In our modern society poisoned by relativism and emotivism, virtues are things of distant past. People have forgotten the ways by which we should live. The people's minds are softened through material comforts and their passions. To uncloud their minds, proponents of virtue must tirelessly advocate against what moderns would call "progress". Little do they know that their notion of progress is a path back to barbarity, a path embracing carnal desires more than reason. It is a tedious work to convince those who are clouded by their passions. One of these barbaric notions on the rise is the notion that abortion is not immoral, a claim made by consequence of inadequate understanding of morality. To refute such a claim is the aim of this post.
The lamentable feature of the current condition of moral debate in the political arena is the fact that hardly anyone can explain their moral position fully through metaphysical expositions (save for religious few with good catechismal experience). A morality of something cannot be held without a metaphysical assumption for the very concept of morality is metaphysical. There are those saying "a woman can do whatever she wants with her body" and "a man should not tell her what to do with her body" and simply be content with not substantiating them with metaphysical assumptions; statements as such are nonsensical once one digs deeper. A legitimate moral debate can only be conducted once an accountable metaphysical system is established and understood by the opponent. Otherwise, the debate merely becomes a shouting match. Thus I argue from metaphysics to a certain extent (for simplicity's sake I do not go into explaining a system). I hope to use certain metaphysical truths most rational agents hold to be self-evident to convince that abortion is immoral.
The lamentable feature of the current condition of moral debate in the political arena is the fact that hardly anyone can explain their moral position fully through metaphysical expositions (save for religious few with good catechismal experience). A morality of something cannot be held without a metaphysical assumption for the very concept of morality is metaphysical. There are those saying "a woman can do whatever she wants with her body" and "a man should not tell her what to do with her body" and simply be content with not substantiating them with metaphysical assumptions; statements as such are nonsensical once one digs deeper. A legitimate moral debate can only be conducted once an accountable metaphysical system is established and understood by the opponent. Otherwise, the debate merely becomes a shouting match. Thus I argue from metaphysics to a certain extent (for simplicity's sake I do not go into explaining a system). I hope to use certain metaphysical truths most rational agents hold to be self-evident to convince that abortion is immoral.
Values
1) If a thing exists, then it has values.
2) Fetus exists.
3) Fetus has values.
It should not take a master of metaphysics to understand that all things that exist, be it material or immaterial, have their own worth. For example, apples have many values: mathematical structure, the probability of it feeding organic beings, the probability of it simply being nutrition for the ground, and the probability of it producing more apple trees. Some of the fetus's values are also of physical mathematical quantity: height, width, age, etc. It is biological also in that it was life as biology defines. However, among its many values, the potentiality of life is one of them. One cannot deny that an apple has a potential to fulfill one or more of the potentialities of an apple unless he is deficient in the process of logic. As it is with apple's potentiality, a fetus also has a potential to become a full grown human being and live as a fully grown person. Such is the order of the cosmos.
Justice
The virtue of justice is one that most human beings vaguely get through "gut-feeling". But because of our prejudicial nature, this knowledge can be at times be tainted. Emotionally, many of the pro-abortion advocates feel that abortion is in no way unjust. Perhaps they are ignorant of justice. So here I define justice clearly: Justice is giving to each what is due.
From the previous argument this follows:
1) If a thing exists, then its values are due to it.
2) Fetus exists.
3) Fetus's values are due to fetus.
From the definition of justice, this follows, coupled with two basic moral assumptions:
1) Certain values have moral significance.
2) Life is of moral significance.
1) If a thing's morally significant value is willfully removed, then is is an unjust (immoral) act.
2) Life is of moral significance.
1) If a thing's morally significant value is willfully removed, then is is an unjust (immoral) act.
2) A woman aborts a child, willfully removing its value of potentiality of life.
3) The act of abortion is an unjust act.
Now it is established that fetuses have potentiality of life. As justice demands, its potential must be given to it regardless of one's desire. If one violates the principle of justice and aborts the fetus, it is undeniably true that such an action is immoral. For all intents and purposes, therefore, in respecting the potentiality of life, one should treat fetuses as if they are birthed human being.
This logic is consistent with why we ought not to murder someone. A psychopathic murderer may say that he is doing no wrong for he is simply giving death which is due to all human beings eventually. Although it is true that the actuality of death is due to all living things, if something has an actuality of life, it also has the potentiality to live out longer in temporal terms. When we speak of life, we always think in terms of both present and future living state... We think murder wrong because it rids the potentiality of life from both present and beyond a particular moment. Conversely, we think charity virtuous for it ensures the veracity of the potentiality of life. To be logically consistent, then, it is righteous to think abortion wrong.
Possible Objection
An objection would go like this: One of my desk's carbon molecule has a chance to become human, however slim the chance may be. Do I treat it as if it has a potentiality of human life? It appears absurd to think so.
I reply that "treatment" in the above objection implies actions with intent. Human emotional/intentional virtues apply only to subjects, not objects. It would be absurd for moral principles by which humans ought to abide extend further than what our inclinations are capable of. In the case of carbon molecule, an emotional inclination does not apply (insofar it does not have immediate personal benefit; take jewels for example) . Human inclination toward emotion/intent toward an object increases (animals) as objects appear more to be like a subject. For example, a gardener loves his flowers but not his dirt. And the love for his flowers is naturally less than for his own daughter. Fetus is in a way similar to a growing flower; a parent may not feel anything toward a tiny sperm cell at first, but she gets to love the cell more as it grows older to cultivate further the potentiality of life. And when it reaches a stage of life, a human being in a correct state of mind feels guilty to even think of aborting the fetus. It can thus be said that a correct emotion/intent should be posed toward fetuses, however weak the emotion/intent may be as the principle of virtues dictate.
Another objection, a rather popular one among pro-abortionists, would go like this: It is a stretch to say that fetus should be treated as if it is a fully grown human being.
I reply that such an argument is unsubstantiated and requires further explanation as to how it is a "stretch". This statement has no rational grounds on which its legitimacy can stand; it only contains subjective emotional judgment.
This logic is consistent with why we ought not to murder someone. A psychopathic murderer may say that he is doing no wrong for he is simply giving death which is due to all human beings eventually. Although it is true that the actuality of death is due to all living things, if something has an actuality of life, it also has the potentiality to live out longer in temporal terms. When we speak of life, we always think in terms of both present and future living state... We think murder wrong because it rids the potentiality of life from both present and beyond a particular moment. Conversely, we think charity virtuous for it ensures the veracity of the potentiality of life. To be logically consistent, then, it is righteous to think abortion wrong.
Possible Objection
An objection would go like this: One of my desk's carbon molecule has a chance to become human, however slim the chance may be. Do I treat it as if it has a potentiality of human life? It appears absurd to think so.
I reply that "treatment" in the above objection implies actions with intent. Human emotional/intentional virtues apply only to subjects, not objects. It would be absurd for moral principles by which humans ought to abide extend further than what our inclinations are capable of. In the case of carbon molecule, an emotional inclination does not apply (insofar it does not have immediate personal benefit; take jewels for example) . Human inclination toward emotion/intent toward an object increases (animals) as objects appear more to be like a subject. For example, a gardener loves his flowers but not his dirt. And the love for his flowers is naturally less than for his own daughter. Fetus is in a way similar to a growing flower; a parent may not feel anything toward a tiny sperm cell at first, but she gets to love the cell more as it grows older to cultivate further the potentiality of life. And when it reaches a stage of life, a human being in a correct state of mind feels guilty to even think of aborting the fetus. It can thus be said that a correct emotion/intent should be posed toward fetuses, however weak the emotion/intent may be as the principle of virtues dictate.
Another objection, a rather popular one among pro-abortionists, would go like this: It is a stretch to say that fetus should be treated as if it is a fully grown human being.
I reply that such an argument is unsubstantiated and requires further explanation as to how it is a "stretch". This statement has no rational grounds on which its legitimacy can stand; it only contains subjective emotional judgment.
Reproductive Right
Many so-called "pro-choice" advocates scream that not allowing abortion violates a woman's reproductive rights. To be completely blunt, such a claim is but a babble; it's a lie told by them to justify whatever they want to be true. To them I say that what they want to be true is not the same as what is true.
In terms of justice, a society should allow certain actions, for some of them are inherently due to a human being. As far as reproductive rights go, a woman has full control of her body when engaging in a reproductive action - sex. Nobody is prohibiting a woman or forcing her from having sex, save for criminal cases.
If a woman willfully decides to partake in a reproductive act, it is just to have her take responsibility for that act, for the consequences following the act is due to her.
Morals are how human beings are ought to act. Human beings are ought to act in accordance to the moral law, and the moral law dictates that values are given to each thing and ought to remain as such. To remove or overreach values is to be contradictory to how things ought to be, therefore immoral.
An objection can go like this: A woman ought to be in control of her body; she can do whatever she wants.
I reply that the objection is a true statement. But it is in no way an objection to immorality of abortion. Human beings, by their free will, has the capacity of ought to be in control and able to do whatever is in their power. However, the able is not ought. Take for example that I wish to "take control" of my body and eat whatever and however I desire. Would this gluttonous act me moral? Certainly not, for I failed to give myself a proper nutritional value due to me. And, as I have said before, one should not rid of fetus's value even when one is able to do so and even if it is supposedly a part of a woman's body (which is not... the semen that helped the creation of the fetus is a foreign element to a woman's body; also, a fetus extracts nutrients from a woman on its own; the woman does not give nutrients to them voluntarily). By way of the virtues, one ought not to abort.
To sum up, it can be seen how abortion is immoral/unjust in two different ways:
1) It takes away what is due to a fetus: the potentiality of life
2) It takes away what is due to a woman: the consequences of her choice entailed by her free will
There are many more things that can be said of what's stated above. It would require a lengthy metaphysical exposition to get down to the core of it. However, I think, most of it is expanding on what is clear to us.
Sadly, this sort of argument will never enter the political arena out of the ignorance of our politicians and emotivist self that has come to pass in our modern world. People take in the false moral values of the mainstream media thoughtlessly. It is lamentable how people ignorantly argue morals when in fact they know not how to argue about morals, only shouting metaphysically unsubstantiated claims. What has mankind learned from Plato's dialogues? It has been two and a half thousand years since his passing yet those who do not know act as if they do and act as if they are better than the sages and saints of the past.
There are many more things that can be said of what's stated above. It would require a lengthy metaphysical exposition to get down to the core of it. However, I think, most of it is expanding on what is clear to us.
Sadly, this sort of argument will never enter the political arena out of the ignorance of our politicians and emotivist self that has come to pass in our modern world. People take in the false moral values of the mainstream media thoughtlessly. It is lamentable how people ignorantly argue morals when in fact they know not how to argue about morals, only shouting metaphysically unsubstantiated claims. What has mankind learned from Plato's dialogues? It has been two and a half thousand years since his passing yet those who do not know act as if they do and act as if they are better than the sages and saints of the past.
