey edges of law, it must be admitted!

It’s not a binary state; life doesn’t always trump choice, choice doesn’t always trump life. It’s a weighted balance. Unless… you’re a hardline deontologist.

This particular question hinges on foetal personhood. There’s no demonstrable right answer, as personhood is a moral status and/or a legal one. Faith and politics will determine what you take to be axiomatic, which leads to talking past each other for as long as the debate is conducted in terms of choice and life. I think the only possible way to engender agreement would be to shift the debate to other terms… but practically speaking, since faith is so deeply involved the only way to reach agreement will be to agree with the faithful, as their position is intractable to reasoning. And since you have intractability on both sides of the equation, I don’t see moral agreement as a realistic option.

I don’t see that at all. Rasava certainly did nothing so well-poisoning as to shift to the ‘anti-choice’/‘anti-life’ terminology implicit in the discussion!

7

I accept the concern you raise, and so from now on in this thread I will try to say “zygote/embryo/fetus” instead, or something similar.

I actually do not believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus has an unqualified right to life equivalent to you and me. I am in between “abortion on demand” and “every sperm is sacred.” I have a philosophical concern in asking this question that expands beyond the scope of abortion alone. So can we move away from responses that raise any concerns of my “ulterior motive”? I think doing otherwise would take away from discussing this or any heated issue with the appropriate reasoning and care one would expect in a forum like ILP.

8

To the OP:

i believe the paramount question is whether or not the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, and i believe the answer is a resounding no. in short, acorns are not oak trees.

the question then becomes: does a thing with the potential to become a person have the same right to life as an actual person? - again, i believe the answer is no. the real person (i.e. the mother)'s rights ought to trump any rights we might assign to the potential person.

as such, i don’t see any non-religious or legal basis upon which to assert that the mother has an intrinsic obligation to protect the zygote/embyo/fetus she is carrying. any obligation she has is one that she, as an autonomous individual, must personally adopt for herself.

9

“Person” is a legal/moral description, attributed to certain things - most clearly, adult human beings. If you choose to attribute personhood to embryos, then embryos are people. But it’s not a physical description of any state, like acorn or oak tree. In the past, in other societies, personhood has been denied to all sorts of groupings of adult human beings.

I’m not stating that z/e/fs are persons, but the confusion between the legal and colloquial usage of ‘person’ is an important one to avoid.

Or perhaps more accurately the question is “at what point should the potential person’s rights outweigh the mother’s”? But it’s an important point, that we assign the rights.

She most definitely has a legal obligation after the baby is delivered - most societies have child neglect/abuse laws in place. Should this obligation be in place from the point at which abortion becomes illegal?

Edit: apologies to the OP if this post removes the focus on the particular question.

10

That is true in SOME societies, but infanticide is practiced in many others. So too child abandonment where life is cheap and resources scarce.

I can’t see the issue of abortion being decided or even discussed rationally. I doubt that it ever will be. The divide isn’t about making rational decisions, it is about irrational religious beliefs and just as irrational secular ideas of morality. Anyone who is caught in the middle is damned by both sides, and discussion just becomes one of defensive proclamations by everyone caught up in the issue.

Eventually, the issue will be decided by over-population and social costs. Right now, we can’t even do stem cell research if the zygote is destroyed in the process. There is absolutely nothing rational going on here. When life becomes cheap enough, the issue will solve itself, but not until then.

11

The fetus is functionally equivalent to a parasite, as such It’s right to life, if it has one, is conditioned by the hosts own life. Further, Considering that the fetus’ relationship to the mother is quite contrary to the mothers survival, this is not a straightforward case of “right to life”. Supporting the right to life of a fetus is also a cooling off of the right to life of the mother.

If your all about “right to life” considerations, then fine. But we’re dealing with two life’s here, and disregard for the mothers does the exact opposite of show the force of the “right to life” argument.

12

Like all things in existence, why does it have to be black and white? Where does life begin and end? It’s arbitrary and human to choose a precise moment when people are born and die. To me, someone who’s had severe brain damage is in some sense dead already. It’s not as if Zeus appears from the heavens sometime during a womans pregnancy and announces that he’s about to place the soul into the fetus. This is why the issue will never be resolved.

As human beings and as a left brain society, we try to place things into rigid, unchanging categories, but objectively speaking, there are no unchanging categories, just stuff. Of course, there are factual differences between this and that, I think, but things aren’t nearly as cut and dry as we tend to imagine them to be. It’s even arguable that chimpanzees are human beings. It may even be possible to produce offspring with a chimp. If so, does that make chimpanzees human, or does that make human beings chimpanzees? Are lions and tigers the same species? They can mate with each other. Horses and donkeys can mate with each other. They produce a Mule.

We define the word species however we want. Words are relative. The way you define your words may be different than the way I define them. The dictionary may define life as beginning with conception, I may define life as beginning at 3 years of age, you may define life as beginning in the penis, who’s to say. What’s red and what’s orange? Where precisely does red begin and orange end? The answer, wherever you feel like.

For me, morality is a consequential, emotive matter anyway. Personally, I don’t really care if somebody kills their infant outside of the womb. However, I think they ought to have good reasons for doing so. For me, a newborn isn’t fully conscious anyway. Of course, I’ve never had any children, so I might feel differently once I’ve had one. But I would be outraged if someone were to kill a three year old, I would slaughter them on the spot. No trial, no jury, straight to execution. But one of those disgusting little savages we call “infants”, I think the punishment should be less for those, say, 1 year in jail. Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating a little, I suppose I would care, but not as much.

You have to factor in population control too. Abortion and contraception help us control our population. If people aren’t ready to raise children, it’s probably best they don’t have them, but realistically, are people going to stop having sex, no, so you need contraception and abortion. Unlimited growth in a world of limited resources is absurd. We should be dispensing condoms from airplanes to Africa before dispensing food. Native Americans used to kill their infants if they were unable to take care of them. They saw it as a mercy kill, not murder. If you only have so much food, better to raise one healthy child than 5 sickly children that will likely die before the age of 5. I’m a pragmatist when it comes to morality, as you can see.

If you believe in reincarnation, than it doesn’t really matter anyway. The fetus’s soul will simply be transported into another body upon death. I don’t really believe that, but some do. If you believe in hell, then I suppose you better take the matter very seriously. I don’t, I think it’s just a way of scaring people into doing what others want them to do. However, Jesus oil was apprently sacrificed for your sins, so you needn’t worry too much.

Whenever I think about moral questions, I primarily consult my feelings on the matter. The facts merely inform my feelings, they say nothing about what I ought to do in and of themselves.

Lol, I like your picture… it reminds of me Thomas Aquinas or something. Very stern and harsh. You must think me a madman.

13

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=172674
Perhaps the author of this thread could explain that to us?

:wink:

There could a reason it reminds you of Tommy boy -
hymnals.files.wordpress.com/2009 … quinas.jpg

14

Lol, i guess you caught me contradicting myslef. I think I’m in the process of transformation, I’m becoming more shades of gray with every post. However, my morality was always shades of gray. I’ll never be just gray like the wholists though.

It is Tom Boy, I should’ve known!

15

The wheel of life has birth & death as two spokes of the wheel. But it is a wheel, a circle. Conscious life is a continuum, a stream. The body, whether embryo, fetus, baby, child or adult is only one visible effect of a conscious being that is not visible and not physical. Abortion frustrates the free flowing of the stream of life just as completely as murder of an adult body.

Quoting Narada Mahathera: “We are born from the matrix of action (kammayoni). Parents merely provide us with a material layer. Therefore being precedes being. At the moment of conception, it is Kamma that conditions the initial consciousness that vitalizes the foetus.” The Mahatanhasamkhaya Sutta mentions three factors are needed for conception: The father & mother, the mother’s fertile period & the being-to-be-born.

But how “human” is this being-to-be-born? The Elucidation of Consciousness Sutra says: “When the consciousness leaves the [previous] body it carries all the body’s attributes with it. It assumes an [ethereal] form as its body… Because it has the senses, it has feelings and subtle memory and can tell good from evil… Feeling, memory, and good & evil [karmas] go wherever the consciousness-seed goes… It knows that it has left one body to receive another one, knows the good and evil karmas [it has performed], knows that it is accompanied by the karmas, and knows that it will be reincarnated together with the karmas to undergo due karmic results…”

The present Dalai Lama said plainly: “Consciousness enters at the time of conception itself. To murder a human means to kill either a human or something forming as a human, the latter referring to the period from right after conception until birth.”

16

i’m not sure i see the difference between acorness and embryoness

i’m trying to make a distinction between potential persons and persons - seemingly, adult human beings would qualify as the latter and so retain whatever rights we attribute to adult human beings - sure, it has been the case in the past and in other societies that some adult humans have been denied the legal status of personhood , but i’m not clear on how that applies to any discussion of the rights of the unborn

in addition to being a moral and legal status, personhood is also an intersubjective determination, a collective and social one

personhood is a lot of things, given. but we seem to agree, personhood is something we grant to objects. so one question is what types of objects do we grant personhood to? I’m saying we ought not grant personhood to zygotes, embryos, or fetuses - for pragmatic purposes, if nothing else

and it’s an important question. i don’t believe that a potential person’s rights should at any time outweigh an actual person’s rights. whether or not we grant personhood to fetuses, a person qua person deserves more rights than the potential person. at least in my vision of the world. i’m trying mainly to be practical rather than sentimental about the granting of personhood.

partial birth notwithstanding, i don’t think abortion should be illegal - an unwanted child is a burden on society and the planet. nip the problem in the bud.

but that’s just me.

17

I was thinking about how I should go about deciding what side to take on this issue. (since I haven’t thought about it much before.) And I was thinking that every single sperm cell can potentially be human. So I was thinking that potentiality shouldn’t be used to come up with an answer to this question. If we do, then you get masturbation is bad, condoms are bad, abstinence is the only way to go with this viewpoint. of course saying that it is wrong to stop potential life would mean that I almost have a duty to spread my seed as much as possible to allow these potentials a true chance at life. This viewpoint could cause an overpopulation problem if EVERYoNE had it. So I think this is viewpoint is illogical when considering our survival as a species. I agree that this is selfish, but I can see that my life is more important than potential life. MY reasoning is that humans have rights, but in order to obtain these rights you have to be human. I will say that humans have a right to live, This right is granted to humans and not to life in general. As bugs and animals don’t get shown the same right. So this question really is, when does a human gain the right to live?

To answer this question we have to find out what we consider human. The sperm cell isn’t human, is an embryo inside a the womb of a woman? At what point in pregnency do we give declare that the being inside the woman is human. A human with rights like you and I. rights are granted by humans, for humans. the logic behind these rights is different for everyone. I believe this to be true. So we have to decide at what point it can be considered human. I believe to find the answer to this problem we would need to do some extensive research to see at what point the fetus could be considered human, using guidelines on what we consider human. But even without doing that, I can say that the embryo inside a woman in the first few phases when it’s still just a bunch of cells is ok. Giving woman this burden when men don’t have to carry the same responsibility is a double standard that I don’t agree with.

In conclusion, the exact line were this right should be granted should be drawn, but abortion before this line is ok in my book.

18

To Skull and Churro in particular, and hardline Catholics and Buddhists in general.

You have faith your Popes and your Dalai Lamas know exactly when the soul enters the body. Where is your philosophical/scientific proof? I take it you have no definitive proof, otherwise you wouldn’t be relying on your leaders to make up your minds for you. I question your leaders authority.

Yes, but there is no debate on whether killing a born is wrong, there is a debate on whether killing an unborn is wrong. Everyone knows/feels killing the born is wrong, but even many of the people who are against “killing” the unborn, can’t be certain of it’s wronghood. Therefore, most people feel they have no right to enforce their morality on others when they themselves may be wrong. You may think/feel a fetus is an independent, conscious human being, endowed with a soul, but you have no hard evidence. Most people are unwilling to force their opinions/feelings on others, only their facts/feelings on others.

Also, there are plenty of things we feel are morally wrong, but we allow others to do them, because forcing our morality on others creates conflict and division. I think most civilized people will gladly trade in their desire to force their personal/collective morality on others in exchange for a peaceful, prosperous society. Imagine how many people would be up in arms if abortion were declared murder tomorrow, and anyone who even attempts to have an abortion is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

Most people who don’t believe in abortion will tolerate abortionists in order to have a peaceful and prosperous society, because far too many people are abortionists to execute or imprison them all. Most people will allow people to make up their own minds about their own body, because they can’t be certain they themselves are right.

19

For example: I claim personhood applies from the moment of conception or implantation. As a unique being conceived of two parents, the zygote is a person.

It’s not my argument, but it’s not fundamentally incorrect. Personhood applies to who- or whatever we grant it, as you say below - it’s not a description of physical fact.

That’s what I mean by a moral status. But that’s specific to my view of morality, so it’s useful for the discussion to clarify that.

And for pragmatic purposes, it may be better not to grant blacks personhood - cheap labour is an eminently pragmatic concern. Pragmatism is often opposed to morality, which is by nature idealistic. If you’re looking for common ground on which to discuss morality, your pragmatism means no more to a Southern Baptist minister than his faith does to you. Probably less.

The pragmatic approach skirts perilously close to circular argument. Why shouldn’t we grant personhood to foetuses? Because practically it would make abortion wrong. Why isn’t abortion wrong? Because we don’t grant personhood to foetuses.

As long as you mean all rights of a person outweigh all rights of a potential person, it’s at least clear. I don’t think what is most convenient is necessarily a reliable guide to what is considered right, though. Hume would say all morality is sentiment.

You could always say the same about an unwanted adult, or a criminal, or a dissident.

20

I don’t fully disagree with you here, but adults can fight back, unborns can’t. I know that sounds cold, but there it is. Clearly, if people really cared about unborns and considered them to be persons, more people would be up in arms to defend them. In order to wisely deal with the population problem, better to “kill” something that may or may not be alive, and can’t fight back, than to kill something that is alive and can fight back. Pragmatism.