3 Best Arguments Against Abortion

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='14 December 2009 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1260828056' post='2020607']
Having had to teach a semester of ethics at a large undergrad institution, I had to teach abortion...being a philosophy class I present the arguments as arguments, not as sound arguments (those who know the difference b/w sound arguments and arguments will know where I am going)... So, I presented arguments on both sides of the fence...As a philosopher I will say there are quite a few of arguments against abortion which I think are pretty bad, and these are often the 'token' arguments that supporters of abortion usually focus on in arguing against "pro-lifers". I am not sure if it would be scandalous to present a few pro-abortion arguments to see how you guys would respond to them...I also could present an argument I came up with arguing against abortion. Do you guys think that would be ok? I am not really wanting to 'debate' the issue here, but only present it so that I can get different responses to it.

Any thoughts?
[/quote]
Was this at the large undergrad institution I'm thinking of?

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

yea...most likely. I find the dialectic of the abortion debate interesting having been in 2 environments that are well versed in opposing positions.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Raphael' date='02 December 2009 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1259779209' post='2013243']
Well, it still won't stop people from arguing that personhood is marked by some other criteria, but this is the definition of personhood that has been used since ancient times. There are so many people who think that personhood is a matter of personality or relationships with others or quality of life, but all of those offend our very nature. We know what personhood is and deep down, every human person knows what violates their dignity.
[/quote]

However one failsafe with the definition is that to mark personhood with some other criteria is to most likely open up other groups of people whom they would not be okay with killing.

It would have to be another definition of personhood which would define infants, comatose, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, et al. as persons. For instance, to say that rationality is necessary and the unborn are not rational, well neither are the newborn...

Basically, personhood cannot be considered a trait of humanity otherwise some group of humans would be excluded.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' date='15 December 2009 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1260912943' post='2021211']
However one failsafe with the definition is that to mark personhood with some other criteria is to most likely open up other groups of people whom they would not be okay with killing.

It would have to be another definition of personhood which would define infants, comatose, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, et al. as persons. For instance, to say that rationality is necessary and the unborn are not rational, well neither are the newborn...

Basically, personhood cannot be considered a trait of humanity otherwise some group of humans would be excluded.
[/quote]
Unless someone plans on arguing that one can be "more" or "less" of a person, with differing values placed on their lives. It's chilling, but more consistent.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 December 2009 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1260915263' post='2021279']
Unless someone plans on arguing that one can be "more" or "less" of a person, with differing values placed on their lives. It's chilling, but more consistent.
[/quote]

That enters the realm of complete subjectivism though. "I feel like you are more of a person if... and ..." "Oh, well I disagree, I feel like you are less of a person if... ... and more of a person if...." There is absolutely nothing logical to back up any claims of a subjective relative view of personhood.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' date='15 December 2009 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1260922357' post='2021499']
That enters the realm of complete subjectivism though. "I feel like you are more of a person if... and ..." "Oh, well I disagree, I feel like you are less of a person if... ... and more of a person if...." There is absolutely nothing logical to back up any claims of a subjective relative view of personhood.
[/quote]
They don't deny that though.
They just say "the more elements of personhood one has, the more of a person they are", but they don't deny that it's very subjective. There can't be any objective rule, which is fine if you disdain objective morals, but I think you're incorrect in saying there's nothing logical behind it. It's very utilitarian, and extremely disturbing, but it does have a sick kind of logic. It just lies in being willing to actually place different values on different human lives.

[Didacus]

How about someone take like 10 or 12 of the reasons and make a phatmass poll out of it...

someone - not me just someone (I'm just too lazy to do it...)










Soooo, lazy..... soooooo lazy....

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Slappo' date='15 December 2009 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1260922357' post='2021499']
That enters the realm of complete subjectivism though. "I feel like you are more of a person if... and ..." "Oh, well I disagree, I feel like you are less of a person if... ... and more of a person if...." There is absolutely nothing logical to back up any claims of a subjective relative view of personhood.
[/quote]

My mentor teacher and I had the same discussion earlier this year. He has a Ph.D. in educational philosophy from Loyola Chicago, and took quite a few regular philosophy courses as well. Anyway, he makes this precise argument, and argues that the subjectivity is left up to the determination of the people. He says that the only people who are entitled to the title of "person" are those who can defend the right to be calls "persons".

Social darwinism, I think ...

So, I asked him how he felt about the Nazis oppressing the Jews, seeing as they "won the right" to do so. He didn't have a problem with it ...

And this is what Loyola is teaching?!

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='14 December 2009 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1260837665' post='2020720']
Per chance did you take logic and nature with a Jim Madden? I think he is the only one at BC who would teach JJ Thomson and Tooley.
[/quote]

Good guess, but it was actually a new professor at BC named Professor Swafford.

[Luigi]

[quote name='Luigi' date='02 December 2009 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1259733758' post='2013051']
1. The embryo is an individual human organism replete with its own genetic code and physiological boundaries. (Thank you, Veridicus). That genetic code is human, and it has being - it exists from the moment of conception as its own combination of human traits, which have never existed before in human history. It is a complete, though underdeveloped, human being from conception. It is still dependent on the mother, but it is not - in its essence - the mother since it has only half of her DNA.

2. One person did not make the fetus; therefore one person (whether the mother or the father) cannot decide to abort the fetus. The fetus has its own right to exist; the child-to-be belongs to itself, to its mother and father, to all four grandparents, to any other siblings, to any aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. No one of them (including the mother and father) should have veto power over the life of the child.

3. Abortion is irreversible. Those who think they are incapable (emotionally, financially, rationally, whatever) of raising a child, don't have to raise the child. Other people can raise the child if the parents really can't. But if one decides to abort and then realizes that the decision was wrong, nothing can repair the damage. Compare that to stealing (I can replace what I stole), angry words (I can at least apologize), damaging property (I can pay for what I damaged). But abortion, like murder, has no means of repair.
[/quote]

Two things: It seems like politicians, lawyers, the pro-abortion crowd et al. are looking for a bright line between "worthy of living" and "not worthy of living," or between "human" and "not yet human," or between "person" and "not yet/no longer a person." There is no bright line. Life is a continuum of incremental change rather than a series of clean "steps" from one phase of life into the next. If we argue with people of this persuasion, we are almost certainly doomed to lose - they want a bright line, and we can't provide one. We must talk them out of the "bright line" argument.

A short elaboration on my point Number 1 above - I think it's correct, but incomplete.
The fetus is human (human DNA);
The fetus has being (it exists - provable with medical technology);
Therefore, it is a human being. This is the argument I make in Number 1 above.

I also mention that the fetus' DNA is a unique combination that has never existed in human history before - apparently that's not quite technically correct, but in the vast majority of cases, it would be enough to convince a reasonably open-minded opponent that it is the unique combination of DNA that makes me the individual - the person - that I am.

Another argument for personhood is that this combination of DNA is alive; it may not have consciousness, or self-awareness, but it is alive; it is alive because it is growing - only living things can grow. (Here we get back to the argument about no bright line between stages of life - all growth is incremental.) In fact, the brightest line available is the line between "no union" and "union" of the cells.

If it is human, has being, and is alive/growing, it must be a person.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

[quote]Good guess, but it was actually a new professor at BC named Professor Swafford.[/quote]
I was good friends with Swafford and his wife. He isn't there anymore, or is he?

[quote]The fetus is human (human DNA);
The fetus has being (it exists - provable with medical technology);
Therefore, it is a human being.[/quote]

I like where it is going, but there might be a few logical problems and maybe some problems with the truth of the premises.

This argument seems invalid. It can be formulated as follows:
A is B
A is C
Therefore, A is BC

There seems to be an equivocation when you use "x is human", "x is a being" and then "x is a human being"... It is like saying "y is blue", "y is a book" therefore, "y is a blue book (meaning the book that college students use to take essay tests in)" (I have a blue book which is not a "Blue Book")

It may be true, but if so it is only accidentally true....it doesn't follow logically.

Also, here is a counter-argument:
My skin cell is human (i.e., it is complete human DNA)
My skin cell has being (it exists)
Therefore, My skin cell is a human being.

If your argument is going to work you will have to strengthen the first and second premise and explain why there is not an equivocation going on with 'human', 'being' and 'human being'.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='16 December 2009 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1261015307' post='2022080']
I was good friends with Swafford and his wife. He isn't there anymore, or is he?

[/quote]

Oh he's still here. When our class came in for a study session for his final, we could here his kids talking and playing outside of the door. It was quite cute.

[Happy_Catholic]

I'm sure others have posted similar responses.

1. Roe v. Wade contains a clause that if the "personhood" of the human uterine entity is established then RvW becomes void, and thusly, abortion is illegal. Seeing as "person" is a semantic with no basis in science all we have to do to overthrow Roe is to establish the human uterine entity as being a person. There can be no argument that this life is not human nor alive.

RvW dictates that the woman's right to privacy overrides any rights the ZEF may possess, simply because the ZEF is not a person. If the ZEF was deemed a legal person then lo and behold their right to life will trump the woman's right to privacy.

Concurrently, its nearly 2010, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she can avoid it. Less than one percent of rapes end in pregnancy and 98% of abortions are for "social" reasons, so obviously "foetal abnormality", "maternal risk" and "rape" are so slight in the statistics as to not really register. Therefore, overthrowing RvW with a personhood of the human uterine entity clause will establish protection for these children.

2. Someone once said that "women will never achieve equality climbing over the bodies of their dead children". Real feminism respects life. What has "modern" or "liberal" feminism won us? Millions of dead children. I still get paid less than a man for the same job, women still have to fight for their rights, women still loose promotions over their male peers. Society has told women that their pregnant state is undesirable and must be "corrected". Society has not made women equal. It has made women superior to their children, but still inferior to men. Society needs to change. Society needs to assist the unwed pregnant teen to finish her education, society needs to push for laws to protect women in the work force, society needs to assist women who have families. We change society's view of women and pregnancy, we can chip away at the mindset that the unborn has less value.

3. The concept of rights and legalities: The right to life is not an abstract concept. The right to life as a phrase seems counter productive, as how do you have a right to something you already have? Corpses do not enjoy a right to privacy or a right to own property, you need to be alive to have these things. How do we know the unborn is alive? MRS GREN. Movement, Respiration, Sense, Growth, Excretion, Nurtition - these are actions an organism must do or express to be classed as biologically alive, teh unborn does these things, thus, it is alive. Its genetics prove it is human. Therefore it is a living human being. As it is a living human being it must be afforded the rights, and in particular the right to not be killed. No other aspect or law of society grants a civilian the right to kill another human being. RvW is morally and legally questionable and can be voided.

Abortion was legalised through lies and deciet and general false hoods. Just ask Dr. Bernard Nathanson. The only real way we can crush Roe is to simply redress the legalities of it in a way that is positive towards the life of the unborn. This will not make the pregnant woman less in value or a "second class citizen" as the pro-aborts claim, but rather, make her equal with her child. Again, its almost 2010, if you don't want to get pregnant, its not exactly hard to avoid.

[KeenanParkerII]

I may not be a philosophy major, but I always go out of my way to take a Philosophy class every semester, and as you can imagine, the issue of abortion comes up quite frequently. This is my favourite case against abortion (it's an amalgamation of an Essay in the most recent addition of Vice and Virtue, and does not actually take the 'personhood' stance):

[color="#008080"]A necessary condition of resolving the abortion controversy is a more theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. After all, if we merely believe, but do not understand, why killing adult human beings such as ourselves is wrong, how could we conceivably show that abortion is either immoral or permissible?

It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is that a killing brutalizes the one who kills. But the brutalization consists of being inured to the performance of an act that is hideously immoral; hence, the brutalization does not explain the immorality. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is the great loss others experience due to our absence. Although such hubris is understandable, such an explanation does not account for the wrongness of killing hermits, or those whose lives are relatively independent...

[b]A more obvious answer is better. What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim's friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. [/b]

Personhood theories of the wrongness of killing, on the other hand, cannot straightforwardly account for the wrongness of killing infants... Hence, such theories must ad special ad hoc accounts of the wrongness of killing the young

[b]Since the loss of the future to a standard fetus, if killed, is... at least as great a loss as the loss of the future to a standard adult human being who is killed, abortion, like ordinary killing, could be justified only by the most compelling reasons. [If you disagree with capital punishment, then obviously, nothing would compel you to justify abortion whatsoever.] [/b]

This account does not have to be an account of the necessary conditions for the wrongness of killing. Some persons in nursing homes may lack valuable human futures, yet it may be wrong to kill them for other reasons. Furthermore, this account does not obviously have to be the sole reason killing is wrong where the victim did have a valuable future.[/color]

So far I've seen 61 people read it, in a very anti-Catholic debate forum, and none have responded. I take that as a good thing.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='16 December 2009 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1261015307' post='2022080']

Also, here is a counter-argument:
My skin cell is human (i.e., it is complete human DNA)
My skin cell has being (it exists)
Therefore, My skin cell is a human being.

If your argument is going to work you will have to strengthen the first and second premise and explain why there is not an equivocation going on with 'human', 'being' and 'human being'.
[/quote]

I see the "my skin cell is a human being" argument all the time. The problem with it is the person claiming their skin cells are human beings are unable too or do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge, the stages of development of a human being.

The zygote, as small as it is, containing human DNA, is a human being in a stage of development.

The embryo is a small cluster of cells that begin to formulate into something that resembles a human being or other organism. It is a human being in a stage of development.

The foetus, with human DNA, which holds a "human appearnace" is a human being in a stage of development.

The skin cell is a single cell, containing human DNA of course, but not a human being because it is a cell, as opposed to an organism. The skin cell is part of a human being. The zygote is the human being. Just in a different stage of development.

The skin cell will never be anything other than a skin cell. The zgyote, contains the full compliement and programming to become a human being (barring any defect or in ability to implant or interuption).

Zygote, embryo, foetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, et cetera.

Stages of human development. All those things above are human beings.