Abortion hypotheticals

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
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1821
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Abortion hypotheticals

Post by Jebus » Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:02 pm

Curious about your replies to the following hypotheticals:

Mary is pregnant and wants an abortion. Mary's sister Sally always wanted a baby but can't have one. Sally says she will adopt Mary's baby immediately following the birth.

Would it be morally wrong for Mary to have an abortion? If so why?

Mary is a pregnant crack whore. All her friends and relatives are addicted to crack. She cannot have an abortion as she is allergic to anesthesia. Her doctor has agreed to kill the baby as soon as the baby exits her vagina.

Would it be morally wrong for the doctor to kill the baby? If so why?
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:12 pm

Jebus wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:02 pm
Curious about your replies to the following hypotheticals:

Mary is pregnant and wants an abortion. Mary's sister Sally always wanted a baby but can't have one. Sally says she will adopt Mary's baby immediately following the birth.

Would it be morally wrong for Mary to have an abortion? If so why?
Is Utility in favor of or against Mary’s reproduction? Why does Mary want the abortion?

The mother has a far greater capacity to experience well-being (satisfaction of her interests) and thus warrants greater moral concern than the fetus. Should the mother’s wellbeing be potentially severely offset by the wellbeing of the child, then Utility would not be in favor of the pregnancy.

Also, how far along is Mary in the pregnancy? The fetus may have interests of its own to be considered. If its capacity to experience well-being (satisfaction of its interests) is greatly limited or even eliminated via fetal abnormalities & severe genetic defects then Utility would not be in favor the pregnancy.

Let’s assume that the biological interests of the mother can be met, but the mother is incapable of raising/financially supporting the child. If Sally is fully capable and chooses to adopt the baby, then utility could be in favor of the pregnancy. The scenario could potentially lead to a happy Mary, Sally, and Child, and thus the satisfaction of the most interests.
Jebus wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:02 pm
Mary is a pregnant crack whore. All her friends and relatives are addicted to crack. She cannot have an abortion as she is allergic to anesthesia. Her doctor has agreed to kill the baby as soon as the baby exits her vagina.

Would it be morally wrong for the doctor to kill the baby? If so why?
Probably, since pregnant women can receive appropriate medical care/addiction treatment to reduce the risks of harm to the fetus. Actually, the immoral act would be to continue freely abusing the drug (while pregnant) and killing the child immediately after birth. That would be a flippant dismal of the child's interests for no valid reason. While we can’t fully estimate the long-term effects of maternal crack-use on fetuses, it’s clear that the harm can be reduced by taking action during maternal drug abuse, and therefore increasing the future quality of life for the baby.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:49 pm

I'd say in both cases, it's morally wrong, but I also think abortion is morally wrong in 90% of cases. In cases of rape, incest, or possible harm to the mother, then abort away.

And for those that don't know, I'm not religious so my opposition has nothing to do with religion. I also am opposed to any laws that restrict abortion. (before any women think I'm trying to oppress their reproductive "rights")

To me, if you think in Jebus's first example was okay, then you should be fine with the second as well. (fourth trimester abortion?)
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by esquizofrenico » Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:24 pm

PsYcHo wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:49 pm
To me, if you think in Jebus's first example was okay, then you should be fine with the second as well. (fourth trimester abortion?)
This is clearly not true, the first and the second case can be differentiated in that for the first case you can say that the mother is not trying to kill the baby but to exert her right of body autonomy, that unfortunately leads to the dead of a baby; while that is not the case for the second case, once the baby is out of the belly he is wholly independent and killing him would be against the NAP.

What you can say is that if you think the first scenario is moral, it would also be moral for the mother in the second case to let the baby starve if no one was willing to take care of him. From a "rights" point of view this whole discussion depends on whether or not you think the mother has any kind of obligation with respect her baby just for having conceived him or her. If the relationship of a mother with her baby is equivalent to that of anyone with a random kid in Africa, abortion is no different than spending money for a superfluous reason when you could use it to give food and shelter to that kid.

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:20 pm

PsYcHo wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:49 pm
In cases of rape, incest, or possible harm to the mother, then abort away.
Would you say it’s morally permissible to abort a 9 month old baby who was conceived in the act of rape? What about a 3 year old child who was the product of rape?

How is the distinction drawn between an adult, a child, a baby, and a fetus conceived of rape?

carnap
Senior Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm
Religion: Other

Post by carnap » Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:19 pm

I think the line between abortion and euthanizing newborns is pretty murky, after all, human infants are born around 3-months early and are pretty much blobs of jello with little cognitive function (little to no motor control, etc). Around 4-month they start to show signs of some awareness (e.g., social smiling). The difference in view seems to largely be emotional, the newborn is something you can look at and hold where as the fetus is not.

Though there is still the fact that the newborn can survive without the mother but that may be true of fetuses in the future. So in the future world where fetuses could be raised alternatively in an artificial womb would abortion be immortal? If one says "yes" to that then I think they will have trouble explaining why the mother has any "right" to kill the fetus because it cannot be detached at the moment.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:35 pm

Lay Vegan wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:20 pm
PsYcHo wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:49 pm
In cases of rape, incest, or possible harm to the mother, then abort away.
Would you say it’s morally permissible to abort a 9 month old baby who was conceived in the act of rape? What about a 3 year old child who was the product of rape?
:twisted: Nice counterpoint!

But, absolutely not.

If someone was forcibly impregnated, they have up to eight months (since they cannot reasonably know if they are pregnant in the first month) to terminate the pregnancy. I'm not a fan of late-term abortions, but I understand how someone could struggle with the decision. (I don't have a uterus, so I can only consider from a scholarly view)

Once they decide to allow the fetus to exit their body, it is no longer a part of them. It is an individual capable of surviving without them (providing someone else is willing to provide for it, which many, many people would ). To kill it would be murder in the simplest terms. They could give it up for adoption, or sell it to the highest bidder. :twisted: No reason to kill it.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:20 pm
How is the distinction drawn between an adult, a child, a baby, and a fetus conceived of rape?
If it is living in your body, and basically a parasite that you must feed, you have the right as an individual to remove the parasite. I don't like it morally, but that's your right as an individual. It's pretty clear to me though, that if it's able to survive without your uterus, you no longer have a right as an individual to remove it from existence.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:00 pm

esquizofrenico wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:24 pm
PsYcHo wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:49 pm
To me, if you think in Jebus's first example was okay, then you should be fine with the second as well. (fourth trimester abortion?)
This is clearly not true, the first and the second case can be differentiated in that for the first case you can say that the mother is not trying to kill the baby but to exert her right of body autonomy, that unfortunately leads to the dead of a baby;
Before I respond, I want to make it clear in case of rape I don't feel this way, but if we aren't talking about rape......

The mother made the choice to have unprotected sex. (Or maybe the condom broke, my next point will still apply)

I'm a realist. Sex is fun and feels good, and sometimes the guy who says he "won't go inside you" lies, or the condom breaks, or your timing is off for the rhythm method, whatever.

Plan B pills exist, so that's an option.

So are, birth control, proper use of condoms, properly using the pull out method, diaphragms, spermicide, IUD, or twenty other options https://www.birthcontrol.com/

If you can't be bothered to use any of those methods, and still get pregnant, maybe I'd feel understanding if you have your abortion in the first month or two. Still don't have to like it, because ADOPTION exists, but I'd get it. (I'm an adoptee, btw ;) )

But if you go past that, and still want to use the excuse of body autonomy, you're ignoring the autonomy of the body living inside of you because of your choices.

Take responsibility for your actions, give the damn child away. I'll never understand how persons who won't kill a damn fish think it's okay to kill a damn tadpole that grows into a human..... :?: :?:
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

carnap
Senior Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm
Religion: Other

Post by carnap » Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:24 am

PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:35 pm
If it is living in your body, and basically a parasite that you must feed, you have the right as an individual to remove the parasite. I don't like it morally, but that's your right as an individual. It's pretty clear to me though, that if it's able to survive without your uterus, you no longer have a right as an individual to remove it from existence.
Newborns are also "parasites" in this sense, the only reason you can separate them from their mother's today is due to technology. Namely the existence of infant formula. So prior to infant formula would it then be morally just for a mother to kill her breast feeding newborn or toddler because it is "basically a parasite" on her?

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:33 am

carnap wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:24 am
PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:35 pm
If it is living in your body, and basically a parasite that you must feed, you have the right as an individual to remove the parasite. I don't like it morally, but that's your right as an individual. It's pretty clear to me though, that if it's able to survive without your uterus, you no longer have a right as an individual to remove it from existence.
Newborns are also "parasites" in this sense, the only reason you can separate them from their mother's today is due to technology. Namely the existence of infant formula. So prior to infant formula would it then be morally just for a mother to kill her breast feeding newborn or toddler because it is "basically a parasite" on her?
Do you think it is morally acceptable to kill an infant because it is unable to care for itself?

If that is your reasoning, I could argue that if you don't farm your own food, build your own house, and only rely on clothing and other "necessities" that you produce yourself, you are just as much of a parasite as the infant in question. :twisted:
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests