Argument for abortion

[Olwen]

1) A zygote, or any other unconscious blob of cells without the ability to feel pain, fear, and be mourned by others, is a person.*

2) A zygote is the second stage in human development; a fertilized egg is the first.

3) A fertilized egg is worth as much as a zygote.*2

4) If a person is killed, then it is morally impermissible.

5) If a zygote is killed, then it is morally impermissible. (this follows from premise 1 and premise 4 very logically)

6) If a fertilized egg is killed, then it is morally impermissible. (follows from 3 and 5)

7) In the case of killing a fertilized egg or a zygote, since they are incapable of feeling pain and so on, the reason killing a fertilized egg or a zygote is morally impermissible is because it denies a potential person who has the ability to feel pain, fear and so on from being created.

8) Not having unprotected sex denies the aforementioned potential person from being created. (very natural premise that follows from number 7)

9) If not having unprotected sex is morally impermissible, then it is wrong not to have unprotected sex as much as possible.

----

10) It is wrong not to have unprotected sex as much as possible.

* = this argument only applies to those who believe in this premise.

*2 = this conclusion rationally follows if you believe that a zygote is worth as much as a person. Tl;dr: moral worth is based on intelligence, the ability to reason, and so on, not genetic material--therefore a zygote is worth morally as much as a fertilized egg, as both are stages in human development, the only difference being that a zygote has its own unique genetic material, which does not increase moral worth in the least. See my below argument:

Why are pigs less valuable than humans, morally? Is it because of genetic material? Is a human's genetic material in some way superior to a pig's? Obviously not. If I took a piece of human DNA and then took a piece of pig DNA, I wouldn't point to the human DNA and say "that's superior!!" It's due to the ability to think, reason, be self-aware, have emotions and a personality all to a greater extent than a pig. A fetus has none of that in the list. So why on earth should a fertilized egg with a sperm cell in it (two uncombined cells) be less valuable than a zygote? Just because a zygote has its own genetic material? That's plain silly. That isn't how morality works. We kill ants all the time for being intellectually inferior to us by a wide margin, and it's considered morally permissible--maybe unfortunately so.

If I took out a chunk of my skin, my cells would die. But that obviously wouldn't be murder, because it wouldn't be valuable living being that would be dying. It would be my skin cells, which are not conscious, nor do they have the ability to reason.

Ah yes, it's been pointed out that a zygote has potential to develop into a person, unlike skin cells. But why should that matter? Zygotes and embryos get miscarried all the time (the chance seems to be around 10-25% on average, according to multiple sources I've read), but people don't really seem to make a big deal of that. People use IUDs which automatically kill zygotes. People use morning after pills all the time.There's also evidence that the birth control pill prevents implanation, but I'm not an expert on that subject in particular. Zygote murdering is common, but it's not a big deal in the least. It seems to be morally acceptable to kill zygotes.

Fetus murdering is not so morally accepted for obvious reasons--the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on. And rightfully so.

So, if we take the obvious view that a fertilized egg cell is no less valuable than a zygote, and if a pro-lifer has views, such that they're against the killing of zygotes* we would have to come to the conclusion that unprotected sex must be done as often as possible in order to make as many fertilized eggs as possible.

*This is not a straw man argument, for anyone who thinks it is. Simply because I'm choosing my audience--that is, who this argument applies to.

Furthermore, not all pro-lifers have the same views. They may differ on aborting the zygote, and so on. Obviously not everyone can agree where to draw the line. And in some cases people can be right in the middle of pro-life and pro-choice. It is impossible to use a single argument for every single pro-life view. If you're claiming that one argument can fit all pro-life adherents, then it's nonsense. It's a generalization that doesn't work.

[deleted01]

Eh?

[The Great Walrus]

Umm, i don't exactly understand the point you're trying to make...

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Is this really a thing?

[Olwen]

Umm, i don't exactly understand the point you're trying to make...

I'm trying to say that if it's wrong to abort fetuses, then it's wrong not to sleep with as many women as possible.

If it's wrong not to sleep with as many women as possible, can you imagine the consequences? A logical issue that arises if the argument is true is overpopulation. If it's okay to have unprotected sex with women as much as possible, then the consequences that would arise from overpopulation would be stunning.

[Theda Baratheon]

No. Men should not have unprotected sex all the time.

The last twat I was with, NEVER would wear a condom, I wouldn't touch him until my pill kicked in, the reckless shit.

and to the actual topic, i really don't have a clue what you're on about.

please don't use your pseudo workings out as encouragement to rampantly spread your seed without a care in the world. i think the ladies of earth can just about do without that.

[deleted01]

Why does it being wrong to abort foetuses equate to it being wrong to not have unprotected sex? I'm confused.

[Gertrude]

I get where you are going, but I don't think that most pro-life people consider 'potential' human life the same as a zygote. In other words, sperm or ovum on their own are not sacred and deserving of protection. It is only when these two meet and form the zygote that it realizes it's potential and becomes life.

[WinterKing]

He is doing a reductio ad absurdum

[Theda Baratheon]

I'm trying to say that if it's wrong to abort fetuses, then it's wrong not to sleep with as many women as possible.

If it's wrong not to sleep with as many women as possible, can you imagine the consequences? A logical issue that arises if the argument is true is overpopulation. If it's okay to have unprotected sex with women as much as possible, then the consequences that would arise from overpopulation would be stunning.

still haven't a clue what you're bloody on.

[Olwen]

Why does it being wrong to abort foetuses equate to it being wrong to not have unprotected sex? I'm confused.

Because both can potentially cause a living human being to be born.

I don't think that most pro-life people consider 'potential' human life the same as a zygote.

I guess you're right about that, but I think the pro-life community would agree that unprotected sex can potentially lead to a human being. Would they say a zygote is a human being?

[Sci-2]

I guess you're right about that. Would they say a zygote is a human being?

My understanding of the Pro-life position is life begins at conception, so I believe they'd say yes.

[deleted01]

I see, I think. Overpopulation wouldn't be the only problem to arise out of such a situation. Quality of life would greatly decrease, due to overcrowding and the necessity for more food, etc.

[Gertrude]

.I guess you're right about that. Would they say a zygote is a human being?

I believe so. Isn't that what some states are trying to legislate? But that is a whole different argument.

[Olwen]

Now that I think about it, it doesn't matter if life begins at conception or not. My argument says nothing about that. Let's look again at the first two premises:

Premise 1) A fetus can potentially give way to a human being to be born alive.

Premise 2) Having unprotected sex with a woman can potentially give way to a human being to be born alive.

The only thing that matters here is that both things (a fetus, and unprotected sex with a woman) can lead to life being born. I think the pro-life community would acknowledge that both premises are true.

[Gertrude]

The only thing that matters here is that both things (a fetus, and unprotected sex with a woman) can lead to life being born. I think the pro-life community would acknowledge that both premises are true.

I don't, actually. Even the Catholic church endorses the rhythm method of birth control.So even the Pope does not take the stance that people should reproduce as often as possible.

eta: well, technically yes, both of those premises are true. (sort of. You are assuming it's a man having unprotected sex with a woman and not another woman) But the conclusion is not evident.

[Olwen]

I don't, actually. Even the Catholic church endorses the rhythm method of birth control.So even the Pope does not take the stance that people should reproduce as often as possible.

Isn't that wrong though? If abortion is wrong because it prevents life from being born, and if the rhythm method prevents life from being born, then isn't the rhythm method wrong as well?

[Castel]

Isn't that wrong though? If abortion is wrong because it prevents life from being born, and if the rhythm method prevents life from being born, then isn't the rhythm method wrong as well?

One is actual life, one is potential life. According to the Pope anyway.

[Gertrude]

This comes down to your beliefs and there is no right and wrong when arguing that. Note that I am not arguing this in a legalistic way, but purely as a matter of faith.

[Olwen]

One is actual life, one is potential life. According to the Pope anyway.

Yeah, and maybe that's where the Catholic Church would disagree with the argument.

My argument says nothing about where life begins: all it says is that it prevents a human being from being born. And if it's wrong to prevent a human being from being born, then so is the rhythm method, and so on.

This arguments avoids attempts to distinguish between actual life and potential life. The argument just avoids that by not mentioning it at all, and finding something both actual life and potential life have in common. All it says is this: it prevents life from being born. That's all.