Why killing a fetus is fine.

Killing a fetus is fine because the baby has no interest in its own existence. This is because it has no a consciousness or mental function that allows it to think and comprehend its existence and its life. The only reason for not killing a fetus would be if the mother (or father) decided not to, or society at large - say an institute or another individual, wanted to raise the child. In this case the baby should be kept alive as this would garner greater utility. In places like Africa, India etc, abortion should be made entirely available since these services dont exist. In the other nations, such as the US or Australia, the existence of such services means the mother should give the baby up for adoption, but in deciding not to, their is nothing inherently wrong in such an act.
I would argue there is some ethical basis to assert a social responsibility to raise fetus' unwanted by mothers although that would be for another thread.

If lifers disagreed with this and said life is untouchable, I would assume then they are vegetarians and pacifists. They almost always aren't, which makes their own position entirely hypocritical, as well as groundless.

 

So what, you're saying the only legitimate pro-lifers are Jains? Ahimsa is a foolish philosophy.

 

Yep. And I'm quite sure I'm safe saying most lifers aren't Jains.

 

Under this logic, we are permitted to kill unconscious people. By principle, it doesn't make sense; however, I think a numerous number of people, even pro-lifers, would agree that killing a developed fetus in the third trimester is much worse than killing a zygote. This is part of the reason why I believe early-term abortions should be legal.*

So you're saying that women should not be able to abort if adoption is an option? This would result in outlawing about half abortions in the US, since there is approximately a million each year, and about a half million people willing to adopt that don't get a kid (only about 20 thousand kids are adopted). This also is in contradiction with your previous principle in which it's fine to kill an unconscious human being. This statement is saying that killing human beings is justified because they're better off dead than living a bad life. Why should there be any laws prohibiting early-term abortions at all if there is no moral problem with it? What you're saying in this statement is that it is wrong to kill a human, but it's justified if the government determines that the quality of life wouldn't be worth living, and thus the mother may decide to execute the being. On the other hand, if the government determines that the quality of life would be worth living, the mother cannot abort the fetus.

This is why "pro-life" is a bad term to use. Pro-lifers often support the death penalty, war, and the killing of animals. "Pro-choice" is also the wrong term to use since the majority of pro-choice advocates think late-term abortion should be illegal, inconsistent with their "woman's body, woman's choice" argument. I would also argue that pro-choice advocates often do not support any economic choice, but if I were to go into this analysis, I would be going off-topic. The stance of the "pro-lifers," however, is perfectly consistent. They think that a human should be illegal to kill (unless in self-defense, etc.). They think animals do not have the same rights as humans, and thus should be legal to kill (depending on the animal, depending on the person). The stance is not inconsistent in any way.



*If you care about my full position on why I think early-term abortion should be legal, here it is:

Sometimes, we need to put principle aside in order to achieve the best possible pragmatic solution. In 1972, 586,760 legal abortions were performed (before Roe). In 1976, 988,267 legal abortions were performed (after Roe). In order to calculate an estimate of the number of illegal abortions that were performed, we can look at the fact that there were 88 abortion related deaths across the nation in 1972 -- 39 of which were from illegal abortions. This probably means that there were a little less illegal abortions performed than legal. If we are to assume that the quality is the same (which it probably is), we can calculate that 39 is 79% of 49 and 466,474 is 44% of 586,760, so 1,053,234 would be a very rough estimate of the number of abortions that were performed (perhaps less, but not much less than 988,267). Brazil has a ban on abortions and experts estimate 500,000-1,000,000 abortions are performed there. Basically, the legal status does not affect the number of abortions by all that much. The difference is that, with illegal abortions, it could take a while to find abortion clinics and it could lead to a lot of late-term abortions. With legal abortions, the procedures can be regulated to only allow early-term abortions, and women would thus be much encouraged to get legal, early-term abortions resulting in much less late-term abortions.

 

since you seem to be such an advocate for abortion, then your entire existance is a hypocricy because your mommy did not abort you.

 

I have to thank abortion for my existence since if my mother had not had one prior to having me then she never would have met my father and I would not be here.

 

Yes. However such an act, whilst in and of itself is morally acceptable, becomes immoral when the person has an existing interest and the possibility of regaining consciousness. So, say its a teacher, who gets hit by a car. He's in a coma with minimal brain function. If he were taken off support, he would die painlessly (this is also be a priority when killing) however he has an existing interest in his own existence, having been a teacher with a life. A fetus has none of this. It has no preexisting or future interest because it itself has never had the conscious capacity to do so.

It makes perfect sense.

I would on the grounds that it may cause pain. However if there were a means of avoiding pain, this would be acceptable, and if the fetus were diseased or in a state as to garner more harm for itself to the mother than late term abortion would also be acceptable.

I'll address this later...

No I am saying that the possibility of adoption may prompt society to intervene and raise the baby. Abortion may still be allowed. Generally speaking I would argue there is some imperative to raise the child wear possible, but like I said its not the topic of this OP. I do intend to make another one about this however.

Interesting. For verifiability, could you give me a like. I've been looking for such figures for another thread on the matter.

Not at all. Remember adoption availability doesn't make abortion immoral, it just means people should be encouraged to utilize such systems.

In some cases, yes, correct. However this doesn't apply to people generally unless it were some form of euthanasia - again a topic for another time.

Indeed there shouldnt be.

No, that isnt what I am saying at all.

No, the first point of call is the mother, then the government/other person, like adopter etc where the mother is willing.

Indeed hypocrisy abounds.

Indeed and there is not a contradiction with the right ethical principle, such as mine. (its utilitarianism btw)

Why not?

It is TOTALLY inconsistent in MANY ways. We can go through them. We can start by you answering the question above. Killing a fetus is justified on the same basis killing a fish is, and (to a lessor extent - ie this act is less admirable - killing animals with their own personhood)

Let me ask, when you consider yourself pro-life (more or less) that you feel it acceptable to kill fetuses early on but not later on?

 

Please elaborate. This appears no more than an ignorant nonsequitor.

 

OK

let me bring this down to a lower level

you adviocate abortion on this thread thus implying that you support it and must think it a wonderful thing

you call those who cherish life as Hypocrites

I on the other hand simply point out that the hypocricy is your life. You support abortion and think it swell, your mommy did not abort you thus you are the result of not being aborted; a living breathing hypocricy are you.

You get to be here making these really cool threads about how wonderful abortion is because you yourself were not aborted. You were given the chance at life that you do not wish to extend to others.


does that clear it up for you ?

 

Is there a lower level to that stupidity?

 

Not a wonderful thing, rather an unfortunate thing, but yes I support it.

No, I support lifers as hypocrites. I cherish life.

That still doesnt make sense. I know you cant comprehend that, but it simply does not make any sense.

Yes, so?

AHA, So you think I "do not wish to extend to others" the gift of life? Well, yes that is true. I dont see why such a gift must be given to beings who do not value their own existence let alone the possibility of living. This in no way makes me a hypocrite. My mother decided to raise me - not me, she decided. In the same way if another mother wants to raise her baby, I fully support her but if she wants to abort her child that is also fine.

Also by your own logic does this mean you are a pacifist who opposed all killing? You oppose all war, don't eat meat etc? If you do, explain to me how you can say killing is bad, but not when its during war or when its an animal.

Yes, and I hope I have highlighted the clear misleading assumptions you have made. Unless you cna answer the questions I put above, you will remain a hypocrite.

 

Its called "lifer".

 

Yeah, it is SOOOO much smarter to get pregnant and slaughter the child in utero, than to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

Thanks Megadeath, for demionstrating that lower level we were looking for.

 

Who said that?

1. What lower level did I 'demoinstrate'?
2. Where did I demonstrate it?
3. I have noticed that you are entirely incapable of addressing my any of my arguments for abortion, which is quite telling.

 

You, by implication.

Well when you post something worthy of response, I will reposnd.

 

LOL, SO didnt and you just assumed based on nothing but ignorance. Typical.

FAIL! Your white flag is accepted.

 

Your lack of comprehension of even what you yourself post, is not my problem.

"lifers" are the lower form of intellect, according to you (and you are obviously no Einstein yourself) , so by implication killing your unborn children is smarter than trying to avoid the unwanted pregnancy in the first place, or not killing a child because of your own unfortunate outcome of a risk you knowingly took.

Wear that dunce cap with pride, you have earned it!!!!

 

LOL

I'm not Einstein, although you may think I am, but yes lifers are idiots because they can never backup their position on abortion.

Not at all. How did you get that from what I wrote? lifers are often right wing and opposed to government hand outs, consequently are opposed to international aid which would save children lives.

Since there is nothing wrong in killing a fetus this last point is kind of pointless.

Says the guy who has yet to show one flaw in my reasoning. haha

 

Here's a link to an interesting article building on the ideas I have presented here;

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2264919

 

This is idiotic. I have posted scores of backup for my position against abortion. You apparently just don't read!

Well when you cannot win a debate on the topic at hand, you try to derail the thread and attack the opposition using some ad hominem nonsense, like you just did.

Then why do you call it "unfortunate" in another post?

What reasoning?

 

Where? Give the post number or page. I have replied to everyone of your comments as far as I know.

No, I in no way attacked you. I made the point many lifers are right wing and anti-aid, thus total hypocrites. But if you'd like me to drop this point, I gladly would provided you address the points of the actual thread, which you seem incapable of doing. You obviously dont know what ad hominem is - its an attack on the individual. All I did, relative to yourself, was ask how you got such a conclusion form what I wrote, which isn't ad hominem - its just a question. The rest was another point.

Because I find it unfortunate that the possibility of the child having a life is snuffed out but that in itself is not a reason to ban abortion, rather for me to make avenues available to mothers for adoption etc. Its the same with, say people who are communists, whom I debate at uni. I oppose the ideas of what they say but I sure as hell am going to let them say it, and in trying to curb their waste of time, challenge and hopefully change their position.

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/191184-why-killing-fetus-fine.html#post4022038

Although your question proves my point - you cant actually refute my argument, let alone address it.

 

Well an attack on a group of people with no support whatsoever to ack it up is no better than a personal one.

So what avenues for adoption have you made available?
OKGRANNY, a prolific abortion promoter, claims that adoption is harmful to the mother psychologically and that homicide is better.

 

It may be no better - but it isnt the same. Also, yes the right wing is opposed to family planning and extensive aid programs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/house-gop-proposes-budget_n_865915.html
http://www.brandonsun.com/world/breaking-news/123797699.html?thx=y
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-...epublicans-once-again-show-their-stripes.html

What, me personally? Not much.

So what? Such an argument I dont really care for, especially since data indicates psychological harm is just positive as negative to mothers. So in that sense I disagree with Granny's position. My position is based on the fact the fetus has no value of its life nor desire to exist on any conscious level. Their death is unfortunate, but not harmful, either to itself (again on a conscious level) or to others.

 

Thanks, but I already suspected as much.

 

An infant also has none of that. What if an infant went into a brief coma shortly after being born, or doesn't feel pain for whatever other reason? Is it morally acceptable to kill the child? I would also ask why you need this history in order for it to be discouraged to kill -- are you deriving this opinion from your abortion position or are you basing your abortion position from this opinion?

Most women have abortions as opposed to adoption.

Sure thing.

About 20,000 children adopted each year:
http://adoption.state.gov/about_us/statistics.php

About 500,000 women seeking adoptions each year:
http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html

Over a million abortions each year:
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Alright, I misunderstood your position. You're simply saying adoption should be encouraged over abortion. Is this because of the dangers that the abortion might inflict on the woman?

How is it inconsistent? The pro-life position is that it should be illegal to kill an innocent human. They don't base the principle of why it's wrong to kill on intelligence or awareness; rather, the biological status of the being. There's been people who have said that pigs are smarter than dogs, and that some pigs are even smarter than a 2-year-old child. Does this mean that it is more evil to kill the intelligent pig over a dog or an infant?

The only difference between the sperm and the egg shortly prior to conception and subsequent to conception is that there was a chemical reaction which caused a zygote to form -- a human being. As far as I'm concerned, the zygote has as many rights as the sperm and the egg prior to conception. If there were a burning fire with a science lab which contained 2 million zygotes, and there was also a 5-year-old girl in that fire, and any person was in the situation where they only had time to save either the 5-year-old or the zygotes, I think anyone would choose the 5-year-old. Laws don't magically make things disappear. We need to choose -- legalize early-term abortions, encouraging women to get them as opposed to late-term abortions, or do we outlaw abortion altogether and have the rate of late-term abortions be much higher?