Abortion: Why so serious?

[Kuu]

It seems you are basically making the argument that a baby is not human. Then what is the baby? A duck? A non-human human (because only humans that are considered "conscious" are human?)?

I definitely disagree that this is simply a science vs. religion debate. There are morals outside of organized religion too, and it might be considered immoral to kill other people when not even defending yourself or others.

[OldTrees]

Would someone please respond to The Dying Violinist Argument (Aka The Sophisticated Woman's right to their body argument) posted above.

[Neopergoss]

It seems you are basically making the argument that a baby is not human.

No. I am making the argument that a zygote is not a person. A baby can think and feel. I even acknowledged that at a certain point in embryonic development, a fetus might be called a person. Perhaps the term "human" was misleading. A skin cell is technically human, but killing a skin cell clearly isn't murder.

I definitely disagree that this is simply a science vs. religion debate. There are morals outside of organized religion too, and it might be considered immoral to kill other people when not even defending yourself or others.

Of course there are morals outside of organized religion. I wouldn't be arguing that a woman has the right to choose if I didn't believe in morality. Your use of the term "people" here suggests that this is a more appropriate term. A zygote isn't a person, so it isn't immoral to kill it.

[Neopergoss]

Sorry Old Trees. I didn't read it at first because it looked long. I will address your points and agree with them. Not sure if that counts as a response but I don't disagree.

Old Trees makes an important point. Before birth, a fetus can't survive on its own. From this perspective, it's reasonable to ask whether a woman is morally obligated to sustain it inside of her body until it is ready to live on its own, especially if she didn't become pregnant by choice.

I can't imagine how horrible it must feel for a woman to have the child of her rapist growing inside of her. Why should she have to suffer through pregnancy for it to be born when she was forced into it against her will? Not to mention the pain of labor...

[Kuu]

ld Trees makes an important point. Before birth, a fetus can't survive on its own. From this perspective, it's reasonable to ask whether a woman is morally obligated to sustain it inside of her body until it is ready to live on its own, especially if she didn't become pregnant by choice.

I can't imagine how horrible it must feel for a woman to have the child of her rapist growing inside of her. Why should she have to suffer through pregnancy for it to be born when she was forced into it against her will? Not to mention the pain of labor...

Indeed, it would feel horrible to have the child of a rapist growing inside you, I imagine. However, you seem to be making the argument that in the case of a rape it is not the woman's fault, but it is not the baby's fault either. I would be willing to relent on the very few cases in abortion where the pregnancy was caused by rape or the mother might die because of the birth, but things like partial birth abortion and even abortions late in the pregnancy are unacceptable.

In the case of the choice to have sex, abortion should not be allowed. Sex is meant for reproduction. If the woman is not ready to have a baby she should not have had sex and it does not give her the right to kill the baby.

So now I am wondering: at what point is the unborn child considered a "person" and why then?

[OldTrees]

ld Trees makes an important point. Before birth, a fetus can't survive on its own. From this perspective, it's reasonable to ask whether a woman is morally obligated to sustain it inside of her body until it is ready to live on its own, especially if she didn't become pregnant by choice.

I can't imagine how horrible it must feel for a woman to have the child of her rapist growing inside of her. Why should she have to suffer through pregnancy for it to be born when she was forced into it against her will? Not to mention the pain of labor...

Indeed, it would feel horrible to have the child of a rapist growing inside you, I imagine. However, you seem to be making the argument that in the case of a rape it is not the woman's fault, but it is not the baby's fault either. I would be willing to relent on the very few cases in abortion where the pregnancy was caused by rape or the mother might die because of the birth, but things like partial birth abortion and even abortions late in the pregnancy are unacceptable.

In the case of the choice to have sex, abortion should not be allowed. Sex is meant for reproduction. If the woman is not ready to have a baby she should not have had sex and it does not give her the right to kill the baby.

So now I am wondering: at what point is the unborn child considered a "person" and why then?

I would like confirmation that you have read The Dying Violinist argument posted above.

[BluePriest]

Would someone please respond to The Dying Violinist Argument (Aka The Sophisticated Woman's right to their body argument) posted above.

I did (although I didnt reference that post exactly, I made a point that relates to it)

I know there are extreme cases but we are talking about the general rule of thumb. And the general rule of thumb is that a girl wanted to have sex, didnt think anything would happen, got pregnant, and now wants to kill the baby.

Honestly, I think the violinist argument is the weakest one I have seen you use in the entire forum. It takes a very narrow scope, and acts like it is the whole view. 

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)

so in other words 99% of the time, the violinist argument is irrelevant. So far, I havent been able to find anything more than 1%, and have found as little as .36%. Then there is the 6% that almost everyone will agree that health reasons are a good reason for the abortion, then there is the remaining 93% that we should focus on.

Why dont we talk about the 93% of the time instead of the 7% of the time.

[OldTrees]

Would someone please respond to The Dying Violinist Argument (Aka The Sophisticated Woman's right to their body argument) posted above.

I did (although I didnt reference that post exactly, I made a point that relates to it)

I know there are extreme cases but we are talking about the general rule of thumb. And the general rule of thumb is that a girl wanted to have sex, didnt think anything would happen, got pregnant, and now wants to kill the baby.

Honestly, I think the violinist argument is the weakest one I have seen you use in the entire forum. It takes a very narrow scope, and acts like it is the whole view. 

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)

so in other words 99% of the time, the violinist argument is irrelevant. So far, I havent been able to find anything more than 1%, and have found as little as .36%. Then there is the 6% that almost everyone will agree that health reasons are a good reason for the abortion, then there is the remaining 93% that we should focus on.

Why dont we talk about the 93% of the time instead of the 7% of the time.

It is indeed the argument with the least scope. (It is a strong argument in that scope and not it does not assume to be the whole view. Rather it is an unvoiced perspective that can be inferred although I will point it out below)
I brought it up because it has a different take on Abortion than the other opinions being posted.
It points out that their is a conflict between the mother's right to her body and the child's right not be be let die.
The question is what circumstances cause the mother to lose this right. We know (if the argument is believed) that the mother retains this right in the case of rape. But the question becomes why and how the mother might lose this right in other circumstances.

My purpose was to present another perspective (I was informative not persuasive)

[BluePriest]

It is indeed the argument with the least scope. (It is a strong argument in that scope and not it does not assume to be the whole view. Rather it is an unvoiced perspective that can be inferred although I will point it out below)
I brought it up because it has a different take on Abortion than the other opinions being posted.
It points out that their is a conflict between the mother's right to her body and the child's right not be be let die.
The question is what circumstances cause the mother to lose this right. We know (if the argument is believed) that the mother retains this right in the case of rape. But the question becomes why and how the mother might lose this right in other circumstances.

My purpose was to present another perspective (I was informative not persuasive)

I am leaving rape alone, and let your argument stand for the time being, as I have told many people (although not in this forum) I believe rape and the mother dieing are the only 2 actual good reasons for having an abortion.

The mother loses that right when her physical life is put in danger, or the action that is a precursor to the baby coming (having sex) was not willful.

If I signed a contract with you that said

"You get my House for free, however, there is a 0.01% chance of you having to pay me 1,000,000 dollars within the first month."

 9,999 people have all got the house, and havent had to pay after the first month. You decide to sign the contract, and you get the house. Now, sometime before the first month, as luck would have it,  you have to pay 1,000,000 dollars. Should you be allowed to back out of the contract just because luck wasnt on your side?

[doublecross]

I personally am pro abortion.
Seriously, you are not killing something that is capable of thought.

To say it is murder because you are preventing a person from existing is like saying not having unprotected sex is murder. That also prevents the existence of a person.

[OldTrees]

Ah. I missed that there was a shift in the majority opinion of the current debaters.
In that case I will lay out another argument

Don Marquis’ Anti-Abortion Argument

This is another attempt to approach the problem without worrying about whether a fetus is a person or not.

1) The fact that an act of killing deprives a creature of a future of like ours is sufficient to make that act prima facie morally wrong.
2) Abortion is an act of killing that deprives a fetus (conceptus) of a future like ours.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3) Therefore Abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

Terms to know:
Future like ours: A valuable life (not a life that is valued but rather one that ought to be valued)
Prima Facie: An act that is prima facie morally wrong is wrong unless other considerations (e.g. overriding obligations) say otherwise

This argument is called an inference to the best explanation (the future like ours principle supposedly).

Marquis deemed it the best explanation because its explanation is consistent with our intuitive judgement on other kinds of killing.
Important examples of wrongful killing:
suicidal teenager,
sleeping (or comatose) adult,
human infant,
non-human animals
developmentally disabled persons
Important cases of morally acceptable killing:
active euthanasia due to severe and painful illness

Once again this is not my belief but is another approach to the question that is often unknown despite its importance.

[doublecross]

How does that refute the argument that anything that would prevent a sentient person from existing is wrong?

Based on that argument (unless I misread it), it would be morally wrong to convince a close friend not to have children.