So you are saying you are okay with aborting zygotes (if it were possible) since it is not a human?
So you are saying you are okay with aborting zygotes (if it were possible) since it is not a human?
These debates are tedious because no one actually argues the same point, yet everyone continues to talk…and it usually gets loader and more obnoxious.
Sure, hair contains DNA, saliva contains DNA, sperm contains DNA, etc… However, hair, saliva, etc… contain twice as much DNA as sperm. Therefore, the fact that they all contain DNA does not make them comparable. Germ cells are biologically different than somatic cells. Yet people treat them the same when it suits their purpose. Also, a single celled zygote is completely different (chromosomally) than any cell from the parent organisms and therefore does not biologically belong to either; thus a direct comparison to adult cells is also invalid.
Sure, the definition of “life” is not agreed upon. One of the issues is that life can be biological or philosophical. Biologically, life is pretty much agreed upon…humans, trees, bacteria, are all life (even individual human cells can be considered alive). Philosophically there is some debate about what constitutes “life,” typically meaning human consciousness. However, in abortion debates, people will use biological and philosophical life interchangeably to suit their purpose
These kinds of inconsistencies makes valid debate nearly impossible.
Sure, hair contains DNA, saliva contains DNA, sperm contains DNA, etc… However, hair, saliva, etc… contain twice as much DNA as sperm. Therefore, the fact that they all contain DNA does not make them comparable. Germ cells are biologically different than somatic cells. Yet people treat them the same when it suits their purpose. Also, a single celled zygote is completely different (chromosomally) than any cell from the parent organisms and therefore does not biologically belong to either; thus a direct comparison to adult cells is also invalid.
Sure, the definition of “life” is not agreed upon. One of the issues is that life can be biological or philosophical. Biologically, life is pretty much agreed upon…humans, trees, bacteria, are all life (even individual human cells can be considered alive). Philosophically there is some debate about what constitutes “life,” typically meaning human consciousness. However, in abortion debates, people will use biological and philosophical life interchangeably to suit their purpose
These kinds of inconsistencies makes valid debate nearly impossible.
MPR, I agree. But that is kind of my point here. There is no definite "answer" (for lack of a better word) to the abortion debate because so much of it depends on subjective semantics. That's why you can't really call someone who is pro-abortion a baby killer or someone who is anti-abortion to be anti-women's rights.
Biologically even, the definition of life is not agreed upon. There is no consensus amongst the bio community and different intro textbooks even today will give you slightly varying definitions (an example of something that may or may not be considered life is a virus).
Biologically even, the definition of life is not agreed upon. There is no consensus amongst the bio community and different intro textbooks even today will give you slightly varying definitions (an example of something that may or may not be considered life is a virus).
I tend to think that it is fairly agreed upon. Search for life typically includes everything down to single celled organisms. Anything that reproduces, consumes resources, etc... is looked at as life. Astronomers, biologists, and all the other scientists that are searching for life in the most inhabitable parts of Earth, on Mars, in distant galaxies, all view life the same – in biological terms. Evolutionary theory tells us that life derived from proteins that were banded together and surrounded by lipids. Enzymes began reacting with them and they started duplicating. This was the beginning of life. This is what scientists search for when seeking life.
To claim that what constitutes biological life is not agreed upon (especially at the level of a zygote) is not based on empirical evidence, but rather on philosophical or political bias. If scientists found a virus or virus-like entity on a moon of Saturn, they would claim to have found life outside of Earth, and no one would dispute that claim.
I can tell you with high confidence that the exact definition of life is not yet agreed upon. I just completed my Bachelor's in biology and up until the last semester there were professors (and this is at a respected, large American research university) who would admit that the definition of life is not agreed upon by everyone in the department let alone all of biology.
When it comes to something like finding life on other planets though, it is safe to assume that even the loosest accepted definition amongst biologists would be enough to say we found life and that is mostly because of the context (Those that argue for more binding definitions of life would still admit it is life-like just as they would say that for viruses most probably. Furthermore, finding life-like "things" probably means that life even of more constraining definitions could exist there too just as we only find viruses in [indisputably] live organisms).
At the end of the day it is semantics, so it doesn't matter tremendously- biologists aren't up all night debating each other about who is right because they realize the criteria can vary and either way, it doesn't stop research progress from happening.
When it comes to something like the abortion debate, which is highly politicized, it is important that people understand these issues.
So it all comes down to context.
If that is the case, then we would logically assume that in the context of reproduction, any single celled organism, as a stage of development into a more advanced biology, must be alive. If it is not alive, biologically, then it cannot divide and mature into its final form.
The abortion debate centers on reproduction, so it seems illogical to argue that a form of life (containing the human genome) does not exist after conception. The only real argument then becomes the philosophical argument of what defines humanity, and when does the basic human right to life begin.
If that is the case, then we would logically assume that in the context of reproduction, any single celled organism, as a stage of development into a more advanced biology, must be alive. If it is not alive, biologically, then it cannot divide and mature into its final form.
The abortion debate centers on reproduction, so it seems illogical to argue that a form of life (containing the human genome) does not exist after conception. The only real argument then becomes the philosophical argument of what defines humanity, and when does the basic human right to life begin.
Not quite, but I was just saying why your prediction (that any even semi-life form in space would be considered life- a prediction I agree with) makes sense. But, that is besides the point really- I'm just nit-picking here.
I agree and I think anyone who is interested in the facts would also agree. This is basically indisputable.
I don't think the argument is really ever about whether it is life (again going back to the point I agreed with above). It is more about whether it is "human life". And that can be looked at philosophically, but also biologically if you are considering the requirements of what defines a particular species (the criteria used in speciation). As for the "right" to life, that is subjective (it is the facade of the whole public debate basically) and given that, I think it should not hold water in public policy. After all, one person says there is a right, the other doesn't.
My current position on abortion is that given the above, we can't come to a consensus because we define "human life" and to a broader extent "life" differently and because we disagree on the right to life and when that comes into effect. Given that, I see it as more of a personal choice. And that is why I think I'd have to go pro-choice. Not because I personally think abortion is okay, but simply because it is unsolvable and comes down to opinion. Also, I consider myself a utilitarian and I think a pro-choice policy is in the best interest of aggregate utility.
On a personal note, I don't know where I would stand put in that situation and given the choice.
So, back to my initial point…since the debate is really philosophical in nature, why mix the other arguments in? Why confuse the debate and create unnecessary inconsistencies? Why argue from so many different reference points? To have a sound debate on the topic, instead of tossing it away as a personal choice, we need to remove the clutter not add to it.
Talking about spontaneous abortion (which is a biological function and not a choice), talking about zygotes and nutrients, DNA, talking about what grouping of amino acids and lipids could be considered alive, etc… really have no bearing on the debate. To continually debate these items changes the context of the argument; it changes the reference point of the discussion. When people are arguing from two different starting points (that really become two different topics) there is no mutual ground.
You say you studied biology; therefore it is understandable that biology is a sticking point with you. I am not a biologist; I have studied some biology and read some papers and listened to some scientists, but I am no expert. However, what I do know of the field, in regards to this context, is that the empirical evidence shows that the life after conception is biologically human at a cellular level; all the factors that can be observed and measured point to that fact. No other life-form can spring forth from a human zygote. On the other hand, all science has contextual and philosophical elements to it. While the cellular biology matches a human, the anatomy does not. And for some biological contexts the difference between an intrauterine human and an extrauterine human could be significant. So then, what do we define as human?
It comes down to context; it comes down to philosophy. It comes down to questions like does a heart beat determine human life? Does anatomy determine human life? Does response to stimuli determine human life? Does brain activity determine human life? Does ability to independently sustain life determine human life? Does reason and self awareness determine human life? Does the state of being wanted determine human life? Etc… Answers to these types of questions determine a philosophical basis. The argument then shifts to whether or not that basis produces logic that is consistent with reality, or does that basis produce logic that eventually contradicts itself.
Talking about spontaneous abortion (which is a biological function and not a choice), talking about zygotes and nutrients, DNA, talking about what grouping of amino acids and lipids could be considered alive, etc… really have no bearing on the debate. To continually debate these items changes the context of the argument; it changes the reference point of the discussion. When people are arguing from two different starting points (that really become two different topics) there is no mutual ground.
You say you studied biology; therefore it is understandable that biology is a sticking point with you. I am not a biologist; I have studied some biology and read some papers and listened to some scientists, but I am no expert. However, what I do know of the field, in regards to this context, is that the empirical evidence shows that the life after conception is biologically human at a cellular level; all the factors that can be observed and measured point to that fact. No other life-form can spring forth from a human zygote. On the other hand, all science has contextual and philosophical elements to it. While the cellular biology matches a human, the anatomy does not. And for some biological contexts the difference between an intrauterine human and an extrauterine human could be significant. So then, what do we define as human?
It comes down to context; it comes down to philosophy. It comes down to questions like does a heart beat determine human life? Does anatomy determine human life? Does response to stimuli determine human life? Does brain activity determine human life? Does ability to independently sustain life determine human life? Does reason and self awareness determine human life? Does the state of being wanted determine human life? Etc… Answers to these types of questions determine a philosophical basis. The argument then shifts to whether or not that basis produces logic that is consistent with reality, or does that basis produce logic that eventually contradicts itself.
You bring up some fair points and I think you've changed my outlook on the overall debate so I thank you for that. In these threads I brought up the biological aspects just to show that the whole "natural" argument or even the murder argument in the context of science does not make sense.
The philosophical argument will come down to opinion- given the strong support on both sides, I am not sure we can come to a consensus any time soon. Again, looking at utility, I would say pro-choice just makes more sense. For one, in the case of abortion being illegal, we will see black market and "at home" measures for abortion increase- this could be a disaster. In addition, the quality of life for unwanted children might be far from great. We would likely also see increases in abandoning kids and over the long run possibly crime.
I understand that these “off” topics need to be argued at times because people put so much stock into them, even if they form an inconsistent or haphazard argument. I typically try to work my way down to the base assumptions to find out why they are part of the debate. Most often there isn’t any real contextual disagreement and any differences are based on things outside the scope of the argument. However, there are also people that will never really attempt to understand, so these things will persist.
Philosophy always comes down to opinion, but contrary to popular belief, some opinions are better than others. Philosophers are much like scientists, defending their theories, challenging perceptions, critiquing other theories, even adjusting their own thinking to fit new data. Those opinions which withstand the rigors of this process are typically more comprehensive and better structured. However, there is still no guarantee of rightness. In that regard, I try to take new data and arguments and bounce my opinions off them to assess my logic (not that I don’t sometimes fall into rigid thinking). I have refined my opinion of the biological context of the abortion argument through topics in many of your posts (in this thread and others).
As to the utility argument, I find the logic leads to unintended consequences. The black market, back alley abortion disaster argument is usually exaggerated. Numbers were thrown out there that up to 15,000 women a year died before Roe v. Wade, but data from the US Bureau of Vital Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics dispute that claim putting the number between 30 and 50. There is also the argument that women make the choice to have black market abortion, and thus have weighed the consequences and determined the risk is worth it. To alleviate some of the risk by legalizing and regulating abortions (which are not always as regulated and sanitary as people think) creates some logical consequences. Why not legalize and lessen the risks of other activities? Why does this logic apply only to abortion? This argument is also used as a basis to provide free/taxpayer abortions because excessive costs can lead to the same black market…but again the same questions apply, why not provide this for other things too?
The quality of life argument is highly subjective and has some definite logical consequences. Are those who live lower quality lives less human? Do they have a right to live and drain resources from society? Do they have less right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness? Do life circumstances determine potential contribution to society? Who determines what “quality” in life means? Typically the quality of life arguments relate to the poor, yet people would never use these arguments about poverty in any other context than abortion. In fact, many of the people (obviously not all) who use this argument are the same people who vilify wealth and extol the virtues of poverty.
Also, making human rights decisions or laws based on social utility sets the base argument for socialism. If everything was measured by the benefit/gain to society then many freedoms we recognize today would not exist; our actions would be controlled by what is considered best for the collective. In a free society people are allowed to live as they see fit and hold responsibility for their choices. However, in an engineered society people are guided by laws for the “greater good” (a subjective phrase), and consequences are forced upon them. While the abortion argument is often phrased as “reproductive freedom,” the utility argument has the logical consequences of lesser overall freedom.
Philosophy always comes down to opinion, but contrary to popular belief, some opinions are better than others. Philosophers are much like scientists, defending their theories, challenging perceptions, critiquing other theories, even adjusting their own thinking to fit new data. Those opinions which withstand the rigors of this process are typically more comprehensive and better structured. However, there is still no guarantee of rightness. In that regard, I try to take new data and arguments and bounce my opinions off them to assess my logic (not that I don’t sometimes fall into rigid thinking). I have refined my opinion of the biological context of the abortion argument through topics in many of your posts (in this thread and others).
As to the utility argument, I find the logic leads to unintended consequences. The black market, back alley abortion disaster argument is usually exaggerated. Numbers were thrown out there that up to 15,000 women a year died before Roe v. Wade, but data from the US Bureau of Vital Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics dispute that claim putting the number between 30 and 50. There is also the argument that women make the choice to have black market abortion, and thus have weighed the consequences and determined the risk is worth it. To alleviate some of the risk by legalizing and regulating abortions (which are not always as regulated and sanitary as people think) creates some logical consequences. Why not legalize and lessen the risks of other activities? Why does this logic apply only to abortion? This argument is also used as a basis to provide free/taxpayer abortions because excessive costs can lead to the same black market…but again the same questions apply, why not provide this for other things too?
The quality of life argument is highly subjective and has some definite logical consequences. Are those who live lower quality lives less human? Do they have a right to live and drain resources from society? Do they have less right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness? Do life circumstances determine potential contribution to society? Who determines what “quality” in life means? Typically the quality of life arguments relate to the poor, yet people would never use these arguments about poverty in any other context than abortion. In fact, many of the people (obviously not all) who use this argument are the same people who vilify wealth and extol the virtues of poverty.
Also, making human rights decisions or laws based on social utility sets the base argument for socialism. If everything was measured by the benefit/gain to society then many freedoms we recognize today would not exist; our actions would be controlled by what is considered best for the collective. In a free society people are allowed to live as they see fit and hold responsibility for their choices. However, in an engineered society people are guided by laws for the “greater good” (a subjective phrase), and consequences are forced upon them. While the abortion argument is often phrased as “reproductive freedom,” the utility argument has the logical consequences of lesser overall freedom.
Yep, I think that is an [unfortunately] important part of the public policy issue.
At the end of the day, the utility argument is about costs vs. benefits (and not just financial).
On the black market- the lower numbers may well be true, but it all depends on the actual studies and the methodologies. It is those that need to be evaluated. As for those who still get black market abortions- of course they weigh the risk, but the risk is still a lot higher than had they been able to do it in a legal establishment.
As for legalizing and reducing risk of other activities- again it comes down to costs and benefits and should be evaluated as such. Things like marijuana, I would argue, should be legalized.
But the black market isn't my only argument in that debate, it is just an example I gave (same with quality of life). Things like impact on crime also play a role (there are studies that suggest legalized abortion is primarily responsible for large drops in crimes in metropolitan cities like NYC - the book Superfreakonomics [or perhaps it was Freakonomics] popularized that one. All of these things should be considered.
And the question of taxpayer funded abortion is again all about costs and benefits. From what I have read, I am inclined to say it is a bad idea (although private charity provided abortion is a whole other thing), but I haven't done nearly enough research into the matter to give even a semi-confident opinion. Yes, a black market can form if costs aren't low enough, but that is the case for anything- that happens with cigarettes too- it doesn't mean we shouldn't still tax them heavily. Again, it is about costs and benefits (not trying to sound like a broken record
).The problem with utilitarianism is often that it is hard to effectively measure all costs and benefits, but I think in many cases we can still make smarter decisions considering what we can measure with the methodologies we have at hand.
Just because we don't have perfect measures, does not mean we cannot take facts-based action that improves circumstances. This happens all the time in healthcare, even though the US generally hates to admit it. When it comes to end-of-life decisions, this is very often the case. The US due to its culture does have a bigger issue with it, which is one of the reasons why I think we try to extend lives so much and at such great costs compared to other nations.
I disagree that it is the basis of socialism because maximum utility, especially over generations can very arguably come from a relatively free society. And historically, some of the most famous utilitarians such as J.S. Mill have in fact been very "pro-liberty" and for individual rights. A more contemporary example is Milton Friedman, who often argued on utilitarian points and was of course a big proponent of capitalism. I am not a philosophy or history expert by any means, but from my readings I think there has historically been a greater link between those advocating libertarianism and utilitarianism than those advocating egalitarianism and utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism/common good is basically the moral basis for socialism, whereas egoism/individual rights is basically the moral basis for capitalism. Ergo, basing broad-scale public decisions primarily on social utility is a movement towards socialism (especially if freedoms are undermined). While utility is a driving force in any economic system, its application is completely different. The broad debate about utility in economic systems is really a topic for another argument though.
For the purposes of this debate however, a utilitarian society might determine that black markets or unwanted children have a large negative social utility, whereas abortion has a smaller negative impact. Legalizing abortions would thus create a net gain in utility. A government based on utilitarian principles would then have the moral obligation to legalize abortion whether or not any human rights were violated.
A capitalistic society, on the other hand, would look at utility from an individual perspective with the moral obligation to maintain human rights. While convenience and individual utility may be satisfied by an abortion, it is debatable whether human rights would be violated. Our legal system requires a burden of proof before individual liberties are violated (innocent until proven guilty). Therefore, in order for abortion to be legal, the burden of proof would logically fall on those claiming the unborn are not human. It has been pretty well established that no consensus has been reached on when “humanity” begins, therefore a government based on the rights of individuals could not morally condone abortion.
It is convenient to argue abortion strictly from a social utility position. The argument for legal abortion from this point of view removes human rights from the equation because the “greater good” trumps the individual. By arguing from a utilitarian point of view, even if there was unequivocal proof that the unborn were nothing but human, it would not matter. However from a capitalistic/human rights point of view the arguments for abortion become a lot harder to rationalize.
Also, the logic of the social utility argument (greater good) leads to other conclusions. Wouldn’t society be better off without criminal offenders? The hypothetical data in the abortion argument assumes greater criminal activity due to illegal abortions. This is a justification for ending the unborn life. Wouldn’t the observed data of criminal activity then also warrant, utilitarily speaking, the same ends, i.e. death? In the abortion argument the social benefit of babies born into lesser quality situations is deemed negative. Therefore, abortion is justified to increase social utility. However, babies are born every day into the very same circumstances. Wouldn’t the logic also dictate that we have a social obligation to treat these babies in the same manner as the unborn, i.e. death if they are inconvenient or a drain on society? A social utility argument could also be used to sterilize those with low quality of life or who have genetic irregularities or mental illnesses or whatnot so that we wouldn’t need to waste resources on abortions. Or does the utilitarianism argument for abortion selectively apply human rights in the legal system?
For the purposes of this debate however, a utilitarian society might determine that black markets or unwanted children have a large negative social utility, whereas abortion has a smaller negative impact. Legalizing abortions would thus create a net gain in utility. A government based on utilitarian principles would then have the moral obligation to legalize abortion whether or not any human rights were violated.
A capitalistic society, on the other hand, would look at utility from an individual perspective with the moral obligation to maintain human rights. While convenience and individual utility may be satisfied by an abortion, it is debatable whether human rights would be violated. Our legal system requires a burden of proof before individual liberties are violated (innocent until proven guilty). Therefore, in order for abortion to be legal, the burden of proof would logically fall on those claiming the unborn are not human. It has been pretty well established that no consensus has been reached on when “humanity” begins, therefore a government based on the rights of individuals could not morally condone abortion.
It is convenient to argue abortion strictly from a social utility position. The argument for legal abortion from this point of view removes human rights from the equation because the “greater good” trumps the individual. By arguing from a utilitarian point of view, even if there was unequivocal proof that the unborn were nothing but human, it would not matter. However from a capitalistic/human rights point of view the arguments for abortion become a lot harder to rationalize.
Also, the logic of the social utility argument (greater good) leads to other conclusions. Wouldn’t society be better off without criminal offenders? The hypothetical data in the abortion argument assumes greater criminal activity due to illegal abortions. This is a justification for ending the unborn life. Wouldn’t the observed data of criminal activity then also warrant, utilitarily speaking, the same ends, i.e. death? In the abortion argument the social benefit of babies born into lesser quality situations is deemed negative. Therefore, abortion is justified to increase social utility. However, babies are born every day into the very same circumstances. Wouldn’t the logic also dictate that we have a social obligation to treat these babies in the same manner as the unborn, i.e. death if they are inconvenient or a drain on society? A social utility argument could also be used to sterilize those with low quality of life or who have genetic irregularities or mental illnesses or whatnot so that we wouldn’t need to waste resources on abortions. Or does the utilitarianism argument for abortion selectively apply human rights in the legal system?
Last edited:
I think one of the concerns present is that we will not fully understand what we're doing and may create beings who suffer or are otherwise impaired etc.
People are cloned for spare parts and 2 of the clones get wise and start to fight the system.
Similar threads
