An argument against elective abortion

[DeistPaladin]

Interesting. What species, then, might a 28-week old fetus belong to?

It doesn't. Seeds aren't flowers. Eggs aren't chickens. Fetuses (fetusi?) aren't humans. Clear?

Again, interesting. So on your view, sexually molesting a coma patient is not a moral issue.

Was the coma patient sentient prior to being in a coma?
Are you certain the coma patient isn't sentient right now?
Will the coma patient be conscious again at some point?
Oranges, meet apples.

---

Am I banned from posting? My recent post just disappeared without appearing.

[lrh9]

"Euthanasia is an undercutter which I all ready addressed."

You addressed it, but your logic failed.

When you addressed it, you changed your original assertion from "The killing of innocent people is morally wrong." to "The killing of innocent people is morally wrong in certain situations."

How are you going to logically back up that abortion is one of those situations?

[Ryft]

Why are Homo sapiens so important, then?

They are not "so important," I said. They are simply the relevant subject vis-à-vis abortion.

---

---

In that case, to avoid being arbitrary you would have to say that it's wrong to kill any being with the same attributes ...

Only if the argument aims to conclude such a thing. (It is not an argument against wrongful killing in and of itself).

You must show the moral significance of Homo sapiens.

The argument assumes the moral significance of Homo sapiens (first premise). But again, one cannot validly take that to mean other species have less or no moral significance; other species simply are not the relevant subject vis-à-vis abortion. Do other species have equal, less, or no moral significance? Is it morally wrong to deliberately kill other innocent creatures? These are interesting but different arguments outside the subject of this one.

[A 28-week old fetus] is not a human in a moral sense ...

With regard to this argument, that simply begs the question and is invalid.

[Whether or not sexually molesting a coma patient is a moral issue] would depend on the reactions of those close to the patient, the chances of recovery of the patient, and that he or she would find out. Otherwise, no, from my view, not particularly.

The coma patient is a 12-year old child rating a 3 on the Glasgow Coma Scale; those close to the patient are not aware of the act; the patient has a good chance of recovery; the patient would not find out, being deeply unconscious (GCS-3) when it took place. On your view, it is not particularly a moral issue?

Because self-awareness provides a being with the desire to continue living, and with the capacity to make plans for the future which would be thwarted if it were killed. That's from a utilitarian perspective.

First, I did not ask about the relevance of self-awareness. I do not see how 'species' is more arbitrary than 'self-awareness'. Second, my criteria incorporates newborn infants while yours does not (as self-awareness does not develop until at least three months of age).

Species, however, is entirely arbitrary. If you disagree, you must show why.

Because 'species' is not a matter of personal whim or prejudice, but a matter of scientific fact.

---

---

Seeds aren't flowers. Eggs aren't chickens. Fetuses (fetusi?) aren't humans. Clear?

A fertilized egg is not a developed chicken, but it is a developing chicken; it is of the species Gallus gallus domesticus. A fetus is not a developed human, but it is a developing human; it is of the species Homo sapiens. Biological references describe human development (biological life cycle of Homo sapiens) as beginning inside the womb; i.e., zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, and adult are all development stages that members of the species Homo sapiens go through. On your view, a 28-week old fetus is not of the Homo sapiens species if it is inside the womb, but is if outside the womb. Does that strike anyone as a biological criterion, or an arbitrary one?

---

---

When you addressed [euthanasia], you changed your original assertion from "The killing of innocent people is morally wrong" to "The killing of innocent people is morally wrong in certain situations."

No, I did not change my first premise. It remains unchanged, "The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong," with the acknowledgment that exceptions might exist, which I listed and addressed, pointing out that an exception is relevant if and only if elective abortions qualify under it (i.e., an exception that does not incorporate elective abortions, like euthanasia, leaves the argument unaffected).

[DeistPaladin]

A fertilized egg is not a developed chicken, but it is a developing chicken; it is of the species Gallus gallus domesticus. A fetus is not a developed human, but it is a developing human; it is of the species Homo sapiens. Biological references describe human development (biological life cycle of Homo sapiens) as beginning inside the womb; i.e., zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, and adult are all development stages that members of the species Homo sapiens go through.

Bold emphasis mine.
I think we've already been over this. A fetus is a potential human being ("developing" if you prefer). When it becomes a human being, then we call call it a human being.

On your view, a 28-week old fetus is not of the Homo sapiens species if it is inside the womb, but is if outside the womb. Does that strike anyone as a biological criterion, or an arbitrary one?

28 weeks? I think I already answered that question since brain development occurs at 21 weeks. Since you are discussing "my view", I'd appreciate it if you kept what I've written in mind.

[theVOID]

It is not about Homo sapiens being special; it is about Homo sapiens being the subject. It is a fallacy to construe an argument against the killing of X innocent creatures as being in any way for the killing of all ~X innocent creatures.

Firstly, Your argument relies on the idea that it is necessarily morally wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human: "1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong."

What is your justification for this assertion?

And my question was just out of interest, and is likely relating to the justification for 1, more simply put it is: What is to stop someone replacing 'human' with 'creature'?

As far as Euthanasia being an insufficient under-cutter is concerned, you only make this point relative to pain, I reject pain, pleasure, happiness etc as the object of evaluation regarding morality, I guess this is something It would be better to expand on in our debate

Is turning off the life support of someone unlikely to regain any normality not the deliberate killing of an innocent human?

Euthanasia is an undercutter which I had already addressed in my original post.

That is not considered euthanasia in most legal systems, having 'Do Not Resuscitate' and 'Terminate Life Support' orders is usually legal while euthanasia is not.

If there are any exceptions to the first premise, then it is not necessarily true that the deliberate killing of an inocent human is wrong, so your argument is not sound in that respect.

You risk committing the Special Pleading fallacy here. If elective abortions do not qualify under a defined exception, then the argument holds. (For example, you referenced euthanasia, that turning off the life support of someone "unlikely to regain any normality" is arguably a moral good. That may be so, but it is an exception that does not include elective abortions; the probability of normality for the unborn is very high after nine months of life support.)

First off, I don't evaluate normality. This isn't a concern for now. I will address it at your request but we are going to be talking about this in a more formal situation soonsih.

Secondly, I am not special pleading, I am saying you have provided no qualifier for the contended premise. If 99.99% of cases of x (killing an innocent human) is 1 (morally wrong) then it is not necessarily true that x=1.

You need to qualify what makes most x=1 compared to those than aren't, then show that the disputed example of elective abortion is compliant with the qualifier. If you can do that I am obliged to agree.

I suspect that the exceptions that permits euthanasia would also permit abortion.

[Captain Scarlet]

Additionally you would need to show :

- that a foetus was not only a human but also a distinctly so, ie not part of the mother?
- at what point during conception/gestation does that foetus become fully entitled to treatment as a morally autonomus agent in its own right?

From a moral perspective I do not agree with premise 1, you would need to demonstrate why it is objectively always wrong.

Finally (and I understand it isn't the point you are making), if this is true it does rather condemn an Omni god as morally wrong in permitting miscarriages. Yes of course this could be logically defended, but does not seem to be morally serious and leaves morality as arbitrary and so destroys premise 1 of the argument.

[Minimalist]

It doesn't. Seeds aren't flowers. Eggs aren't chickens. Fetuses (fetusi?) aren't humans. Clear?

Probably not.

[The Omnissiunt One]

In that case, to avoid being arbitrary you would have to say that it's wrong to kill any being with the same attributes ...

Only if the argument aims to conclude such a thing. (It is not an argument against wrongful killing in and of itself). Do other species have equal, less, or no moral significance? Is it morally wrong to deliberately kill other innocent creatures? These are interesting but different arguments outside the subject of this one.

My point was that one can employ a reductio ad absurdum. A foetus at its least developed probably has the mental capacities of a bacterium. Is washing your hands therefore genocide? If not, why not? Questions about the wrongness of killing other species are therefore not inseparable from this one.

[A 28-week old fetus] is not a human in a moral sense ...

With regard to this argument, that simply begs the question and is invalid.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant that it possesses none of the qualities which we normally consider to make a life worth living. As I said, most of us recognise that a cat's life is worth more than a stone. This must be because of its characteristics e.g. sentience, which a foetus doesn't have.

The coma patient is a 12-year old child rating a 3 on the Glasgow Coma Scale; those close to the patient are not aware of the act; the patient has a good chance of recovery; the patient would not find out, being deeply unconscious (GCS-3) when it took place. On your view, it is not particularly a moral issue?

There's obviously a deep sense of abhorrence and stigma attached to such an act, and the idea seems pretty horrific to me, of course. But I'm struggling to see what could be wrong with it. From a Virtue Ethicist's point of view, it would be bad for the rapist's moral character, and that I think is something we ought to consider. Why do you believe it to be wrong, if no-one suffers?

First, I did not ask about the relevance of self-awareness. I do not see how 'species' is more arbitrary than 'self-awareness'. Second, my criteria incorporates newborn infants while yours does not (as self-awareness does not develop until at least three months of age).

I said why self-awareness wasn't arbitrary from a utilitarian point of view: it is the pre-requisite to a desire to continue living. Also, I didn't say that self-awareness was the only consideration. The fact that the baby is out of the womb surely counts for something, as the mother's interests are no longer at stake in terms of giving birth to it.

Because 'species' is not a matter of personal whim or prejudice, but a matter of scientific fact.

Yes, I'm not denyng that. It is still an arbitrary criterion in a moral sense. Self-awareness is also a matter of scientific fact, though somewhat harder to demonstrate. Why, then, is species morally relevant?