Abortion is always Morally Permissible

Thanks for the open challenge Bsh1. *Cracks Knuckles*FrameworkThis debate explicitly involves what is morally permissible, ergo this debate is about the objective answer to the question of ‘what’ is moral, and does not address the ‘how’, or ‘why’ questions of morality.From the affirmative side, I am defining “right and wrong behaviour” in terms of maximising or minimising conscious self-interest with intent. A morally ‘right’ action is an action which maximises self-interest with intent, and a morally ‘wrong’ action is an action which minimises self-interest with intent.[1]This is indeed an egoistic take on moral questions of ‘what’ is moral, and a very explicit one at that.Therefore, in this debate I will consider two aspects of abortion: 1. The short-term, myoptic considerations of self-interest 2. The large scale society considerations of self-interest By the end of this debate it will be clear that abortion is positive under both considerations.Moral EgoismMoral egoism holds one, unparalleled advantage over any other ethical definition, and that is its moral facts, and moral values are identical. Because these facts are identical, it also follows that all moral facts, are in essence, also “moral oughts”. For anything capable of experiencing self-interest, the situation is a tautology:“One ought to maximise their self-interest if they value maximising their self-interest”All of such value judgements will yield value answers such as “It is good for me” “it is bad for them” “It is neither good or bad for society”.This also has the consequence of all moral facts of moral egoism being entirely subjective depending on the people involved, as all people will have different self-interests. For the purposes of this debate however, it is exactly this which makes the resolution a truism (more on this later).On the other hand, an ethical system such as Utilitarianism for example, which deals with human well-being deals with the physical/mental state a human is in. The ‘ought’ for such a system is also necessarily subjective. One can simply argue “They do not care” about maximizing well-being, and the entire moral system would be inapplicable and irrelevant to them. Therefore any value statements are in the following format:“You ought to act to increase well-being, if you value increasing well-being”Which obviously has limited utility, even amongst our fellow humans. When considering moral egoism however, to state “I do not care about maximizing my self-interest” is an oxymoron, and incoherent sentence. Since our self-interest is by definition what we care about.Moreover this gets over significant hurdles that other ethical systems run into when one party does not care about the value appealed to in their system. For example, a person may be curious about the effects of a particularly harmful act. They may be so curious that they would ask a friend to participate in assisting them in experiencing said harmful act, which immediately and over the long-term reduces their overall well-being.Under utilitarianism for example, that person’s friend would have performed a ‘morally wrong’ act even though their friend begged them to help them, with their friend in 100% awareness that this action was going to cause themselves harm. All ethical systems that do not marry values with facts (i.e. all non-egoistic definitions) will fall foul to this type of analysis one way or another.This is pragmatically addressed within the context of moral egoism, which deals with self-interest, and thus what is moral is explicitly defined as what maximises our self-interest. Moral egoism holds a tremendous advantage over every other moral system because what ‘ought’ to be the case is synonymous with what ‘is’ the case. A moral definition such as in utilitarianism which addresses well-being,Abortion & Self-InterestThe MotherWhen we assess this debate we need to also consider the context of the people this would refer to. What maximise and minimises self-interest will entirely depend upon who is involved, and the social construct they exist within.For the purposes of this debate, I will assume we are considering consensual abortion that occurs within civilization. So, given this, what is the context of a woman asking for abortion, and does this context always lead to an overall increase in self-interest. 1. The woman consents/requests an abortion, hence the action is with intent 2. The child abortion is within her immediate self-interest Point#2 is immune to coercion-type rebuttals, since the action is still within her overall self-interest, even if the immediate act of aborting her child is not. E.g. “It is within her own self-interest to agree with her husband, who desires the abortion to be carried out”. In any case such as this, while an abortion may not be within the woman’s immediate self-interest, it will be within the woman’s long-term self-interest.Therefore we can immediately conclude:“The mother’s action to abort her foetus is *necessarily* an action that is consensual, and therefore with intent, and is an action which fulfils her own self-interest.”Thus under the framework I have set, abortion at the very least is “Good for the mother”.The Foetus When we consider values, they must always be done from the perspective of beings capable of holding subjective values. Note that I do not speak only for complex values, but subconscious ones, such as needs or desires. It is only via. such values that we can hope to make any ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ assessment, regardless of context.For example, it is impossible to consider the values of an iceberg, or a rock, or anything else inanimate, since they do not hold any values, or self-interest, etc.Self-interest is necessarily predicated on being intelligent and aware.Given this, consider what a human foetus is:[2] 1. An unconscious body 2. Unintelligent 3. Amnesic 4. No reasoning faculties I hardly see Con disagreeing with any of these facts, but here we can clearly conclude that a foetus can not and therefore does not hold any values or have any self-interest.This being the case, it is impossible for abortion to positively or negatively fulfil it’s self-interest, for it possesses none to speak about. Therefore, abortion is a morally neutral action regarding the foetusSocietySo far I have clearly demonstrated that abortion is at the very least “good” when both the baby and the mother are considered, since the mother’s self-interest was fulfilled, and the babies’ self-interest was neither fulfilled or deprived. Therefore, it can only be affirmed that abortion is wrong (and therefore possibly morally impermissible) if and only if we consider external factors.It is hard to imagine that anybody’s self-interest would be more important than the mother’s, who’s life and body is of immediate consequence to the pregnancy, and the foetus who’s life is being terminated. So such a notion is rejectable out of hand. A larger consideration however, is that of society.When we consider society, we need to realise that of course, each individual populace will hold their own values or self-interest, but these are largely irrelevant because for society to function, certain core values are strongly maintained, even against the values of some individuals within society.First consider, why is society a significant self-interest of its populace?There are a plethora of reasons, the most basic are human’s general desire for community, easy access of wealth, food, water, entertainment. Moreover housing, shelter, etc. A society provides ease of access of these, which are generally within the self-interests of the populace, due to the similar biological and psychological make-up of its populace. We generally desire the same core things.It is for this reason that society plays such a significant role in fulfilling so many of our self-interests, that our more myopic self-interests are over-ridden by self-interests that are related to society. For example, it may be desirable to rob a bank of its money, but it is a greater self-interest to remain outside of jail, or to act altruistically, etc.Therefore, we need to consider, does society influence whether or not one will have the self-interest to abort.The answer, quite clearly, is no. It is precisely because of society that the option to consensually abort a child even exists, as such society is acting within its own self-interest when it facilitates the abortion of a child. It falls into the same tautological circle as already discussed.Furthermore, one of the core values of society is autonomy of its citizens. This is exemplified in societies such as the US which grants full autonomy over freedom of speech, thought and liberty. It is only when actions severely impinge upon their self-interests of other citizens that it is no longer within the self-interest of society to value that autonomy. Abortion simply isn’t one of those actions which impinges upon the self-interests of others within society in a direct way.ConclusionThe case is rather clean-cut. Abortion is an action that in no way reduces self-interest with intent. Therefore, abortion is not a morally ‘wrong’ action as defined. By extension, abortion is at worst, a morally neutral action which would fall within the criteria of morally permissible. The resolution is affirmed.References 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://www.nature.com...