Philosophical Vegan Forum

From having read similar discussions on other vegan forums I have learned that most vegans support the right for abortion. Are there any vegans on this forum who are against abortion and if so, please state your level of opposition.

1. Abortion is never justified
2. Abortion is only justified in the case of rape
3. Abortion is only justified in case the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy

I think the only group of vegans to actively be anti-abortion are those who are also spiritual ("all life is sacred") in which case you're unlikely to find them here.

Soycrates wrote:I think the only group of vegans to actively be anti-abortion are those who are also spiritual ("all life is sacred") in which case you're unlikely to find them here.

Do you really think you have to be spiritual to think that "all life is sacred"?

Jebus wrote:

Soycrates wrote:I think the only group of vegans to actively be anti-abortion are those who are also spiritual ("all life is sacred") in which case you're unlikely to find them here.

Do you really think you have to be spiritual to think that "all life is sacred"?

Well, the concept of something being sacred is pretty much necessarily spiritual or religious, so yeah.

We're only worried about sentient beings' interests. We don't typically place the interests of marginally sentient beings like insects along with highly sentient beings like adult mammals. You can say all life is sacred if you like, but not all life is equal in moral consideration.

At a certain point later in the pregnancy, the fetus develops sensation and could experience being aborted, although it's hard to say to what extent that experience is comprehended.

"Current research shows that the sensory structures are not developed or specialized enough to respond to pain in a fetus of less than 24 weeks"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_perception

I would tend to accept that as the time before which abortion is or should be uncontroversial (like killing plants).

However, even after this point, unlike newborns of many other species, human brains are not fully developed until some time long after birth; they are certainly not fully aware of their situation, but may be only marginally sentient.

It is wrong in some small regard, in that it is doing harm, but you have to weigh the entire situation and all consequences against each other. Few decisions in life are all right or all wrong, and the act of bringing an unwanted child into the world is likely more wrong than sparing the child the suffering of existing in that state, and sparing society the costs associated with that burden (which can be applied to other social interests and relieve suffering elsewhere).

Well, I suppose there are somewhat more rational proponents. They would probably appeal to the potentiality of the life that is going to develop when it's not getting aborted, and thus possibly some future utility.

Volenta wrote:Well, I suppose there are somewhat more rational proponents. They would probably appeal to the potentiality of the life that is going to develop when it's not getting aborted, and thus possibly some future utility.

I've never heard anybody even seemingly rational (I would say none of them are actually rational) argue that (just some nutty people screaming "What if Beethoven was aborted?!!?!1").
To argue that seriously, they'd have to also be against masturbation, condoms, and sexual abstinence, since the argument seems to be for maximizing human population growth. But maybe I've missed something.

Usually the arguments revolve around some pseudo-philosophy resembling libertarianism or Randian Objectivism (while Rand herself wasn't even that nutty).

There definitely are atheist (and non-spiritual) pro lifers. This site indexes over a hundred of them it seems.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/members.html



I could understand being against abortion after the 26th week or so, which is where the fetus might reasonably feel pain and is also where the fetus starts to become viable. At that point it could just be taken out, and if somebody else seriously wants it, there's an argument to give it to them rather than kill it if they'll pay for the procedure and medical care for the premature and mother.

Even that is pushing it, but I could humor that and respect an argument for it as potentially being rational. Particularly if it was the father who wanted the child and the mother who didn't. Sometimes people can have legitimate investment in a fetus, and if it's possible to turn it over without imposition that could be reasonable.

These people don't believe that, though. These people want to criminalize abortion from conception, and don't care about the science. They don't care about consequentialism, and they don't make pragmatic arguments. They're just nutty dogmatists who clung to this idea in lieu of religion.

Here's one's "argument". This is pretty typical rambling.

http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html

Here's another, Hemant Mehta reposted it (he's not "pro-life" himself):

Warning- don't open the site without a pop-up blocker, patheos has terrible ads
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... e-of-them/

Another warning: There's so much stupid in that article it's hard to read.

But fear not! Matt debated her and demolished her, so this may be a more pleasant experience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78_V1Z9CO4

Here are some nuggets of nuttery from the article:

If we deny personhood and justify the death of a fetus simply because he or she has not developed to the point of sentience yet, that makes abortion the deadliest form of age discrimination.[...]

History is ripe with examples of real biological human beings whose societies arbitrarily decided they didn’t qualify as equals, on account of criteria deemed morally relevant. At one point (and still, in many ways, today), it was skin color, gender, and ethnic background. Now, we can add to that list consciousness, sentience, and viability. [...]
Furthermore, if self-awareness is to be the dividing line, anyone unconscious or in a coma might not be considered a person, while those in a heightened state of awareness due to drugs would trump the rest of us.

Jebus wrote:

Soycrates wrote:I think the only group of vegans to actively be anti-abortion are those who are also spiritual ("all life is sacred") in which case you're unlikely to find them here.

Do you really think you have to be spiritual to think that "all life is sacred"?

Sacred: "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration."

So it's not surprising that I would say yes, you have to be some sort of spiritual or religious to call anything sacred.

Otherwise, you're using the word incorrectly.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I've never heard anybody even seemingly rational (I would say none of them are actually rational) argue that (just some nutty people screaming "What if Beethoven was aborted?!!?!1").

Maybe because you raise the bar too high before you call someone rational. Some people are very sophisticated thinkers, but nonetheless hold views that you and I would consider wrong.

The nutty people that you're referring to is in no way representative for those thinkers. You can find nutty people on every standpoint of a subject. We should try to avoid making the guilt by association fallacy (and I'm not saying you're making one, before you're attacking me).

brimstoneSalad wrote:To argue that seriously, they'd have to also be against masturbation, condoms, and sexual abstinence, since the argument seems to be for maximizing human population growth. But maybe I've missed something.

They do have a response for that, namely that there is not yet an individual to harm. A fetus is considered a living being—even though not sentient—where reproductive cells aren't. But I'm sure that someone who isn't playing the devil's advocate is presenting this case better than me.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Here's another, Hemant Mehta reposed it (he's not "pro-life" himself):

Warning- don't open the site without a pop-up blocker, patheos has terrible ads
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... e-of-them/

Another warning: There's so much stupid in that article it's hard to read.

But fear not! Matt debated her and demolished her, so this may be a more pleasant experience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78_V1Z9CO4

I agree, Kristine Kruszelnicki isn't even near being rational. See did refer to Don Marquis (and his case) though, who is someone who argues for this potential future value. Peter Singer did have a (pretty formal philosophical) debate with him quite some time ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qfiq18DMYk

Volenta wrote: Maybe because you raise the bar too high before you call someone rational. Some people are very sophisticated thinkers, but nonetheless hold views that you and I would consider wrong.

Well, it depends on where and how they are wrong. People can be mistaken without being irrational. But it's uncommon, because rational people will accept correction, so it's an unstable place to be in.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nobody vocally advocating anti-choice positions on abortion today has failed to be confronted with their errors. Maybe nobody did so clearly or rationally, but that seems unlikely for somebody who has been in the game for a while.

Volenta wrote:We should try to avoid making the guilt by association fallacy (and I'm not saying you're making one, before you're attacking me).

Sorry if I come off really strong in debate, you know I never mean to really attack you I hope.

Volenta wrote: They do have a response for that, namely that there is not yet an individual to harm. A fetus is considered a living being—even though not sentient—where reproductive cells aren't.

That's a completely different argument.

There are the arguments:

1. Potential future utility (which only means we should be obligated the maximize population growth)

2. It's wrong to harm a living being (which is a dogmatic statement without support or any relationship to the above).

If they are asserting #2, then #1 is irrelevant and a separate argument. #2 is not a defense for the flaws of #1.

Volenta wrote: But I'm sure that someone who isn't playing the devil's advocate is presenting this case better than me.

I highly doubt that.

Volenta wrote:See did refer to Don Marquis (and his case) though, who is someone who argues for this potential future value. Peter Singer did have a (pretty formal philosophical) debate with him quite some time ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qfiq18DMYk

Thanks, I'll check it out.