Abortion discussion

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Kanade
Newbie
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Abortion discussion

Post by Kanade »

Thoughts on abortion? Pro-life? Pro-choice?

As a sentiocentrist i put sentience as the cornerstone of moral responsibility and since early trimester fetuses lack sentience and the ability to feel pain i don't consider it immoral. However once the fetus reaches a certain stage where it has the ability to feel pain and a form of sentience it should be considered infanticide (most scientist reach the conclusion that during the 26th week the fetuses have formed the necessary pathways to suffer from pain)

So basically i am pro-choice but strongly oppose late term abortions, i also disagree with Singer's views on the moral status of infants.
“I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.”
― Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
thebestofenergy
Master in Training
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 5:49 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Italy

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by thebestofenergy »

Like you said, the fetus is sentient only from a certain point: the thalamo-cortical complex begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.
There isn't a loss if you abort before that.
For evil to prevail, good people must stand aside and do nothing.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Right, sentience is all that matters.

Of course, after the 26th-ish week it may be "wrong", but we also have to consider the magnitude, as well as the context.

Humans brains aren't fully developed until well after they're born- in this sense, we are quite unique in the animal kingdom, and Singer is mostly right.

So while it is wrong, we can not consider it to be very wrong.
And weighed against other matters in a consequential sense, it may be the best and most compassionate choice sometimes (the least of wrongs).

It can easily be seen as more wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world.

And it's definitely more wrong to restrict abortion legally, because we know that only pushes them underground and makes them unsafe - the fact that people still debate this today is disturbing.
User avatar
Neptual
Senior Member
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 5:47 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: New York

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by Neptual »

Pro-choice to a certain extent. As brimstone has said sentience is all that matters.
She's beautiful...
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by Volenta »

I agree with what brimstoneSalad said. There is nothing I can think of that makes abortion immoral before it is sentient (around the 25 week), but even if it is sentient, there can be occasions where it would still be justified. The consequences of not aborting might cause more suffering later in life (for the infant, but also for the mother, father and maybe even society) that outweighs the suffering of the fetus and possibly infant. I actually think I do agree with Peter Singer on disabled infants as well, but haven't yet read much on it.

I also have to say that not killing newborn animals because of moral reasons is totally consistent and not speciesist (this time the other way around :P). Killing newborn animals has no serious benefits that cause less suffering/more enjoyment—and eating them certainly is not outweighing. There always might be hypothetical scenarios where it is morally justifiable, but I don't know of any working example and think there aren't many.

@brimstoneSalad
Where do you think Peter Singer isn't right? Just curious.
User avatar
Shadow Fox
Junior Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by Shadow Fox »

So long as its aborted before it has brain activity and a heart beat then it doesn't count as human in my book.

I believe brain activity comes later. Anyway, The potential life argument is useless to me. I really could care less about a potential life. Females shed many potential lives every month and you do not see Christians bombing peoples houses every day for females having their periods. ( Which god gave them lol. ).

People have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit. If you wanna become a woman....OK?! sure! whatever..If you want to abort a unwanted growth you have before it becomes sentient.

Go right on ahead!
We are all born Atheists, everyone of us. We are born without the Shackles of theism arresting our minds. It is not until we are poisoned by the fears and delusions of others that we become trapped in the psychopathic dream world of theism.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Volenta wrote: @brimstoneSalad
Where do you think Peter Singer isn't right? Just curious.
I haven't read his argument in a long time. But once a child is born, it is no longer physiologically reliant on the mother, and can survive without posing further risk to an unwilling party. This changes a lot of things on a social and 'rights' level.

Singer may be overly-conservative with regards to what kind of life is or can be worth living.

When Utilitarianism is broken down into resources alone, without regards to social costs, and the costs to social virtue (in a sense), it can justify some dubious things.

Consequentialism is correct. Utilitarianism, strictly speaking, may not be, since it ignores the problem of selfishness.
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by Volenta »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Consequentialism is correct. Utilitarianism, strictly speaking, may not be, since it ignores the problem of selfishness.
Isn't that just a practical problem? People don't like to do things that decreases there own wellbeing, but when this action is causing more enjoyment in other people than suffering to yourself, it is the right answer.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Volenta wrote: Isn't that just a practical problem? People don't like to do things that decreases there own wellbeing, but when this action is causing more enjoyment in other people than suffering to yourself, it is the right answer.
Utilitarianism allows you to harm others for your own pleasure, as long as that harm is slightly less in negative utility than you receive in positive utility.
Utilitarianism is not anti-exploitation, it's just anti-inefficient-exploitation.

Helping others at cost to yourself is altruism. It's only supported by utilitarianism if that cost is smaller than the benefit to others.

Also, see the Utility monster for a more extreme case of how Utilitarianism is flawed.

Consequentialism is correct, but Utility is not the ideal way to frame it (and suffers a number of inaccuracies).
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Abortion discussion

Post by Volenta »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Utilitarianism allows you to harm others for your own pleasure, as long as that harm is slightly less in negative utility than you receive in positive utility.
Utilitarianism is not anti-exploitation, it's just anti-inefficient-exploitation.

Helping others at cost to yourself is altruism. It's only supported by utilitarianism if that cost is smaller than the benefit to others.

Also, see the Utility monster for a more extreme case of how Utilitarianism is flawed.

Consequentialism is correct, but Utility is not the ideal way to frame it (and suffers a number of inaccuracies).
Interesting...

But I'm still not convinced that utilitarianism is flawed. Utilitarianism is not per definition anti-exploitation indeed, but if you would make it possible in society to exploit when the benefits would outweigh the costs of the action itself, it can cause bad psychological effects beforehand that would make the justification of exploitation less possible. So knowing that you could always be hurt for the wellbeing of others, can cause even more suffering. And besides, the reasons for inflicting the suffering might be for the wrong reasons (this might be something I haven't seen utilitarianism address very well).

The utility monster is very hypothetical, so it's hard to imagine whether it really is wrong to favor the utility monster over the others.

I'm not saying utilitarianism is perfect as it is right know, but I'm not aware of any better form of consequentialism. That doesn't mean that it makes utilitarianism correct, but the fundamental premise to maximize utility seems to be pointing in the right direction.
Post Reply