Why and why not should a philosopher be against abortion but for abstience, contraception, and the morning after pill? What is fundamentally different about abortion? I argue that the distinction is that abortion is a positive action. When the egg is implanted in the womb, there is a certain course of events. When the egg is implanted in the womb, there can be either eventual birth or no eventual birth. In contrast, before the egg is implanted in the womb, it is not an immediate question of whether or not there will be eventual birth but rather whether or not the egg will be planted in the womb. And before the egg is fertilized, it is not an immediate question of whether or not there will be eventual implantation nor is there an immediate question of whether there will be eventual birth, it is a question of whether there will be immediate fertilization.
Is abortion wrong because it is a positive action whereas the others are negative actions? Please carefuly look over this diagram and explain the distinction that I seem to be making yet cannot quite formulate:
Abortion… positive action …O ==/==> O… no well being
Morning after pill… … negative action …O ====> O … no well being
Contraction… negative action … o ====> o … .no well being
Abstinence… negative action … …o ====> o … .no well being
I argue that abortion is a positive action that will prevent well being unless there is an abortion whereas the morning after pill is a negative action that may prevent well being whether or not there is a morning after pill. This distinction is admittedly hard to make but please try to argue for and against it. I believe that there is something that is inevitable once the egg is implanted; that the natural course it will take is to continue and develop and eventually to be born viable.
Further, I argue that contraction and abstience are obviously negative actions. In either case, the egg remains unfertilized while in abortion the egg *does not * remain fertilied; therefore, abortion is a positive action while abstience and contraception are negative actions. You are preventing something is a fundamentally different when you have an abortion. What is the difference?
For those who believe that life begins at the time of conception, the distinction is clear. In their view, abortion involves actively destroying an existing life, while the other methods (with the possible exception of the morning after pill) prevent conception from occuring, and therefore do not involve the taking of life.
I love the typo of contraction for contraception. As anyone attending a birth knows, contractions come from lack of contraception!
I fail to see how the morning after pill is a negative action, and any different in principle from abortion. It is hard to understand why the beginning of life would be implantation and not fertilization. Implantation and development are both natural results of fertilization. It is true that the probability of implantation may be lower than that of birth after a certain stage of pregnancy, but both probabilities are below unity and should be philosophically indistinguishable.
Some techniques commonly considered contraception seem similar also. IUDs (remember them?) I believe prevented implantation. Techniques that prevent fertilization are in a different category.
I have no idea of what the OP means by no well being. Are you referring to the mother? The fetus? The sperm and egg? (No fetus at all in the contraception and abstinence cases.)
Philisophers come in all stripes.
There’s some who think only of the past, some only of the future, and some, like you suggest, that think only of the present. But these are more rare, peaking with hedonism a long time ago.
Personally, I’ve changed my opinion on all the major life-death-preventive measures topics at least once in my life, and so I’m sympathetic with anyone who’s opinions don’t all line up at any one time into a grand plan.
Morning after pill - you are NOT having implantation
Abortion - you are NOT having…
…ok, this is where is gets tricky.
I think that the first is easiest to argue for, the second lightly harder, the third is much more difficult, and finally the forth is decidedly the hardest to argue for. Inuitively, abortion is hardest to argue for because the other three are all yes/no events. It is daunting to define the processes that proceed implantion, to define development, viability, ect.
With abstience, contraception, and the morning after pill you are preventing something from happening. However, abortion is not prevention, right? If it is not prevention, then what is it catagorically? Why would it be in a different category then then other three?
It seems that one word is missing that may solve this puzzle.
But abstincence prevents fertilization, and contraception prevents implantation. The real dividing line is that fertilization is the point at which the genetic makeup of the new baby is frozen. Clearly something happens there more important than at implantation.
Essentialism is the enemy. The idea that life “begins” at any given point is a false premise that will forever throw the debate into confusing disarray of nonsense.
What follows implantation is fetal development, which is not a single event, but a 9 month process. Abortion can interrupt this process at any point.
Following this are other things which will not happen, including
[ul]
[li]Birth[/li][li]Infancy[/li][li]Childhood[/li][li]Adolescence[/li][li]Adulthood[/li][li]Producing other children[/li][li]Senility[/li][li]Etc.[/li][/ul]
Even if there is no abortion, not all of these events will happen in all cases, but interrupting the chain at any point will prevent any subsequent events from happening.
Why? The genetic makeup is a set of instructions for how to go about constructing a fetus. But those same exact instructions exist in most every living cell. There is no technical reason why you can start executing those instructions in any cell at any time. The proper environmental conditions are necessary for them to play out in such a way that eventually leads to a fetus, baby, child, pouty teenager, but in reality, fertilization is just one more way of creating a slightly unique recipe that then requires all sorts of other special conditions to develop further. Since we do not measure humanity by genetic uniqueness, this gives fertilization no special moral weight.
Could anyone explain to me prenatal development? The first process completed is fertilization and the second process completed is implantation. What is the third process completed? Is there any process that can be conceptulized as a yes/no process, eg. not fertlized/fertilized, not implanted/implanted?
I’m not giving it any moral weight. And I agree that the process can stop (often naturally) at any time. Though we are affected by the fetal environment, there is no cell with complete genetic information before fertilization. That seems to me to be a point of distinction. That doesn’t say anything about reproductive freedom, though. Even the strongest proponents of life beginning at fertilization don’t seem about to organize rescue missions for fertilized eggs that don’t implant.
It seems to me that very few opponents of abortion get this. Those against mechanisms preventing implantation also are against things preventing fertilization. Some against abortion are not against IUDs. The wide range of opinion on this is a strong reason for a pro-choice position, since it seems impossible to agree on when life or humanity begins, or what it even means.
You might consider it as lots of yes/no decisions, as various organs develop. Or you could consider it as continuous growth. That’s why it is so hard to determine when “life” begins. It’s kind of like determining when someone is an adult - you can derfine an age at which someone is considered an adult, but some kids are adults long before this, and some long after.
The egg cell has all the genetic information necessary. In fact, we’ve already found ways to trick egg cells into dividing in a process that would lead to the development of a fetus. In theory, all cells could be tricked in various ways into thinking and acting like a zygote, meaning that your entire body is made up of millions of tiny proto-people.
That action is the “moral equivalent” of fertilization, leading to a “fetus” with complete genetic information - though lacking one of the sources in traditional fertilization.