Does abortion presuppose that parents have no moral obligations to their children?

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:


    This is a foetus at 12 weeks. It's growing, it's living. It's unique and it's not exactly a ****ing donkey, is it?

    SS
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    If you DNA test a foetus:

    - It's a collection of human cells
    - It's living
    - It's not part the mother
    - It's not part the father
    - Not part of any other human being

    Therefore, it is a) unique, b) living c) human.

    And a unique, living, small human, goes by another name: A Child.


    I don't understand how this is difficult.

    SS
    "Human" is a complicated and difficult word. I agree that a newly conceived foetus is human in the sense that it definitely isn't a dolphin or a plant and it is composed of cells that belong to the same species as us. At the same time, I personally wouldn't call it human in a different sense - that it has no capacity to experience the world, think, suffer, love, or any of the other special things that humans do that we use to distinguish ourselves from nonhuman entities. It has the capacity to eventually grow into an entity that can do those things, but I don't think that's enough to give us a moral responsibility for its welfare.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    x
    It's got 46 chromosomes. It has all the genetic material the rest of us have. It must be part of the human species in one way or another.



    But it's not the mother and it's not the father. It's not part of anyone else. Therefore, it must be an individual.


    So, it's unique, it's living and it's part of the human species (I.E. A person). (Which is these would you disagree with?)



    (According to your definition of human, someone in a vegetative state is no longer human. Clearly, people in a vegetative state are human. Reductio Absurdum. Proposition false.)


    SS
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    *

    I think you've misunderstood. We're not talking about "taking matters into your own hands" and deciding that you want your baby to die, and actively starving it to make sure it does.

    Rather, we're talking about a situation similar to abortion in which a parent simply says "I do not permit this child to use my resources in order to survive". Similarly to how a woman may say "This is my womb, and the child can't live in it", we're talking about a parent who says "This is my house, and the child can't live in it", or "This is my, food and the child can't eat it".

    Now of course, if a parent wanted to do that, they could. But they would have to first find someone else who's willing to feed and house and adopt the child before this would be allowed, so that it doesn't die. They owe a duty of care to the child they created, to prevent its death at all costs.*Similarly, if they wished to withdraw the use of their womb from the child, should they not also have to first find say, a surrogate mother who is willing to continue to allow the child to develop inside her womb so that it doesn't die?*

    *
    You say that the line is drawn between a potential baby and a human baby when the child begins to be able to survive outside the womb. However, even after it becomes able to survive outside the womb, it is still dependent upon its parents for survival in other ways.

    So the analogy being drawn here is that, if "allowing it to die" by withdrawing food or shelter etc. is prohibited, then "allowing it to die" by withdrawing the womb environment also should be prohibited.
    Moral obligation for a birth parent to find a home for a child is based on the reality that other people can take that child and care for it. We currently can't transplant a foetus into another person and don't have artificial uterus'. You can't force birth parents to raise a child and you can't force a woman to carry a foetus to term. It's been tried before and women carried out illegal abortions.

    You can try logic your way through it as much as you want, you can't make a person want something that they don't want. We live in reality, not in the vacuum of a philosophy debate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    If you DNA test a foetus:

    - It's a collection of human cells
    - It's living
    - It's growing
    - It's not part the mother
    - It's not part the father
    - Not part of any other human being

    Therefore, it is a) unique, b) living c) human.

    And a unique, living, small human, goes by another name: A Child.


    I don't understand how this is difficult.

    SS
    it's "living" in the same sense a plant cell is living though...so your argument is pretty worthless. you're not prepared to think that de-weeding your flower bed is genocide so your point falls flat.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    it's "living" in the same sense a plant cell is living though...so your argument is pretty worthless. you're not prepared to think that de-weeding your flower bed is genocide so your point falls flat.
    Mental.


    The argument isn't just that it's living...

    It's the fact, it's human DNA so it's part of a human but it's not part of the mother because they have completely different DNA. It's unique.

    Did you even read the argument?


    We're not talking about plant DNA here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Canucked)
    Moral obligation for a birth parent to find a home for a child is based on the reality that other people can take that child and care for it. We currently can't transplant a foetus into another person and don't have artificial uterus'. You can't force birth parents to raise a child and you can't force a woman to carry a foetus to term. It's been tried before and women carried out illegal abortions.

    You can try logic your way through it as much as you want, you can't make a person want something that they don't want. We live in reality, not in the vacuum of a philosophy debate.
    This exactly.
    You can transfer parental rights from one person to another but can't transfer pregnancy from one body to another
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Mental.


    The argument isn't just that it's living...

    It's the fact, it's human DNA so it's part of a human but it's not part of the mother because they have completely different DNA. It's unique.

    Did you even read the argument?


    We're not talking about plant DNA here.
    I don't care if it's "human" via this argument, that's not the point - if you're saying it's a *living* human, you are basically saying that deweeding a garden is murder. if you're saying that a foetus is alive, then picking daisies is technically an act of slaughter. your argument is obviously very flawed and you're just ignoring this fact.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I don't care if it's "human" via this argument, that's not the point - if you're saying it's a *living* human, you are basically saying that deweeding a garden is murder. if you're saying that a foetus is alive, then picking daisies is technically an act of slaughter. your argument is obviously very flawed and you're just ignoring this fact.

    What?

    I believe you're off your rocker.


    Murder in UK law only applies to humans.


    Let's break it down. A foetus is:

    A) Unique (It's not the mother. It's not the father. It's unprecedented and its DNA is different to both.)

    B) Part of the species known as "Human" (The cells have 46 chromosomes and all of the genetic material we have, thus identifying them as human cells)

    C) Living (It grows, moves, respires.)


    Which of these do you disagree with?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    What?

    I believe you're off your rocker.


    Murder in UK law only applies to humans.
    hm? an appeal to authority logical fallacy? nooope. try again champ.
    also, wtf is up with your appeal to "uniqueness"? how is that important? why are you putting your chips on "uniqueness"?
    also, once again, "living" in the human sense is more than a mere biological understanding - a trees "alive" in the same way a human is? no? then give it up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    hm? an appeal to authority logical fallacy? nooope. try again champ.
    Good God, you're not very smart are you?



    Thank **** a sign of being human isn't intelligence or you'd be buggered.


    SS
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    h
    also, wtf is up with your appeal to "uniqueness"? how is that important? why are you putting your chips on "uniqueness"?
    also, once again, "living" in the human sense is more than a mere biological understanding - a trees "alive" in the same way a human is? no? then give it up.
    Uniqueness is obviously important because if it's not genetically unique, it could just be part of a larger organism. Like a skin cell flaking off.

    One argument says that a foetus is just 'part' of the mother. Pointing out that they have very different DNA and therefore not just 2 parts of the same person invalidates this particular line of questioning.

    SS
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    Good God, you're not very smart are you?



    Thank **** a sign of being human isn't intelligence or you'd be buggered.


    SS
    ...
    ...do you even know what a "logical fallacy" is? :/
    if you did you wouldn't embarrass yourself by shrugging an accusation like that off as if it was nothing...you *were* appealing to authority illogically and fallaciously, yet you think that merely calling me unintelligent will cure this problem? oh honey.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    What?

    I believe you're off your rocker.


    Murder in UK law only applies to humans.


    Let's break it down. A foetus is:

    A) Unique (It's not the mother. It's not the father. It's unprecedented and its DNA is different to both.)

    B) Part of the species known as "Human" (The cells have 46 chromosomes and all of the genetic material we have, thus identifying them as human cells)

    C) Living (It grows, moves, respires.)


    Which of these do you disagree with?
    So a fertilised egg is living? Or does it only become living when it's a foetus?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    It's got 46 chromosomes. It has all the genetic material the rest of us have. It must be part of the human species in one way or another.
    But it's not the mother and it's not the father. It's not part of anyone else. Therefore, it must be an individual.
    So, it's unique, it's living and it's part of the human species (I.E. A person). (Which is these would you disagree with?)
    (According to your definition of human, someone in a vegetative state is no longer human. Clearly, people in a vegetative state are human. Reductio Absurdum. Proposition false.)
    SS
    I do not contest that a newly conceived foetus is unique, or that it is living, or that it is composed of human tissue. I still wouldn't consider one a person.

    The comparison to a person in a coma is an interesting one. One difference between the two situations is that a vegetative person was once capable of perceiving its environment, thinking, emoting, etc, and had wants and desires. It is partially out of respect for those desires that a person in a coma is treated as human and kept alive. A freshly conceived foetus has no wants or desires whatsoever and has never had any.

    I'll also reiterate - I am firmly against the abortion of reasonably developed embryos that could possibly have the capacity to suffer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    So a fertilised egg is living? Or does it only become living when it's a foetus?
    A fertilised egg is definitely living. The unfertilised egg and sperm that combined to produce it were likewise living cells.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    So a fertilised egg is living? Or does it only become living when it's a foetus?
    Well, a fertilised egg is something of a contradiction. Because it's no longer an egg. It's a zygote at this point.

    And yes, I would say this is the point at which human life begins.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's more that the individual has a higher duty of care to itself first, because if they are unable to look after themselves, they cannot look after their children. Caring for yourself is not usually considered a moral act though of course.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, parents do have a moral obligation to their children. To take care of them. And you cannot do that as well if

    You did not want it in the first place and will resent it
    You are in poor health and pregnancy would be a risk (leaving the child parent less)
    You are in a financially unstable place
    The child may suffer (if it has certain conditions)

    The bigger problem IMO is the amount of people who bring children into the world they simply do not care about. We're heading towards a huge population growth that is unsustainable, and banning abortion would be ludicrous
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    I personally wouldn't call it human in a different sense - that it has no capacity to experience the world, think, suffer, love, or any of the other special things that humans do that we use to distinguish ourselves from nonhuman entities. It has the capacity to eventually grow into an entity that can do those things, but I don't think that's enough to give us a moral responsibility for its welfare.
    The same could be said of a person who has been temporarily knocked unconscious. They cannot experience the world, think, suffer, love or anything like that. However, we have a moral responsibility for its welfare because we assume that just because the person can't do those things at this particular moment in time, they most likely will be able to in future.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 22, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.