Philosophy Now Forum

Is it not better to let a fetus die that has virtually no consciousness than to let a human go to hell in full consciousness? I give a clear affirmation to this question.

What do you think? I know it sounds a little utilitarian, but I'm in favour of abortion.

No idea what you mean by hell. Can you define that please. Oh I worked it out. If you are worried that the child might go to hell and has a better chance of going to heaven dying as a fetus, then do neither, have no children. That way you save the child and you save yourself. Isn't that even more utilitarian?

I just think that anyone in favour of abortion should kill themselves and tell us what it's like so we can then decide how good or bad it is for people that can't speak.

Wootah,

let me suggest an easier line for you: "I'm against abortion!"

I don't think abortion is appealing either, but in certain situations it's better to have the abortion than to put the future human in an unbearable situation later. Maybe there's a likelihood of making better people when they are truly wanted.

I have used "go to hell" as a picture of a future, very bad situation. It's certainly not meant to evoke religious prejudices.
Do you think sperm and an egg makes a human being right after conception? Just curious!

Yeah I pretty much agree that a human life begins at conception.

What sort of unbearable situations do you mean? Are they still realistic situations?

Hi Wootah,

In a perfect world that would be a good option. However, we all know accidents and rape can happen. So to fault a woman for being pregnant is not a clear cut case.

I was always in favor of a woman's right to choose. However, I don't think I could go through with it myself...maybe I could...I don't know because I have never been in that position. But the main point I wanted to make is this. Just because fetus may be a life, doesn't mean that the fetus is going to be a life without the mother's body to bring it to gestation. And since the fetus is totally reliant on the mother in order to sustain life, it is not logical to favor one life over the other. Both lives are important, relevant and equal. If we force the woman to carry the fetus to full term when she does not want to, we have forced her into slavery. We have ignored her rights as an individual (not to mention the free will God promised us) in order to tell her HER life is not as important as the life inside of her. Either choice is morally wrong. It is wrong to force people into slavery for the soul purpose of becoming an incubator for 9 months.

On the other hand...I have carried a fetus to term before and I can tell you without a doubt...that when you feel it kick...it becomes 'real.' There is no question it is alive and it is for that reason I am sympathetic to your argument. Perhaps there can be a compromise of allowing the morning after pill to be sold over the counter or allowing abortion up to a certain time frame of the pregnancy? I will admit, it is a tough one...I don't want to commit murder ...but then again I think it is morally wrong to force a woman into slavery in order to use her body as society sees fit. Sadly, there is not perfect answer. Hopefully, God has mercy for us all. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I think that is an obtuse definition of slavery. Are we slaves to physics now as well?

Biology is not a form of slavery. Slavery is being forced to do anothers bidding. You aren't doing what the child wants in that sense, you are doing what the child needs and as you know, what the child needs means sacrificing what you want for years. Viewing women as incubators and pregnancy as slavery seems perverted.

Utilitarian, huh? Don't worry, you removed all doubt!

So, lets start with the premise that the anti-abortionists are right - abortion is as bad as murder. Why argue with people? Why not just accept their claims, life is much easier that way.

So, abortion is murder.

This means that a death of a fetus (from zygote onward) is as bad, as tragic, as a death of a fully formed child or adult.

Now, at least 25% of all conceptions - maybe as many as 50% - end up not reaching full term -without abortion entering the picture. This can be anything from zygote failing to implant to a miscarriage at a later stage.

This is an epidemic that makes anything short of the Black Death look small-time! And yet anti-abortionists seem unconcerned about it. Why is that?

Further, the older the woman, the higher the risk of miscarriage. If a 45-year-old woman gets pregnant, the chances of miscarriage are around 75%. Does this mean that it is morally wrong for older women to do anything that might result in pregnancy - as such an action is very likely to end in the death of a human being? Maybe only women 18-25 should be permitted to do anything that might lead to pregnancy?

Just to be clear here - I am agreeing with the anti-abortion types. I am just asking for some clarification.

Indeed it is an epidemic! I would look at science and efforts to improve birth rates as being pro-life etc. If we can support zygotes and life inside the womb I would be for it!



Where your thoughts are leading is to say, look at some point we all die. All pregnancy is a sentence to the death of the child, all parents are murderers. Sometimes, I too wonder if parents are at all aware in what they are doing when they have children.

The thing is that IF this is all there is, denying anyone this seems pretty unfair. Even if this means being born and living in somewhere terrible or even to only die at 2 months from a disease.

Some information on abortion and fetus awareness.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG)

Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice

From this link:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

Fetal Awareness

* The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed
* Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious
* The Working Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit
* More research is needed into the short and long-term effects of the use of fetal analgesia post-24 weeks.

The full report: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf

Article is published: 25/06/2010 (summary and more.)

Can you at least give us the name of the fetus you want to kill? At least give it a chance!

And why not kill old people instead? They have much less to live for imo.

Another instance where a woman is a second rate citizen. It is common place to put a woman's life to the side in favor of whatever. It is just assumed she should be sacrificed. She doesn't want a baby to grow inside of her for 10 months? Tough.

Here's a future solution. Extract the embryo from the woman's uterus and raise it in a lab or a host uterus until it can fend for itself, in which case it will be put up for adoption or raised by the state. Better yet, let the anti abortionist have to pay for raising it until it is an adult. I think it's high time people back off of an woman's right to not be a slave to another ideals or put their money where their mouth is.

This whole issue of abortion boils down to who is more deserving of their own right to life and liberty....a woman who lives and breaths in the present or an embryo who might live and breath in the future. Until a life can develop without a woman having to sustain it in her body it is the sole property of the woman and no one else's. It is her decision if it gets to reside within her or not. No matter who planted the seed inside her.

Same goes with real estate. If it is attached to the property it is owned by the land owner. If a person plants a tree on another persons property...that tree...and all it's fruit is owned by the land owner...not by the planter. The land owner is within his or her right to chop down the tree, sell the fruit, let it die, etc. It is a matter of ownership.

Oh, and just because I stand up for other women's rights doesn't mean that I would personally have an abortion. I wouldn't. Not because I think it is wrong...but because I think it is wrong for me.

Of course I would pay for raising the child. One of the strongest messages I think that needs to get to women is that society will support them and help them with the child and that at least I would help as best I could.

I have no comment other than to highlight it.

W: One of the strongest messages I think that needs to get to women is that society will support them and help them with the child and that at least I would help as best I could.


AS:Okay Wootah, I want you to go out and find and adopt an unwanted child and raise it alone. As any parent can tell you...helping is a not having. Until you have a child you have absolutely no idea how hard it is to do anything. Your life is not your own. Hell, it's hard enough if you want and love the child and have a supportive husband and family who shares in the work...I can't begin to imagine how difficult it would be if you didn't want it.

Let me tell you a little story about society's attitude of "helping" the mother. A friend of mine took her ex (the father of her children) to court for back child support payments (he was a dead beat dad). He said to the judge, "Your honor...I am doing the best I can. I have a job that barely allows me to feed myself. I don't know how I could possibly come up with any extra money to give her." The judge looked at my friend and said, "Well, I can't force him to get 2 jobs. He is working as hard as he can. I can only make him pay what he can afford." She said, "Well then judge, you have now forced me to get 3 jobs because I already have 2! What about what I can afford?"

People don't get it....someone has to work to pay for the kids...but if you have kids it's difficult to work and afford childcare. And when I say child care I am not talking only about babysitters. I mean care as food, shelter, clothing....

This man could not afford to take care of his children? Are you kidding me?!? He doesn't have them 24/7. He can work when he pleases. No one ever takes into account what the actual person who has custody of the kids goes through. And since most mother's assume the burden of the childcare even when the father is at home...few fathers even understand how hard it is.

Now think about how difficult it would be for the mother who doesn't want it? Think of the abuse both of the mother and the child. Think of placing her in that impossible situation where no good can come. Like it or not Wootah....you are sacrificing a real life for the promise of another one. And since the embryo is incapable of surviving without the body of the mother....then we must conclude that the mother is the sole owner of the embryo because it IS attached to her body.

What I don't understand is how you can so nonchalantly lay claim to a woman's body for your own set of ideals. As if you have any right. How would you like it if society harvested your body repeatedly for 18 years...in a way that might kill you and would definitely harm your health...maybe even your livelihood and forced you to do something against your will. I doubt you would want to give up the free will that God gave you...

But then again...you are safe as a man. You have the privilege of being able to stand back and criticize knowing you will never be in this position. It's a low down dirty person who preaches from the pulpit when they know they have zero chance of ever being placed in such a position.

Oh and about my stance on such things....I see every woman as an individual and not bound to my personal set of ethics.