A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

[Paleophyte]

MODERATORS PLEASE BAN THIS USER.

(1) We don't ban people simply because we disagree with them and,
(2) Did you really need to quote his entire Wall-o-Text in your reply?

[Paleophyte]

An Argument from Natural Law Demonstrating the Inapplicability of Natural Law In This Discussion

P1 Human life has value. This value is granted by the individual living that life, the community of which they are a part, and the principle of reciprocity (you are unlikely to value my life if I do not value yours).

P2 Basic human rights and freedoms are necessary to any meaningful life. Without these rights and freedoms life is little more than slavery or continuous imprisonment. These rights and freedoms include, but are not limited to, the right to bodily autonomy (nobody has the right to harvest your kidneys or give you a lobotomy) and the right to reproductive freedom (nobody shall tell you when, where, or with whom you may reproduce).

P3 Life does not begin. With the exception of abiogenesis, which occurred roughly 4 billion years ago on this planet, living organisms invariably come from other living organisms.

P3-A From P3, human life has no beginning in the purely biological sense.

P4 The life of an individual may be said to begin, however this is not in the purely biological sense and involves fetal development, the emergence of a mind, personality, and social interactions. This process has no clear beginning or end and is not fully understood at this time. Notable milestones include:

 - Gametogenesis: The production of haploid gametes represents the first instance of cells that are independent from the parent that carry a unique genetic code. These gametes are incapable of independently producing an individual and the overwhelming majority of them will die.

 - Fertilization: The union of two gametes produces a single fertilized cell with a unique genetic code that may be capable of becoming an individual. The genetic code is merely the recipe for the biochemicals that are necessary to become a human and should not be mistaken for the human itself. The capacity to become something should not be confused with the thing itself. At this point, the zygote may perish, may split to form two or more distinct individuals, and may be frozen and stored indefinitely at cryogenic temperatures.

 - Formation of the prefrontal cortex: The prefrontal cortex is necessary for the executive function (self-awareness), reasoning, and much of your memory. Until the prefrontal cortex is sufficiently developed the body is governed largely by instinct and the emergence of an individual's mind from the developing brain is unlikely. Development of the PFC begins at about 8 weeks of gestation and finishes at about 25 years of age, with the bulk of development taking place between 20 weeks and 3 years of age. Significant development occurs after the infant is born.

 - Birth: After this point the infant is no longer dependent on the mother's body for life support.

Conclusion: Whereas an individual begins to exist via complex processes that are not yet fully understood and do not have well-delineated boundaries and

Whereas neither the mother's rights to reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy nor the developing human's right to life have objectively quantifiable value or worth by which they can be compared

Natural Law is insufficient to determine when, if ever, a developing fetus' right to exist becomes worth more than the mother's rights.

The only possible resolution involves imposing arbitrary values on these rights or ignoring them altogether, as was done in the OP. By imposing external, arbitrary values, one not only strips the mother of her reproductive rights but also of her right to make her own moral decisions. 

[SteveII]

We are back to: You don't kill humans. If killing one would save 20, you don't kill the one.

Then explain to me how the hell is it permissible to have an abortion to save a woman's life? How is it you can kill a fetus to save a woman's life?

In that unfortunate scenario, someone must die. In most cases, doing nothing risks both lives. Their lives are literally intertwined in a way that makes the circumstances unique and options limited so it is not analogous to the taking of a life for utility or pragmatic purposes where a host of options are available. In other words, it is not an inconsistent application of the principle, it is a justified, common sense exception.

Am I to understand you believe it was immoral to kill the Nazi to save the rest of the world because killing one to save 20 is immoral? Is that your morality Steve? Is that truly what you expect me to believe you would do? Wait, I'll guess your answer! You can kill killers in your morality (for some reason). Fair enough, but then why can't I kill you? Your morality leads to about 2 million dead babies each year; with mine we could slash that number to about 500 000 in about 10 years. You, and people like you, are killing 1,5 million babies per year. Why can't I kill you if you, and your ilk, are killers of the same proportion as the Nazi themselves?

PS: Just in case this is not clear, the rhetoric is mostly a joke; I don't think anybody should kill you and I don't think you are an actual murderer because I don't think fetuses are people since they are not sentient.

Who is "the Nazi?" There is a such a thing as Just War Theory that outlines how and when killing is permissible.

This "'you, and people like you, are killing 1.5 million babies per year" has got to stop. You have a simplistic and somewhat ignorant (if not motivated) view of what constitutes moral agency, causation as it relates to the complexity of the multiplicity of personal choices one makes in one's lifetime, the complete veil of ignorance of the future and what that means, and a host of other related concepts. It is not a good look and makes it impossible for you to disagree in good faith. Is that what you are going for?

[SaxonX]

The only relevant argument is does the government or Steve and his cabal of fundamentalist lunatics have the right to keep a woman in a state of pregnancy against her will (No how she became pregnant is irrelevant the choice to have sex is not the choice to become pregnant and even if a woman chose to become pregnant she has ever right to reverse that state of affairs  and abortion is taking responsibility)  or is it none of their affair and the matter is purely up to the woman the person in the state pregnancy and her doctor who she has freely come to for advice ?

[Dānu]

Then explain to me how the hell is it permissible to have an abortion to save a woman's life? How is it you can kill a fetus to save a woman's life?

In that unfortunate scenario, someone must die. In most cases, doing nothing risks both lives. Their lives are literally intertwined in a way that makes the circumstances unique and options limited so it is not analogous to the taking of a life for utility or pragmatic purposes where a host of options are available. In other words, it is not an inconsistent application of the principle, it is a justified, common sense exception.

If the fetus might be saved, which life do you think should be sacrificed?

[SteveII]

In that unfortunate scenario, someone must die. In most cases, doing nothing risks both lives. Their lives are literally intertwined in a way that makes the circumstances unique and options limited so it is not analogous to the taking of a life for utility or pragmatic purposes where a host of options are available. In other words, it is not an inconsistent application of the principle, it is a justified, common sense exception.

If the fetus might be saved, which life do you think should be sacrificed?

I'm not in a position to have a general opinion on that. It seems that is a hugely personal decision that should be left up to the mother, father, and her doctors.

I can't say for certain, but if it were me, I would want to save my wife. My wife on the other hand might disagree.

[SaxonX]

The entire thing should left up to the doctors and mother ....period

[Dānu]

If the fetus might be saved, which life do you think should be sacrificed?

I'm not in a position to have a general opinion on that. It seems that is a hugely personal decision that should be left up to the mother, father, and her doctors.

I can't say for certain, but if it were me, I would want to save my wife. My wife on the other hand might disagree.

I meant from a moral perspective.  Is there any reason to save the mother rather than the fetus?

[Alan V]

Christians like Steve will likely never admit that those who oppose their views do so for good reasons based on actual evidence. To admit as much would be to say that they should not be dictating terms to us, as they obviously want to do. So they will not say, as we do, that such decisions should be up to pregnant women and their doctors, even if we do not agree with the religious beliefs which are often behind such decisions.

Because of this asymmetry between the two perspectives, the burden of proof falls on Christians, not on those who oppose them. They have not met that burden of proof, regardless of their handwaving. So the only way for them to impose their wills on the majority of Americans who oppose them is to cheat, to lie, and to seize power unlawfully if possible. That's why so many of them support Trump, even if he is the antithesis of so many of their other moral beliefs. They have made a deal with the devil to gain power over others.

That makes them hypocrites.

[SteveII]

I'm not in a position to have a general opinion on that. It seems that is a hugely personal decision that should be left up to the mother, father, and her doctors.

I can't say for certain, but if it were me, I would want to save my wife. My wife on the other hand might disagree.

I meant from a moral perspective.  Is there any reason to save the mother rather than the fetus?

No. If one believes life has intrinsic moral worth, then they both have the same moral worth. I think it is also true that it is not morally neutral to take one life or the other, but it is a moral tragedy where there is significant moral consequences either way. It is like the Nazi requiring the mother to choose which child to save or loose them both. Morally neutral choice is not the right description.

[epronovost]

In that unfortunate scenario, someone must die.

Then why let the woman (or doctors) decide who will? If killing one to save twenty is wrong. Why not let them both die or "leave it to the fate". Maybe they will both pull through, maybe the woman will die and the fetus survive. Maybe the fetus will die and the woman live. Of course, we can expected that in most cases both will die. 

In other words, it is not an inconsistent application of the principle, it is a justified, common sense exception.

So you will authorize it because it's more pragmatic for your rhetorical purpose?

You had a clear cut response to the "trolley problem". You would let 5 people die instead of one. In the trolley problem there is nothing that can be done beside killing one to save the others and you clearly mentioned that the act of killing was always wrong.

Who is "the Nazi?" There is a such a thing as Just War Theory that outlines how and when killing is permissible.

Well yes, there is a Just War Theory. It's a utilitarian concept and I largely disagree with it and prefer the more pragmatic "necessary war" theory that is a fighting a defensive war that can no longer be avoided (the societal equivalent of legitimate defense so never good, but not "evil" either).

This "'you, and people like you, are killing 1.5 million babies per year" has got to stop. You have a simplistic and somewhat ignorant (if not motivated) view of what constitutes moral agency, causation as it relates to the complexity of the multiplicity of personal choices one makes in one's lifetime, the complete veil of ignorance of the future and what that means, and a host of other related concepts. It is not a good look and makes it impossible for you to disagree in good faith. Is that what you are going for?

It is possible for you to disagree in good faith; if by good faith you mean sincerely disagree, but that does make you a person whose morality and politics kills more fetus than me and leads one's society to more poverty, misogyny and instability. I will judge you morally in accordance with this. In my worldview, human lives are what matters the most. You can't legitimately ask me to treat you kindly while you actively support things that literally kills people in greater number for no gain whatsoever beside "but the rule says no" since rules have both a letter and a spirit and you certainly break the later. If you want me to support the killing of humans, you better arrive with a reason that sound exactly like that "we have no other choice to kill these humans else all of these humans will die and there is no other way to do it in our position". Then, it will at least be open to consideration, but not necessarily acceptance since circumstances and other consideration will have to be weighted.

I'll go further. You can be opposed to abortion from a moral perspective and make a sensible argument for it (I'd based mine on emotivism if you ever want to read it), but the facts are the facts. Your deontological, puritanical moral theory and politics towards abortion leads directly to just as much if not more abortions and problems associated with unplanned and unsafe pregnancies. Your view of what constitute moral agency and causation is too narrow, you discharge yourself from your moral responsibility at the social and political scale and focus entirely on your personal one and judge people and act purely on a personal basis. You forget that your political and social decisions have direct negative impact on people lives which pushes people towards abortions or, at the very least, awkward and uncomfortable social position. 

Yes the "you, and people like you, are killing 1.5 million babies per year" is an exaggerated piece of rhetoric as I mentioned before, but there is a grain of truth in there. You cannot deny that the result of the application of your moral principles in society at large results in more abortion and you even have a conveniently placed explanation as to why your principles, alone, are counter-effective within your own religion: humans are fallen and sinners. Within, your conception of humanity's morality, you are always "one bad day" from being a savage monster, a killer, a rapist, a thief, a perjurer, a fraud, an adulterer, etc. We are all equally monstruous and we all have this in us; the only things keeping it at bay is our circumstances and God's grace and it often doesn't suffice. You are not saved from sin by being a Christian; you are saved from sin by God's grace once you die and ascend to the kingdom of heaven. Christian, devout and sincere Christians, are still sinners and they will continue to sin and if they think they don't or can't then their sin is pride, often considered the worst of all sin. This is why in the most famous Christian prayer there is a line that says "do not submit us to temptation, but deliver us from evil". Your morality and puritanism makes the world "filled with temptation", in that case, you make the world "filled with the temptation that leads to unplanned pregnancy" and once this is done, "filled with the temptation to get an abortion". This is why your puritanism is deranged, even by the standard of your own morality. Why would you be opposed to measures that would reduce "temptation"? Why can't you be more like your God and deliver people from evil (both within and without) and not submit them to temptation in the first place? 

God doesn't save people from sin and it's consequences because they deserve it; He does it because He loves humanity despite it. Jesus doesn't tell people to love and be generous, kind and charitable towards people who deserve it, but to everybody, even one's enemy who actively persecute, dishonor, harm and threaten you. Why is it that appearance of holiness is more important to you that human lives? These are the stake Steve. Even if I were a devout Christian who believed fetuses were people as ensoulment occurs at conception like the Pythagorean thought or, like you, a fervent believer in divine teleology, I would be opposed to you. In fact, I'd be far more harsh because your position would not only be an insult to humanity, but an insult to Christ and that's even worst.

[Paleophyte]

It's funny that you don't hear many pro-lifers advocating for vasectomies. I guess that they don't care much about the moral consequences of their actions.

[pattylt]

It's funny that you don't hear many pro-lifers advocating for vasectomies. I guess that they don't care much about the moral consequences of their actions.

Especially as many current vasectomies are reversible. Nope, it’s better to name and shame the women and leave it all up to her….wankers.

[Paleophyte]

It's funny that you don't hear many pro-lifers advocating for vasectomies. I guess that they don't care much about the moral consequences of their actions.

Especially as many current vasectomies are reversible.

One of several options. Simpler to store some sperm cryogenically prior to having the vasectomy.

Vasectomies are less costly, less invasive, have fewer complications, and have a failure rate orders of magnitude lower than other forms of contraceptives. They would eliminate the need for the overwhelming majority of abortions by preventing the situation from ever arising. And if you really like irony, you could almost certainly get Planned Parenthood to fund them.

[SaxonX]

But that would get in the way of their moral crusade to rob women of their autonomy

[TheGentlemanBastard]

You have a simplistic and somewhat ignorant (if not motivated) view of what constitutes moral agency, causation as it relates to the complexity of the multiplicity of personal choices one makes in one's lifetime, the complete veil of ignorance of the future and what that means, and a host of other related concepts.

You really need to spend some quality time in front of your mirror!

Condescending twat!

[Cavebear]

If you "study" the gospels - and even the  ones we now have have been heavily edited - you can certainly come to Ehrman's conclusion.  Other "bible scholars" have done the same thing and reached different conclusions.

However, if you treat the gospels as the piles of shit they are and start looking at the cultures and historical realities of the times then this jesus character looks about as real as Hercules or any other demi-god of the time.


Would you "study" the American Civil War only by reading "Gone With the Wind."

I would not study the Civil War by 'Gone With The Wind, The American Revolution by reading about George Washington and the Cherry Tree, or Ancient History by reading Gilgamesh.

[Cavebear]

MODERATORS PLEASE BAN THIS USER.

(1) We don't ban people simply because we disagree with them and,
(2) Did you really need to quote his entire Wall-o-Text in your reply?

Actually, I tend to think theist idiots should be automatically banned just to keep the Forum free of such infestation. But that is just a personal opinion. I have said before that a site called "Atheist Discussion" probably should be limited to atheists who wish to discuss all worlds matters among themselves from an atheist POV. I'm not trying to make an issue of it at the moment, but I do come here mostly to discuss issues with other atheists.

You said "(1) We don't ban people simply because we disagree with them". I agree with that. But atheists disagreeing with other atheists (assuming a complete disinterest or a lack of belief in a deity) is not the same as having to read theistic arguments daily and repetitively and being annoyed at their presence here in what I hope to be a "safe zone".

How much do sheer numbers of "eyeballs" matter here?

[Cavebear]

The entire thing should left up to the doctors and mother ....period

Well, I think the Father should have some involvement in the decision. Women love to say "we're pregnant". And I have no illusions about pregnancy and birth. It's hard. But, in most cultures, the Father generally has to do a lot of supporting after that. I can't say whether it balances out or not; I've never been a Father.

So on one hand, I have to say that abortion should be the woman's choice as it is her body for months. But Fathers are involved in the born-child's life (hopefully) after that. And they should probably have some place in the decision.

It is a very difficult question.

[pocaracas]

It's funny that you don't hear many pro-lifers advocating for vasectomies. I guess that they don't care much about the moral consequences of their actions.

Especially as many current vasectomies are reversible. Nope, it’s better to name and shame the women and leave it all up to her….wankers.

Can people please stop with this misconception that vasectomies are reversible?
Yes, they "can" be reversed, but there is an ever lowering chance of it resulting in a pregnancy mainly depending on the time since the procedure.
The consensus is that a reversal 15 years after the vasectomy has a less than 50% chance of producing a pregnancy... which would be the main reason why people reverse it.
Would anyone bet on those odds, knowing that, if you are to encourage teens or early twentysomethings to have a vasetomy to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they will likely only want to undo it after their 35th birthday, when they are hopefully ready to become fathers?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedu...c-20384537
"Pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal will range from about 30% to over 90%, depending on the type of procedure. Many factors affect whether a reversal is successful in achieving pregnancy, including time since a vasectomy, partner age, surgeon experience and training, and whether you had fertility issues before your vasectomy."

https://www.urology.co.nz/info/vasectomy-reversal
"Vasectomy Reversal pregnancy rates

This depends on the success rate (success means whether live sperm are found in the semen after the reversal). It is up to 76% if the vasectomy was < 3 years ago, down to 50% if it was up to 15 years ago. Generally, pregnancy occurs around 12 months after reversal."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/tr...y-reversal
"Depending on how many years have passed since your vasectomy, your success rates are 60% to 95% for return of sperm in your ejaculate. Pregnancy is possible more than 50% of the time after a reversal. However, success rates start to decline 15 years after a vasectomy."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7993944/
" The Vasovasostomy Study Group showed patency and pregnancy rates of 97% and 76%, respectively, for the 3-year obstruction interval, which dropped to 71% and 30% for the 15-year obstruction interval or more"


https://www.ucihealth.org/blog/2016/11/d...rsals-work
"Though vasectomy reversals take around three hours, they are outpatient procedures with a quick recovery time, just like vasectomies are. And the success rate in reconnecting the vas deferens — the tube that was severed during vasectomy — is very high, about 90 percent.

But while that’s a reflection of a successful surgery, it does not always translate into the more important outcome couples seek — pregnancy. The chances of pregnancy within the couple of years after reversal are only around 40 percent to 50 percent."

https://www.arizona-urology.com/blog/wha...y-reversal
"A landmark study involving over 1,000 men showed differing results based on how long ago the men had their vasectomies. Of the men who had vasectomy reversals less than three years after their vasectomy, 97% achieved sperm in their semen and 76% achieved pregnancy with their partner. From 3-8 years from the time of the vasectomy before the reversal, 88% achieved sperm in the semen and 53% achieved pregnancy with their significant other. Of those whose reversals occurred between 9-14 years from the vasectomy, 79% had sperm in the semen and 44% achieved pregnancy with their partner. After 15 years between procedures, 71% had sperm in the ejaculate and 30% achieved pregnancy.  "

[epronovost]

Can people please stop with this misconception that vasectomies are reversible?
Yes, they "can" be reversed, but there is an ever lowering chance of it resulting in a pregnancy mainly depending on the time since the procedure.
The consensus is that a reversal 15 years after the vasectomy has a less than 50% chance of producing a pregnancy... which would be the main reason why people reverse it.
Would anyone bet on those odds, knowing that, if you are to encourage teens or early twentysomethings to have a vasetomy to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they will likely only want to undo it after their 35th birthday, when they are hopefully ready to become fathers?

While it's true vasectomies are not a silver bullet, far from there. The long term fertility issues, which are significant, but not crippling let's be honest could be mitigated by artificial insemination which is extremely low cost and doesn't involve any surgeries or need for extensive lab equipment unlike IVF. After all, artificial insemination is how most of our cattle reproduce. I got to say though this does make the whole conception process a bit charmless, but people already use it so it's not like advancing something completely novel and strange.

In the end though, there is a host of social policies can be applied (and have been shown to be effective) to reduce severely the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortion before we even need to think about taking over people's right to body autonomy (if this is even on the table in the first place) be it by forcing medical procedures unto them or preventing them legal and safe access to one. The problem I think most sensible being have with the conservative "pro-life" movement is that they actively reject any other means or, at the very least, don't spend a moment of thought or energy to enact policies that would reduce unwanted pregnancies or mitigate their social and economical impact (on the contrary).

[Dānu]

I meant from a moral perspective.  Is there any reason to save the mother rather than the fetus?

No. If one believes life has intrinsic moral worth, then they both have the same moral worth. I think it is also true that it is not morally neutral to take one life or the other, but it is a moral tragedy where there is significant moral consequences either way.  It is like the Nazi requiring the mother to choose which child to save or loose them both. Morally neutral choice is not the right description.

I think that many people, even some among the pro-life camp, have the intuition that there would be something amiss in intentionally saving the fetus at the expense of the mother's life. If there weren't, then it's hard to rationalize why exemptions for the life of the mother are written as they are. Do you not share this intuition?

That brings up a related question, why are there exceptions for rape or incest? Being raped or the victim of incest and having to carry a baby to term is certainly a terrible thing to happen to someone, but it's not as bad as losing one's life, and they can always give the baby away for adoption.

These intuitions and exceptions seem to suggest that, like with IVF, there is an inconsistency in the pro-life position, at least as far as intuitions go. Do you agree?

[epronovost]

That brings up a related question, why are there exceptions for rape or incest?  Being raped or the victim of incest and having to carry a baby to term is certainly a terrible thing to happen to someone, but it's not as bad as losing one's life, and they can always give the baby away for adoption.

While most pro-life people seem to be open to the idea of accepting abortion in case of rape or incest, Steve explicitly mentioned in one of his response to me that he is against it and would order rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term unless their lives is in danger; the same goes for fetus with severe anomalies. His only tolerable exception is if the life of the mother is in danger which is a bit at odd with his comment that killing one person to save twenty is morally wrong.

[SteveII]

No. If one believes life has intrinsic moral worth, then they both have the same moral worth. I think it is also true that it is not morally neutral to take one life or the other, but it is a moral tragedy where there is significant moral consequences either way.  It is like the Nazi requiring the mother to choose which child to save or loose them both. Morally neutral choice is not the right description.

I think that many people, even some among the pro-life camp, have the intuition that there would be something amiss in intentionally saving the fetus at the expense of the mother's life.  If there weren't, then it's hard to rationalize why exemptions for the life of the mother are written as they are.  Do you not share this intuition?

That brings up a related question, why are there exceptions for rape or incest?  Being raped or the victim of incest and having to carry a baby to term is certainly a terrible thing to happen to someone, but it's not as bad as losing one's life, and they can always give the baby away for adoption.

These intuitions and exceptions seem to suggest that, like with IVF, there is an inconsistency in the pro-life position, at least as far as intuitions go.  Do you agree?

I have heard stories of mothers foregoing cancer treatment or some other intervention because it meant killing the fetus. I know people who would choose that way and I would understand and honor that choice. I would die for one of my children. Legislating against what is a moral tragedy seems to be overreach--so leave it to the people who have to live with one of the two bad choices.

It is inconsistent. That's why in post #1233 I said as much.

The reason for the exceptions are a compromise to get some legislation passed because people do not have carefully considered views on abortion and balk at rape and incest scenarios. The general idea of a stepped approach actually has a name in the pro-life movement: incrementalism.

[Paleophyte]

I know people who would choose that way and I would understand and honor that choice. I would die for one of my children. Legislating against what is a moral tragedy seems to be overreach--so leave it to the people who have to live with one of the two bad choices.

How did your keyboard not burst into flame when you typed that unironically?