What is some philosophy that supports abortion?

Answer 1

The philosophy is simple: if an embryo cannot survive outside my body, it is a part of my body, i.e. it is my body, not yours. If it can survive outside my body and I destroy it, I'm a murderer.

What women do with their bodies (and any parts thereof) is not society's business. The question is when is a fetus a viable and independent being, and when is it still technically a parasite?

The Jewish point of view, with a scriptural basis (from http://www.uscj.org/Embryonic_Stem_Cell_5809.html):

"During the first 40 days of gestation the fetus, according to the Talmud, is “as if it were simply water,” and from the 41st day until birth it is “like the thigh of its mother.”

"Neither men nor women may amputate their thigh at will because that would be injuring their bodies, which belong to God. Thus, according to Jewish law, abortion is generally prohibited, not as an act of murder (the Catholic position) but as an act of self-injury.

"On the other hand, if the thigh turns gangrenous, then both men and women have the positive duty to have their thigh amputated in order to save their lives. Similarly, if the woman’s life or health is at stake, an abortion must be performed to save the life or the physical or mental health of the woman, for she is without question a full-fledged human being with all the protections of Jewish law, while the fetus is still only part of the woman’s body."

An acorn is not an oak tree.

Answer 2

Well, there are obvious cases in which abortion solves a problem. For example, there are some medical cases where the mother would be seriously harmed or killed if she gave birth. There are also cases of rape where the mother shouldn't have to raise the child of her rapist (especially incestuous rape).

In broader cases, before the fetus is "alive" aborting it doesn't matter. For example, the morning after pill doesn't kill anything it just jettisons the interior lining of the uterus before anything grows on it. Up to the end of the first trimester the fetus isn't anything more than a bundle of cells.

The issue is complicated because it's hard to talk about it without sounding like you're killing babies. The religious types don't like it because they want more little Christians and they think that the soul is created at conception. Basically, they think that the moment the sperm enters the egg it is a human being.

I think they're full of it.

Some other reasons to support abortion are more scientific. There was a study done a while back which linked a huge drop in national crime to roughly 18-20 years after Roe vs. Wade. The study asserted that fewer poor, unwanted children grew up to become criminals.

Also, another study found that the states with the toughest anti-abortion laws also have the worst adoption and child protective services.

In the broadest sense, should a woman who doesn't want to have a child be forced to birth it? She'll either raise it poorly or put it up for adoption and the state will raise it poorly.

Answer 3

Arguably, the only reason abortion could ever be argued as bad was because of potential. For example, if a human gets a tapeworm, we don't bemoan the loss of life. WE KILL IT. And there are many points where an embryo is less developed than a tapeworm.

So what's the difference? Embryoes sometimes become people.

It's that 'sometimes' that people occasionally have trouble seeing. If you EQUATE an embryo with a complete human, then of course you're going to find abortion to be atrocious. But the real question is why are people so optimistic?

A non-zero amount of people die from childbirth every year. Even in the most developed countries. Admittedly, far more pregnancies end in children. But if it is valid to assume that the possibility of a person is the same as an actuality, isn't it equally valid to assume the the possibility of a death is the same as an actuality?

If we did that, it would probably be atrocious NOT to abort every pregnancy that we could. Who would allow every mother to die? That would be monstrous.

And that is the point. The pre-born are not the same as the post-born, just as the pre-dead are not the same as the post-dead. Anyone who argues differently is just digging their own grave.

Answer 4

Utilitarianism usually is seen as supporting abortion. Allowing abortion increases the happiness of the mother but does not cause suffering in the child since it does not yet have the capacity to suffer. And if the future capacity to suffer holds any weight, then abstaining from sex would be just as wrong as abortion (by preventing the future life.)

The ethical systems of the ancient greeks also permitted abortion. Aristotle's virtue ethics, I would say, permit abortion since aristotle himself approved of the abortion and infanticide of ancient greece.

Kant's ethics could easily be seen to support abortion as well. For Kant only rational beings carried any moral weight and fetuses are not rational while mothers are. Respecting the autonomous rationality of the mother would entail allowing her to abort. His idea that any practice must be universalizable in order to be good might pose a problem for abortion, so Kantian ethics is less clear cut in its support for abortion.

Rights theories usually also support abortion. It could be argued that a person has a right to decide what is done with his body. Thus it would be wrong to force a person to give blood to save the life of a baby because he has a right to the privacy of his body. Similarly it would be wrong to force a woman to carry a pragnancy to term because she has a right. The right of each baby to life carries some weight, of course, but the right of the healthy person to bodily privacy would mean that he would be morally allowed to choose to not let the baby use his blood if that is what he desired. The right of the woman to not allow the baby to use her body would be identical. (check out judith jarvis thomson's article about this if you ever have the chance.)

Ok that was a whirlwind tour of the major ethical theories, so I'm sure it was way too simple, but I think I summed up what they would say about abortion without making too many mistakes. There is some room for argument (especially in Kant's ethics) but abortion is not without philosophical support.

Answer 5

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Answer 6

Secular Humanism

Answer 7

There have been studies that say that abortion has resulted in lowering crime rates. With less children being born into poverty and to unwilling, uncaring parents, there are less unsupervised and emotionally unstable people to live the lives of crime.

Answer 8

Believe it or not, the modern idea behind abortion was meant to be used as a tool for minorities to exterminate themselves. After slavery and the creation on new laws and amendments that protected minorities and certain immigrants, abortion became and extermination tool, which is why you find majortiy of clinics located in or near urban and lower rent districts.

The backfire effects; it later became a tool used by whites as a means to terminate there pre-marital and teen pregnancies. The problem is, white teens took advantage of the practice more then minorities which is why you still have situations when poor minorities continue to have kids despite there financial or living situations. Anytime you see stats concerning teen mothers, minorities always lead the way, but view the stats on abortions and the numbers flip flop.

As a means to protect the American or white way of life you can't do that by exterminating yourself. I know this has hints of propaganda, but this was the mind set of the country several years back. Simple, abortion backfired on the whites, but it has been a lose-lose situation for all in the sense that we as a society can't decide what to do about it.

Answer 9

Philosophies that support abortion are not from God and you must not go with them `cause they will lead you in the wrong direction!!!

Answer 10

I am not responsible for my own actions
I am more important than any baby
If my baby is not perfect in my eyes -- Kill It!
Life is cheap

To those that say "abortion reduces crime" I would say -- aborting babies doesn't reduce crime. Aborting adults reduces come. No criminal ever put to death has ever continued committing crimes.