mindfeed.org

Thinking Logically about Abortion

November 23rd, 2008 • Comments »

Here at mindfeed.org, I am a huge advocate of thinking for yourself. Instead of mindlessly following the herd, I highly encourage you to:

  • think for yourself
  • reach your own conclusions
  • remain open to contrary views

I know it’s difficult to keep a clear head with the fierce polarization resonating throughout the media, but you need to stay focused and avoid the “parrot mentality.” Sure you have ideas and opinions concerning all of the controversial topics of the day, we all have something to say about virtually everything.

Unfortunately, we are unable to know everything there is to know about any given topic, such that our conclusions are ultimately incomplete. Even the most knowledgeable is ignorant of something. Further, people tend to filter information according to their own personal bias, making it impossible to objectively balance the few things that are known.

Because we aren’t omniscient, we need another way to think through important decisions and reach conclusions. Like many computer geeks, I generally prefer logic. After all, there is an obvious and undeniable order to the universe, so why not tap into fundamental reality by using the principles of logic to think through challenging material.

Fortunately, logic makes sense to most people. I mean, they get things like, “one plus one equals two,” and even more challenging statements such as “all birds are alive; Robins are birds; thus Robins are alive.” And so on. The neat thing about logic is that we can use it to understand just about anything we wish.

For example, one of the most controversial subject these days is the abortion issue. Fundamentally, there are two sides to this issue: some people think that abortion is murder, while others disagree. There are many arguments supporting either belief, however, as we’ve discussed, complete knowledge of all relevant information is impossible. Yet both sides of the debate claim to be correct on the issue.

So, rather than mindlessly “choosing a side,” let’s apply a little logic here. If life begins at birth, then destroying a fetus is not murder, by definition. If, however, life begins at conception, then destroying a fetus is murder, again by definition. Is it possible to know for absolutely certain when life begins? Unfortunately, no — it is a matter of subjective belief.

Now let’s ask whether or not murder is an acceptable behavior. If murder is an acceptable behavior, then our previous question (about when life begins) may be irrelevant. If, however, murder is not an acceptable behavior, then our previous question is relevant. I don’t know about you, but I have managed to figure this one out for myself: murdering people is not an acceptable behavior, so it is necessary to consider the point at which life begins.

Clearly, the entire abortion issue revolves around the moment of life. If life does not begin until birth, aborting a fetus is not murder. On the other hand, if life begins at conception, then aborting a fetus is murder. Thus, by choosing a side of the abortion issue, you have made a choice regarding the moment that life begins. As if you, I, or anyone actually knows when that moment happens to be. Do you really put that much trust in yourself?

I know I don’t. I have been wrong about so many things and have made so many mistakes in my life that I dare not presume to know when human life begins. Put simply, I do not support abortion because there is a possibility that abortion is murder. That’s a risk that I prefer not to take.

Possibly Related:

Filed under » Critical Thinking & Hypercritical Thought

« Previous Post • Next Post »

20 Responses to “Thinking Logically about Abortion”

#1 • Louis • December 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm

To answer to your quite abstract point of view, I would like to question the meaning of the “life” you often refer to. What is life? Is it when the fœtus has its heart starting to beat, or when it gain consciousness, or another critera?

If it’s the heart beating, then medical science is able to determine that easily. If it’s consciousness, it’s a little harder as there is no scientific way to prove it. Also, aren’t animals conscious? Isn’t killing them murder?

Plus, I think the reflexions you raise are missing the other side of the problem: the rights of the mother. What about he girl that has to stop her studies to raise a child, even though she’s not prepared for it, and who knows she’s leading to a far less confortable future because of her lack of professional qualifications?

Now to be more personal, I would like to say that I root for abortion. Before the fetus became a baby, it has no relation with the world, and the world has no relation with it. For me, it’s not yet on Earth, running its life. If I were to consider a fetus to be fully part of this world, then I would turn into a vegetarian, because if I respect the kind of live being a fetus is, I don’t see why I should arbitrary exclude animals from the list of creatures that deserve life.

I hope I’m clear enough. Writting in a foreign langage on a subject that is so complex, that is no easy task.

Also, before I forget, and a little in advance, happy new year Jeff :)

#2 • Louis • December 28, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Damn it, there’s a huge typo on my previous comment: I root against abortion. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.

#3 • Tim • February 9, 2009 at 4:53 pm

It also seems logical that we could use the point at which we determine life to end in order to determine when it begins. If one is declared when one stops breathing, then any organism that breathes to live that hasn’t started breathing is not yet living and cannot be murdered. Or if it is a level of brain activity…same deal.
It does seem that if it is legal to abort a fetus, it should also be legal to stop resussitation of adults with the same criteria. Perhaps they are close. I am not a doctor or a lawyer. Just someone trying to be open and critical….
That said…I like your blog.T

#4 • Jeff_ • February 11, 2009 at 9:02 am

Thank you Louis and Tim for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I think you both bring excellent points to the table. The question I have for Louis is whether or not animals are sentient beings. The question I have for Tim is why not define life as the period of time during which an organism exists in any functional capacity whatsoever. Just some food for thought, so to speak.

In any case, thanks again — you have definitely given me more to think about concerning this otherwise volatile subject.

#5 • Alistair • March 1, 2010 at 3:55 pm

I think there’s a problem with the logic that leads you to focus on “when does life begin?” as the only relevant question.

In particular, “murdering people is not an acceptable behavior,” doesn’t seem very reasonable. Killing a human intentionally is not always unacceptable. Two examples are personal self-defence, and - in war - the defence of innocent people or the prevention of subsequent greater destruction.

This means that the question comes down to: do you accept abortion as a similarly necessary step, in this case to preserve a woman’s way of life.

But there’s more to it, specifically regarding your definition of life. Life as an absolute, on-or-off state, is obviously an invention, certainly from a moral point of view. I imagine you don’t object to the destruction of *bacterial* life on principle.

I’ve enjoyed reading this blog so I hope you don’t think me disrespectful if I suggest that there might be more emotion and prejudice behind your ideas than you’re admitting (as there usually is with everyone).

#6 • Jeff Starr • March 1, 2010 at 5:38 pm

By definition “murder” is always unacceptable, whereas “killing” is not. I think you may be confusing the two.

Also, preserving a woman’s “way” of life is different from preserving her life. Arguing the latter seems worthwhile, but the former seems absurd.

How do you know that “life as an absolute, on-or-off state, is obviously an invention”? Do you have some support for this claim?

No disrespect taken or intended. Your refutation falls short of demonstrating any emotional and/or prejudicial bias within the article.

Thanks for the conversation - good food for thought.

#7 • Alistair • March 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm

You say in the article ‘If, however, life begins at conception, then destroying a fetus is murder, again by definition.’

Then later you say ‘By definition “murder” is always unacceptable,’ which I take to mean that you think that *unlawfulness* is part of the definition.

It seems to me that you first want to define murder as deliberate killing so that you can label abortion as murder, and then later want to use the definition of unacceptable so that you can label it as, well, unacceptable.

It seems like begging the question to me, ie. your conclusion is embedded in your reasoning from the beginning. This is why I think there might be prejudice in it.

If this is all correct then, absurdly, your judgement depends on whether abortion is illegal or not: if it is illegal then it’s murder (if murder = unlawful deliberate killing), but if it’s not illegal then it’s not murder - by definition, you might say…

#8 • Jeff Starr • March 8, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Sorry, but “unlawfulness” is not required when defining “murder” — it is also defined as “brutal or inhuman killing,” in which case your entire argument falls apart.

I enjoy watching your reasoning skills, but I think you may be missing the forest for the trees here.

#9 • Alistair • March 9, 2010 at 6:16 pm

But don’t you see the circularity? Your argument begins with “If, however, life begins at conception, then destroying a fetus is murder, again by definition.”

You conflate the different definitions of murder, and this - not through deviousness, I’m sure - allows you to judge abortion as unacceptable.

Are you saying this:

1. Murder is the deliberate, brutal, inhuman killing of human life
2. If life begins at conception, abortion is murder
3. It seems reasonable to assume that life *does* begin at conception
4. Therefore it’s reasonable to judge abortion as murder

There’s a gap between 1 and 2 that isn’t bridged by your logic.

#10 • Jeff Starr • March 10, 2010 at 3:23 am

I’m still having difficulty pinning down the alleged circularity. I think I see what you’re driving at, but fail to see how it changes anything. It is subtle. It seems more semantic nuance than serious point negation. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

Your subsequent list of statements then seems to address a different concern, looking at the gap between 1 and 2, correct? If so, then perhaps a nice bridge would detail a typical abortion procedure to prove that abortion is the deliberate, brutal, inhuman killing of human life?

#11 • Alistair • March 10, 2010 at 4:46 am

Here’s the argument again with your bridge.

1. Murder is the deliberate, brutal, inhuman killing of human life
2. The abortion procedure is brutal and inhuman
3. If life begins at conception and abortion is brutal and inhuman, then abortion is murder
4. It seems reasonable to assume that life *does* begin at conception
5. Therefore it’s reasonable to judge abortion as murder

To judge the abortion procedure as more “brutal and inhuman” than an appendectomy reveals a (pre-existing) heart-felt belief. (Personally, I view abortion as a standard procedure.) However deep I go into your reasoning it looks like there’s a core belief continually slipping away from my microscope.

I’m just saying that it looks a bit like you had made up your mind before embarking on the argument.

Do you in fact have strong beliefs about it?

#12 • Jeff Starr • March 10, 2010 at 10:21 am

So it all comes down to that? You’re basing your refutation of my argument on whether or not abortion is a brutal and inhuman procedure? Seriously? That’s incredibly weak.

The inhumanity and brutality of abortion is so glaringly obvious and widely known that most abortion supporters try to avoid the topic completely. Kudos to you for not being afraid to go there.

In case you aren’t aware, there is an abundance of evidence detailing the abortion procedure. I could have easily filled the article with plenty of gruesome facts, figures, and images, but I honestly thought this aspect of it was so obvious that I didn’t need to get into it. Next time I’ll throw in some chunky pictures to strengthen my argument.

Have you really looked into the information that is available regarding the procedure? Have you examined the topic from the other perspective in an open and honest way? It is so painfully obvious that abortion is the deliberate, brutal, inhuman killing of human life that you would need bias not to see it.

Are you blinded by your own bias?

#13 • Alistair • March 10, 2010 at 10:48 am

Stating that “It is so painfully obvious that abortion is the deliberate, brutal, inhuman killing of human life that you would need bias not to see it.” belies your implication that you were simply applying logic. It suggests that you’d already come to a conclusion based on emotional reactions, not logic. The logical argument that follows is therefore irrelevant and expedient at best, misleading and dishonest at worst. (Forgive the rhetorical flourishes, I’m not attacking you personally)

Anyway, thinking rationally is partly about questioning the obvious. The words “brutal” and “inhunam” suggest a prejudgement (ie. prejudice) that may or may not be justified. Can you accept that others might not regard the procedure in this way. If you can accept that, then your logical argument does not address their (my) position at all.

I don’t think I’m blinded by bias any more than you are. Maybe we both are. In any case, I have a certain opinion that I haven’t found reason to seriously doubt, that a fetus’s life is subsumed by the woman’s, because it is part of her body and is not a *person*. Unlike you I do not think it is reasonable to equate the life of a fetus with that of an adult woman.

#14 • Jeff Starr • March 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm

I think the burden of proof is on you to show that the procedure isn’t barbaric and murderous.

If you can’t do that, you have no case.

#15 • Alistair • March 10, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Just because I can’t prove that doesn’t mean the contrary is true.

Surely it’s more likely that the burden of proof is on you to prove a positive assertion that your argument depends on, rather than on me to prove a negative?

Anyway, if abortion is a standard medical procedure carried out on behalf of society by trained professionals - as it is - it must be up to its critics to show that it’s actually barbaric, brutal, inhuman - and any other words for “really bad” that they choose to think of.

My “case” is one of questioning your argument. As such it cannot collapse because I fail to prove a position that is contrary to yours.

#16 • Jeff Starr • March 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm

“Just because I can’t prove that doesn’t mean the contrary is true.” — can you prove this? If not, why should I take your word for it? To do so would reveal a bias towards trust in your favor.

“Surely it’s more likely that the burden of proof is on you to prove a positive assertion that your argument depends on, rather than on me to prove a negative?” — If anything, my bias is that I find the abortion procedure to be barbaric and murderous. I guess those who do not see it as such will disagree. God will judge us all in the end, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

Whether you admit it or not, you are as opinionated and set in your ways as everyone else, myself included. Resting on your owning understanding is foolishness (in general, not a personal attack).

#17 • Alistair • March 10, 2010 at 2:13 pm

“Just because I can’t prove that doesn’t mean the contrary is true.” - can you prove this?

Am I expected to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 ?!

Given two contrary statements, A and !A, if !A cannot be proven it does not follow that A is true. A must be proven.

Just because I cannot prove that unicorns don’t exist, doesn’t mean they do. (In fact, it’s not possible to prove that something doesn’t exist, but that’s another story)

#18 • Jeff Starr • March 10, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Lol, yes indeed, Alistair — 1 + 1 = 2! Good job, but that wasn’t the point of my saying that. You’ll have to forgive my fruitless attempt at making a point.

“it’s not possible to prove that something doesn’t exist” — so such proof is nonexistent? Sounds kinda circular to me.

#19 • Alistair • March 10, 2010 at 3:38 pm

I’m not trying to get the last word in here, but I just want to say that it seems like the debate has run its course. You did quite well to defend your illogical position for as long as you did…

;)

#20 • Jeff Starr • March 10, 2010 at 3:52 pm

It’s all good. I figured you would give up sooner or later.

Nice dodge of my last point, btw! ;)

Share a Response