Jeffrey Allen

This conversation is closed.

If you don't consider human life "sacred," is there any moral reason not to have an abortion?

The decision to have an abortion is incredibly stigmatized, especially in America. Even those who promote pro-life policies say abortion should be as rare as possible. They may cite the mental and physical anguish of the woman—rather than any moral failure—as the prime reasons unwanted pregnancies are lamentable, but rarely does anyone challenge the underlying implication that the choice to have an abortion is somehow bad, even if in many cases it may be considered the "less bad" option.

I want to understand what has caused this deep-rooted and rarely challenged stigmatization. Does it come only from our religious roots, or is there some other moral argument against abortion?

It may help to compare the impacts of abortion to an everyday event we don't stigmatize—the killing of animals for food, sport, or clothing. Putting aside the religious argument that human life is inherently more valuable than other forms of life, is there any other reason to treat the killing of a human fetus—particularly one at the earlier stages of development—as any worse than the killing of a cow, deer, or chicken? Indeed, the animals we routinely kill have similar, if not greater, capacities to:
- feel pleasure and pain (their nervous systems are more developed than those of a fetus in early development);
- experience meaningful emotions (cows in line for slaughterhouses show clear signs of extreme distress); and
- look forward to future events in their life (there's no proof animals have any conception of their futures, but neither do fetuses).

It seems clear that, from a biological standpoint, the animals we routinely kill have just as much claim to a right to life as a human fetus. Yet we stigmatize one killing and not the other. So something else must be going on here. A whole other discussion could be had about animal rights, but for the time being let's focus on abortion. If we strip away all faith-based arguments, are there any ethical reasons left to oppose abortion?

  • Feb 17 2011: Wow. This topic is a minefield!

    Still, here goes: I think it fundamentally depends on your definition of when life begins. If, as those opposed to abortion say, it is at the moment of conception, then my question is: why not before that? The Catholic church long opposed contraception, which implies it feels that the sperm and the egg are already living beings. But if you take the opposite stance here, and say that the start of life is unimportnat on the grounds that until the fetus/baby is capable of independent living it has no right to protection, then you get into a quasi-medical debate about when that moment typically arrives.

    I believe this is one of those topics that can never be resolved. If you ban -- or even restict -- abortions, you run afoul of those who claim a woman should have 100% control over her own body, and if you freely permit abortion, you get into a fight with those who truly believe it is murder, whether for religious or other reasons. But either way I have difficulty equating it with the killing of a cow for my dinner.

    Oh-oh, now here come all the animal rights activists...
  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    Feb 23 2011: Are a lot of reasons for prohibiting the abortion. One reason is that the fetus (have) or is going to have a soul , that's change the situation totaly , we can't compare from that perspective the humans beings with animals because the animals have no soul).The fetus have life ( to make abortion means to kill a life), someone could say but and animals have life , then I would argue that the animal life is very differnt from human life.
  • thumb
    Feb 18 2011: It's not a minefield. It's an opportunity to believe in something. Nihilism is the child of sloth. Stand up for something transcendental. Live for something or die for nothing.
  • thumb
    Feb 18 2011: Morality is a promise you make to God. Ethics is one you make to men. If abortion is legal, that is an ethical matter. If it is immoral, that's because you and your god agree. If we don't share the same god, then our ethics will not be based upon a consensus of morality , but a consensus of expediency. It is more expedient to live with each other than each other's god. If you can be objective about murder (premeditated intentional death of a human life) then you must be willing to limit the discussion to human values and not spiritual ones. Human values are "me" oriented: my preservation, my pleasure, my goals. If "me" is the benchmark for your ethics (you can't be moral without a higher benchmark than "me") then whatever "me" wants that doesn't harm another "me" would be pemissable. That is, as long as your "me" doesn't curtail my "me", us "me"s should be able to get along. The unborn "me"s don't have much of a chance, do they? Their me-ness isn't recognized by the nation of "me"s, so they can't be a "me".
    If it's not a moral question then it isn't murder, because it's not human life. It's just a non-me competing with me.
    OK then, capital punishment? Why not? Once we determine the end of "me"ness, then it's not murder. Prostitution: a victimless cirme. Drugs: they should all be legal. Euthenasia: some folks just outlive their "me"ness and get in the way of mine, you know. When everything is measured against "me" there is no morality and there is no debate. "Me" wins everytime. Or are there self evident truths, that we are born equal and endowed with our Creator with inalienable rights, among them the right to life? Everyone needs to answer these questions for themselves. "Have some personal accountability."
    • thumb
      Feb 18 2011: Very well put, Michael! But many of us who don't believe in any creator, still believe it's wrong to kill, wrong to steal, and, most importantly, right to do things to make other people happy even when "me" gets nothing from it -- in fact even when "me" has to suffer for it. Many non-religious "me"s would risk their own future existence to save a "you" they've never met before.

      If they're not doing it for some sort of god, then they must be doing it for a personal morality, right?
      • thumb
        Feb 18 2011: You have reasoned that it is wrong to kill? It makes you feel bad if others die? Your "me" is in full control. If enough of you feel bad about murder, then you band together to enforce your consensus that murder is "wrong". You pass laws and pay your taxes to be sure the laws are enforced. You want something from this "murder is wrong" thing. There is no transecendent reason for it, it's just a matter of "common" sense. You shouldn't have to live in fear in a "civilized" society.You don't need a god to have a "civilized" society, so god is irrelevant to that discussion. If it's not a mandate from God that you should not kill your neighbor, it's a mandate from a large group of "me"s who have pooled their resources to make it so. If people didn't kill each other out of obedience to god, we wouldn't need need to police each other. Your statement that you would risk your life for a stranger is based upon two criteria: first, such feelings are good. They promote a sacrificial view that the loss of one for another or others is an individual choice that in turn benefits the "me" and, if emulated by others, will benefit "me" by preserving "us". The motivation for your sacrifice that you deem a personal choice, seemingly irrational, does not diminish the rational objectives: make your own choices and make it noble enough for others to make their own choices.
        The exercise of free will is to decide what is "right" and then, if you have the will, to act upon it. For example: One may not agree with the war, but none the less be compelled to do your duty. You want others to do their duty, without question, so you subjugate your own questions and do your duty. Even if you might perish from running into a burning building, the benefit from that risk is too great to deny your duty. If nothing transcends "me" then consensus and "might" makes right. Your individual freedoms are not inalienable.
  • thumb
    Feb 17 2011: I agree with Revett, that's a heavy topic.
    1) I think we should look at the issue outside of religion, because if we bring religion into the game then objectivity is lost immediately.
    2) beside the religious arguments, what are the arguments against abortion ? Killing unborn life ? From the moment of conception a new living organism is created. What is different between the 1. minute of this life and the 9. month is only the degree of development. So why, depending on the country, is abortion allowed until a certain age of the fetus ?
    3) As you pointed out Jeff, what, in principle is the difference between killing an animal or an unborn human life ? We even make differences between animals. Nobody much cares if you smash a fly, but if you kill your neighbors dog (or your own) and you get caught, then you go to jail.
    Nevertheless, in all cases we are talking about life.
    I don't see any ethical reasons to oppose abortion, at least not w/o being hypocritical. But then, we could start a new discussion about what is considered ethical/unethical and why. What is the "benchmark" to call something ethical/unethical and doesn't that (at least to a degree) vary from society to society ?
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2011: Thanks for your thoughts, Harald and Revett. Indeed it's a minefield—one of the most dangerous!—but I don't think it has to be. I think many of those mines have been placed there by religious influences in our society, and they make it harder for non-religious people to come to grips with the non-religious ethical questions involved. But if we put aside religious arguments—which often cannot be logically proved or disproved anyway—I'm hoping maybe we can clarify some of the underlying moral issues.

      So maybe we should dive a little deeper into the question Harald raises—what is ethical/unethical and why?—but, like I said, leaving faith-based arguments aside.

      I would start with, maybe, it's unethical to do anything that physically or emotionally harms another living thing, or reduces that living thing's ability to choose how to live its own life, if you can reasonably avoid doing that harm without inflicting some greater harm to another living thing.

      Would you agree/disagree? Would you add anything else?

      And what would this precept mean for our question about abortion? I would suggest maybe it means abortion should be avoided, as it clearly harms the fetus, unless the baby's birth would be expected to inflict a greater harm on other living things (the parents, for example, or other children in the family).

      But of course that raises the question of if we can reasonably compare the relative size of the various "harms" involved?

      And though we can describe pretty clearly the potential harms (and benefits) to living adults, what exactly are the potential harms to the fetus? If its nervous system is not developed yet, it can't feel pain. But should we consider it a harm to the fetus that it doesn't get the opportunity to live the life it would have lived, even if it has no conception of itself as a being with a future? We don't seem to worry too much about the future life a cow would have had, presumably because it doesn't comprehend such things.

      Any thoughts?
      • thumb
        Feb 22 2011: "......anything that physically or emotionally harms another living thing....."
        That's already difficult. Where do you put the limit ? Obviously, you'll have to stop eating any kind of meat.
        Also, would it be ok to kill a fly ? It's a living organism and maybe even feels something.
        Then, there also seems to be evidence that even plants can feel something. So you couldn't hurt a plant (meaning eating a plant) either. Where does that leave us ?
        Coming back to abortion. The best way out of this dilemma is to avoid anything that can later lead to abortion. I know that's easier said than done, but proper education is certainly one element here.
        The issue of whether the fetus can feel or not is also dangerous, because you might have other situations where you could apply similar reasoning (some mental diseases).
        Actually, I'm not sure this topic can be discussed based on logic. Moral issues don't necessarily follow logic.