Baby murder vs. Abortion

[Guest itchyworms00]

why do people get so upset about a baby being murdered but most people don't really care about abortion?

[Dak]

Because they're not the same thing?

[swansont]

People don't care about abortion? Come to the US sometime.

[gcol]

Whether its right or wrong, and the ethical/religious debate will go on forever, it is the magical moment of birth, the change from "thing" to person. If we think thing becomes person before actual birth, then we have to wrestle with the timing of when can a foetus (thing) be morally/ethically/religiously terminated. If anyone can point to a holy writ, from any religion, on this question, I should be interested. In its absence, it is a point of legal nicety.

[In My Memory]

itchyworm,

why do people get so upset about a baby being murdered but most people don't really care about abortion?

Its cultural for the most part, because most people really dont know anything about morality, they dont know what makes life valuable at all. Believe me, the people who object to abortion are just are morally naive as those who dont care at all, neither group has even the remotest handle of moral principles.

 

But at least I consider myself a moral-minded person with a good handle on moral principles, and I have objections to baby-murder that arent applicable to abortion. Babies are feeling beings with an experiential welfare, and they valuable enough to protect for just that much; but unborn fetuses dont have those characteristics (at least not before 24 weeks, when 99% of abortions occur). In fact, I dont think a 9-week-old fetus has any morally relevant characteristics in common with a 9-day-old infant, so I dont see the two are even remotely comparable.

[insane_alien]

until it grows a bundle of nerves that start to resemble a brain and begin firing i don't class it as sentient and therefore not human. i see nothing wrong with abortions up until this stage.

 

After it has developed a rudimentary brain, then i find it morally wrong to abort it as i would say it is alive and aware to some degree. Abortion at this stage is murder. Although, there are some cases where an abortion after this stage would be permissible(eg, severe birth defects, going to kill the mother etc. etc.) but only as a last resort and still unfavourable.

[the tree]

why do people get so upset about a baby being murdered but most people don't really care about abortion?

I don't know, but for that matter:

- Why do people get so upset about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and don't really care about the continuing use of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance equiptment?

- Why do people get so upset about Salmonella poisoning but don't really care about pro-biotic yogourts?

- Why do people get so upset about drowing kittens but don't really care about giving them drinking water?

Could it be perhaps, that none of those pairs, are pairs of the same thing?

[Severian]

until it grows a bundle of nerves that start to resemble a brain and begin firing i don't class it as sentient and therefore not human.

 

This happens way way before 24 weeks, which is the current limit for UK abortions. So rephrase the question - why do people approve of abortions after week 10 (the nervous system starts working at about 10 weeks).

[gcol]

The way the responses in this thread are going, it seems the only point of (dubious) moral principle under consideration is one of timing, and quibbling about a couple of weeks here and there. If so, then all correspondents seem to agree that abortion is morally right. So no good or bad, just pragmatic shades of grey, then. I don't know whether to be reassured or not.

[1veedo]

Maybe cause abortion isn't the same thing as murdering a baby?

[Sayonara]

Maybe cause abortion isn't the same thing as murdering a baby?

I think really he is asking why they are not considered the same thing.

[Dak]

foestuses are histologically, genetically, etc -- essentially, biologically -- human, yet they are not human beings, as they are lacking things that would make them human beings: self-awareness for example.

 

Babies, as well as being biologically human, are human beings*.

 

Hence why the termination of one is ok, but the termination of the other is bad.

 

You may as well ask why murdering babies is bad but removing tumours is not.

 

* which is not the same as human. My foot is human; my foot is not a human being.

[bascule]

This happens way way before 24 weeks, which is the current limit for UK abortions. So rephrase the question - why do people approve of abortions after week 10 (the nervous system starts working at about 10 weeks).

 

Consciousness is a self-organizing universal pattern analyzer which constructs an internal model of reality which gives way to most of the morally relevant properties of human beings.

 

A similar process takes place in many highly intelligent mammals... pigs and chimpanzees, for example. Many are quick to jump to the defense of a baby-under-construction who has never been conscious, yet few care for a fully grown adult pig, one of the smartest mammals, and instead just continue to cram their mouths full of ham, bacon, and pork. Why?

[Sisyphus]

Because bacon is delicious, and human fetuses are not (as far as I know).

[gcol]

yet few care for a fully grown adult pig, one of the smartest mammals, and instead just continue to cram their mouths full of ham, bacon, and pork. Why?

Possibly because many people believe "you are what you eat". If there is any truth in that, and pigs are so intelligent, then give me a double helping of trotters and brawn to go. I am humble enough to admit I could always benefit from a touch more intelligence.

[AzurePhoenix]

Many are quick to jump to the defense of a baby-under-construction who has never been conscious, yet few care for a fully grown adult pig, one of the smartest mammals, and instead just continue to cram their mouths full of ham, bacon, and pork. Why?

just an off the wall speculatory guess, but it seems to me that humans are just generically more aware and empthatic to the woes of other humans simply for being human, with a sort of... lack of familiarity for other, "alien" species.

 

I don't think it's sentience that draws people's morality, just the simple fact of being human. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that contemporary primary religions don't traditionally recognize the souls of animals.

 

I've always wondered if this same idea would apply if humans ever encountered another devloped species, no matter how advanced, intelligent and civilized they were, whether or not most people would innately regard them as "less than human"

[gcol]

just an off the wall speculatory guess' date=' but it seems to me that humans are just generically more aware and empthatic to the woes of other humans simply for being human, with a sort of... lack of familiarity for other, "alien" species.

 

I don't think it's sentience that draws people's morality, just the simple fact of being human. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that contemporary primary religions don't traditionally recognize the souls of animals.

 

I've always wondered if this same idea would apply if humans ever encountered another devloped species, no matter how advanced, intelligent and civilized they were, whether or not most people would innately regard them as "less than human"[/quote']

 

I agree with all that. Would have been a good answer in the chimp v child thread, too.

[AzurePhoenix]

I forgot to mention the obvious cultural influence. People eat pigs, pig's are mostly here for eating; that's the way of things. But dogs? They're our playmates and buddies. Might be dumber than pigs, but it'd be freakish and wrong to eat them. The reasoning is strictly a one of culture here.

 

I'll never understand the loops and twists in reasoning that come with being a human

[Severian]

A similar process takes place in many highly intelligent mammals... pigs and chimpanzees' date=' for example. Many are quick to jump to the defense of a baby-under-construction who has never been conscious, yet few care for a fully grown adult pig, one of the smartest mammals, and instead just continue to cram their mouths full of ham, bacon, and pork. Why?[/quote']

 

Because intelligence is not a morally relevant quantity.

[padren]

I forgot to mention the obvious cultural influence. People eat pigs' date=' pig's are mostly here for eating; that's the way of things. But dogs? They're our playmates and buddies. Might be dumber than pigs, but it'd be freakish and wrong to eat [i']them[/i]. The reasoning is strictly a one of culture here.

 

I'll never understand the loops and twists in reasoning that come with being a human

 

Its also about a degree of exposure too. I've known people that, upon having pigs for pets, come to consider them much like dogs and wouldn't eat bacon anymore.

 

And then there is cultural denial - the desire for cognative dissonance due to the ease it adds to life, you can love your bacon-pets and eat them too. More important than eating them though, is maintaining a comfortable comonality with the cultural norm, which means a lot to some people.

 

I think a lot of people experience cognative dissonance to maintain religious beliefs while maintaining happier thoughts, such as the belief that an important family member that passes who was not adhering to their religion and is "supposed to be" in hell - yet at the funeral they'll eulogize them lovingly as if they believed they were in a better place. When pressed they'll say they "really don't know" if God would let them into heaven or not, but then be fairly certain a stranger who dinged their car that died with the same characteristics would not be in heaven.

 

 

Regarding the OP:

I do suspect for some people, that approval of abortion is based on cognative dissonance, but for many more I do think it is an assesment of the differences between babies and fetuses.

 

I don't think there is a notable difference between an early abortion and the use of contraceptives - or even a difference between an abortion and a couple choosing not to even have sex on a given night.

 

 

A better question I think, is why some people get as upset over abortion as they get over baby killing?

 

Since we are dealing with two obviously different situations, why do some people make the leap that they are equivellent?

[Guest itchyworms00]

Maybe cause abortion isn't the same thing as murdering a baby?

 

I dont think aborting babies are not the same as a murdering. As far as my concern when a pregnant aborted her baby, she's killing it.

 

What do you think?

[Dak]

I dont think aborting babies are not the same as a murdering. As far as my concern when a pregnant aborted her baby' date=' she's killing it.

 

What do you think?[/quote']

 

you can't kill something that's not alive, so aborting a foetus can't be killing it.

 

zygotes are not 'alive' in the sence that humans are... babies obviously are, so there must be a point inbetween when the foetus becomes 'alive', and a stretch of time when it is not alive and thus ok to abort.

[padren]

I dont think aborting babies are not the same as a murdering. As far as my concern when a pregnant aborted her baby' date=' she's killing it.

 

What do you think?[/quote']

 

You must realize that most people that are pro-choice are more than certian that a fetus is very much not a baby, and isn't even alive. Its basically an internal organ that, one day, could become an independant organism - but while its a fetus it certianly is not.

 

Why do you think it is "alive" anymore than one's appendix is alive?

[In My Memory]

Dak,

you can't kill something that's not alive' date=' so aborting a foetus can't be killing it.

 

zygotes are not 'alive' in the sence that humans are... babies obviously are, so there must be a point inbetween when the foetus becomes 'alive', and a stretch of time when it is not alive and thus ok to abort.[/quote']

Of course a fetus is alive, its made of cells, it grows, metabolizes food for energy, and fits all the definitions of life.

 

Only thing is, "life" in isnt morally valuable, not by itself. We're obligated to respect a beings life because its continued existence is a prerequisite for the satisfaction of many other goods, like happiness and the pursuit of longterm goals.

 

But a fetus doesnt have any other moral characteristics, it doesnt have any mental or feeling capacities, so it doesnt have any characteristics (like the capacity to feel pain or see itself over time) that depends on its mental and feeling capacities... because of this, the continued existence of the fetus really doesnt protect anything at all, so its continued existence isnt a prerequisite for protecting any goods (because theres nothing to protect).

 

So the fetus is definitely alive, but it only has biological life and nothing else, it doesnt have a biographical life. Sperm and ova are alive as well, but fortunately "just being alive" doesnt matter, otherwise menstruating away perfectly healthy living eggs would be tantamount to murder, and accidentally scatching someone to draw blood kills perfectly healthy blood cells making you guilty of manslaughter.

 

 

itchyworms,

I dont think aborting babies are not the same as a murdering. As far as my concern when a pregnant aborted her baby' date=' she's killing it.

 

What do you think?[/quote']

I dont think it matters. No one denies that that an abortion is the same thing as "killing", thats taken as a given; however, not all instances of killing are morally wrong. To provide an argument that abortion is wrong, you need to explain why the fetus has a claim to moral value, by explaining what morally relevant characteristics it has.

 

I dont really think "life" is a genuine moral value, because something being alive doesnt provide a compelling reason to protect it without reference to other characteristics, like the beings interest in pursuing goals or the beings interest in continued happiness.

 

But lets just say for a second that "life" really is intrinsically valuable. People take life all the time, they're willing to take anti-biotics to relieve themselves of a minor sore throat, and those anti-biotics take millions and millions of lives. Unless we concede that the person is a genocidal maniac, then we can say the action of justified on the basis that those lives were traded away for the satisfaction of some greater good. But if thats true, then it indicates that life, even if we take it to be intrinsically valuable, can be traded away to satisfy the most trivial whims (like minor relief of an itch or sore throat), so that the value of life is practically indistinguishable from saying life has no value at all. These principles taken to their logical ends imply that abortion-on-demand is justified for almost any reason or trivial whim of the woman, and its no more out of the ordinary than taking a thoat lozenge to relieve a sore throat.

 

In that case, we go back to square one, we have to name the other moral characteristics of the fetus, not just state "abortion is killing a life", to justify an argument against abortion.

[1veedo]

There's a big difference between a lump of cells and living, breathing human being.

 

And you cant say you're killing the potential for life because technically speaking a number of things can kill the potential for life. For example you're not out there ****ing some girl right now. You baby murderer, you.