TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.


I have come up with a new argument for abortion, and I was wondering if anyone would rebut it for me. I am defining morality as whatever is best for society (feel free to take issue with this too).
The argument against abortion compares it to murder, so this argument will explore the differences between abortions and murder. There are three main reasons that murder is immoral:
1. The dead person's contribution to society: most people contribute to society, so killing a random person will eliminate their further contributions and be bad for society.
2. A general sense of security: if the law allows anyone to kill anyone, people will be scared and waste time defending themselves, decreasing productivity, and being bad for society.
3. Interpersonal connections: a person builds connections in their life, and killing one person will have damaging effects on those that they have made connections with.
Now it will be explained how abortion is different in these three points.
1. The never to be born person's contribution to society: although it is likely the person would have contributed had they been alive, it is possible they would have had a negative contribution had they been a criminal. However, not allowing them to be born means a definite contribution to society by reducing the population, and contributing to stem cell research (although the second one will not be always be a contribution, when research is no longer needed).
2. A general sense of security: if only non-self aware fetuses are killed, then the people who would have been affected by a lack of security are not threatened, and do not lose their sense of security.
3. Interpersonal connections: the only people that are connected to the fetus are the ones who have decided that their need to get pregnant is more important to them than their want to keep their child alive, meaning that it is probably better for them for the child to die than to survive.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jul 5 2011: Is it fair to summarize your moral stance as this: "The value of a human life is determined by what/how he/she can contribute to society"?
    • thumb
      Jul 5 2011: I agree with your sentiment here Steve. When building a stance around abortion, we should focus on what is rather than what could be.
    • Jul 6 2011: Yes, that would be how i would describe my moral stance, but don't forget that part of contribution to society is improving one's own quality of life, as one is a part of society.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.