Philosophy Now Forum

First I have to ask, are you male or female?

If you are a female you have every right to ask, have an opinion, and expect other females and law makers to seriously consider your resolve, as it could directly pertain to your body.

If you are male on the other hand, you have a right to ask and have an opinion, but not to necessarily expect females or law makers to seriously consider your resolve, as it directly pertains to the female body and not yours.

You see, the thing is, there are two beings to consider; the welfare of the mother and that of the baby. Historically pro-lifers only consider the baby, but the baby is feeding off the mothers body and her life could be at risk.

I started out as an antiabortionist, but I now see that the only way it should be, in all fairness, is antiabortion-pro choice, such that one can try and argue for the babies life, but understand and respect the mothers decision. Also I for one believe that one must make a decision ASAP, and that if it's to be done, it should be done while it's a fetus, or earlier if it ever becomes possible.

I see this as extremely volatile, as actually I don't want to be responsible for any life or death decisions. I'm a male.

To Chaz Wyman:

You also mentioned masturbation. The male sperm isn't a human life form, and can't ever be, by itself. If the topic is killing anything that is biological, it is futile, since in every move we make we kill thousands of infinitesimal bugs , germs etc,,

I am a male and my post was philosophical. Abortions will keep happening because they can't be stopped. So, no legislation against them can really work. I respect the choice of the mother in any case, also because she suffers psychologically and physically after an abortion. My only question is if it is murder, philosophically, since we are in a philosophy forum..

The case of an infant can be cared for by another human - there are millions of childless couples abel to do this. Being pregnant is a special case as only the mother has the ability to bring the foetus to childhood.
This means that the pregnant woman has a unique position, and an unique right to choose.

Is your point(philosophically) that when a human life depends only on one other human, then he/she has the right to end that life?
Does this have other implications? If, with some technological gadget, we could extract the fetus from the mother(we probably can, at some stage) and support it in a tube, then does she still have the right to kill 'it' or must she extract it from her body instead and let it grow outside of her?

If we cannot extract the fetus from the mother, and she indeed has the exclusive ability to bring the fetus to childhood, is it the draining of her biological resources that gives her the right to kill 'it', or the exclusiveness of her role? Does a person that is left with an infant on a desert island have the same right as well?

I think that the answer to the question is one of 'convenience', regardless of how we want to masquerade it. Also, it seems that there is an unwritten rule of 'ownership' of a life as a result of it's 'exclusive dependence' on another life, however immoral it might seem in principle..

Also, there is definitively some unwritten 'classification' of human life in regards to it's cognitive abilities, however immoral it might seem. The same arguments you make about the 'special privilege' of a mother are theoretically valid until the birth takes place. But, it is far more 'unacceptable' to kill the baby when eight months pregnant, that in the first two or three f.e.

A human life develops human rights as it grows, they are not given to it from the start, but rather they grow like an ... appendix! Shocking but true..

Philosophically, it is a very confusing subject..

Hi Alex and welcome to the forum!

I have often thought about this very thing. First, I don't think that "extraction" would be any different than abortion for the mother who did not want the fetus....as I believe a woman who has an abortion is doing it to terminate the pregnancy and not to 'end a life'. There is a huge distinction to be made here, as I think it is a mistake to imply a woman is a 'murderer' for wanting to control her own body. There is an abstract concept of 'life' in the early stages of pregnancy which is the difference here .

Second, If there was some way to extract the fetus and support it's life 'in a tube,' then I would have to say that if the mother did not want it then she has no say over the extracted cells....however, if she does want it but does not want to "carry" it...then it is her "property" as well as the biological fathers. After all, when it is not in her body it then becomes fair game for each genetic donor.

But here is the most complex problem of all, I think. If that many "extractions" were done in lieu of abortions, just how many children would be born...and could the state take care of all of them? Surely, if the mother who did not want the child had no claim to after the 'extraction', you could not force her to pay for it's care. If she was forced to pay for it's care then she should have the option to terminate it in the early stages of pregnancy. If she did not have that option...and was forced to have an 'extraction', then the state should have to pay for the child. Which brings us to the problem of underfunding and the probable negative effects on the economy not to mention the over population.

I believe the problem of "extracting' fetuses and raising them on the taxpayers dollar would be too overwhelming of a problem. I believe people would quickly ok the morning after pill...even those who were once pro-life.

But I doubt that pro-lifers have the ability to think that far ahead or in an abstract way that is needed to imagine probable philosophical dilemmas that would surely come with such technology...not to mention the injustice they do when they force another human being into being an incubator/slave in the name of 'humanity.'

Anyway, I think the whole argument boils down to aesthetics and not any real philosophical inquiry about whether or not abortion is murder/wrong.

As you say, manslaughter is murder only in the case it is out of the boundaries of the law. But what are those? According to law literature, the factor that makes a manslaughter 'lawful' are 'special circumstances' like the ones in an execution, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy soldiers during a war, f.e. It is the extended ideal of 'self defense' that makes manslaughter lawful..

Execution is the 'self defense' of a society towards a dangerous element of it. The killing of enemy soldiers is the principle of self defense of a country against threats to it's security.

The only case where manslaughter is legal when outside of the moral boundaries of self defense, is in the practice of euthanasia. Again, there is 'classification' of human life, based on it's cognitive abilities, or our estimation of it's life prospects. Philosophically it doesn't make sense, unless we have the consent of the person, which in this case, makes it an extended form of suicide..

Malice aforethought, as far as 'malice' is concerned, can be defined as:

'The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

1.Intent to kill,
2.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
3.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).'

As you see the intent to kill constitutes malice, so abortion would still be murder, legally, if it wasn't for another man made clause.

That clause is:

'Murder is the killing of a human—This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the birth canal and took its first breath.''

So again, we have the classification of human life based on its dependence and cognitive abilities, which is immoral but convenient...

What makes you think that definition is immoral?

If that is immoral, then it is also immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to full term.

All I am asking you to do is defend the rightness or wrongness of an action such as this, because it seems like no matter what the option there is an 'immorality' that is taking place.

Also, in order for something to be murder...there has to be an intent to kill. A woman having an abortion is not doing it to "kill a baby'. She is doing it to terminate her 'pregnancy'. There is not an intent to kill...it is more of an intent to not be pregnant. There is a huge distinction to be made here.

Isn't it immoral to call someone a murderer if you can't really know the person's intent?

Do you really think that many women get pregnant just so they can murder the fetus? Does that sound reasonable to you? Must be scary to walk down the street not knowing if the woman you just passed is a cold blooded murderer....

Hi Artisticsolution! Thanks for the welcome.

In your first paragraph, you mention that the 'extraction' option is more or less equivalent with the 'abortion' option to the mother, but ,it has to be said, that one should also consider the baby. The two options are definitely not equivalent to the baby...

You mention the right of a woman to end a pregnancy or control her body as the factor for legitimizing abortion. What about the baby's body? Can we control that too? Does it have any rights? That is my philosophical question..

As far as the 'abstract' concept of life is concerned, i think that, that is our unwritten concession. We classify human life based on functionality and dependence. And since we can't really make a clear distinction of when a human life becomes important enough to have rights, the endless debate of pro-lifers and pro-choicers continues..

I agree with your second paragraph.

In the third and fourth paragraphs you present the chaotic practical implications of the 'extraction'. Indeed, it is convenience and practicality that legitimizes abortion. We should just admit it.

In your next paragraph you mention the incubator as a slave, but we can extend this and ponder if we have the right to kill or neglect anyone fully dependent on us. Does this apply to infants or elders? When getting help isn't an option?

The questions are philosophical, they are not intended to reinforce guilt to females that practice abortions. I think that the realization of the driving factor of abortion being convenience rather than any philosophical or moral construct, brings us closer to taking an honest look at ourselves as homo sapiens, rather than the politically correct entity we like to think we are..

If human life is classified based on it's cognitive abilities and dependency then the life of an infant(dependent and cognitively undeveloped) is worth a lot less than the life of an adult. The life of a mentally handicapped person(cognitively impaired) as well. The life of a person in a hospital as well(dependent). It is immoral, in principle to classify human life like this..

If the woman was raped, she can end the pregnancy before it even starts(with a spermicide), if she was impregnated by accident then she has some responsibility, if she was impregnated intentionally she has full responsibility for the life that was created.

The murder charges should escalate from a)self defense (acquitted!), to b)criminal negligence or c)first degree murder! (this is not my actual belief but a logical analogy for use in our debate)

If the option of 'extraction', that we have discussed, is present, then abortion seems to be completely immoral.

'Intent to kill' is only one of many legal clauses that classify manslaughter as murder. Some others are:

Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

So abortion would still be murder under the above clauses.

Let's examine 'intent to kill'.

Since abortion cannot be performed without killing a baby, it is known by the female that is having the abortion, that the baby will die. So the act of having an abortion, intentionally, is intentional murder.

Women don't get pregnant to murder the fetus, of course!. It is after they get pregnant, that they decide to have an abortion. If i go in a notorious bar and end up in a deadly fight, i won't be acquitted on the grounds that 'i didn't go to the bar to kill'.

Look, i enjoy philosophical debate but i don't want to cause unpleasant emotions to you, as a woman, as a consequence of my arguments on this heated subject.

Consider it as a philosophical exercise, nothing more..Abortions will keep happening because they can't be stopped..basically. It is convenience that justifies them, not any moral code.

Goodbye and enjoy your day.

Hi Alex,

Alex:In your first paragraph, you mention that the 'extraction' option is more or less equivalent with the 'abortion' option to the mother, but ,it has to be said, that one should also consider the baby. The two options are definitely not equivalent to the baby...

AS:But the 'baby' is not a baby when it is just a few cells. It can't think or feel so it does not have the ability to 'know' anything. This is why I say the pro-life/prochoice argument boils down to aesthetics. I believe it is because pro-lifers usually 'see' a baby gurgling and gooing all powdered and pink. While at the same time conditioned to think of women as mothers who should sacrifice their lives for their 'babies'. In this case the woman becomes second rate to the "baby' by dint of aesthetics...i.e. a mother is not as as aesthetically pleasing as a newborn both in size and nature. This is especially true of the woman who would have an abortion. In a pro-lifer's eyes she is a monster. The immoral value becomes an aesthetic one in a pro-lifers eyes. But I ask you why, besides aesthetics, does the forming cells have more right to person hood than the full grown mother?

In my view of abortion there are only 2 choices, side with the cells/fetus or side with the mother. In my view of things, both may be immoral...i.e side with the cells/fetus and you have forced a full grown human to do something they do not want to do or side with the mother and the cell/fetus never get a chance to develop. That being said, the immorality of an action is present in both sides. This is the reason I say it all boils down to aesthetics...it's a matter of which choice is more pleasant 'sounding'. We can talk about the 'wrongness' of an action til the cows come home, but it always boggles my mind how people would rather talk about someone else's immorality instead of their own.

Alex:You mention the right of a woman to end a pregnancy or control her body as the factor for legitimizing abortion. What about the baby's body? Can we control that too? Does it have any rights? That is my philosophical question..

AS:Again, there is a choice to make here. And each choice is immoral. So then the only practical solution for the time being is to make a cut off date as to when abortions can be performed. An abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is much less 'immoral' than in the late stages, where I will grant you...the fetus 'becomes' a baby.

Alex:As far as the 'abstract' concept of life is concerned, i think that, that is our unwritten concession. We classify human life based on functionality and dependence. And since we can't really make a clear distinction of when a human life becomes important enough to have rights, the endless debate of pro-lifers and pro-choicers continues..

AS: But I don't think we have to classify any such thing. Even if we say that some cells is a 'baby' it still doesn't make it right to force a woman to carry said cells. I think pro-choicers refuse to even entertain this notion and this is why I think they are thinking on a more 'aesthetic' level. There is absolutely NO consideration for the woman. She might as well be an inanimate object...like an incubator. She is a human being too...yet not one pro-lifer seems to admit that. I think that is very telling.

Alex:In the third and fourth paragraphs you present the chaotic practical implications of the 'extraction'. Indeed, it is convenience and practicality that legitimizes abortion. We should just admit it.

AS:I admit it. I don't see a problem here. If pro-lifers got their way and extraction was possible and thus we made extractions legal and abortion illegal, we would not have enough resources to maintain life (which is how it is going to be someday anyway...it's just that with extraction it would happen much much quicker). So then again, is it 'moral' to kill off people by way of starvation? Indeed it is not an easy solution...I just wish more thought was given toward other things rather than the 'cute adorable little baby.' As I don't think an adult would get the same sympathy from pro-lifers, in fact I know they wouldn't. Once the cute adorable baby grows up, then few care about it's welfare...in fact...some people don't mind making them into slaves, or seeing them starving in the streets, or being abused by the system. When the baby grows up and cease to be cute...the 'moral' majority seems to disappear.

Alex:In your next paragraph you mention the incubator as a slave, but we can extend this and ponder if we have the right to kill or neglect anyone fully dependent on us. Does this apply to infants or elders? When getting help isn't an option?

AS: No I said the woman was an incubator/slave for the ideals of the pro-lifers. I don't think you can group infants and elders into the same category as the fetus as they are separate and apart from another body. Anyone can take care of them...so I think the choice whether or not to do so is voluntary. But let me ask you something...do you think it would be moral to force someone to take care of the elderly?

Great analogy chaz!