AbOrTiOn, good or bad?

Science says nothing about the moral issues of abortion

There is no scientific disagreement between the extreme pro-life and the extreme pro-choice. Everyone agrees about the stages of birth, when the heart beats, when the fetus is viable outside the womb, etc. etc. etc.

This is a moral question, and science is incredibly bad at answering moral questions.

The crucial question "when does life begin" is really a question of terminology, albeit one with deep philosophical importance.

Science can tell you the exact moment that the sperm enters the egg, but does human life begin there? Well, that depends on your point of view (or your definition of life). The argument will rage on in spite of the fact that everyone agrees about the scientific facts.

Likewise, the issue of consciousness is another issue that is far outside science. Tell me what experiment you would do to tell if a fetus is conscious or not. Science can tell you what parts of the brain are developed and functioning, but does this mean "consciousness"? Again science is unable to answer this.

And even if the baby were declared conscious (by some arbitrary measure of brain activity), this does not mean that "abortion is always wrong". There is no scientific way to support this philosophical statement.

There are at least three different lines that people set as far as when it is no longer acceptable to terminate a pregnancy-- conception, viability and birth.

All of these standards are arbitrary moral standards that are based on our culture and our beliefs. Science can tell you when these events happen, but they are just arbritary moral standards. There is nothing scientific about them.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Think you've just nailed the whole nature of the debate right there djbt, the "pro-lifers" chant "baby killer" while the "pro-choicers" chant "WHAT baby?"

It all comes down to the big question of where the line should be drawn.

I Disagree with the chanting of each group.. I am pro-choice and I don't chant "What baby?".... I myself am against abortion in a sense that I could never do it... but I believe people have a choice....in my eyes abortion is cruel but like I said... their choice!!

0 Replies

Hi there, ebrown_p,

Thanks for your reply. I feel I should clarify a couple of points:

ebrown_p wrote:

And even if the baby were declared conscious (by some arbitrary measure of brain activity), this does not mean that "abortion is always wrong". There is no scientific way to support this philosophical statement. "

Absolutely, this was a statement of my own philosophical position, clearly not a scientific one. I was not attempting to answer the debate, merely clarify where it seems to me the battle is! Were everyone to accept whether or not a baby is conscious at the point of abortion, we could then go on to the moral, philosophical implications of this. While this is not agreed upon, I feel the debate hits rather an impasse...

ebrown_p wrote:

Likewise, the issue of consciousness is another issue that is far outside science. Tell me what experiment you would do to tell if a fetus is conscious or not. Science can tell you what parts of the brain are developed and functioning, but does this mean "consciousness"? Again science is unable to answer this.

In part, I agree. I have no such experiment. Neither have I an experiment which would prove to my satisfaction that you or anyone else is conscious (though, as a possibly interesting sidepoint, I wonder which side of this question I should give the benefit of the doubt?).

Science is, certainly, unable to answer the question of consciousness. But saying science is unable to answer something is not the same as saying something is 'far outside science'. I'm sure we could all multiply examples of aspects of physics, chemistry etc. which we are unable to answer, and yet fall within the sphere of science. (And isn't philosophy an aspect of science? Or is it science that is an aspect of philosophy?)

I have no idea how to define consciousness, let alone assess whether or not it is present. I maintain, however, that it is central to the debate. (I also have no idea how to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, but I'm still pretty confident that is central to a number of physics debates...).

Can anyone help me with my ignorance in this area?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

The crucial question "when does life begin" is really a question of terminology, albeit one with deep philosophical importance.

Any thoughts on this crucial question?

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
The crucial question "when does life begin" is really a question of terminology, albeit one with deep philosophical importance.

Any thoughts on this crucial question?

Sure. I just discovered this recently. Life begins at 30.

0 Replies

"When does life begin?" is a distraction tactic used by pro-choicers. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. The debate is about whether murder is acceptable in the case of abortion, much as it is with regard to the death penalty and war.

The irony is that the same people who are pro-life are pro-death penalty.

0 Replies

Quite wrong Neitzsche,

The definition of "murder" is an "unlawful killing of one human being by another" (as per the American Heritage dictionary). Murder is a legal definition. There are several instance where it is legal to kill another human being and each of these cases are not murder.

As abortion is currently legal, using the term "murder" for abortions is simply incorrect.

This is an emotionally laden word that does not help in any logical discussion of the topic.

0 Replies

I agree, ebrown_p, we should avoid the use of emotionally laden words.

Neitzsche wrote:

"When does life begin?" is a distraction tactic used by pro-choicers

Were I forced to take a side, I would be currently choose 'pro-life', since I think the balance of evidence is on this side, and in any case, in the uncertainty, I would give the benefit of the doubt to saying something is alive, rather that is not.

So I am not a 'pro-choicer'. I still think the question of 'when does life begin' is the crucial one, all other positions assume an answer to it. It is certainly not a distraction tactic here, however it might be used elsewhere. I am genuinely interested in people's thoughts on it, to help me decide on this issue.

0 Replies

Crazielady420 wrote:

I Disagree with the chanting of each group.. I am pro-choice and I don't chant "What baby?".... I myself am against abortion in a sense that I could never do it... but I believe people have a choice....in my eyes abortion is cruel but like I said... their choice!!

Hi Crazielady420. Can I ask, why, if you think abortion is 'cruel', do you think is it 'their choice'? There are many cruel acts a person can do, many of them are illegal, do you generaly hold that is 'their choice' whether a person acts cruelly or not?

0 Replies

djbt

I think Nietzsche is right, to a certain point.
The moment the ovule is fertilized we are facing a potential human being. I mean, all the initial conditions that will develop in an human organism are already there.
Abortion destroys those conditions. That potential human life is destroyed.

So, the problem is: have we the moral right of doing that?
I think that anyone, before answering the question should ask himself another question:
- and if, in my case, my mother have decided to make an abortion?

0 Replies

val wrote:

The moment the ovule is fertilized we are facing a potential human being. I mean, all the initial conditions that will develop in an human organism are already there. Abortion destroys those conditions. That potential human life is destroyed.

I'm not sure why you see fertilization as the defining moment. Surely an egg and a sperm has the 'potential' to be a human being? In fact, a random pile of carbon and some water has the potential to be a human being, doesn't it?

If we are somehow morally obligated to allow/help things which are potentially human beings to become human beings, shouldn't we all be producing as many babies as we can?

val wrote:

I think that anyone, before answering the question should ask himself another question:
- and if, in my case, my mother have decided to make an abortion?

...that would seem like a bad thing to me. But it would also seem bad for my parents to have decided not to have sex on the night I was conceived.

I think moral rights apply only to things that exist and have consciousness. Giving moral rights to things that have the potential for consciousness would be a pretty big jump.

0 Replies

I have a few million potential humans on board right now, and there are plenty of women here at work preventing potential human beings from being born by turning down my offer to buy them a drink. Sure, they may be cruel and clearly without taste, but I think "murderer" might be a bit harsh!

0 Replies

djbt

I was not talking about moral rights of the foetus. I was talking about OUR moral rights.

About the concept of "potential human being":
I didn't use the word "potential" in the sense of possible. I used in the sense of "Potentia/Act".
This foetus is a potential human being means that, the normal development of this foetus will end in a specific human being. Like this seed will become a specific plant.
That is what I called the "initial conditions".

0 Replies

(Can this discussion possibly continue without Monty Python)

Monty Python wrote:

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood!
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

0 Replies

ebrown

"Monty Python"? I don't remember to have heard that one ...
But I think this topic has nothing to do with God or religion. I deny any idea of God and I deny religions.

But surely you don't think that, if someone talks about moral he must be religious? Or do you?

0 Replies

Are you really saying you have never heard of Monty Python?

Go to your local video store right away and rent "Monty Python: The Meaning of Life". This is a seminal work on philosophy and if you have somehow missed seeing it, it represents a major hole in your education.

I posted the passage above because of the discussion of "potential life". Of course you don't need to be religious to value "potential life", but that doesn't mean that looking at a religous viewpoint isn't relevant to the discussion.

I am dead serious, see the film.

0 Replies

Quote:

Monty Python: The Meaning of Life". This is a seminal work on philosophy

0 Replies

ebrown

You didn't understand. I love Monty Python. I've seen the "Meaning of life" several times and I have it in video.
What I didn't know was the poem in your thread. Are you sure is it from the "Meaning of Life"?

0 Replies

val,

It's sung by a children's choir and Michael Palin mostly if I remember correctly.

Near the start....where you'd expect.

0 Replies

I was wondering if someone was going to bring up the "Sperm" song. Very Happy

The initial question is poorly worded: Abortion is neither good nor bad. It is a medical procedure, and, as someone else already noted, people don't tend to cheer when they must undergo a medical procedure. They probably sigh in relief that the medical procedure is available to correct whatever's wrong. Getting an abortion should be no more an issue than having an unwanted growth removed from one's backside. It is only the theological roots of our moral values that makes an abortion more significant. Let's face it, if we (Americans) weren't in the process of emerging from the under the thumb of Puritannical views of sex (ie, abstinence before marriage, sex is for procreation only, missionary position, etc.), would abortion be such a controversy?

I'm not sure why the a "potential human life" should be given any special consideration. Many women who conceive abort spontaneously without ever knowing they were pregnant. When was the last time anyone mourned an extra heavy menstrual flow? Indeed, in the age of cloning, any random cell off our bodies could be a "potential human life"--should we begin saving our toenail clippings? Alright, I'll admit that last sentence was a bit silly.

0 Replies

AbOrTiOn, good or bad?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know