Is Abortion a right someone should have?

FallingSkyward:

You argue that the probability of the embryo becoming a healthy child is much higher than the probability that I will win the lottery. On that basis, you argue that the embryo ought to have the rights of the child, but I ought not to have the rights of a lottery winner.

If probability is the dividing line, consider another example.

Prince Frederick is currently the heir to the throne of Denmark. He is a potential king. The probability that in the future he will be King of Denmark is very high - much higher than my chances of winning the lottery. By your argument, as a potential king, he should, right now be given all the same rights as the King.

Another (somewhat weaker) point: You compare the gestation of a foetus to putting some money in the bank and waiting for the interest to accumulate. In that example, the foetus is similar to the money. Does the money have a right not to be withdrawn from the bank, because of its potential to grow into a large sum? In principle, ANY money I put in the bank will eventually grow into a large sum of money. But that doesn't mean I should never be allowed to withdraw any money from the bank. I might need that money to buy food, for example, in which case my interests would outweigh any the money might have in staying in the bank.

Can you respond to this? Because Quarkmoon hasn't made a very good fist of it.

 

Quarkmoon:

Why draw the line at conception? A separate sperm and egg are a potential child. Why don't all sperm not have a right to life?

Just before sperm meets egg, we have two cells. Just after, we have one cell. According to you, that one cell has all the rights of a new born baby, while the separate sperm and ovum have no special rights. Why? Surely they have approximately equal potential.

That's completely incorrect. This is an important point. It is only because your morality is inconsistent that you immediately, without even starting to think, dismiss the rights of sentient creatures, while at the same time giving much greater rights to a random class of non-sentient beings.

In short, you are quite happy to kill an adult cow, for example, which is a fully conscious, thinking and feeling being with the potential to continue to live a full and happy life. Why is killing it ok, according to you? Because it will give you a small amount of pleasure. Any yet, at the same time, you will defend the "rights" of a human embryo, which has no consciousness, does not think, has no feeling (up to a certain stage). Why? Because of its "potential" to grow into an adult human?

Giving special treatment to human life just because it is human rather than some other species is called speciesism. No ethically valid argument can be made for such a position.

On a less important point, your claim that humans must eat animals for their "nutritional value" is also baseless. Yes, Quarkmoon, I have heard of vitamins and iron. They are all readily available in vegetables and other non-animal foods.

For example, vitamin B12 is found in dairy foods, eggs, breakfast cereals and soy milk. Protein is found in grains, cereals, peanut butter, baked beans, milk, eggs, yoghurt, pasta, seeds, peas and beans. Iron is found in pumpkin, sunflower and sesame seeds, peanut butter, chick peas, hommus, soy beans, kidney beans, wheat bran, wheat germ, dried figs, peaches, prunes... The list goes on and on.

No, you're just getting defensive. You're right about age, of course. Age doesn't automatically make you more knowledgable. I'm more knowledgable than you on this issue simply because I've obviously looked at it more carefully than you. But you'll learn.

I checked back, but could see anything. Come on, Quarkmoon. One sentence ought to be enough. "Two abortions are worse than one because ..."

That's a lot of conditions. I found your escape clause particularly amusing: "if complete prohibition cannot be made". Given that clause, your actual answer seems to me to be: you don't really care if adoption would be more traumatic for mothers - abortion should be prohibited even in such cases. Why not be honest about it?

If, on the other hand, your escape clause was accidental, then I wonder why you are suddenly bringing in the mother's interests, when previously only the interests of the foetus mattered to you. Suppose all your conditions (1)-(4) are met in a particular case. None of those things change the fact that the embryo is a potential human adult. So, why does your main argument get thrown away at this point, if these conditions are met? What makes the difference?

Do you think this would be the case for most women who have abortions? If not, approximately what proportion would you estimate?

 

FallingSkyward:

And I'm saying that it is fine to treat an embryo as a future child. But those who argue for a blanket ban on abortion want to treat the embryo not as a future child, but as a current child.

It is a simple point: A potential or future X is not yet an X, and therefore does not automatically inherit all the rights of an X now.

Then I disagree with those people. But I am not arguing that abortion should not be restricted in any way. I am simply arguing that it should not be illegal. I am arguing that in certain circumstances, abortion is not an unreasonable course of action. And I'm not just talking about rape and the like.

If taking the money out now puts food on the table, then that would seem to me to be a direct benefit you get now. Similarly, if aborting a foetus means a woman doesn't have to endure a 9 month pregnancy, followed by a birth and the associated problems with supporting the baby (or adopting or whatever) after birth, and all that goes along with those things, then that is an immediate, tangible benefit to the mother, right now.

I do not see why it is unreasonable to weigh up this benefit to the mother against the detriment to the embryo.

I agree that it should be viewed as having more than zero rights, and in that sense it is "important". But I see no reason why, in many instances, the interests of the mother cannot be more important. Pro-lifers concentrate entirely on the embryo/foetus and completely ignore the mother. Why? Is the mother unimportant?

But there is immense hypocrisy here, too, among pro-lifers. Why is human life so valuable, and yet animal life, even the lives of mature animals, is worth so very little? What makes a human embryo so much more worthy of moral consideration than, say, a two year old cow?

Why aren't all pro-lifers vegetarian, if they really believe all life is sacred? Simple answer: they don't really believe all life is sacred. Just human life. Why? Usually religious reasons. They've been told, so they believe it. But they never really think about their own moral positions; they're just inherited.

I agree that potential should be valued, but I stridently disagree that it ought always to take precedence over competing interests.

What is your position in the abortion debate, by the way? I get the impression you are against any form of abortion. Is that true? And if so, why?

(On language: I'm guessing you're American, so you probably know no better than to spell it "fetus". I don't have a problem with that, but do you really need to criticise a correct English spelling? After all, English was invented in England. Also, it's "oe" dipthong, technically, but I don't know how to do that on a computer screen.)

Ah! But the embryo can't do that on its own, can it? It needs a uterus in which to do that. And somebody owns that uterus. Which suggests to me that that somebody ought to be part of the equation. What do you think?

Just to be clear, do you propose that the line between full rights and no rights ought to be drawn at the moment of conception? Or would you give limited rights to sperm? Or what?

I will address this after I have your response to the above question.