The reasons typically given for holding human life, even pre-sentience, more valuable than that of a highly sentient non-human animal, are founded in Aristotelian ideas of essence. The basic idea is that there is a precious metaphysical essence of a human organism - be it even a single cell - that is not present in a non-human animal. Such a thing is typically labelled a soul.

One either accepts that or one doesn't. Personally I don't. I don't have any use for concepts of essences, or souls (Minds are what interests me). But I don't regard it as illogical that others do accept it. After all, I accept that sentient life is worthy of more consideration than non-sentient objects. But I cannot logically deduce that principle without circularity.

As David Hume said 'It is not contrary to reason that I should prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of my finger'.

People often argue that a fetus is a human life and that all human life should be valued equally. I don't see how we as a society could do that. More specifically I don't see any logically justifiable reason to hold human life to a higher importance than all life. The concept of all human life being equal but more important than lower intelligence life is ridiculous. To me the logical step is to make a value hierarchy for all life. Obviously a fetus would be lower on that than the woman carrying it. Any thoughts? — MonfortS26

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. On one hand you claim that speciesism is ridiculous, but then claim that we ought to have a moral hierarchy of all life.

I would argue that anything that can feel (sentience), and more specifically, anything that can suffer, is worthy of being considered ethically important. If a fetus can feel, then it is important to consider its experiences. If it cannot feel, then it might as well be a rock. There's no use anthropomorphizing rocks, trees, water molecules, and a clump of fetal tissue. Nothing happens to them that is morally important outside of our own attachments to them.

I'm not ruling out speciesism entirely. I'm just suggesting that the notions of all human life being equal is a sentimental idea. If you are going to adopt an equality in that situation it should apply to animals as well in my opinion. A fetus shouldn't have the same value as the president of the united states. I like your idea that anything that can feel pain should have value, but in this particular instance both mother and child feel pain. Wouldn't the fully developed mother be more valuable than the fetus?

I'm just suggesting that the notions of all human life being equal is a sentimental idea. If you are going to adopt an equality in that situation it should apply to animals as well in my opinion. — MonfortS26

How do you get from "we have a sentimental notion that all human life is equal" to "non-human animal life ought be treated as equal to human life"? It doesn't seem to follow.

How do you define sentience? — Πετροκότσυφας

I classify any living organism that has a nervous system as sentient. I have not yet made up my mind about living organisms without nervous systems - it's a work in progress. But sentience for me is a property that lies on a continuous spectrum, not an all-or-nothing property.

Interesting question, which for me has yielded less than fully satisfactory answers.

If we're extending moral consideration to other beings because they are "alive" or "feel" or are "sentient", then perhaps even the lower forms of life are worthy of some moral consideration. We almost unanimously agree that torturing an animal is morally wrong, and many of us would qualify that on the basis of unnecessary harm being morally unjustifiable. Even a beetle doesn't like being kicked down a road; to do so contains some small degree or variation of the immorality that we would ascribe to unnecessarily harming or destroying a human.

It's easy to agree on things like "unnecessary harm" (I.E sadistic torture), even in the case of a beetle in my opinion, but what is less obvious in some cases is whether or not harm or slaughter can be considered necessary or "justified".

Ancient man ate meat often out of necessity as the fat and protein (and it's preservability with salt and low temperature) was either the best opportunity for nourishment in the environment (applicable to a jungle setting) or a necessity for survival (such as during a long winter). As our ability to sustain ourselves on animal-harm-free diets on a wide-spread scale continues to develop, I would argue that there is some moral onus for us to begin to attempt to do so. With that said, a fully nourishing vegan diet can be well out of the average budget range of many middle and lower class families and individuals even in the first world. Furthermore it is questionable whether or not a switch to completely non-animal based agriculture would be economically feasible.

In short, we raise animals and slaughter them because of a prevailing desire to survive which we casually and almost unanimously float as a moral necessity. The act of terminating a fetus could be for the survival of the mother given possible complications, and on the same moral grounds that we essentially use to continue eating meat could be used to terminate even a late term pregnancy (given acceptable levels of seriousness in complication). If there are no complications then the moral argument for abortion must look elsewhere for justification. During the first term of pregnancy, many would argue that a fetus is not yet even a sentient being (cannot "feel") and as such would not even be extended the same moral considerations that we would extend a beetle. Once the fetus is said to be "sentient" we could freely extend the "don't harm it unnecessarily" consideration that is commonly extended to many animals. However all pregnancies carry inherent risks of complication and even death to pregnant women. What degree of risk of death inherently justifies a pregnant woman's decision to abort a pregnancy I cannot say, but most people will eventually cave in to the acceptability of even late term abortion as the risk of death for the mother approaches 100% if no abortion is performed. Beyond this point, a woman's unwillingness to endure the pains of a pregnancy is used by some as a defense of second and third term abortions. In this instance what seems clear is that the further into the pregnancy a woman is, the less suffering she has left to endure before the pregnancy reaches it's natural conclusion, and therefore the weaker the defense is in and of itself. Pain and suffering can be subjective though so it's persistently murky moral territory as always.

The comparison I would like to draw between mass slaughter and consumption of animals and abortion is that both exist on a spectrum of moral guilt-worthiness, where the suffering and risk of death that we incur by abstaining from them (what approaches "necessity") serve as the factors which mitigate, and in extreme cases seem to completely dissolve, that degree of moral guilt.

Would it not be simpler to simply contradict the view that a fetus is a human life or indeed, until it is self-sustaining, a life of any kind?

People often argue that a fetus is a human life and that all human life should be valued equally. I don't see how we as a society could do that. More specifically I don't see any logically justifiable reason to hold human life to a higher importance than all life. The concept of all human life being equal but more important than lower intelligence life is ridiculous. To me the logical step is to make a value hierarchy for all life. Obviously a fetus would be lower on that than the woman carrying it. Any thoughts? — MonfortS26

Johnathan Swift, author of "Gulliver's Travels", wrote a scathing sarcastic newspaper editorial suggesting that the solution to the "Irish Problem" (the potato famine) was to eat Irish babies. The English landlords had created the problem in the first place by raising rents so high the peasants could only survive by growing almost nothing but potatoes which was a recipe for disaster when a blight struck their crops. Anyway, Swift proposed that it was every Englishman's duty to eat Irish babies and help solve the crisis and for his efforts he received several thousand letters asking where they could buy their babies and find recipes.

The issue is economic and has little to do with anything else. For thousands of years Chinese peasants used to abandon female newborns on the side of the road as useless baggage that could not help support their family. Yet, a female anthropologist was once asked by a primitive tribe she was studying what her birth control pills were for and they where shocked. The entire village surrounded her asking why she didn't like babies. Birth control and abortion were unknown to them and the idea that anyone would not want as many babies as they could have was simply strange and inconceivable because money was just as unheard of as well.

Notably, the US is the wealthiest country in the world and those complaining about abortion the loudest are in the Bible Belt which has the worst social record in a country with the worst social record in the developed world. In other words, those complaining the loudest are the ones with the highest rates of abortion and who support the capitalistic system the most.

Obviously a fetus would be lower on that than the woman carrying it. — MonfortS26

Why?

Why not?

Because the claim started with 'obviously' and it is an inductive fact that 99.873% of claims that begin with 'obviously' are false (and the percentage is 99.3725 for 'clearly').

Indeed. But I'm still waiting for Monfort to clarify on both accounts.

I see no justifiable reason for human life to be held at a higher importance than all life.

Because the woman would have other people with emotional attachments in her life and the fetus has not developed many if any such attachments. The fetus has no current place in society. The fetus is dependant on the woman for survival. The fetus has no sense of self awareness before 18 months.

I'd be interested to see where you got these statistics

I like most of what you said, but where does quality of life come into play. Couldn't it be morally right for the mother to abort if the life of the mother and the life of the fetus were subject to more suffering as a result of the child being born?

So you think that this issue is more important to consider from an economic standpoint instead of moral?

So you think that this issue is more important to consider from an economic standpoint instead of moral? — MonfortS26

There are many moralities, but few that ever focus on their own economic roles in society. In the US we like to say we have the best justice that money can buy because morality is not our strong point as a nation. Conservative complain nonstop about abortion, but seldom adopt children or even vote to support those in need. In fact, the Bible Belt has the worst statistics and spends all their time blaming everyone else. If no one addresses the economic issues the problem will never be addressed constructively.

Because the woman would have other people with emotional attachments in her life and the fetus has not developed many if any such attachments. — MonfortS26

This sounds a little sentimental, no? Attachments in themselves aren't moral or immoral, so I'm not seeing how they can be justification for a moral hierarchy.

The fetus has no current place in society. The fetus is dependent on the woman for survival. The fetus has no sense of self awareness before 18 months.

Society dictates the nature of a fetus's being?

I like most of what you said, but where does quality of life come into play. Couldn't it be morally right for the mother to abort if the life of the mother and the life of the fetus were subject to more suffering as a result of the child being born? — MonfortS26

Regarding quality of life for the fetus, being aborted is usually interpreted to be a universal negative from their end. There may be extreme cases providing exceptions to this, but generally any life is taken as better than no life at all.

When it comes to the mother, indeed her future suffering can and should be considered, but given that adoption is readily available as an alternative to rearing one's own children, post-natal suffering may not be a relevant moral consideration in today's world..

Peter singer (IIRC) made an argument to explain the morality of infanticide where in the "old world" a fairly strong argument from necessity can be made. If there is nobody else willing to care for a child that otherwise cannot be cared for (given resource scarcity), then for the survival of the rest of the family it could be argued that laying your baby on a hill is of practical necessity. The severity of the "quality of life" to others is relevant here to the strength of this as a moral defense, and in a contemporary landscape post-natal "abortion" surely is unjustifiable, but these are the same moral lines which could be used by the mother to justify abortion simply because she does not want to ensure the pre-natal suffering. As I said before the closer to a full term pregnancy a woman gets, the less suffering she would be avoiding by terminating the pregnancy, and therefore it's strength as a moral defense is lessened.

Edit: spelling and grammer was left un-proof read in error

This sounds a little sentimental, no? Attachments in themselves aren't moral or immoral, so I'm not seeing how they can be justification for a moral hierarchy. — Heister Eggcart

The attachments are there. Less attachments would mean less impact if the life were taken away. There would be less consequences to killing a grown woman than her fetus.

Society dictates the nature of a fetus's being? — Heister Eggcart

I would say that society has the power to take away the life of the fetus so yes.

I see no justifiable reason for human life to be held at a higher importance than all life. — MonfortS26

But as you said it's not about having a justifiable reason; it's about having a sentimental notion. We have a sentimental notion of all human life being equal but not a sentimental notion of non-human animal life being equal to human life.

So what? Ought we have a sentimental notion of non-human animal life being equal to human life? That doesn't make sense. The having of a sentimental notion isn't the sort of thing that can be prescribed.

the fetus has not developed many if any such attachments — MonfortS26

It would be emotionally and otherwise attached to its mother.

Here's the complete anti-abortion argument, including its presuppositions. Firstly, it's important to understand that abortion is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to sexual ethics. It's impossible to judge the position on abortion of many on the Right without understanding this. Abortion does not occur in a vacuum.

Abortion is a crime when it's used such that the life of the fetus is brought to an end because the woman has behaved in a sexually irresponsible manner. If the life of the fetus is brought to an end because (1) the woman was raped [based on the principle that one shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences of what was forced on them], or (2) the woman's life is endangered by giving birth [based on the fact that society shouldn't have a right to decide for an individual who risks losing their life], or (3) the family of the woman and her partner does not have the means necessary to care for the child [based on the understanding that in a relationship / marriage, the couple may inadvertently end up having a child despite their best attempts not to], then the act loses from its immorality and can quite possibly be regarded as a necessary evil.

But the point of contention is always that abortion ends up being used by women like Amy Schumer, who mock the loss of life, and use it as a tool to justify their sexual promiscuity. That's the problem, that's what's shameful, that a life is ended FOR THAT REASON. Look at that:
http://www.emandlo.com/amy-schumer-doesnt-feel-bad-about-your-abortion/

So it's the way abortion can be used to justify a different approach to being a woman that is the problem - it justifies selfishness, mockery of the responsibilities of being a mother, and allows the privilige or right to be used in a way that abuses and oppresses others - in this case the newly conceived, without giving any real benefits to the mother. It's not saving her life or dignity, but on the contrary, it's harming them - it's dehumanising her.

Same thing regarding the killing of animals. It's one thing to kill a lamb because you're hungry, and it's a different story to kill the lamb because you love hunting (for fun). While both killings are immoral, one of them screams to the Heavens for justice, and the other one is just a necessary evil.

While both killings are immoral, one of them screams to the Heavens for justice, and the other one is just a necessary evil. — Agustino

Just as one human to another (as opposed to some ridiculous political crap), there is no such thing as a necessary evil. It's psychologically precarious to endorse such a thing.

And as for the religious right, their view involves something called "God centered." It means that everything in life should be approached with a sense of sacredness.

I'd advise that you not start with superficial stuff and work your way down to the basics. Start at the basics and come upward. That way you'll be more likely to get what's really cool, genuine, and meaningful about the right. I'm not very rightist, myself, but I have a lot of respect for what they bring to human life. I don't like to see that smeared with shit.

But the point of contention is always that abortion ends up being used by women like Amy Schumer, who mock the loss of life, and use it as a tool to justify their sexual promiscuity. — Agustino

What do you mean by abortion being used to justify sexual promiscuity? Is she saying "I'm allowed to be sexually promiscuous because I can have an abortion?"

What do you mean by abortion being used to justify sexual promiscuity? Is she saying "I'm allowed to be sexually promiscuous because I can have an abortion?" — Michael

No - but she is using that as a crutch to help her be sexually promiscuous more easily. It's morally reprehensible to use another human's life - in this case the life of the fetus - for that purpose.

Just as one human to another (as opposed to some ridiculous political crap), there is no such thing as a necessary evil. It's psychologically precarious to endorse such a thing. — Mongrel

What do you mean? By necessary evil I meant a situation where all the choices one can make, lead to evil/harm. Do you not think there are such situations?

And as for the religious right, their view involves something called "God centered." It means that everything in life should be approached with a sense of sacredness. — Mongrel

Yes I agree.

I'd advise that you not start with superficial stuff and work your way down to the basics. Start at the basics and come upward. That way you'll be more likely to get what's really cool, genuine, and meaningful about the right. I'm not very rightist, myself, but I have a lot of respect for what they bring to human life. I don't like to see that smeared with shit. — Mongrel

Okay - I'm not really sure what you mean by this, so please clarify.

(1) the woman was raped [based on the principle that one shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences of what was forced on them] — Agustino

(3) the family of the woman and her partner does not have the means necessary to care for the child [based on the understanding that in a relationship / marriage, the couple may inadvertently end up having a child despite their best attempts not to], then the act loses from its immorality and can quite possibly be regarded as a necessary evil. — Agustino

I disagree with both of these exceptions. Abortion is not morally permissible in cases of rape or lack of family care. In the first case, the fetus is not to blame for the woman being raped, the rapist is. To abort it is to punish the fetus for the crime of the rapist, which is wrong. In the second case, the care of the child becomes society's obligation. To abort the fetus simply because the family cannot provide for the child doesn't excuse the risk the couple took in having sexual relations. If they didn't want a child and knew they wouldn't be in a position to raise one, then they ought not to have engaged in such behavior in the first place.

No - but she is using that as a crutch to help her be sexually promiscuous more easily. It's morally reprehensible to use another human's life - in this case the life of the fetus - for that purpose. — Agustino

How is she using a human life to be sexually promiscuous? It's not as if sexual promiscuity is a consequence of having an abortion or as if having an abortion makes sexual promiscuity easier. She might never have had – nor ever have – an abortion and yet still be sexually promiscuous.

I disagree with both of these exceptions. Abortion is not morally permissible in cases of rape of lack of family care. In the first case, the fetus is not to blame for the woman being raped, the rapist is. To abort it is to punish the fetus for the crime of the rapist, which is wrong. In the second case, the care of the child becomes society's obligation. To abort the fetus simply because the family cannot provide for the child doesn't excuse the risk the couple took in having sexual relations. If they didn't want a child and knew they wouldn't be in a position to raise one, then they ought not to have engaged in such behavior. — Thorongil

Are you sure you disagree? I said in those two cases abortion is still evil - only that less so than in the case where it's used as an escape from the consequences of sexual irresponsibility. Whereas in the latter it screams to the Heavens for justice, in the former it's merely evil.

Now I agree with your point. To abort it is to punish the fetus for the crime of the rapist. But not to abort it is to punish the woman for the crimes of the rapist. Hence a necessary evil - both choices are evil. Hence why the state shouldn't make the choice.

Now you may be right about the family conditions exception. I was a bit reluctant to put that in my first post even. But I feel that given the predominance of left-wing culture, it's a good place to be relative to where we are today. But to attempt to argue the position further, I would say that for a married couple, sex would serve both as a means of spiritual union, and as a means of procreation. To deny a married couple the possibility of using sex as a means of spiritual intimacy seems to me an evil. But I do agree that they shouldn't be reckless about it and get abortion after abortion, quite obviously. Nor should they purposefully and consistently avoid procreation - there should be a sensible reasoning for that - such as they're not financially ready to have a child.

I wrote about this many times in the past, but mine is a version of natural law ethics - except that sex has a dual purpose, one spiritual (intimacy) and one physical (procreation), and the fulfilment of either one is generally a lawful use of the activity. Promiscuity, fornication, sex outside of marriage, etc. all would be unlawful according to that criteria.

How is she using a human life to be sexually promiscuous? — Michael

Because she kills the fetus, and thus refuses the natural consequence that emerged out of her being sexually promiscuous.

It's not as if sexual promiscuity is a consequence of having an abortion or as if having an abortion makes sexual promiscuity easier. — Michael

It's not as easy to be promiscuous if you have a child. Many men would be put off by that for example.

She might never have had – nor ever have – an abortion and yet still be sexually promiscuous. — Michael

Sure. So?

Because she kills the fetus, and thus refuses the natural consequence that emerged out of her being sexually promiscuous. — Agustino

That doesn't explain how she uses the foetus to justify her sexual promiscuity.

Furthermore, what do you mean by refusing the natural consequences? She certainly understands that her being pregnant is a consequence of having sex.

And it's unclear why this doesn't apply to the monogamous woman who accidentally becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, despite their best efforts. It's not like having (protected) sex with a hundred different people is more likely to lead to pregnancy than having (protected) sex with a single person a hundred times.

Sure. So?

Your condemnation of abortion stems from it being used to enable sexual promiscuity. But given that sexual promiscuity doesn't require ever having an abortion, this proposed enabling relationship falls apart.

It's not as easy to be promiscuous if you have a child. Many men would be put off by that for example.

Debatable. Why would a man interested in a one-night stand care if the woman has a child?

That doesn't explain how she uses the foetus to justify her sexual promiscuity. — Michael

Okay boss.

Furthermore, what do you mean by refusing the natural consequences? She certainly understands that her being pregnant is a consequence of having sex. — Michael

Yes, she understands that, and therefore she gets rid of the fetus in order to get rid of the pregnancy which was the natural consequence of it. And she does that because she doesn't want to be pregnant. Why? Because she wants to continue being promiscuous.

And it's unclear why this doesn't apply to the monogamous woman who accidentally becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, despite their best efforts. It's not like having (protected) sex with a hundred different people is more likely to lead to pregnancy than having (protected) sex with a single person a hundred times. — Michael

Assuming those two are engaged, having sex for them is a means of achieving intimacy. Having promiscuous sex on the other hand is damaging towards intimacy, and it's more like using the other in order to get something for yourself, and the other using you in order to get something for themselves. Doing that, and then killing a life in order to avoid the consequences, now that's shameful and low - in fact it's doubly shameful and low.

Your condemnation of abortion stems from it being used to enable sexual promiscuity. But given that sexual promiscuity doesn't require ever having an abortion, this proposed enabling relationship falls apart. — Michael

No, my condemnation for it stems from the fact that a life is destroyed for infantile and immoral reasons.

Debatable — Michael

Sure.