Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

[jgh7]

I understand the religious arguments against abortion. It's basically something along the lines of God deeming a human life as sacred and a human life comes into existence at the moment of conception.

But whats the nonreligious argument against abortion? Is it pretty much the same thing? Actually, I'm going to horrify people even more and ask what the nonreligious argument is against killing a new born infant if one doesn't want to keep it.

I don't intend to paint myself as a monster, but just to understand the logic behind it. I will argue the side of it being no big deal just for the sake of making some sense behind my stance.

----My argument----

Most people don't think it a big deal for a sperm to die. Nor do they think it a big deal for a bug to be squished.

It's because these are lower life-forms that cant really think or recognize their existence, they live merely as a sort of pre-programmed entity. But I think science has equated a newborn baby to be very similar in that it merely has reflexes and pre-progammed instincts. Assuming it was carried out painlessly, what is wrong with killing this kind of lifeform?

Is the only response an appeal to emotion and outer appearances? The baby looks like a human, so it's horrible to kill it. In the same way it's horrible to kill cute animals rather than ugly animals. In the same way we rationalize it's no big deal to abort the fetus so long as it doesn't look like a human, but once it starts looking like a human it becomes bad to abort it, even though its level of thought is no different.

Or is there a more logical counterargument?

[LiamOS]

It's because these are lower life-forms that cant really think or recognize their existence, they live merely as a sort of pre-programmed entity. But I think science has equated a newborn baby to be very similar in that it merely has reflexes and pre-progammed instincts. Assuming it was carried out painlessly, what is wrong with killing this kind of lifeform?

As an aside, I'd be of the opinion that the bolded section describes humans too.


I don't think killing a newborn makes much sense, except in cases where there may be extreme overpopulation. In most of the world, a baby can very easily be given up for adoption. In the case where adoption, or generally giving the child away is not viable, it could be appropriate to kill the child.(Not that I like the idea)
The case for abortion is somewhat different, in that the mother has no choice but to endure pregnancy(which is no barrel of laughs, by most accounts), which I would not consider to be necessary if the mother is unwilling.

[Goat]

It's because these are lower life-forms that cant really think or recognize their existence, they live merely as a sort of pre-programmed entity. But I think science has equated a newborn baby to be very similar in that it merely has reflexes and pre-progammed instincts. Assuming it was carried out painlessly, what is wrong with killing this kind of lifeform?

As an aside, I'd be of the opinion that the bolded section describes humans too.


I don't think killing a newborn makes much sense, except in cases where there may be extreme overpopulation. In most of the world, a baby can very easily be given up for adoption. In the case where adoption, or generally giving the child away is not viable, it could be appropriate to kill the child.(Not that I like the idea)
The case for abortion is somewhat different, in that the mother has no choice but to endure pregnancy(which is no barrel of laughs, by most accounts), which I would not consider to be necessary if the mother is unwilling.

I would say that it should be entirely up to the mother.. at least until the end of the second trimester. 24 weeks, the fetus is much more viable, and the health risks of an abortion is increased (for the mother). At this point in time, I am more comfortable about putting in restrictions for abortions that do not have a medical reason for. I am not comfortable about totally restricting abortions even at that point... the case in Ireland where a woman died is a good example of why. From what I read, only 1.1% of all abortions happen after the 20 week mark, and that includes the ones there are good medical reasons for.

That being said, I think it would be a good goal to be able to reduce abortions. no medical procedure is without risk. Better access to birth control, better prenatal care, better education, and just plain better common sense (which never will happen) will reduce the procedure greatly.


Here is an interesting article about what happens to thepeople who , for what ever reason, were denied abortion

http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to- ... o-find-out

[Bust Nak]

Or is there a more logical counterargument?

There are no logical arguements for moral issues. I will offer you a moral argument against killing new born infant instead.

1) One ought to limit suffering.
2) Although infants cannot really think or recognize their existence, unlike fetuses of up to 24 weeks, they can suffer.
3) Killing them is unnecessary suffering.
4) Therefore one ought not kill infants.

[Hammond]

Well you could argue that emotion is needed, and a fetus shows no emotion.

[dusk]

Is the only response an appeal to emotion and outer appearances? The baby looks like a human, so it's horrible to kill it.

I think the appeal to emotion is the important one. When is it a foul act to kill a baby? Is the general culture a good one where doing anything you want with babies until they learn 4th grade Math a nice one. For the mother it matters once there is a emotional relation to her child. That is almost always a given with a baby but a 3 months in it is biologically no more than an earthworm. Less actually.
I guess this is one other way to look at it. At what point would our society expect of any given mother to regard the baby as her child. A religious person does so as soon as they know they are pregnant. They could also start giving the baby a name before conception when it is a fertilized child. Most non religious people may not until they feel it kicking or are the blown up like a blowfish.

Assuming it was carried out painlessly, what is wrong with killing this kind of lifeform?
I think what is wrong is that it would be considered a sociopaths reaction and we don't condone sociopaths when they do their emotionless deeds.
However expecting form any mother to feel a deep emotional connection to a bunch of cells regardless of religion (say naturalists) is just over the top. The conception sacred soul thing is a religious idea that non religious people may not identify with at all. Expecting that a mother does not give birth to a child and immediately afterwards throws it into the garbage (dead or alive) is rather reasonable as there should not be a difference to any human being.

Also expecting that a mother or father would choose the comparably shallow emotional connection to a fetus over the wife/mother when her health in in jeopardy is also a bit much. You can get another baby and up till then all the relationship is with future expectations and not really with a person which doesn't yet really exist. The person develops much later when it is out and has its own experiences and learns self reflection and an understanding of itself. It is one thing to love the idea of a person or the person.

That is my purely naturalistic secular logic. Outer appearance imo has little to no bearing as a brain dead child is still considered dead by just about anybody. The difference to an ape is that its going to be a human person and not just an ape IMO.

[Nilloc James]

There appears to be little qualitative difference between killing an infant and killing a fetus.

[Talishi]

There appears to be little qualitative difference between killing an infant and killing a fetus.

Genesis 2:7 says when God gave his mudpie the breath of life, it became a living soul. Biblically, then, the difference between an infant and a fetus is that the former has a living soul.

[Strider324]

There appears to be little qualitative difference between killing an infant and killing a fetus.

Genesis 2:7 says when God gave his mudpie the breath of life, it became a living soul. Biblically, then, the difference between an infant and a fetus is that the former has a living soul.

Yeah but the theist response is simply "the bible only says that god breathed a soul into Adam. After that, every person has a soul, and we consider any fertilized egg to meet the definition of 'person' - despite how that conflicts with the bible itself."
Ya can't beat 'em - they have inscrutability on their side....

[bluethread]

Or is there a more logical counterargument?

There are no logical arguements for moral issues. I will offer you a moral argument against killing new born infant instead.

1) One ought to limit suffering.
2) Although infants cannot really think or recognize their existence, unlike fetuses of up to 24 weeks, they can suffer.
3) Killing them is unnecessary suffering.
4) Therefore one ought not kill infants.

Hold it. How is killing an infant is causing them to suffer? In fact, a common argument for abortion is that it avoids the suffering of an impoverished life. Why is that any less true for the infant?