Philosophical Arguments Against Abortion - Thinking Critically About Abortion (4 of 5 videos)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 бер 2020
- All the videos:
www.abortionarguments.com/p/v...
Introduction and Defining abortion:
• Defining Abortion - Th...
Question-begging arguments:
• Question-Begging Argum...
Common, "everyday" arguments:
• Common, Everyday Argum...
Philosophical arguments against abortion:
• Philosophical Argument...
Philosophical arguments that abortion is often not wrong:
• Philosophical Argument...
I'm pretty leftwing on the vast majority of issues, but I'm also philosophically pro-life. I'm disappointed the pro-life movement mostly aligns with the political right, and find that alignment mystifying.
Why is that mystifying? This may be of interest, on "left" and "right" issues:
www.nathannobis.com/2018/08/early-and-later-abortions-ethics-and-law.html
@@NathanNobis101 Based on that, early abortions are fine, then.
Even though I later shifted to the left, I was raised by theocrats and while I'm now an atheist, some of their non-religious anti-abortion arguments stuck with me. If a fetus isn't a person, yet, though, then ethically a person isn't harmed.
@@solarflare1206 a version of their most common non-religious arguments is reviewed here:
www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html?m=1#humanbeings
@@solarflare1206 well, for what it's worth, there are arguments that abortion is wrong even if the fetus is not a person. E.g., Don Marquis's arguments are like that:
See, e.g., "5.1.5 Abortion prevents fetuses from experiencing their valuable futures" for an overview:
www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html#better
@@NathanNobis101 I agree with Solar Flare. The side which focuses upon protecting the rights and interests of the disadvantaged is the side in favor of abortion. The side that begins with the assumption that institutions and systems of power generally ought not to be disrupted because that could make things worse is the one seeking to expand the understanding of human rights to apply prior to birth. It's a bizarre historical anomaly.
Hi Nathan. What is your definition of a person?
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for personhood?
Please see here:
www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html#persons
I will also note that I don't think being a person is super important: being a person or being personlike is.
@@NathanNobis101 I agree with the view that personhood isn't the only important thing. I contend it's still 'super important' because it's a sufficient condition for having human rights (or the equivalent rights for nonhuman entities). It's just not the only important thing because it's not the only sufficient condition. I don't think 'personlike' is a good second option though.
I've started writing why I think this but it's already fairly long and the comments section is a difficult format to use this way. With your permission, I'd rather send my argument to the gmail address linked to your youtube account.
@@DS2CV sure!
@@NathanNobis101 thank you 🙂 i'm making the subject line ''personlike'' so that hopefully it won't get lost in the spam folder.
I have a, perhaps niche, question. Is abortion vegan? Consider please, the definition of veganism from the vegan society: "Veganism: a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. In dietary terms, it refers to the practice of dispensing with all animal produce,"
The crux of my question lies in admitting that humans are at least animals and that the fetus can feel pain and thus it would be cruel to harm it without just cause. Vegans tend to be on the liberal side of the abortion debate but it seems to me that veganism tends to be pro-life. Thoughts?
Hi, this is just on that issue. Your empirical claim about most aborted fetuses doesn't appear to be true:
whatswrongcvsp.com/2016/07/16/whats-wrong-with-linking-abortion-and-animal-rights/
Thanks!
@@NathanNobis101 my claim that at some point they have feelings, is wrong?
@@jamesmaples1255 no, they likely do, but after when most abortions occur.
@@NathanNobis101 I don't think it's as simple as just saying they don't feel. The argument against people talking about pain is that nociception isn't actually pain, rather like saying that rhythmic contraction of cardiac muscle to pump blood isn't actually a heartbeat.
Rather than just saying there's no feeling, I think one needs to identify just what about feeling (or a heartbeat) is believed to be ethically significant, and then see when any or all of the significant quality is present. Otherwise you get sidetracked in semantic debates that don't address the actual issue that generates conflict - just like people who argue about how to define the word, 'gender' or ask people for a definition of 'woman.'
@@DS2CV I don't see that happening with this issue, other than claims that some pain-related observations are illusory, for reasons you mention. And pain and negative feelings are obviously ethically relevant, unlike heartbeats.
It's only a quick overview sure, but I found the definition of "person" offered somewhat dissatisfying. Are we really drawing an equivalence between actual humans and fictional ones?
No, you don't understand. Concepts can fit actual things, but they can also fit possible things: the concept can apply to both. That's why thinking about hypotheticals is important.
This may help:
www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html#persons
See here please:
www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html#defining
Even though I disagree with you on this issue, i’m glad you actually give a critique to the pro-life movement, and you actually give arguments, you don’t say things like well what if the mother is not ready to have a child.
Good. Thanks. Yes, a decent percentage of people lack the understanding and often training to productively engage these issues.
The fact that you might expect something like that is surprising: you would think that people who actually know something (quite a bit!) about these issues would respond in these ways? Experts on issues do not offer up uninformed, thoughtless perspectives, by definition of "experts."
As I have stated elsewhere, I think the abortion debate is often argued along the wrong lines. Yes, all of the typical pro-life arguments hold true and are completely valid, while all the "pro-choice" arguments are terminally weak and collapse under the slightest scrutiny. I also think the most fundamental argument really has to do with the kind of society that we want to promote as we evolve as human beings. In other words, do we really want to condone lifestyles where pleasure, personal gratification, victim identity, and convenience take precedence over duty, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, and a reverence for the sanctity of life? Any rational person must admit that any society, or individual, would be much healthier and more functional were they to embrace the latter set of values. That, to me, is enough to settle the entire argument, because, in my opinion, the government not only has a responsibilty to set policies that respect the rights of individuals, but it also has a responsibilty to preserve the moral health of the society and its individuals in perpetuity. Our nation's laws should encourage and support moral and ethical behavior, rather than condoning or supporting behaviors and attitudes that are known to lead to moral decay.
Well, I suppose the question would be how to make that happen in a way that wouldn't be obviously unjust and bad.
E.g., suppose someone wants to seek pleasure, personal gratification, victim identity, and convenience. Suppose someone reasonably accuses you of you of having all these vices, when you really have them, in some ways.
Should the government prevent you from having these vices, if any when they are vices? How could that be done?
One option would be some kind of form of government with one, or a few people, at the top and they control the show: no dissent is allowed.
For many reasons, that would not be best.
So are there any other options that would allow for the realization of what you are proposing, in a viable, fair way, especially in a society where different people have different visions of what is and is not "moral decay" and moral flourishing?
I don't mean that to be a rhetorical question too! I don't see how what you are proposing could be done in a democrasy.
Also, at least here, you seem to be just assuming that abortion is in general wrong and a great evil that any just government would not allow. That claim would need to be supported, of course.
I do want to note that all the above is compatible with thinking that we can and should have ethics education.
Thanks for your comments!
@@absolutelynot6086 if you are asking me, the answer would be no: she should be able to have an abortion; that would not be wrong, esp if done early in pregnancy. You could see my videos on why or the free book and materials at www.abortionarguments.com
@@absolutelynot6086 well, I suppose some might propose that a police report should be required, but that is a problematic requirement.
Totally agree.
@@XxGreatestyouknoWxX totally agree with what?
Related reading: www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html#better
I personally believe developing humans whether in the womb or outside have intrinsic potentiality and that alone claims humanitarian treatment. I don't accept woman having the right to terminate their developing child, its unconscionable and spiritually scaring on the mother. Accepting ending the life of possibly one of the most meaningful relationships you'll ever have can reasonably taint the conscience of anyone in such a position.
Thanks for responding, but a potential for X doesn't usually (or ever) give someone a right to X or a right to be treated as if they are X.
You may want to read the free book here: www.abortionarguments.com
Thanks!
@@NathanNobis101 well if you accept others have value, you can quite easily acknowledge how to treat such an individual. So, not terminating them seems quite reasonable.
@@XxGreatestyouknoWxX no, you need to think about why anyone or anything has value and see if those explanation apply to, say, embryos.
@@NathanNobis101 one of the greatest aspects to value is its potentiality. Why are murderers given the chance to be rehabilitated? Why are white collar criminals give a second chance? Because society holds individuals as valuable, particularly in western society.
@@XxGreatestyouknoWxX you are missing the question of what makes anyone valuable; you can also think about the differences between the cases you mention and, say, embryos.
You're never gonna stop abortion. Abortion has always happened and will continue to happen. my great aunt was ruined by a black market abortion at 15. in her early 20s she wanted to have babies with her husband but couldn't. access to safe legal abortion would have enabled her to have babies when she was ready
I came to this video because I don’t yet know what my opinion is on abortion.
I’m disappointed the video author appears to be arguing against the anti-abortion arguments. I was hoping for something more neutral.
Hi, thanks for checking these out. There is a time and a place for just presenting arguments and not evaluating them, but this is not that time or place. Thanks!
Perhaps your definition of "thinking critically" and Mr. Nobis' definition of "thinking critically" are not the same.
@@Cowplunk here's a good overview of critical thinking:
1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/09/28/critical-thinking/
Sometimes one side of the argument just isn’t very strong. Should we pretend like anti-abortion arguments are strong just for the sake of neutrality?
Forced pregnancy, forced birth is involuntary servitude. we have Constitution Amendment 13 which is prohibits involuntary servitude. Since rich and smart women will always get abortions, you are forcing only the most disadvantaged, impoverished disenfranchised women to carry unwanted pregnancies. they will give birth to unwanted babies they can't afford and we already have 400,000+ kids in foster care. the most desirable babies in demand for adoption are healthy white babies. Babies born drug addicted, malformed, autistic, etc or of other ethnicities are going to be further overloading the foster care system.
Just ask the definition of a fetus and tell them it's an unborn human baby and you win lol
No, a *beginning* fetus is not a "baby". See here:
www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html#defining
@@NathanNobis101 That's not true. It meets standard dictionary definitions for both 'child' and 'baby.' What one visualizes upon hearing the word, and how one responds emotionally to the word, can be the basis for good arguments about why some people should want to avoid using it. That is not an argument that using it is incorrect.
@@DS2CV when people find out they are pregnant, they usually say that they are going to have a baby, they will have a child; they don't think they have one now, yet. And people often don't speak literally about many things, which is often just fine.
@@DS2CV So, if “baby” is such a broad term that it includes many different stages of human development from zygote to say, toddler, then how is it a useful term for this discussion? We need to be able to distinguish between embryos, early fetuses, viable fetuses, and born infants because they all have different characteristics that are relevant to the debate.
@@butterscotchwm Absolutely not. The term 'baby' is extraordinarily useful in this discussion. It delineates a set which has common characteristics essential to a central argument about the topic. You may want to make a different argument based upon distinctions between different classes within that set, but your different argument based on those distinctions doesn't affect the usefulness of the term to other arguments.
I think that there are obvious cases where killing a human being is justified. If a human has committed a capital crime and is convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced to death, then that human can be killed. If a human is actively trying to harm or kill another human then that human can be killed. Why not consider abortion against other instances that are generally accepted as appropriate reasons to kill a human? Did the unborn human commit a capital crime and get convicted by a jury of its peers and sentenced to death? Is the unborn human actively attempting to kill or physically harm another human? Abortion is unique in that its the only homicide that is allowed for almost any reason. It is possible that _some_ abortions are morally acceptable and _most_ abortions are morally reprehensible or any combination of the two. Why does the argument always seem to be a hopelessly unrealistic binary where one side says all abortion at all times should be legal and moral and the other side says all abortions at all times should be illegal and immoral?
Yes, it's unfortunate that many people are "all or none." Thats' not my approach here in these videos or the book here www.abortionarguments.com
It does, however, sound like you are merely assuming that abortion is usually wrong, which is a claim that would need to be supported. That's not easy to do, if you think about it all carefully.
@@NathanNobis101 I don't think that it is any more difficult to support that most abortion is wrong than it is to support that most abortion is not wrong. Especially given that at the time most of these killings are taking place, there is no credible threat to the mothers health. Here's a question for you, why should the right to kill humans that are unborn be more expansive and less regulated than killing humans that are born? I have a suspicion that this is all leading to the very famous and very ill conceived "violinist" straw man.
@@batglide5484 it sounds like you are not well-informed on these issues, especially in any fair and balanced manners. Please watch these videos and/or read the book and other materials at www.abortionarguments.com , including the various discussions of Thomson and arguments that appeal to bodily autonomy. Thanks!
@@NathanNobis101 I knew it. I am very well informed on these issues. The bodily autonomy arguments are not well formed and do not make logical sense. In your opinion, does a conjoined twin have the right to terminate their twin due to their right to bodily autonomy? If not why?
@@batglide5484 a contrived twin situation is not relevant to these issues. Here's something on the topics:
www.abortionarguments.com/2022/03/is-all-that-matters-is-bodily-autonomy.html
Only the unborn have a right to life?
This is a good argument for banning weapons of war,
for universal medical care . . . etc
I don't understand. Nobody claims that.
@@NathanNobis101 What about the carrier?
Actions speak as words. How about fighting, justifying, as hard for the already living people, all life on the planet.
@@arielog1941 I do not know what you are asking about.
@@NathanNobis101 bless your heart
@@arielog1941 Hi, if you have a coherent comment or question, please ask it or make the comment. What you are saying here makes no sense though. Thanks.