I Am An Atheist And I Think Abortion Is Immoral [Archive] - Page 2

AkuManiMani

23rd March 2008, 09:15 PM

I said that it would be ethical to terminate the pregnancy if the mother's life were at stake.

Thank you. Now, can you tell me why it would be ethical, in your opinion ?

That statement isn't the concession you think it is :p

In the above scenario the child's life is already forfeit because it is dependent on the life of the mother. It would make no sense to needlessly have two parties die unnecessarily when one can be saved. What makes such an abortion more ethical than in the other scenarios is that more is at stake than simply factors of psychological or economic convenience.

I was referring to ETHICAL value judgments -- not quantitative value judgments.

Is there a difference ? I mean, really.

A night and day difference, as a matter of fact. To say that 5 > 3 is an objective statement. To say that 5 is better than 3 [or vis versa] is a subjective statement.

Ethical value judgments are example of purely subjective assessments of objective reality.

Then "ethics" is a useless concept in this discussion, because it has no use except to single individuals.

I'm afraid that ethics a system of moral principles"] is absolutely at the core of this discussion. The thing is that you're simply much more comfortable with subjects of a purely objective nature -- as is evident from your sig. "Surrounded by evidence". If you want to have an discussion about what ethical systems there are and what functional roles they play in societies then you're well within the bounds of your favored domain. If you want you argue a particular moral position then I'm afraid you've stepped out of the realm of objectivity and into the one of the subjective.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the reason why you changed your position concerning abortion after that discussion with your friend is because they established that there is no objective basis for valuing the life of an embryo, correct? But what you failed to consider is that not only is the valuing of an embryo purely subjective but also that of freedom or life in general. In fact, there is absolutely no objective argument that can be made that can refute nihilism. Any objections to nihilism are purely subjective in nature.

Do you think the US states that practice the death sentence are tyrannical ?

I'd give you my answer but I'm afraid it would not not be up to your standards of pure objectivity. I won't bother you with such trifles as my personal valuing of human life.

But those are characteristics that make up a "human", and "human" is what you don't want aborted. If the foetus does NOT have those characteristics, then why do you consider it "human" ?

As I've said before, those characteristics are inherent to the fetus even if they aren't fully manifest. The difference between you and a fetus is a matter of degree not kind.

Aaahh! So it's not about genes, after all ? It's not about characteristics ? Is it really about "potential", now ? That's a very slippery argument, Aku, because sperm and unfertilised eggs also have this potential.

A somatic cell also has this "potential" -- tho much more remote than that of gametes. As I have make clear already it isn't the [I]potential that makes the fetus a person but the actual development of these characteristics which are inherent to the fetus. If the cells are not developmentally viable then they are essentially already "aborted".

I thought viability was an argument you didn't consider ?

You thought wrong. I stated that the state of dependence did not constitute as non-viability. You and I are dependent on our environment here on earth in order to survive. This does not mean we aren't viable life forms; it just means that our survival is restricted to a particular range of environmental conditions. The same is true of a zygote/embryo/fetus.

I'm equating a fetus with a sleeping child thats yet to wake up for the first time.

A weird argument, at that. How would you know if the child was conscious or not prior to this event ?

Heh. Well, if you haven't noticed already I'm a pretty weird person :p

The fact is we do not know exactly when in the development of a human consciousness emerges [we both know that whole consciousness issue is another can of worms entirely so we won't go there, atm]. What we DO know is that the consciousness of a person is dependent upon the healthy development of their fetal form. Ergo, if you destroy a fetus you destroy that consciousness.

You're missing the point. In trying to convince someone of an ethical position simply informing the individual of objective facts and arguments are meaningless if they do not change their feelings on the subject.

And _I_ am saying that those feelings are irrelevant.

No matter, I'm sure you agree that ethics CAN (not necessarily, but CAN) be agreed upon based on objective reasoning. So, as far as I'm concerned, this closes this particular argument.

Okay, its time to put your money where your mouth is. You have a testable hypothesis that you can prove right here and now:

Give me an objective fact that invalidates nihilism. :p

I disagree. "Good" as in "beneficial" can be agreed upon without the use of emotions.

That depends upon what a person feels is beneficial. To a nihilist, both words are meaningless.

First off, we're still not in agreement with what constitutes a person.

Hence this discussion.

Second, suffering, fear and anguish are very important when making legislation, for good reason. Many people take their own lives to escape those things, and it could be argued that death is often preferable to certain emotional states. I don't think you can weigh one against the other so easily.

Of course suffering is a real consideration in the justice system. But the fact is that our justice system does not dictate that the suffering of one should mean the death of another. If a person wants to end their own life thats their own affair; when they want to end another's life for reasons of "pain and suffering" we have a real problem.

No, I'm not. You simply, again, misunderstood what I meant. I had a legal right to live, but it is in no way "inherent", except legally. Otherwise a whole lot of animals are commiting crimes as we speak.

Ah, thats a whole other can of worms that probably deserves another thread in its own right. At the risk of a derail I will summarize the beginning of my position on that subject.

With the exception of a small number of social species, all organisms are morally blind. They are cognitively incapable of recognizing or acting on any right to live other than their own -- they seek only to avoid their own death [that is assuming that the organism in question even has sentience].

What if there were no law protecting you? Would your life be forfeit?

Quite possibly. I know of a few people who might've killed me during my high school years if not for the fear of retribution.

Would you have any objective reason for why they shouldn't kill you in absence of possible retribution? Even using such an argument would merely be making an appeal to their fear of suffering. You could not provide any argument in your defense other than a subjective argument.

Infanticide and partial birth abortion aren't merely not armchair hypotheticals; they actually occur.

Nice goalpost-moving. You were talking about legislation, not illegal activities.

If you took the effort of reading that post you would realize that it was not in reply to you or a specific argument you made. In short, I wasn't talking to you.

AkuManiMani

23rd March 2008, 09:21 PM

There must be some children to continue the species... just as some dogs must have puppies for dogs to continue and some sunflower seeds must make sunflowers. But there are way more gametes that necessary for life... and way too many potential life forms that can be made. An unwanted child doesn't do anybody any good while tacking time, energy, and resources from children who are already here. How much can you ask the people here to give up for someone not yet born? And how many such children. Late term pregnancies are pretty rare and usually done because of problems not recognized until that time-- I've never even heard of someone cavalierly have one. I don't think they are anything to be concerned about. Once a child is born then we as a society must care for it when or if it's parents can't. That is what a civilized society does. We must decide how much medical intervention we can allow for how long and for what quality of life. Before that time, the only one who should be able to decide is the person whose body that life depends on.

With that reasoning in mind, society should have the right to "abort" a ward of the state if it is decided that they are not worth the expense.

articulett

23rd March 2008, 09:29 PM

With that reasoning in mind, society should have the right to "abort" a ward of the state if it is decided that they are not worth the expense.

A ward of the state does not depend on a single person's body usage to survive. It's a shared burden that society agrees to share once a person is born. Not all societies have governments which do so of course.
Should that ward of the state need your kidney to survive, then you may have a point.

I'm all for the right-to-lifers supporting the babies they don't want to have aborted... and pay for the funerals of the mothers whose fetuses caused their deaths as well... They can get practice right now... there are tons of kids in foster care... and society pays for that too... so put your money and time and love where your morals are instead of passing judgment on those who believe your morals are more in your head then in reality. I do not consider you worthy of emulating morally. You have a lack of depth in your understanding of the issues and your summation of my position only makes it more obvious to everyone but you, I suspect.

AkuManiMani

23rd March 2008, 09:59 PM

A ward of the state does not depend on a single person's body usage to survive. It's a shared burden that society agrees to share once a person is born. Not all societies have governments which do so of course.
Should that ward of the state need your kidney to survive, then you may have a point.

The ward does not require the mere resources of one person; the burden is payed collectively by everyone, as you said. Is this not an imposition upon society -- especially considering that society did not conceive the child in the first place? I'm sure that there are quite a few people who do not want their money forcibly taken from them to pay for the care of a life they did not create; most especially when they have to struggle to take care of their own children as it is. Should these people have a say in whether or not they should be forced to support the ward? What if no one wanted the state ward? Again, by your reasoning they would have the right to euthanize them.

I'm all for the right-to-lifers supporting the babies they don't want to have aborted... and pay for the funerals of the mothers whose fetuses caused their deaths as well... They can get practice right now... there are tons of kids in foster care... and society pays for that too... so put your money and time and love where your morals are instead of passing judgment on those who believe your morals are more in your head then in reality. I do not consider you worthy of emulating morally. You have a lack of depth in your understanding of the issues and your summation of my position only makes it more obvious to everyone but you, I suspect.

While that is a noble sentiment, its a bit misguided an presumptuous. For one thing, there are plenty of pro-life organizations that actively lend support to pregnant mothers.Second of all, if one were to extend your above statement more broadly then that would mean that no one would be in a position to morally condemn a murder or assault unless they personally contributed to alleviating the suffering caused by the offender. One could not morally condemn acts of genocide unless they personally aided the victims in question. Do not critique the depth of my understanding when you obviously haven't even examined the full implications of your own comments.

AkuManiMani

23rd March 2008, 10:27 PM

Good. Now at present we have limits on the time at which an abortion can be performed, and these limits are being reduced as technology advances. However if we can adopt this approach the opposite will be true: as a foetus can be said to be viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development, so abortion will be available earlier and earlier until we reach a stage when it is acceptable throughout a pregnancy.This is not really and early adoption, though: we would need to develop those foetuses "in a jar on the sideboard" if your assumptions are to be accommodated, I think.

Ah well, what I meant by "early adoption" is that such a procedure requires a third-party caretaker to support the infant before its even come to full term.

[On a side note, I think it would also be desirable to develop technology that would allow us to produce meat without the necessity of slaughtering animals for it, for obvious ethical reasons. Yea thats right, my ethical concern extends even beyond that of human fetuses -- go figure.]

articulett

23rd March 2008, 11:22 PM

No... what you fail to understand is that a ward of the state is does not require your body to survive. A fetus does require someone's body to survive. If a ward of the state could only survive so long as you gave up your kidney, would you do it? So why would you have a mother give up her body so someone else could survive. Isn't it your body to make such a decision about?

If the baby will only survive if you give your bone marrow... how many unwanted bone marrow babies are you willing to give to? And that's a lot less of a sacrifice than a pregnancy and birth. I believe that society should take care of people who are born... we have no choice... but in return for caring for those who need it, I think we can encourage or support the number of people in need. Birth control is one way. Abortion of unwanted or unplanned pregancies is another. Don't expect any woman to carry a child to term if you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice your kidney for the survival of that child--or some other child or someone else somewhere. Until you have someone whose life hangs on your sacrifice of your body than you really don't have the right to judge anyone else. Have you donated your kidneys? Your bone marrow? How often have you donated your blood? I am an atheist... and I have cared for unwanted life of both animals and children... I give to charities which help without the moral judgment. I think your reasoning is fallacious across the board.

You cannot force people to give up their body or body parts to save living people who already exist--but you want to tell women they have to because of your bizarre reasoning? That's a bit sexist. Forgive me, if I don't take you seriously and think that you are all talk and nothing else.

Say, would you be willing to take prolactin so you could produce milk and nurse these babies?-- more food for these precious lives. How many diapers do you want to pay for and change? How many unwanted children are you raising and loving and caring for? How many have you cared for, fed, taught, and cried for?

Brendy

24th March 2008, 02:14 AM

I feel like a bad person. I think it's kinda wrong to kill a fetus, but I just don't care.

I just don't care if people have abortions. Doesn't really affect me at all.

Safe-Keeper

24th March 2008, 02:24 AM

If the baby will only survive if you give your bone marrow... how many unwanted bone marrow babies are you willing to give to? And that's a lot less of a sacrifice than a pregnancy and birth. I believe that society should take care of people who are born... we have no choice... but in return for caring for those who need it, I think we can encourage or support the number of people in need. Birth control is one way. Abortion of unwanted or unplanned pregancies is another. Don't expect any woman to carry a child to term if you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice your kidney for the survival of that child--or some other child or someone else somewhere. Until you have someone whose life hangs on your sacrifice of your body than you really don't have the right to judge anyone else. Have you donated your kidneys? Your bone marrow? How often have you donated your blood? I am an atheist... and I have cared for unwanted life of both animals and children... I give to charities which help without the moral judgment. I think your reasoning is fallacious across the board. Nominated.

Fiona

24th March 2008, 02:25 AM

With that said, any individual in a dependent relationship with another party could be considered symbiotic or parasitic, depending on what benefit they give to the other party(s). Where I differ is that I would not necessarily categorize a person's genetic child as a parasite [wanted or unwanted] since, technically, creating offspring and ensuring their survival is of biological benefit to the parent and the species as a whole.

The brutal nature of the procedure alone should make it unthinkable for any sane mother.

I am quite interested in this part of the discussion and I would like to pursue it for a moment.

One important feature of ethics seems to me to hinge on the position of the individual in relation to the community or society in which they live. In some cultures the interests of the group override individual rights (whether legal or ethical does not really matter) and thus the group can use that individual in any way which is of benefit to that group. Some may not sacrifice the individual unless absolutely necessary (eg to make the sun rise or the crops grow) and others may go further and sacrifice the individual through, say, infanticide, in order to secure an adequate food supply for the rest. Such a society has a defensible ethical position, and it is my understanding that they are not vanishingly rare in human history.

It is my understanding that the fundamental change that came with the enlightenment was a move from any such ethical stance to one which elevated the status of the individual above the group. Thus in our culture there is an ethical problem which was succinctly outlined in Ursula K Leguin's
"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"

http://jeffersonflanders.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/summer-reading-ursula-k-le-guin/

This dilemma does not exist in cultures which take the interests of the group as paramount; but it is a real dilemma for us.

In your post above you bring in the concept of "benefit" in the group sense: and this is one of the interesting implications of simplistic conceptions of Darwinian evolution, perhaps: the biological truth that certain behaviours further the survival of the species, even though fatal for the individual, raises the question in its starkest form.

It appears to be implicit in some of your statements that in some circumstances at least you view this as part of an ethical stance, rather than merely as a biological observation: and in this sense you attack the moral/ethical basis of the enlightenment as I have outlined it (if you or others wish to argue that the elevation of the individual is not intrinsic to enlightenment values I will immediately concede: so long as we can accept that the distinction I am drawing exists, and is in some sense reflective of our society's value base wherever that comes from: its source is perhaps the basis of another thread, if such an objection is raised)

If I tease out what I think you are saying I come to this: You accept what I am calling enlightenment values to the extent that you value the individual above the group: and you consider that this is not an objective position: it is based on emotion. I would say it is based on a much stronger foundation since I think the dilemma of the scapegoat is partly a logical one and partly emotional, and that the current "enlightenment" values have quite good rationale: but let me concede it is subjective for the moment

You then seem to elide this by bringing in the new form of the group-based ethical system, with mention of biological benefit to the species: and you hide the question of the supremacy of the individual there, by conflating the benefit to the species with the benefit to the parent. However the benefit to the parent is not demonstrated, and this is where you elevate your own, admittedly subjective, values above those of another individual, who is equally well-placed to decide on their moral/ethical position; and who does not agree with your own. Here you are placing the group above the individual, or so it seems to me.

You will no doubt argue that you are not putting the group first: you are rather pitting two individuals against each other: and that, for you, the right to life is trumps. You understand that I cannot agree because the foetus is not a human being and therefore it has no "enlightenment" rights: and in a sense I think the fact that you have brought in the biological element shows you are aware of this at some level. But I do not wish to attribute and if you bring it in for some other reason I will be glad to hear it. However that may be, it is this which leads me to the conclusion that do not grant women full human rights: like many people you are fundamentally of the view that biological " purpose" is a "good" and can be brought into an ethical debate: since people are not tools this is not acceptable in my scheme of things and it devalues full humanity. It is a stance I seem to see often in this kind of debate and I put it to you that you do not at bottom treat women as fully human and fully capable ethical beings.

AkuManiMani

24th March 2008, 07:57 AM

No... what you fail to understand is that a ward of the state is does not require your body to survive. A fetus does require someone's body to survive. If a ward of the state could only survive so long as you gave up your kidney, would you do it? So why would you have a mother give up her body so someone else could survive. Isn't it your body to make such a decision about?

Last I checked, a person's bodily resources were required for any action; including working to materially and/or emotionally support another individual. Whether the person is physically attached to you or not supporting them is still a physical drain on your body.

You cannot force people to give up their body or body parts to save living people who already exist--but you want to tell women they have to because of your bizarre reasoning? That's a bit sexist. Forgive me, if I don't take you seriously and think that you are all talk and nothing else.

Thats your prerogative. I'm not here to prove my personal integrity to you I'm here to debate the morality of killing an unborn child. You're not out there risking your life in uniform to enforce the law an prevent murder's but does that does not make you hypocrite for condemning murder. You can baselessly insult my personal character all you want but it does not support your position one iota. Quite frankly, you can kiss my black@$$.

[FYI, I have donated blood on many occasions and the question of my civic contribution to society is irrelevant to this dicsussion anyway. Not only have you crossed the Curtis Line but you've made an additional @$$ of yourself by being dead wrong. Again, kiss my black@$$]

Say, would you be willing to take prolactin so you could produce milk and nurse these babies?-- more food for these precious lives. How many diapers do you want to pay for and change? How many unwanted children are you raising and loving and caring for? How many have you cared for, fed, taught, and cried for?

Thats interesting... The mother who created the child has no moral obligation to raise their child but yet *I'M* morally obligated to raise the child they refuse to support??? Not only is that ethically untenable but its logically nonsensical. It is demonstrably -- and prima facie -- YOUR reasoning that is fallacious across the board. I recommend that you follow Fiona's example and act like a rational objector rather than a gender obsesed fem-nazi with an axe to grind.

AkuManiMani

24th March 2008, 08:11 AM

You will no doubt argue that you are not putting the group first: you are rather pitting two individuals against each other: and that, for you, the right to life is trumps. You understand that I cannot agree because the foetus is not a human being and therefore it has no "enlightenment" rights: and in a sense I think the fact that you have brought in the biological element shows you are aware of this at some level. But I do not wish to attribute and if you bring it in for some other reason I will be glad to hear it. However that may be, it is this which leads me to the conclusion that do not grant women full human rights: like many people you are fundamentally of the view that biological " purpose" is a "good" and can be brought into an ethical debate: since people are not tools this is not acceptable in my scheme of things and it devalues full humanity. It is a stance I seem to see often in this kind of debate and I put it to you that you do not at bottom treat women as fully human and fully capable ethical beings.

First off Fiona, I would like to commend you for your civil and well thought out responses :)

With that said I would like to try to directly address the points you've just made.

Though I brought up the broader benefit to the species [rather than simply society] as a whole that is not the conflict of interest that is the focus of my contention. If a woman -- or man for that matter -- decides not to produce any children that is their rightful personal decision regardless of the potential benefit to the species as a whole. I do not personally accord fewer human rights to women than I would to any other human. If we were a hermaphroditic species [all other factors being the same] I would still consider it the parents' personal responsibility to care for the life of the individual(s) they produced. If that entails the biological cost of carrying that individual to full gestation then so be it -- the question of gender is incidental and irrelevant to me.

I think that the only point in this discussion upon which you and I sharply differ is on when an individual gains personhood and hence when they have the moral right to live despite the personal wishes of another.

ceo_esq

24th March 2008, 08:36 AM

Articulett, I realize you haven't directed your questions at me, so please forgive my presumption in responding.

If the baby will only survive if you give your bone marrow... how many unwanted bone marrow babies are you willing to give to?

If they were my babies (or if I were responsible for putting them in a position of needing my bone marrow), I daresay I would feel bound to try to give my marrow to all of them. Wouldn't you?

I believe that society should take care of people who are born... we have no choice...

As a society, we do have a choice. Other societies (for example, pre-Christian Rome, which widely practiced and even encouraged infanticide) have chosen differently with respect to taking care of people who are born.

... but in return for caring for those who need it, I think we can encourage or support the number of people in need. Birth control is one way. Abortion of unwanted or unplanned pregancies is another.

... and infanticide is another way, as are involuntary euthanasia, China's one-child law, and so forth. We have no shortage of theoretically available ways of reducing the number of people who need care; that's not the point. The question is: which ones, if any, should we pursue and why?

Don't expect any woman to carry a child to term if you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice your kidney for the survival of that child--or some other child or someone else somewhere.

Why not? For the sake of argument, why isn't it enough that I would be willing to sacrifice my kidney for my own child, or to carry my own child to term even if unwanted or unplanned? What is the significance of my being willing (or not) to sacrifice a kidney for the survival of someone else's child?

Until you have someone whose life hangs on your sacrifice of your body than you really don't have the right to judge anyone else. Have you donated your kidneys? Your bone marrow? How often have you donated your blood?

This sounds suspiciously like a bit of circumstantial well-poisoning.

Say, would you be willing to take prolactin so you could produce milk and nurse these babies?-- more food for these precious lives. How many diapers do you want to pay for and change? How many unwanted children are you raising and loving and caring for? How many have you cared for, fed, taught, and cried for?

I'm not sure the foregoing actually constitutes an argument, but it would seem equally apropos in the context of infanticide. It also seems to follow in the same circumstantial ad-hom vein as the earlier bit.

Fiona

24th March 2008, 10:39 AM

Though I brought up the broader benefit to the species [rather than simply society] as a whole that is not the conflict of interest that is the focus of my contention.

I am wondering why you raised it, then. The theme is present in a number of your posts and I have to say that there did seem to be an element of unexamined cultural assumptions underpinning some of your statements. You use such words as "irresponsible", "reckless","whims" etc: though it has been pointed out many times that decisions like this are not taken lightly. You are insulting in your characterisation of women who choose abortion. Why is this?

If a woman -- or man for that matter -- decides not to produce any children that is their rightful personal decision regardless of the potential benefit to the species as a whole.

Why, thank you. Sadly there are those who share your view on abortion and who will willingly force women to have children: for example rape as a tool of war. If I concede your arguments then I see no logical reason to believe that the "slippery slope" of forced reproduction does not have as much likelihood as the one you fear. After all, the birth rate is in long term decline in many places. You do not believe that using another person's body against their will is in all circumstances wrong: so what is to prevent this development? It seems more probably to me than the introduction of infanticide, since most people do not really enjoy murder but they surely do enjoy sex.

I do not personally accord fewer human rights to women than I would to any other human.

Of course you do: you deny her personhood when you deny her full rights over her person. You do not do that any other human (for which read men: why avoid this?) I say again: we are not separate from our bodies: we are our bodies.

If we were a hermaphroditic species [all other factors being the same] I would still consider it the parents' personal responsibility to care for the life of the individual(s) they produced.

They have not "produced" it: it is not "produced" until it is born. It is certainly not an "individual" since it has not, and cannot have, an independent existence. (See: I can conflate the different meanings of words just as you can. :))

If that entails the biological cost of carrying that individual to full gestation then so be it -- the question of gender is incidental and irrelevant to me.

You can sincerely assert this and I can give it all the weight I think it deserves. Sorry

I think that the only point in this discussion upon which you and I sharply differ is on when an individual gains personhood and hence when they have the moral right to live despite the personal wishes of another.

No this is not true. I do not agree that a foetus is a human being: so far so good. But if I did believe it was a human being then it has no right to use another's body against that other's will. I have said this from the start. I do not particularly appreciate your attempt to co-opt me in this way.

As it now appears, you are committed to the idea that a foetus is a person, despite the overwhelming evidence that it lacks everything which defines a person. You do so on the basis of some mystical adherence to emergent properties which have not yet emerged. Makes no sense to me, but hey ho.

You are further committed to the position that one loses the right to control of one's body if one is responsible for (in the sense of having caused) a need in another which can be met from your own bodily resources: so you advocate compulsory organ donation in a variety of circumstances. I think it follows from your position that one is not required to submit to compulsory loss of an organ if that would lead to death: but everything which is not required for the maintenance of life is forfeit without question

You do not seem to be actively campaigning for the latter however: since this concerns you more directly it seems reasonable to wonder why you are focussing on abortion instead. You have a bigger mountain to climb in selling your second proposition: I suggest you get started

AkuManiMani

24th March 2008, 12:00 PM

I am wondering why you raised it, then. The theme is present in a number of your posts and I have to say that there did seem to be an element of unexamined cultural assumptions underpinning some of your statements. You use such words as "irresponsible", "reckless","whims" etc: though it has been pointed out many times that decisions like this are not taken lightly.

Why would the decision be of such gravity unless the life of the unborn were a serious factor of consideration? I'm am reasonably certain that the gravity of the decision generally has little to do with the monetary expense involved and much more to do with concern for the life of the unborn child. Clearly it is not as straightforward a decision as having a mole removed, for instance. Coming to consider the fetus a non-person is a psychological prerequisite to actually going thru with the procedure.

You are insulting in your characterisation of women who choose abortion. Why is this?

Because such women find the prospect of willfully killing a child morally repugnant they are only able to make the decision to abort under the assumption that the aborted is not their child. Of course, if one were to bring up the possibility that that mass of tissue they are killing is their child they would be insulted. But if the same mother wanted to go to term with that same "mass of tissue" and it miscarried they would be mourning the loss of their child -- not a mere mass of tissue.

My intention is not to insult or characterize the mothers in question as evil. But the fact of the matter is that, even tho there is no deliberate mal-intent on the part of the aborting mother, if one does come from the assumption that the mass of tissue being aborted is her child then she is indeed causing harm. I am not proposing this because I enjoy insulting women but because it is my sincere conviction that that fetus has a right to live that is just as fundamental as the rights of its mother.

[And FYI, my mother has had multiple pregnancies before me which she aborted. So don't try to make this out to be an issue of me bashing women because I'm not. I love my mother just the same but this does not change the fact that the decisions she made to abort were morally wrong]

Why, thank you. Sadly there are those who share your view on abortion and who will willingly force women to have children: for example rape as a tool of war. If I concede your arguments then I see no logical reason to believe that the "slippery slope" of forced reproduction does not have as much likelihood as the one you fear. After all, the birth rate is in long term decline in many places. You do not believe that using another person's body against their will is in all circumstances wrong: so what is to prevent this development? It seems more probably to me than the introduction of infanticide, since most people do not really enjoy murder but they surely do enjoy sex.

The entire point of my objection to abortion is that I view it as a violation of a person's right. Rape is a violation of an individual right. Infanticide is a violation of an individual right. And I propose the contentious view that abortion is the violation of an individual right. If one comes from the view that a fetus is a person, then bringing it to existence and then killing it has moral ramifications atleast as dire as rape itself.

Of course you do: you deny her personhood when you deny her full rights over her person. You do not do that any other human (for which read men: why avoid this?) I say again: we are not separate from our bodies: we are our bodies.

Objection to abortion is no more a denial of a woman's personhood than an objection to infanticide. If she were NOT a person one could not speak of her having any moral obligation at all. An abortion or infanticide would not be morally distinguishable from a miscarriage or Sudden Infant Death Sydrome. Your constant invocation of my alleged disregard for women as individuals is an inane and feeble defense -- the accusation itself is fallacious.

If we were a hermaphroditic species [all other factors being the same] I would still consider it the parents' personal responsibility to care for the life of the individual(s) they produced.

They have not "produced" it: it is not "produced" until it is born. It is certainly not an "individual" since it has not, and cannot have, an independent existence. (See: I can conflate the different meanings of words just as you can. :))

If theres nothing produced theres nothing to abort ;)

The point we quibble over is whether that something is a person and/or when it should be classified as a person.

I think that the only point in this discussion upon which you and I sharply differ is on when an individual gains personhood and hence when they have the moral right to live despite the personal wishes of another.

No this is not true. I do not agree that a foetus is a human being: so far so good. But if I did believe it was a human being then it has no right to use another's body against that other's will. I have said this from the start. I do not particularly appreciate your attempt to co-opt me in this way.

Now its my turn to be a bit taken aback. Are you seriously arguing that even if the fetus were classified as a person aborting it would be justifiable because it is guilty of forced entry into the mother's body? :boggled:

Pardon me but the child didn't lay up and conceive itself, sista'.

As it now appears, you are committed to the idea that a foetus is a person, despite the overwhelming evidence that it lacks everything which defines a person. You do so on the basis of some mystical adherence to emergent properties which have not yet emerged. Makes no sense to me, but hey ho.

Its not really a contention of objective evidence; it's a dispute of categorization. Personally, I can think of no definitive dividing line of individually after the point of conception. It is much simpler just to view personhood as beginning at conception. Can you give me a clear and non-arbitrary point at which an individual becomes a person worthy of life?

You are further committed to the position that one loses the right to control of one's body if one is responsible for (in the sense of having caused) a need in another which can be met from your own bodily resources: so you advocate compulsory organ donation in a variety of circumstances. I think it follows from your position that one is not required to submit to compulsory loss of an organ if that would lead to death: but everything which is not required for the maintenance of life is forfeit without question

I did not say that the person loses the right to control their own body. It was with the control of her own body that she created the preganacy [undoubtedly, with some help from a male] and therefore she is morally responsible [along with the father] for said pregnancy. She still retains her right to control their own body but the created child [or tissue mass, depending on who you ask] is NOT a part of the woman's body by any stretch. Ergo, her decision to cancel the pregnancy is not mere act of controlling just her own body but also the body of the entity inside of her.There is a direct conflict of jurisdiction that was precipitated by a deliberate act by the mother and father. The child/tissue mass can in no way be responsible for its dilemma because it didn't even exist at the time the decision was made that conceived it. It's still the woman's choice of whether to abort but the fact is that in the act of aborting she is ending a life; blood would be on her hands and it would not be merely her own. Pointing out this fact is no more cruel than the shedding of said blood. As far as I'm concerned both parents are morally responsible for maintaining the life they created unless a willing third party comes forward to pick up their slack.

You do not seem to be actively campaigning for the latter however: since this concerns you more directly it seems reasonable to wonder why you are focussing on abortion instead. You have a bigger mountain to climb in selling your second proposition: I suggest you get started

I am focusing on abortion because it is the topic of this thread. If you wish for me to focus on some other issue of contention then feel free to start a new thread on it.

martu

24th March 2008, 01:54 PM

If we both lived a few centuries ago, you would call me a “monster” for equating the rights of “human being” with those of the lowly Negro. Same thing. A human being is a human being. It is you who denigrates the rights of a class of human beings, and then hypocritically calls me a “monster” because I stand up for the rights of all human beings, including those you would dismiss as somehow sub-human.

If you do not understand the difference between a sentient being with memories, loves, family and friends and a few cells undergoing meosis then I have no common ground to discuss this with you. Good day.

martu

24th March 2008, 02:02 PM

The question was if you had to choose which one would it be? Your own child or the other?

I'd toss a coin. What bit of I couldn't choose did you not understand?

Nope. I'm just gunna cop out like you did and say that I'm not going to choose :rolleyes:

So would you toss a coin?

I'm just saying that if someone thinks the value of the life of their progeny is a matter of personal convenience then maybe they shouldn't have any at all.

Fortunately one can value one's children without your help.

AkuManiMani

24th March 2008, 02:20 PM

If you do not understand the difference between a sentient being with memories, loves, family and friends and a few cells undergoing meosis then I have no common ground to discuss this with you. Good day.

The real question is when should a mass of cells undergoing mitosis be considered a person? I started out as a mass of just a few cells and now I'm a mass of trillions. I value that mass of cells a whole lot more than a mole or tumor. If someone killed this cellular mass when they were just a hand full or if they numbered in the trillions I would still be dead. Obviously the mass of cells in question aren't just any cellular mass; it has the special property of comprising the entire existence of a human being -- which in this case would happen to be me.

Edit: Oh, and in answer to your question; if the mass of cells in question were still developmentally viable and happened to be my progeny and I were forced to pick between it and you I would pick them over you. What can I say? It would be my reproductive right, man.

Fiona

24th March 2008, 02:22 PM

Why would the decision be of such gravity unless the life of the unborn were a serious factor of consideration? I'm am reasonably certain that the gravity of the decision has little to do with the monetary expense involved and much more to do with concern for the life of the unborn child. Clearly it is not as straightforward a decision as having a mole removed, for instance. Coming to consider the fetus a non-person is a psychological prerequisite to actually going thru with the procedure.

We all swim in the same water, Aku. Nobody in western culture is unaware of your stance, for example. The decision is grave because people have to consider many things, not least the kind of ethical view you are arguing. If they then decide in favour of abortion they do not agree with you. Simple, no?

Because such women find the prospect of willfully killing a child morally repugnant.

That is your assumption. I think the vast majority of people find the idea of killing children repugnant, though in past posts you do not seem to be so sure, since you are so concerned about a sudden flood of infanticides. Whether or no, why do you insult people?

They are only able to make the decision to abort under the assumption that the aborted is not their child.

As has been pointed out again and again many people who do not share my views do have abortions for all sorts of reasons. You are just wrong about this

Of course, if one were to bring up the possibility that that mass of tissue they are killing is their child they would be insulted.

It is not your view that the foetus is a child which is insulting: it is your arrogant presumption that a) they have not considered this and come to a different conclusion; b) your arrogant assumption that they are not morally capable; and c) your arrogant assumption of the right to take control of other people against their will. Oh, and your certainty that you have this right because those other people are "reckless, irresponsible and possibly insane".

But if the same mother wanted to go to term with that same "mass of tissue" and it miscarried they would be mourning the loss of their child -- not a mere mass of tissue.

Some would, certainly. Some are forced to abort wanted foetuses too, but you persist in ignoring this

My intention is not to insult or characterize the mothers in question as evil. But the fact of the matter is that, even tho there is no deliberate mal-intent on the part of the aborting mother, if one does come from the assumption that the mass of tissue being aborted is her child then she is indeed causing harm. I am not proposing this because I enjoy insulting women but because it is my sincere conviction that that fetus has a right to live that is just as fundamental as the rights of its mother.

Right. I bet you approved the people who form a mob to shout insults at people convicted of murder, too. What on earth has your conviction about the nature of the act got to do with this kind of behaviour?

[And FYI, my mother has had multiple pregnancies before me which she aborted. So don't try to make this out to be an issue of me bashing women because I'm not. I love my mother just the same but this does not change the fact that the decisions she made to abort were morally wrong]

Don't know how to start with this really.

In the first place this information is not suitable to share on a board
Secondly the fact that you love your mother, even though she is reckless and irresponsible and possibly insane, is not much to your credit nor your discredit. I think most people love their mothers "drunk or sober". Doesn't change the fact that if you were in a position of power over her you would take control of her body; or jail her for manslaughter. And it does not change the fact that you are in fact "bashing women"

The entire point of my objection to abortion is that I view it as a violation of a person's right. Rape is a violation of an individual right. Infanticide is a violation of an individual right. And I propose the contentious view that abortion is the violation of an individual right. If one comes from the view that a fetus is a person, then bringing it to existence and then killing it has moral ramifications atleast as dire as rape itself.

Yes, I know that is your position. I disagree and we both know that too. This is not addressing the "slippery slope" argument I have put forward; I have addressed yours and you do not think the answer which I and Magenta have provided is adequate. Why is your implicit answer, which is a close analogy, adequate?

Objection to abortion is no more a denial of a woman's personhood than an objection to infanticide. If she were NOT a person one could not speak of her having any moral obligation at all. An abortion or infanticide would not be morally distinguishable from a miscarriage or Sudden Infant Death Sydrome.

I have already said that you deny full human rights and that this is the sense in which I believe you deny her personhood. Not all rights and therefore not all personhood. In fact you treat her as a child or as one who is incapable. Those are the only circumstances where such denial of control over one's own medical decisions are abridged in our society. So I disagree that you are doing what you think you are doing

If theres nothing produced theres nothing to abort ;)

Nonsense. These are word games just as your refusal to separate the meanings of responsibility are word games. :)

The point we quibble over is whether that something is a person and/or when it should be classified as a person

That is one point of disagreement, certainly

Now its my turn to be a bit taken aback. Are you seriously arguing that even if the fetus were classified as a person aborting it would be justifiable because it is guilty of forced entry into the mother's body? :boggled:

Pardon me but the child didn't lay up and conceive itself, sista'.

If I take the nonsensical language out of your description, yes: that is exactly what I am saying, and have been saying since the beginning. It is not guilty of forced entry, of course, and there is no respectable reason for you to put it that way, though nothing hangs on it. It is using another person's body without their consent and that is immoral.

Its not really a contention of objective evidence; it's a dispute of categorization. Personally, I can think of no definitive dividing line of individually after the point of conception.

Oh don't be so modest! I am quite sure you can think of another dividing line. Why, you said you could a few posts ago. That line is birth. You must know this: why it is quite widely held to be the point when a foetus becomes a person: you must have heard of this, surely?

It is much simpler just to view personhood as beginning at conception. Can you give me a clear and non-arbitrary point at which an individual becomes a person worthy of life?

At the point it is living outside someone else's body. :)

I did not say that the person loses the right to control their own body.

'Fraid you did.

It was with the control of her own body that she created the preganacy [undoubtedly, with some help from a male] and therefore she is morally responsible [along with the father] for said pregnancy.

We have been through this. Yes, they had sex. A pregnancy resulted. They caused it. So far no dispute.

She still retains her right to control their own body

And this is why she can choose to abort the foetus. If you say she cannot you are denying her that right. There is no question about this. You believe you have grounds for rescinding her rights but please do not pretend that is not what you are doing

but the created child [or tissue mass, depending on who you ask] is NOT a part of the woman's body by any stretch.Ergo, her decision to cancel the pregnancy is not mere act of controlling just her own body but also the body of the entity inside of her.

That is a consequence of her decision to abort, but in making that decision she is exercising her right to autonomy. This is the right you would deny her

<snip>

The child/tissue mass can in no way be responsible for its dilemma

It is incapable of having a dilemma.

It's still the woman's choice of whether to abort

Thanks for that.

but the fact is that in the act of aborting she is ending a life;

This is not a fact, sorry. Here we come back to the question and you are using it as an answer. This is not a child: it is not human: it has no moral rights which attach to humans for this reason. I have not particularly explored this with you but I would wish to elaborate this a little. It is your contention that potential is the same as actual. That does not make sense in english. So I would be glad if you could now elaborate your stance on the status of a foetus as a human being. I do not think we can go much further unless we back track to this now

blood would be on her hands and it would not be merely her own. Pointing out this fact is no more cruel than the shedding of said blood. As far as I'm concerned both parents are morally responsible for maintaining the life they created unless a willing third party comes forward to pick up their slack.

And again you cite this as a fact. I dispute it so can you please support your contention

I am focusing on abortion because it is the topic of this thread. If you wish for me to focus on some other issue of contention then feel free to start a new thread on it.

Am I to take it you do have such a campaign going? What steps have you taken ? You are probably right it needs another thread but I will be very interested to hear about this

AkuManiMani

24th March 2008, 04:04 PM

We all swim in the same water, Aku. Nobody in western culture is unaware of your stance, for example. The decision is grave because people have to consider many things, not least the kind of ethical view you are arguing. If they then decide in favour of abortion they do not agree with you. Simple, no?

Your statement did not contradict what I just said. Of course they disagree with me that the fetus is their child. If they did not they would be vastly less likely to abort it.

That is your assumption. I think the vast majority of people find the idea of killing children repugnant, though in past posts you do not seem to be so sure, since you are so concerned about a sudden flood of infanticides. Whether or no, why do you insult people?

Is it an insult to call manslaughter manslaughter? The insult is merely incidental to the statement. If you are personally insulted that is unfortunate but your hurt feeling will not 'cause me to retract my statement or change my position.

As has been pointed out again and again many people who do not share my views do have abortions for all sorts of reasons. You are just wrong about this

Oh, certainly there are people who go thru with abortions even on the assumption that the fetus is their child. But the fact of the matter is they are vastly more likely to go thru with it if they view it simply as a mass of tissue.

It is not your view that the foetus is a child which is insulting: it is your arrogant presumption that a) they have not considered this and come to a different conclusion;

And what conclusion would that be? Hmm?

"Even tho this is my baby its still gotta die"?

Pardon me for giving the mother in question the benefit of the doubt, then.

b) your arrogant assumption that they are not morally capable;

Its my assumption that they are moraly culpable. Meaning I view them as people who are able to make choices and are responsible for those choices and whatever they entail. Its no more arrogant than any other moral judgment.

and c) your arrogant assumption of the right to take control of other people against their will.

I find your assumption that the mother has the right to kill her progeny for what ever reason she sees fit as exceedingly arrogant. Fortunately, this is a discussion of the moral implications of abortion and not about arrogance.

Oh, and your certainty that you have this right because those other people are "reckless, irresponsible and possibly insane".

If I forced you into a war zone with me and you got wounded your injury would be due to my recklessness and irresponsibility. I would be morally responsible for insuring that you were mended; even if that meant I had to donate MY blood to you. If I up and decided to give you a "mercy" killing *I* would be morally culpable for bringing you into harms way AND murdering you.

If calling my actions "reckless, irresponsible and possibly insane" is arrogant so be it, but that still would not change the fact that your blood would be on my hands.

Some would, certainly. Some are forced to abort wanted foetuses too, but you persist in ignoring this

I ignored no such thing. As Mark Twain would say: "Thats a damn lie". I repeatedly stated that the condition in which I would consider abortion an ethical option is if the mother's life were at risk because of the pregnancy. The fact that I have said this several times and you claim that I've ignored it is evidence that you're either not paying attention to what I've actually said or you're deliberately being dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've just made an honest mistake.

Right. I bet you approved the people who form a mob to shout insults at people convicted of murder, too. What on earth has your conviction about the nature of the act got to do with this kind of behaviour?

Quite frankly, I don't give a d@mn either way. Its of no consequence if they jeer or not. If a mob wants to jeer a murder so what? Would you condemn their action over actually killing someone? The hurt feelings of a deliberate murder don't concern me as much as the death of the victim. Are you gunna insult me for that?

Don't know how to start with this really.

In the first place this information is not suitable to share on a board

Are you questioning my sovereign right to share my own personal information? Surely, this would be an infringement upon my human right to choose :rolleyes:

Secondly the fact that you love your mother, even though she is reckless and irresponsible and possibly insane, is not much to your credit nor your discredit. I think most people love their mothers "drunk or sober". Doesn't change the fact that if you were in a position of power over her you would take control of her body; or jail her for manslaughter.

An interesting scenario just occurred to me. Its purely hypothetical but hear me out...

You've come to find out that some temporal anomaly threatens to change the past and among these changes would be that your mother would adamantly insist that she terminate her pregnancy of you. You have no way of undoing the anomaly. Your only recourse is to travel back in time and convince your mother not to abort you or you will die. The problem is she thinks you're just a loony pro-life nut and refuses to change her mind. Would you everything in your power to get her to carry you to term or would you allow her to abort you?

And it does not change the fact that you are in fact "bashing women"

Oh no, you've cornered me! Thru your clever deductive skills you have revealed my true motive of defaming the female gender because of my inherent hatred for women...

Gemme a flipping break! :rolleyes:

FYI: Even if I were "bashing women" it has no relevance whatsoever to the voracity of my arguments. Quite frankly, I'm getting more than a little weary of you assuming that you know my own motives better than I do.

Yes, I know that is your position. I disagree and we both know that too. This is not addressing the "slippery slope" argument I have put forward; I have addressed yours and you do not think the answer which I and Magenta have provided is adequate. Why is your implicit answer, which is a close analogy, adequate?

Because you're comparing manslaughter charges to rape. I explained my reasoning behind why I view abortion as philosophically equivalent to infanticide. Care explaining to me why a manslaughter charge is philosophically comparable to rape, pray tell?

I have already said that you deny full human rights and that this is the sense in which I believe you deny her personhood. Not all rights and therefore not all personhood. In fact you treat her as a child or as one who is incapable. Those are the only circumstances where such denial of control over one's own medical decisions are abridged in our society. So I disagree that you are doing what you think you are doing

You can assert that all you want but that doesn't make it any more true than saying a restraining order is a violation of a stalkers "human right" to bodily be where ever he/she wants to be.

Nonsense. These are word games just as your refusal to separate the meanings of responsibility are word games. :)

Don't be silly. I was responding to your statement that nothing is produced in conception which is patently false even if you assume that an embryo is not a human being.

The point we quibble over is whether that something is a person and/or when it should be classified as a person

That is one point of disagreement, certainly

It isn't simply "one point of disagreement". It is our central point of disagreement from which all our other contentions in this discussion arise.

Now its my turn to be a bit taken aback. Are you seriously arguing that even if the fetus were classified as a person aborting it would be justifiable because it is guilty of forced entry into the mother's body?

Pardon me but the child didn't lay up and conceive itself, sista'.

If I take the nonsensical language out of your description, yes: that is exactly what I am saying, and have been saying since the beginning. It is not guilty of forced entry, of course, and there is no respectable reason for you to put it that way, though nothing hangs on it. It is using another person's body without their consent and that is immoral.

MY language is nonsensical? Pot-Kettle-Black, I say.

You just stated that an unborn child is violating it's mother by being in her womb which gives the mother the sovereign right to kill it. If you can't see anything wrong with that statement you simply cannot be helped.

Oh don't be so modest! I am quite sure you can think of another dividing line. Why, you said you could a few posts ago. That line is birth. You must know this: why it is quite widely held to be the point when a foetus becomes a person: you must have heard of this, surely?

Ah yes I've heard of this. But you see the thing is the child doesn't fundamentally change by simply emerging from it's mother's womb. Ergo, its not the developmental dividing line in which it becomes a person. You existed as a person before you emerged from your mother's womb. If you're seriously going to argue that killing the baby just before emerging from the womb is morally acceptable while doing so right after is not this discussion is over because you will have just proven my central point.

At the point it is living outside someone else's body. :)

So what? It didn't put itself there and it sure as hell can't help the fact that it's helpless without her.

I did not say that the person loses the right to control their own body.

'Fraid you did.

No I didn't. I actually distinguish the the body of the mother from that of the conceived child. It is a biological FACT that the fetus/child is not a part of the woman's body. By your logic your mother has the right to control YOUR body because it is an extension of hers.

And this is why she can choose to abort the foetus. If you say she cannot you are denying her that right. There is no question about this. You believe you have grounds for rescinding her rights but please do not pretend that is not what you are doing

I didn't say that she couldn't do it; I said that she would be guilty of manslaughter if she did. If she chooses to have sex and conceives she is half responsible for the pregnancy. If chooses to abort she is wholly responsible for manslaughter. There is no power to chose without responsibly.

That is a consequence of her decision to abort, but in making that decision she is exercising her right to autonomy.

That is just as true of the mother who chooses to stuff a pillow over her infants face and kill it. Whats your point?

The child/tissue mass can in no way be responsible for its dilemma

It is incapable of having a dilemma.

The threat of it's death would be real, imminent, and completely out of it's control. I call that a dilemma.

It's still the woman's choice of whether to abort

Thanks for that.

No need to thank me. Shes still responsible for manslaughter :)

but the fact is that in the act of aborting she is ending a life

This is not a fact, sorry. Here we come back to the question and you are using it as an answer. This is not a child: it is not human: it has no moral rights which attach to humans for this reason. I have not particularly explored this with you but I would wish to elaborate this a little. It is your contention that potential is the same as actual. That does not make sense in english. So I would be glad if you could now elaborate your stance on the status of a foetus as a human being. I do not think we can go much further unless we back track to this now

Alright then, tell me exactly when you came into existence. Don't be shy now; I wont judge you if you don't know...Okay, maybe I will -- but answer the question anyway, please :p

blood would be on her hands and it would not be merely her own. Pointing out this fact is no more cruel than the shedding of said blood. As far as I'm concerned both parents are morally responsible for maintaining the life they created unless a willing third party comes forward to pick up their slack.

And again you cite this as a fact. I dispute it so can you please support your contention

The mother aborts the fetus. The fetus is dead and she is the cause.

You were once a fetus. If your mother aborted that fetus its the same as aborting you. You would be dead -- deceased -- non-existent. Why would you be deceased? Because you were aborted. Why were you aborted? Because your mother chose to abort you. Why did she abort you? Doesn't matter -- she just didn't want you. Too bad.

....

Fortunately, she did not choose to have you flushed out like a malignant growth and you're alive today to argue vehemently for her right to flush you like a malignant growth. Funny ol' world innit? :)

Am I to take it you do have such a campaign going? What steps have you taken ?

Campaign? What are you talking about? I'm sensing another failure of communication here :confused:

You are probably right it needs another thread but I will be very interested to hear about this

What, specifically? :confused:

articulett

24th March 2008, 05:13 PM

If you do not understand the difference between a sentient being with memories, loves, family and friends and a few cells undergoing meosis then I have no common ground to discuss this with you. Good day.

Yes, and he still doesn't get it. A woman has to sacrifice her body in order for that fetus to live. If he's be willing to donate a kidney or his bone marrow or some similar sacrifice for every baby that doesn't get aborted base on his rhetoric... I suspect suddenly his new value would be-- you can't force someone to give up their body for someone else's life.

But he is a Mormon and a Male-- he's sexist. He forgot that women have the same feelings and rights regarding their body as he does. You cannot compel people to sacrifice their body for another if you are unwilling to the same or something similar... or pay for that child until he can care for himself--if ever. If he goes to jail--pay for that too.

Bob's religion has biased himself--he forgot that he will never be the situation... and he's not in a position to pass judgment on those who are. I don't think Bob is a "monster". I do think he is ignorant and bigoted... primarily due to his faith I suspect.

Fiona

24th March 2008, 05:43 PM

@ Akumanimani.Well I have read your last post in full. You accused me of lying. It is interesting that the only place in this exchange where one of us has demonstrably not read what the other said was when you missed the fact I asked you about a parent donor: I did not assume you lied or were deliberately dishonest. I cannot be bothered with your rather grudging decision to assume I made an "honest mistake" since it obviously did not come easy to you. So I will leave you to your certainties. Nice talking to you.

ETA: do not assume I am personally insulted by anything you have said, incidentally. I am not :)

AkuManiMani

24th March 2008, 06:11 PM

AkuManiMani

24th March 2008, 06:14 PM

Oops. Duplicate :-X

Magenta

24th March 2008, 08:17 PM

No I didn't. I actually distinguish the the body of the mother from that of the conceived child. It is a biological FACT that the fetus/child is not a part of the woman's body. By your logic your mother has the right to control YOUR body because it is an extension of hers.

If it is a biological fact that a fetus (as opposed to an infant) is not part of a woman's body, then it should be easy enough to demonstrate. I don't see how you did that when I asked the question before:

Could you please explain why you think a fetus is not part of a woman's body? Yes, the fetus has genetic material from the father and the placenta affords a degree of separation from the mother's body, but I don't see how you go from that to saying it is not part of her body. It's not as though it is a free-floating entity that could thrive just as easily in, say, an incubator.

Also, I see that you would allow abortion in circumstances where the woman's life would be at risk if she continued with the pregnancy. How can the fetus have this profound impact on her survival if it is not part of her body?

You answered:

I think articulent answers that question pretty well:

A wanted child is a symbiote of sorts. Both lives are bettered due to the other.

An unwanted child or child that endangers the mothers' life IS a parasite or a "part of" that womans body--until it can survive without her. And even then someone must care for it for it to survive infancy and eventually (hopefully) become self sufficient. Every child needs time and money and education and food and medical care to have a decent chance at life and becoming a self sufficient contributing member of society at large.

With that said, any individual in a dependent relationship with another party could be considered symbiotic or parasitic, depending on what benefit they give to the other party(s). Where I differ is that I would not necessarily categorize a person's genetic child as a parasite [wanted or unwanted] since, technically, creating offspring and ensuring their survival is of biological benefit to the parent and the species as a whole.

I don't see how Articulett's response answers my question or supports your case. As this is an important element in your argument - i.e. that the fetus is a person separate from the mother, who came into being at conception, and who has the same human rights as an infant - I would appreciate it if you would clarify why you think a fetus is not part of a woman's body.

(To avoid any confusion, I'd like to clarify my understanding of the different ways the word "parasite" is used. In my biology texts symbiosis (of which parasitism is a form) is described as an interaction between different species. So, in that sense, it isn't accurate to apply it to the fetus/mother relationship. However, it is also used as a metaphor. For example, with complications such as pre-eclampsia, the fetus is described as acting like a parasite. And of course it is also used to refer to something unwanted.)

Anyway, atleast we know hell hasn't frozen over yet. This debate pretty much went the way it always goes: with both sides still having the same position :)

I realise it wasn't the topic of this thread, but I think the right-to-life movement would do better to focus on measures already shown to lower the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. A passing acquaintance with the history of abortion will show how prevalent it is across time and across different societies. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop it; it just makes it unsafe.

AkuManiMani

24th March 2008, 09:08 PM

If it is a biological fact that a fetus (as opposed to an infant) is not part of a woman's body, then it should be easy enough to demonstrate. I don't see how you did that when I asked the question before:

[...]

I don't see how Articulett's response answers my question or supports your case. As this is an important element in your argument - i.e. that the fetus is a person separate from the mother, who came into being at conception, and who has the same human rights as an infant - I would appreciate it if you would clarify why you think a fetus is not part of a woman's body.

(To avoid any confusion, I'd like to clarify my understanding of the different ways the word "parasite" is used. In my biology texts symbiosis (of which parasitism is a form) is described as an interaction between different species. So, in that sense, it isn't accurate to apply it to the fetus/mother relationship. However, it is also used as a metaphor. For example, with complications such as pre-eclampsia, the fetus is described as acting like a parasite. And of course it is also used to refer to something unwanted.)

Well, at the risk of nit picking, Ill try to define what I mean when I use the words "parasite" and "symbiote" . The fetus could be considered a parasite in the sense that, in the short term, it depletes the bodily resources of the mother without any direct biological benefit to her for the duration of the pregnancy [that we currently know of atleast]. It could be considered a symbiote in the sense that it provides a psychological benefit to the mother, and later on a biological one of carrying on it's parent's biological legacy and the continuance of human life.

Now, for why I consider the fetus/embryo as separate from the mother's body. The unborn child is genetically distinct from the mother and, being as such, there are biological mechanisms in place that function to suppress the immune response of the mother to keep her body from rejecting it. If the fetus were infact part of her body there would be no need for such mechanisms. There isn't even any direct contact between the blood streams of the mother and unborn child. The placenta has to act as a biological intermediary between the blood of the mother and child for the exchange of oxygen and nutrients. The fetus is, in every sense, biologically distinct from the mother.

As to why I consider the embryo a person, despite the fact there is no apparent sentience at this stage of a person's development, is a bit strait forward [atleast in my personal view]. When we speak of conception we do not say "a nondescript mass of undifferentiated cells were conceived on such-and-such a date" we say "X person was conceived on such-and-such a date". You and I first come into existence as separate and unique biological entities at the moment of our conception. We did not yet have time to develop our sentient awareness, personality, or our other faculties but we [I]were -- we lived. The life of those undifferentiated cells aren't merely linked to the future person yet to come from the womb -- they are that person and their only toe hold of existence in this life. The difference between the mass of cells we call your embryo and the mass of cells that comprise your adult form is a matter of degree rather than kind. Just as the mass of cells in your childhood are you so are the mass of cells of your fetushood; they are the first trickles of the stream of your existence.

One cannot watch the development of the cell line of a person's life and say "here then is where the person begins" without looking to that first moment of conception when the first cell of your body began is furious unraveling to form the personality we see to day complete with knowledge, opinions, hopes and dreams. There is no fundamental distinction between the primordial mass of cells supported your mother's amniotic fluid during her pregnancy and the walking talking colony of cells sitting at your keyboard. They are irrevocably and inseparably *you*. To end their biological life is merely ending a potential life, but of the actual living person inherent to that mass of cells. You may argue that an embryo is not a person but, I ask, if not at conception at what point does it become a person? The fact is that there is no non-arbitrary point at which one can say that this happens after the time of conception.

I realise it wasn't the topic of this thread, but I think the right-to-life movement would do better to focus on measures already shown to lower the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. A passing acquaintance with the history of abortion will show how prevalent it is across time and across different societies. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop it; it just makes it unsafe.

Why'd you have to go and make a point that I implicitly agree with? And I was just getting all riled up!

But in all seriousness, if you could sift thru all the other polemical arguments in my post, you'll find that I do support better contraceptive measures and the need for planned parenthood. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is the moral responsibility of any potential parent. Where I differ from your position is that I consider the cat to be already out of the bag, so to speak, once the child is conceived.

Bob Blaylock

25th March 2008, 12:32 AM

Yes, and he still doesn't get it. A woman has to sacrifice her body in order for that fetus to live. If he's be willing to donate a kidney or his bone marrow or some similar sacrifice for every baby that doesn't get aborted base on his rhetoric... I suspect suddenly his new value would be-- you can't force someone to give up their body for someone else's life.

But he is a Mormon and a Male-- he's sexist. He forgot that women have the same feelings and rights regarding their body as he does. You cannot compel people to sacrifice their body for another if you are unwilling to the same or something similar... or pay for that child until he can care for himself--if ever. If he goes to jail--pay for that too.

Bob's religion has biased himself--he forgot that he will never be the situation... and he's not in a position to pass judgment on those who are. I don't think Bob is a "monster". I do think he is ignorant and bigoted... primarily due to his faith I suspect.

You know, it's really interesting to read a rant like this, and then to see it ending with you accusing me of being “ignorant and bigoted”. You really need to take a hard look in the mirror if you want to see what true ignorance, and true bigotry look like. Cast the beam out of your own eye (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/7/3-5#3) before you complain (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/luke/6/41-42#41) about the mote in mine. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/14/3-5#3)

Your notion of the view I have of women has no basis whatsoever in reality, and even if it did, it isn't relevant to the issue of abortion.

Let me put this as simply as I can. I do not hate women, I do not consider women to be in any way less important, or less worthy of basic human rights than men; and even if I did, that would not be my reason for being opposed to abortion. I am opposed to abortion because I am opposed to all senseless murders of all innocent human beings, and abortion is a particularly egregious example of such a murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings. It may or may not be relevant to point out that about as many girls are murdered via abortion as boys.

martu

25th March 2008, 03:54 AM

The real question is when should a mass of cells undergoing mitosis be considered a person? I started out as a mass of just a few cells and now I'm a mass of trillions. I value that mass of cells a whole lot more than a mole or tumor. If someone killed this cellular mass when they were just a hand full or if they numbered in the trillions I would still be dead. Obviously the mass of cells in question aren't just any cellular mass; it has the special property of comprising the entire existence of a human being -- which in this case would happen to be me.

Very true, could you deifne the word 'person' for me please?

Edit: Oh, and in answer to your question; if the mass of cells in question were still developmentally viable and happened to be my progeny and I were forced to pick between it and you I would pick them over you. What can I say? It would be my reproductive right, man.

Isn't it nice to have a choice?

martu

25th March 2008, 04:09 AM

Nope. I'm just gunna cop out like you did and say that I'm not going to choose

So would you toss a coin?

AkuManiMani you haven't answered this, a choice between a petri dish and a child where one 'dies', would you toss a coin and leave it to chance to decide?

martu

25th March 2008, 04:15 AM

Bob's religion has biased himself--he forgot that he will never be the situation... and he's not in a position to pass judgment on those who are. I don't think Bob is a "monster". I do think he is ignorant and bigoted... primarily due to his faith I suspect.

You're more generous than I am. Which is a very good thing, thank you.

Belz...

25th March 2008, 04:53 AM

The Moral Police sure don't care about these unwanted kids once they are alive

Very well said, as usual.

And I think organ donation at death should be on an opt out basis... not opt in as it is my country now.

Agreed.

Those who oppose abortion are not the ones that are most likely to fill out their organ donation card. Their morals make them feel like they are good people.... without having to do anything that is actually good or serves a concrete benefit.

Ouch. That was nasty. I love it.

Belz...

25th March 2008, 05:02 AM

In the above scenario the child's life is already forfeit because it is dependent on the life of the mother.

Excellent. If the child's life is forfeit because it is dependent on the life of the mother, then wouldn't you agree that it is always so ? Or is there a magical property of non-threatening pregnancies that makes dependency a non-issue ?

What makes such an abortion more ethical than in the other scenarios is that more is at stake than simply factors of psychological or economic convenience.

As if those factors weren't important.

A night and day difference, as a matter of fact. To say that 5 > 3 is an objective statement. To say that 5 is better than 3 [or vis versa] is a subjective statement.

Nice try. We're not saying that 5 > 3. We are saying that if oranges are worth more than apples then they are considered more valuable by people in general. Isn't THAT a value judgment ?

I'm afraid that ethics a system of moral principles"] is absolutely at the core of this discussion. The thing is that you're simply much more comfortable with subjects of a purely objective nature -- as is evident from your sig. "Surrounded by evidence".

You don't need to "think" it. It's obvious. Emotion is useless except to tell you what you feel.

If you want you argue a particular moral position then I'm afraid you've stepped out of the realm of objectivity and into the one of the subjective.

I don't want to argue a moral position. I'm trying to find out the most rational position on the subject.

But what you failed to consider is that not only is the valuing of an embryo purely subjective but also that of freedom or life in general. In fact, there is absolutely no objective argument that can be made that can refute nihilism. Any objections to nihilism are purely subjective in nature.

Do you have any idea what "subjective" means ?

I'd give you my answer but I'm afraid it would not not be up to your standards of pure objectivity. I won't bother you with such trifles as my personal valuing of human life.

Evasion noted.

As I've said before, those characteristics are inherent to the fetus even if they aren't fully manifest.

They aren't there, Aku. They aren't there at all.

A somatic cell also has this "potential" -- tho much more remote than that of gametes. As I have make clear already it isn't the [I]potential that makes the fetus a person but the actual development of these characteristics which are inherent to the fetus.

Good. Your position is thereby refuted.

Ergo, if you destroy a fetus you destroy that consciousness.

That seems a given. Should I care ?

Okay, its time to put your money where your mouth is. You have a testable hypothesis that you can prove right here and now:

Give me an objective fact that invalidates nihilism. :p

How would that be relevant ?

Of course suffering is a real consideration in the justice system. But the fact is that our justice system does not dictate that the suffering of one should mean the death of another.

No, what it says is that foetuses are not people. But then, you don't agree with THAT law, do you ?

Would you have any objective reason for why they shouldn't kill you in absence of possible retribution? Even using such an argument would merely be making an appeal to their fear of suffering. You could not provide any argument in your defense other than a subjective argument.

You are incorrect in your assessment. I can.

If you took the effort of reading that post you would realize that it was not in reply to you or a specific argument you made. In short, I wasn't talking to you.

So I can butt in on a conversation if what you say doesn't make sense ?

Belz...

25th March 2008, 07:12 AM

Ah well, what I meant by "early adoption" is that such a procedure requires a third-party caretaker to support the infant before its even come to full term.

[On a side note, I think it would also be desirable to develop technology that would allow us to produce meat without the necessity of slaughtering animals for it, for obvious ethical reasons. Yea thats right, my ethical concern extends even beyond that of human fetuses -- go figure.]

Maybe we should prevent animals from killing each other and instead feed them food supplements.

AkuManiMani

25th March 2008, 08:00 AM

Very true, could you deifne the word 'person' for me please?

An organism that and sum stage in it's development gains the capacity for sentient awareness. This probably includes most chordates and possibly some of the higher mollusks.

Edit: Oh, and in answer to your question; if the mass of cells in question were still developmentally viable and happened to be my progeny and I were forced to pick between it and you I would pick them over you. What can I say? It would be my reproductive right, man.

Isn't it nice to have a choice?

Yea, it is nice. To bad I was being forced on pain of death to chose you and my child in a petri dish.

AkuManiMani

25th March 2008, 08:48 AM

Excellent. If the child's life is forfeit because it is dependent on the life of the mother, then wouldn't you agree that it is always so ? Or is there a magical property of non-threatening pregnancies that makes dependency a non-issue ?

The child's life is forfeit in that scenario because the pregnancy is not viable and there is no available way to save it and the mother. It isn't forfiet because of any conscious decision. The situation is comparable to an impending miscarriage.

As if those factors weren't important.

I didn't say there weren't important. I saidy that they're lower priority than the life of a human being.

Nice try. We're not saying that 5 > 3. We are saying that if oranges are worth more than apples then they are considered more valuable by people in general. Isn't THAT a value judgment ?

Dear dancing monkeys...Okay, let me break it down for you:

Subjective statement:

X Person: Oranges are better than apples

Objective statement:

X Person values oranges more than apples

Markets and monetary systems are an attempt to quantify the subjective values placed on goods and services so than people can operate on a workable consensus/standard of exchange. Due to the subjective nature of these value judgments the monetary notation meant to quantify it may fluctuate wildly. The money represents an objective quantity; the value of the money and the goods that they are traded for is purely subjective. The quantity of a particular good is objective; the VALUE of that quantity is subjective. Monetary value systems are purely virtual.

Understand now?

You don't need to "think" it. It's obvious. Emotion is useless except to tell you what you feel.

Emotion is the the source of motivation. Emotion is the currency of conscious action. Without emotional desire or subjective perceptions there would be no basis for intent.

[FYI: Saying WHAT you feel is merely an objective statement concerning a subjective state.]

I don't want to argue a moral position. I'm trying to find out the most rational position on the subject.

The subject is a moral one. Whatever position you take on this issue would be of a moral nature.

Do you have any idea what "subjective" means ?

I've an infinitely better grasp of it than you as evidenced by your statements so far.

Evasion noted.

The "evasion" was rhetorical in nature. Apparently its lost on you.

They aren't there, Aku. They aren't there at all.

When do they come and how do they come about? As far as I'm concerned, a seed contains the plant in its entirety and a zygote contains the animal in its entirety. Without this implicit informational content they could not develop at all.

A somatic cell also has this "potential" -- tho much more remote than that of gametes. As I have make clear already it isn't the potential that makes the fetus a person but the actual development of these characteristics which are inherent to the fetus.

Good. Your position is thereby refuted.

How'd you figure? :rolleyes:

Ergo, if you destroy a fetus you destroy that consciousness.

That seems a given. Should I care ?[/QUOTE]

If its a given then the fetus is a person. Whether or not you should care is of a purely ethical concern.

Okay, its time to put your money where your mouth is. You have a testable hypothesis that you can prove right here and now:

Give me an objective fact that invalidates nihilism.

How would that be relevant ?

Answer the question [or attempt to anyway] and I will explain the relevance to you. Hows that sound?

No, what it says is that foetuses are not people. But then, you don't agree with THAT law, do you ?

If the law said that you are not a person would you be any less of a person? What the laws states to be truth and what actually *is* isn't necessarily the same. Hence, why they are subject to revision.

Would you have any objective reason for why they shouldn't kill you in absence of possible retribution? Even using such an argument would merely be making an appeal to their fear of suffering. You could not provide any argument in your defense other than a subjective argument.

You are incorrect in your assessment. I can.

We've already established that you think you can. I've asked you to demonstrate it. Your lack of effort is not convincing.

So I can butt in on a conversation if what you say doesn't make sense ?

If you're going to butt into a conversation you should atleast pay attention to whats being said and the context in which it was stated. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an asshat.

Belz...

25th March 2008, 09:41 AM

Coming to consider the fetus a non-person is a psychological prerequisite to actually going thru with the procedure.

Because such women find the prospect of willfully killing a child morally repugnant they are only able to make the decision to abort under the assumption that the aborted is not their child. Of course, if one were to bring up the possibility that that mass of tissue they are killing is their child they would be insulted.

That makes no sense, whatsoever. Why would it be a necessary prerequisite ?

Belz...

25th March 2008, 09:46 AM

It is much simpler just to view personhood as beginning at conception. Can you give me a clear and non-arbitrary point at which an individual becomes a person worthy of life?

No. There is no such thing, because "person" is an arbitrary convention.

"Simpler" does not mean "better".

martu

25th March 2008, 09:54 AM

An organism that and sum stage in it's development gains the capacity for sentient awareness. This probably includes most chordates and possibly some of the higher mollusks.

I'm sorry I can't parse this could you rephrase it for me please?

Yea, it is nice. To bad I was being forced on pain of death to chose you and my child in a petri dish.

So what is your choice, child or embryos?

Belz...

25th March 2008, 10:00 AM

The child's life is forfeit in that scenario because the pregnancy is not viable and there is no available way to save it and the mother. It isn't forfiet because of any conscious decision. The situation is comparable to an impending miscarriage.

That's not true. There's a way to save at least one, in many cases. What makes which life forfeit, and why ?

The quantity of a particular good is objective; the VALUE of that quantity is subjective. Monetary value systems are purely virtual.

Understand now?

You just said that:

Objective statement:

X Person values oranges more than apples

Which describes exactly the stock market. Then you come back and say it is "subjective", which is in direct contradiction. So no, I don't understand.

Emotion is the the source of motivation.

Not always, but it can be a powerful source of motivation, yes.

Emotion is the currency of conscious action. Without emotional desire or subjective perceptions there would be no basis for intent.

An interesting assertion; one again apt for ANOTHER thread.

The subject is a moral one. Whatever position you take on this issue would be of a moral nature.

That's your opinion, not mine.

I've an infinitely better grasp of it than you as evidenced by your statements so far.

I'll let the majority decide, thank you. I'll also take your reply as an evasion, again.

The "evasion" was rhetorical in nature. Apparently its lost on you.

We're having a discussion about abortion, not a battle of wits. If you want to play rhetorical games I suggest another forum.

When do they come and how do they come about?

With time. Those "emergent" properties HAVEN'T emerged, so they are irrelevant to the discussion. Fiona has been quite clear about this.

Without this implicit informational content they could not develop at all.

The blueprint is not the house, Aku.

How'd you figure? :rolleyes:

Because you keep contradicting yourself about "potential".

If its a given then the fetus is a person. Whether or not you should care is of a purely ethical concern.

Oh, no. You're not going to pull that one, Aku. Why would "consciousness" imply "person" ?

Answer the question [or attempt to anyway] and I will explain the relevance to you. Hows that sound?

I'd have to look up nihilism more closely. But since you agreed that reason CAN lead to moral decisions without the use of emotion, it sounds pointless to proceed.

If the law said that you are not a person would you be any less of a person? What the laws states to be truth and what actually *is* isn't necessarily the same. Hence, why they are subject to revision.

If you're continuously going to dance from one side of the fence to another about the law I suggest we do not bring that matter up again.

We've already established that you think you can. I've asked you to demonstrate it. Your lack of effort is not convincing.

Did you create the thread in question ?

If you're going to butt into a conversation you should atleast pay attention to whats being said and the context in which it was stated. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an asshat.

Then correct me, Aku. Let's see how right you are about this.

kallsop

25th March 2008, 10:16 AM

@ Wolfman. Yes, I agree it is a distinct human entity and therefore it should get the same rights as any other human entity. That does not include the right to use anyone else's body without their consent.

Consent happened a few months earlier, except in cases of rape. Babies are a well understood consequence, even to the "it won't happen to me" set.

Arguments that are based on external viability of the unborn baby are problematic because medical technology progresses and what is viable today was not 20 years ago. What if the artificial womb is invented and all stages of baby development are viable outside of a woman?

Does the human emerge at 9 months, but it's a pile of abortable worthless flesh at 8 months 3 weeks 6 days? I doubt many believe that, either from a moral or scientific viewpoint. Does a woman have the right to terminate the baby at 9 months 1 day when it is one day outside of the womb? I'm pretty sure that has no support. Now what about 8 months? 7 months? Is this then a petty discussion of where to draw the line?

Ultimately, I see two points of view which are tenable. The baby is a baby from conception and has rights as a human. The woman (and man!) chose to conceive (except for rape) and that choice includes the responsibility of bringing the baby into the world. Alternatively, the baby is a jumble of tissue until it is birthed and can be treated as disposable and terminated at any time for any reason, right up until birth, if the woman chooses. This doesn't have any moral or religious consideration at all, it is simply two positions that are self consistent.

martu

25th March 2008, 10:59 AM

Consent happened a few months earlier, except in cases of rape. Babies are a well understood consequence, even to the "it won't happen to me" set.

What difference does that make?

Arguments that are based on external viability of the unborn baby are problematic because medical technology progresses and what is viable today was not 20 years ago. What if the artificial womb is invented and all stages of baby development are viable outside of a woman?

Then if someone is willing to care for the child then they can pay for the artificial womb and, as long as the pregnant women agrees, they can have it. What is the problem?

Does the human emerge at 9 months, but it's a pile of abortable worthless flesh at 8 months 3 weeks 6 days? I doubt many believe that, either from a moral or scientific viewpoint. Does a woman have the right to terminate the baby at 9 months 1 day when it is one day outside of the womb? I'm pretty sure that has no support. Now what about 8 months? 7 months? Is this then a petty discussion of where to draw the line?

I wouldn't say petty myself, defining what is and what is not a person seems one of the most important things we can do.

Ultimately, I see two points of view which are tenable. The baby is a baby from conception and has rights as a human. The woman (and man!) chose to conceive (except for rape) and that choice includes the responsibility of bringing the baby into the world. Alternatively, the baby is a jumble of tissue until it is birthed and can be treated as disposable and terminated at any time for any reason, right up until birth, if the woman chooses. This doesn't have any moral or religious consideration at all, it is simply two positions that are self consistent.

You see no shades of grey at all? I envy you.

Belz...

25th March 2008, 12:12 PM

Consent happened a few months earlier, except in cases of rape. Babies are a well understood consequence, even to the "it won't happen to me" set.

The problem is, just as with rape, consent can change until the whole deal is done. When having sex, a woman may change her mind, for some reason, and I'd expect any man (or other woman, depending) to honor the request and stop.

Same thing for babies. Consent, sure. But consent can change until conception is completed. And one could make a case that "conception" is only complete at birth.

Belz...

25th March 2008, 12:13 PM

As for the artificial womb thing, I see a big population problem at the horizon (using Aku's usual slipperly slope method.)

articulett

25th March 2008, 05:14 PM

fetus doesn't even have a neuron until the 31st day, much less "consciousness" until much later... in fact, consciousness is programmed pretty much after the kid is born... the kid doesn't even know he works his own body for a few months... nor even that he is a separate being.

However, a woman is conscious. All people who are conscious will suffer at some point in their life and they will also die. I think it's safe to let the mother worry about any potential baby's consciousness and when it might exist or matter. A woman can decide what is best for her and her family. Moreover, late term abortions are almost always because of severe abnormalities--that is, the kid may never have much "consciousness"--and he would take huge resources form care givers. If you have two kids and find out the next one has Trisomy 13-- you are bringing a burden into your family that will affect the lives of your healthy kids. And kids with this disorder rarely live past their first birthday. It's only advances in health care which makes them able to be born at all.

Let's see you go and adopt the next Trisomy 13 baby left in state care... OR let's see if you don't change your mind about abortion when a women you impregnate finds out she's carrying a child with Down Syndrome. Or Batten Syndrome. Would you raise the child by yourself if she couldn't bear dealing with the situation? Many of these kids are abando

Why people whose business this has nothing to do with feel free to comment or judge others is beyond me. It reminds of people trying to prevent euthanasia--a peaceful death for the terminally ill. That is something only terminally ill people and their family should have a say about. The same with "life support". It's backwards and wrong and that the "moral police" even think they should be able to say something about this.

It's like those people who don't fix their pet because they worry about their sex drive. It's irresponsible and a sign of not understanding the complexity of the issue. An animals sex drive is a burden to it--they do not know what they miss and it just means more animals that people can't care for-- more animals put to sleep or suffering-- less value of the animals that exist, because nobody can care for them all. When I adopt a dog, my son has to do it, because I cannot stand to look at all the dogs who won't get homes that day. Take care of your responsibilities before giving us a holier than thou lecture on your uninformed and useless "opinion" aku; you are not a person we would look to to take advice from or get our morals from. You don't "hear" anyone else. You think you already know everything.

We live in a world where we need to make it decent for the people who are here before we go fighting for people who don't exist. Most mothers instinctively want their children... but if there is a reason she doesn't--than it behooves us all to make sure she doesn't have one. We have plenty of people on this planet already. We can't be guilt tripping people into having more--who will care for them? A child shouldn't be a "punishment'-- what kind of life is that? It's better not to have a life-- never to have the will to live-- then to have a bad life. How much are you willing to give up of your child's education and job prospects for these unwanted kids you want born?

A teenager who is pregnant has a rough life ahead of her if she has that baby... and she's too young to have a clue about how hard it will be. Teen boys make horrible fathers. The girls and their mothers and aunts end up raising the babies most of the time--and the cycle tends to repeat itself. It's hard to get out of poverty once you have kids to support.

I teach a high Hispanic population... and they are Catholic... don't use birth control and have a shockingly high teen pregnancy rate. Kids who mature early give birth to kids who mature early. We are talking primal drives millions of years in the making. And as long as we have such poorly informed people regarding birth control and sex education-- abortion needs to be an option on the table. If you are against it-- pass out condoms to high school kids... make it so they always have them and are never afraid to ask or use them.

It's just like my sig. isn't it-- the people who know the least about an issue somehow think they are experts on the topic and that everyone should be eager to hear their self aggrandizing opinion. I doubt that any pregnant woman as an abortion "willy nilly". I trust that women can decide for themselves whether to bring a child into the world. In freakonomics they noted that the crime rate started dropping about 20 years after abortion became legal in the United States--when those kids who were aborted would have been at the age where they were most likely to commit crimes. It looks like the women knew what they were doing as a whole. We have huge numbers of incarcerated people that society must support. Unwanted children are more likely to end up costing society in similar ways... and they have children of their own.

I'm speaking in generalities. But that is the only way to approach this issue. It's a decision best made between a woman her doctor and her partner if he's involved. I'm bothered that anyone else would think the issue is their business.

AkuManiMani

25th March 2008, 08:50 PM

That's not true. There's a way to save at least one, in many cases. What makes which life forfeit, and why ?

I was talking specifically about instances where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother and there is no available option but to end the pregnancy. In such an instance if the pregnancy isn't ended both the mother and fetus will die; if it is terminated the mother lives but loses her baby.

[Your example] describes exactly the stock market. Then you come back and say it is "subjective", which is in direct contradiction. So no, I don't understand.

Okay, sorry for the mix up. Its apparent that we think and view the world very differently from each other. I'll try to clarify the best I can -- even tho we risk seriously derailing this thread :covereyes [Btw, I started that new thread you requested. Just drop by here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109563) when you get the chance.]

Obtaining objective information and applying logic are merely means to subjective ends. Money is the language used to communicate perceptions of value [which are ultimately subjective in nature] and markets are forums in which large groups of people reach a tentative consensus on what the value of goods and services are. In a sense, prices are objective statements about the subjective states of participants in a market.

The statement "Oranges are priced higher than apples" means that, collectively, a particular market values oranges more than apples. That value ultimately equates to the collective opinion of participants in the market.

Not always, but it can be a powerful source of motivation, yes.

I'm willing to argue that motivation is emotive

An interesting assertion; one again apt for ANOTHER thread.

Agreed. I'll get to it as soon as I get the chance :)

We're having a discussion about abortion, not a battle of wits. If you want to play rhetorical games I suggest another forum.

Touché ;)

Because you keep contradicting yourself about "potential".

Not really. You just keep misunderstanding me -- yer not feelin' muh groove.

Oh, no. You're not going to pull that one, Aku. Why would "consciousness" imply "person" ?

Because a person is required for consciousness.

I'd have to look up nihilism more closely. But since you agreed that reason CAN lead to moral decisions without the use of emotion, it sounds pointless to proceed.

A changed moral position/decision reflects a changed emotional perception. Logic is one way to achieve this change; but ultimately that change is subjective in nature.

If you're continuously going to dance from one side of the fence to another about the law I suggest we do not bring that matter up again.

If I remember correctly, it was you who first invoked legal authority. My position has not changed regarding that topic.

Did you create the thread in question ?

Yup! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3562144#post3562144) :)

Then correct me, Aku. Let's see how right you are about this.

Originally, I stated that the basic philosophy behind abortion is the same as that for infanticide and that its preferable to not tread into that philosophical territory . Magenta then argued that since infanticide is not legally acceptable right now this is not a problem. I stated that partial birth abortion [a form of infanticide] actually does occur. Unfortunately, I neglected to mention that it is within current legal bounds.

You then jumped in and said:

Nice goalpost-moving. You were talking about legislation, not illegal activities.

There was no moving of posts.

[I]Edit: Oh, and heres a Wiki article to help get you familiarized with Nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism).

AkuManiMani

25th March 2008, 08:52 PM

With time. Those "emergent" properties HAVEN'T emerged, so they are irrelevant to the discussion. Fiona has been quite clear about this.

[...]

The blueprint is not the house, Aku.

The prenatal phase of human development is not merely a blueprint [tho every cell in the process, from the zygote, onward implicitly contains the basic blueprint]. The prenate is the first room(s) of a house that is a continuous work in progress until the moment of death. The prenate is not merely becoming a person -- it is that person. Anything that comes afterward is just an elaboration on a developmental theme.

To shift to a more apt metaphor, an organism is a complex evolving symphony and each developmental stage is a movement in that musical tapestry. The prenate is the opening movement of the symphony.

Don't kill the music, man. That just ain't cool :cool:

Rasmus

26th March 2008, 01:53 AM

Same thing for babies. Consent, sure.

Not at all.

Performing act A doesn't mean I "consent" to all and any possible consequences. That argument is quite rediculous and I am amazed that it keeps coming up.

If I leave the house, do I "consent" to being run over by a drunk driver, just because it is a possible scenario? No, I do not. I take any number of necessary steps against it, like looking both ways before I cross a road. (And even if I don't, I might well increase my own risk, but I am certainly not consenting!)

Would anyone ever seriously argue that whoever goes skiing does a) consent to breaking their legs and that they should therefore b) refuse medical treatment should the leg actually break? Why, they did consent, didn't they?

Magenta

26th March 2008, 03:21 AM

Now, for why I consider the fetus/embryo as separate from the mother's body. The unborn child is genetically distinct from the mother and, being as such, there are biological mechanisms in place that function to suppress the immune response of the mother to keep her body from rejecting it. If the fetus were infact part of her body there would be no need for such mechanisms. There isn't even any direct contact between the blood streams of the mother and unborn child. The placenta has to act as a biological intermediary between the blood of the mother and child for the exchange of oxygen and nutrients. The fetus is, in every sense, biologically distinct from the mother.

Thank you for clarifying. Even though the fetus is genetically or biologically distinct from the mother, it is still part of her body as long as it is attached via the umbilical cord and placenta, and is dependant solely on her.

As to why I consider the embryo a person, despite the fact there is no apparent sentience at this stage of a person's development, is a bit strait forward [atleast in my personal view]. When we speak of conception we do not say "a nondescript mass of undifferentiated cells were conceived on such-and-such a date" we say "X person was conceived on such-and-such a date". You and I first come into existence as separate and unique biological entities at the moment of our conception. We did not yet have time to develop our sentient awareness, personality, or our other faculties but we were -- we lived. The life of those undifferentiated cells aren't merely linked to the future person yet to come from the womb -- they are that person and their only toe hold of existence in this life. The difference between the mass of cells we call your embryo and the mass of cells that comprise your adult form is a matter of degree rather than kind. Just as the mass of cells in your childhood are you so are the mass of cells of your fetushood; they are the first trickles of the stream of your existence.

As you oppose almost all abortions, I can see why you choose conception as the moment when a "person" comes into being. There's actually quite a large tragedy implied here since about a quarter of these "persons" won't make it past 6 weeks due to miscarriage. Many of them will die without their prospective mother even being aware of it, which seems a strange state of affairs. Do you give the same weight to these casualties as to an aborted fetus?

One cannot watch the development of the cell line of a person's life and say "here then is where the person begins" without looking to that first moment of conception when the first cell of your body began is furious unraveling to form the personality we see to day complete with knowledge, opinions, hopes and dreams. There is no fundamental distinction between the primordial mass of cells supported your mother's amniotic fluid during her pregnancy and the walking talking colony of cells sitting at your keyboard. They are irrevocably and inseparably *you*. To end their biological life is merely ending a potential life, but of the actual living person inherent to that mass of cells. You may argue that an embryo is not a person but, I ask, if not at conception at what point does it become a person? The fact is that there is no non-arbitrary point at which one can say that this happens after the time of conception.

Why not at birth, when the baby is separated from his/her mother's body and takes that first breath? This is the day we celebrate as our birthday, not when conception took place.

Why'd you have to go and make a point that I implicitly agree with? And I was just getting all riled up!

But in all seriousness, if you could sift thru all the other polemical arguments in my post, you'll find that I do support better contraceptive measures and the need for planned parenthood. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is the moral responsibility of any potential parent. Where I differ from your position is that I consider the cat to be already out of the bag, so to speak, once the child is conceived.

Although I profoundly disagree with your views on the relative rights of the mother and fetus, I do have a better understanding of why you hold them.

Belz...

26th March 2008, 04:58 AM

I was talking specifically about instances where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother and there is no available option but to end the pregnancy. In such an instance if the pregnancy isn't ended both the mother and fetus will die; if it is terminated the mother lives but loses her baby.

Well, then you ignored a very plausible scenario in which sacrificing the mother for the child's survival is ANOTHER option. Which life would be forfeit, then ?

Okay, sorry for the mix up. Its apparent that we think and view the world very differently from each other.

Yeah, that tends to happen. Don't you just hate it ? I wish everybody was exactly like me ! :D

Obtaining objective information and applying logic are merely means to subjective ends.

Well, sure. But when society as a whole makes decisions, I wouldn't call it "subjective" since the end result tends to cancel out subjective considerations, like in science.

The statement "Oranges are priced higher than apples" means that, collectively, a particular market values oranges more than apples. That value ultimately equates to the collective opinion of participants in the market.

I agree, but the fact of the matter is, since we're talking about society as a collection of individuals, we're no longer strictly subjective, because it's a fact that oranges are worth more.

I'm willing to argue that motivation is emotive

Well, that's another discussion, for sure. I'd bet an AI would have motivation, but that's too much of a derail for our purposes.

Not really. You just keep misunderstanding me -- yer not feelin' muh groove.

Well, you say that the zygote has emergent properties but it's obvious that it doesn't have any of the characteristics of a human until much, much later. All it has is a cell and DNA. Much like a house for which you only have the plans and the workers. As long as the house isn't well into construction, it doesn't have the emergent properties of a house and certainly can't be called a house. Now, foetuses are homo sapiens, but I don't think we can call them a person.

Because a person is required for consciousness.

Actually, I'd think it's the other way around, but hey!

A changed moral position/decision reflects a changed emotional perception. Logic is one way to achieve this change; but ultimately that change is subjective in nature.

Subjective, but not necessarily emotive. Thank you. I do believe we are in agreement.

Magenta then argued that since infanticide is not legally acceptable right now this is not a problem. I stated that partial birth abortion [a form of infanticide] actually does occur. Unfortunately, I neglected to mention that it is within current legal bounds.

It doesn't follow that one leads to the other, though. That some people kill babies doesn't mean infanticide would become legal if abortion were legal until birth.

There was no moving of posts.

Well, I was under the impression that you said those murders were illegal, which I do believe they were. How were they legal ?

Belz...

26th March 2008, 04:59 AM

Not at all.

Performing act A doesn't mean I "consent" to all and any possible consequences. That argument is quite rediculous and I am amazed that it keeps coming up.

If I leave the house, do I "consent" to being run over by a drunk driver, just because it is a possible scenario? No, I do not. I take any number of necessary steps against it, like looking both ways before I cross a road. (And even if I don't, I might well increase my own risk, but I am certainly not consenting!)

Would anyone ever seriously argue that whoever goes skiing does a) consent to breaking their legs and that they should therefore b) refuse medical treatment should the leg actually break? Why, they did consent, didn't they?

Nice quote mining, there. Read the rest of my paragraph.

AkuManiMani

26th March 2008, 08:10 AM

Thank you for clarifying. Even though the fetus is genetically or biologically distinct from the mother, it is still part of her body as long as it is attached via the umbilical cord and placenta, and is dependant solely on her.

We both recognize this biological dependence. But where you look at it and see entitlement I look at it and see obligation. Our two differing views are contingent upon the identity we place on the prenate.

As you oppose almost all abortions, I can see why you choose conception as the moment when a "person" comes into being. There's actually quite a large tragedy implied here since about a quarter of these "persons" won't make it past 6 weeks due to miscarriage. Many of them will die without their prospective mother even being aware of it, which seems a strange state of affairs. Do you give the same weight to these casualties as to an aborted fetus?

I view them all as unfortunate just as the mother often views it as such. As I mentioned earlier, a pregnant mother who miscarries is often emotionally distraught and views it as the loss of her child. In such cases the death is merely a tragedy with no direct moral implication.

Why not at birth, when the baby is separated from his/her mother's body and takes that first breath? This is the day we celebrate as our birthday, not when conception took place.

Some cultures recognize conception as the beginning of a person's life. If one is only granted personhood on the basis of physical location [inside or outside of a womb] the value of a person's life is very cheap indeed. Just out of curiousity; what is your personal view of partial birth abortion (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html)?

Although I profoundly disagree with your views on the relative rights of the mother and fetus, I do have a better understanding of why you hold them.

Good. We can be friends now :)

martu

26th March 2008, 09:14 AM

AkuManiMani could you please answer my hypothetical, child or petri dish? Thanks.

AkuManiMani

26th March 2008, 09:20 AM

AkuManiMani could you please answer my hypothetical, child or petri dish? Thanks.

[Being as how I already answered your hypothetical I'm just going to dick with you for as long as you insist that I answer it.]

Well of course I would not choose a petri dish over a child. If the contents of the petri dish were equivalent to a child I would have to flip a coin. If the contents of the dish were *my* child I would pick it over the other.

martu

26th March 2008, 09:41 AM

[Being as how I already answered your hypothetical I'm just going to dick with you for as long as you insist that I answer it.]

Apologies I missed it, you are taking on a few. Please be a dick:

Well of course I would not choose a petri dish over a child. If the contents of the petri dish were equivalent to a child I would have to flip a coin. If the contents of the dish were *my* child I would pick it over the other.

And you did. Well done.

This is consistent though damn scary if I'm honest.

I'll (ungracefully) bow out of this as I think you are mentally ill.

AkuManiMani

26th March 2008, 11:53 AM

I'll (ungracefully) bow out of this as I think you are mentally ill.

As I, you.

We've a lot in common...Lets be friends... *cackles madly*

Belz...

26th March 2008, 12:08 PM

You'd pick your petri dish over somebody else's newborn ???

Belz...

26th March 2008, 12:14 PM

Say, Aku, did you miss my previous post in our discussion (#302) ?

AkuManiMani

26th March 2008, 12:41 PM

You'd pick your petri dish over somebody else's newborn ???

I recommend that you re-read post #306 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3563510&postcount=306) for an explanation. Apparently, martu isn't very swift on the uptake, if you know what I mean...

AkuManiMani

26th March 2008, 12:42 PM

Say, Aku, did you miss my previous post in our discussion (#302) ?

Ah, I'll write up a reply to it as soon as I have time. Right now I've IRL matters to attend to :)

Safe-Keeper

26th March 2008, 02:10 PM

Just out of curiousity; what is your personal view of partial birth abortion (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html)?What is it with anti-abortionists and partial-birth abortion? And what is it with links that basically go 'OMG look @ how disgusting parchul-birth abortion r, wtf!!!!11'?

Do some actual research into partial-birth abortion, particularly the reasons for carrying out the procedure. Your stance in my eyes currently amounts of 'Eeew, gross! Ban!'

AkuManiMani

26th March 2008, 07:36 PM

What is it with anti-abortionists and partial-birth abortion? And what is it with links that basically go 'OMG look @ how disgusting parchul-birth abortion r, wtf!!!!11'?

Do some actual research into partial-birth abortion, particularly the reasons for carrying out the procedure. Your stance in my eyes currently amounts of 'Eeew, gross! Ban!'

Erm...You're kidding me, right..?

Are you actually saying the the only reason to object to the brutal murder of a fully formed baby is gross-out factor? You need some f****** help, dude.

AkuManiMani

26th March 2008, 07:53 PM

Well, then you ignored a very plausible scenario in which sacrificing the mother for the child's survival is ANOTHER option. Which life would be forfeit, then?

I'm not aware of any plausible scenarios where it is necessary to kill a pregnant mother to save the unborn child. While I don' thin such a scenario is realistic it would be the mother's decision as to whether or not she is willing to sacrifice her life for the child -- tho there is the issue of whether or not she the only adult capable of raising it, etc.

Yeah, that tends to happen. Don't you just hate it ? I wish everybody was exactly like me ! :D

We've a potential agent Smith on our hands! :eek:

Well, sure. But when society as a whole makes decisions, I wouldn't call it "subjective" since the end result tends to cancel out subjective considerations, like in science.

[...]

I agree, but the fact of the matter is, since we're talking about society as a collection of individuals, we're no longer strictly subjective, because it's a fact that oranges are worth more.

[...]

Well, that's another discussion, for sure. I'd bet an AI would have motivation, but that's too much of a derail for our purposes.

So as not to derail Kahalachan's thread any further than we already have I think it would be best if we continued this particular discussion on the other thread I started.

Well, you say that the zygote has emergent properties but it's obvious that it doesn't have any of the characteristics of a human until much, much later. All it has is a cell and DNA. Much like a house for which you only have the plans and the workers. As long as the house isn't well into construction, it doesn't have the emergent properties of a house and certainly can't be called a house. Now, foetuses are homo sapiens, but I don't think we can call them a person.

Never actually said anything about the zygote having expressed adult traits. I recommend you read here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3562082&postcount=299) for a more detailed response .

Subjective, but not necessarily emotive. Thank you. I do believe we are in agreement.

Moral positions are emotive. But again, 'nuther thread material.

It doesn't follow that one leads to the other, though. That some people kill babies doesn't mean infanticide would become legal if abortion were legal until birth.

The legal emancipation of the slaves was the ethical and legal prerequisite to the civil rights movement. Tho legal abortion does not have make the transition to legal infanticide it is a step in that direction.

Well, I was under the impression that you said those murders were illegal, which I do believe they were. How were they legal ?

There is essentially no real difference between PB abortion and infanticide yet it is legal.

aries

27th March 2008, 03:38 AM

I won't say that abortion is immoral. And I'm not an atheist nor I am a fundie.

I think abortion should be legal, safe and to be carried out at the women's request.

However, I do have some serius issues with the fact that in the US you can get an abortion until the 24th week of the pregnancy. In Denmark, the limit is 12 weeks. The limit is set for pure medicinal purposes, I think, as it has been proven that before the 13th or 14th week of the pregnancy, the fetus cannot live outside the womb.

And, yes, I also think that this is privacy issue and that the state, regardless of which state we're talking about, should not make this decision for the women. It must always be the woman's own decision if she wants to have an abortion or not...

Rasmus

27th March 2008, 03:41 AM

Nice quote mining, there. Read the rest of my paragraph.

I did.

I wasn't really commenting on your point as on the whole idea that having sex would imply consent to giving birth.

Safe-Keeper

27th March 2008, 04:08 AM

Are you actually saying the the only reason to object to the brutal murder of a fully formed baby is gross-out factor?No, I'm replying to how you used the gross-out factor as the only reason you objected partial-birth abortion. If you want to truly address the procedure, you'll have to read up on the reasons behind it and tell us why they're not viable arguments.
The legal emancipation of the slaves was the ethical and legal prerequisite to the civil rights movement. Tho legal abortion does not have make the transition to legal infanticide it is a step in that direction.It is still a slippery slope. Abortions have happened for thousands of years. Infanticide is still not legal.

Belz...

27th March 2008, 04:24 AM

Erm...You're kidding me, right..?

Are you actually saying the the only reason to object to the brutal murder of a fully formed baby is gross-out factor? You need some f****** help, dude.

Aku, might I suggest that calling people who disagree with you insane at every turn is a sure-fire way to look insane, yourself ?

Belz...

27th March 2008, 04:29 AM

I'm not aware of any plausible scenarios where it is necessary to kill a pregnant mother to save the unborn child.

:rolleyes: Sure, Aku. That's what I meant. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that I meant that you could only SAVE one or the other, not that you had to KILL one. Sheesh.

While I don' thin such a scenario is realistic it would be the mother's decision as to whether or not she is willing to sacrifice her life for the child -- tho there is the issue of whether or not she the only adult capable of raising it, etc.

I think she should be entitled to decide whether she wants to keep her own life or not.

Never actually said anything about the zygote having expressed adult traits.

Well, you said that it had all the emergent properties of a human, which is clearly not the case.

Tho legal abortion does not have make the transition to legal infanticide it is a step in that direction.

I still don't understand why you think so. Aside from the slipperly slope fallacy, I mean.

There is essentially no real difference between PB abortion and infanticide yet it is legal.

"Essentially no real difference" is your opinion, again. Again, you do not have monopoly on morality, and your interpretation of this topic can be wrong, you know.

Belz...

27th March 2008, 04:30 AM

I did.

I wasn't really commenting on your point as on the whole idea that having sex would imply consent to giving birth.

Well, having sex implies knowledge that you CAN get pregnant, and implies consent about getting pregnant, but it doesn't follow that the consent is permanent. What I meant was that she can change her mind about it.

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 06:30 AM

No, I'm replying to how you used the gross-out factor as the only reason you objected partial-birth abortion. If you want to truly address the procedure, you'll have to read up on the reasons behind it and tell us why they're not viable arguments.
It is still a slippery slope.

How was I "using" the gross-out factor? I provided a link detailing the steps of the procedure and what it entails. Was there anything inaccurate concerning the details listed? The fact is, the procedure pretty much vilifies itself. Theres something deeply wrong with a person to whom I have to argue why the killing of an infant is wrong -- regardless of how it is carried out. Should someone exhibiting photos of Auschwitz and the details of it's operation "read up on the reasons behind it and tell us why they're not viable arguments"? Are you daft?

Do the details of the procedure actually gross you out? What would it matter whether or not you found the method gross if it still results in the death of a healthy, fully formed infant, and in such a brutal manner at that? Do I have to break it down for you why such a procedure is wrong?

If you're so gun-ho for the procedure why don't you make the supporting arguments for it. Explain to me why its okay to kill a fully formed baby when its ready for birth and I'll give you a rationalization for murder.

Slippery slope indeed... You're making this too easy.

Abortions have happened for thousands of years. Infanticide is still not legal.

What does it matter how many millennial it was practiced for? We're discussing legal precedent not antiquity of practice. Abortion hasn't been legal in the United States for "thousands of years" so it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. And if you don't see that partial birth abortion is legalized infanticide then I'm afraid you probably cannot be helped.

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 06:33 AM

Well, having sex implies knowledge that you CAN get pregnant, and implies consent about getting pregnant, but it doesn't follow that the consent is permanent. What I meant was that she can change her mind about it.

How would that be any different from her "changing her mind" after the child is born? Does she have the right to put the child down if she decides she doesn't feel like raising it or going thru all the trouble or finding a decent guardian for it?

Rasmus

27th March 2008, 06:45 AM

Well, having sex implies knowledge that you CAN get pregnant, and implies consent about getting pregnant,

I still wouldn't call that "consent". It's accepting a risk, but that is something different.

but it doesn't follow that the consent is permanent. What I meant was that she can change her mind about it.

Yes, definitely.
Especially since abortions are a potential options to go about changing your mind just as a cask is an option to do something about a broken leg that came about when one of the risks of skiing materialized.

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 06:55 AM

:rolleyes: Sure, Aku. That's what I meant. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that I meant that you could only SAVE one or the other, not that you had to KILL one. Sheesh.

Belz, there are plenty of scenarios where a pregnancy seriously endangers the life of the mother and the only available solution is the termination of the pregnancy. Depending on what stage the pregnancy is ended, the prenate is killed by the termination.

I think she should be entitled to decide whether she wants to keep her own life or not.

Good. We agree on something.

Well, you said that it had all the emergent properties of a human, which is clearly not the case.

I said that it is an undeveloped human but a human none the less.

I still don't understand why you think so. Aside from the slipperly slope fallacy, I mean.

Belz, you're not using your brain to the fullest...Its an issue of legal precedent. Legalized abortion provides the legal precedent necessary for the possible legalization of infanticide and so on. It does not make that legalization inevitable but it makes it more likely; it's a legal step in that direction. You can call it a "fallacy" all you want but that does not change the fact.

There is essentially no real difference between PB abortion and infanticide yet it is legal.

"Essentially no real difference" is your opinion, again. Again, you do not have monopoly on morality and your interpretation of this topic can be wrong, you know.

Whether or not PB abortion is identical to infanticide is a question of fact, not a question of what I find moral.

in·fan·ti·cide /ɪnˈfæntəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fan-tuh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of killing an infant.

PB abortion is the deliberate killing of an infant. Ipso facto, it is infanticide. Logically, if one finds infanticide morally wrong they must also find PB abortion wrong for the same reasons because it is the same act. The fact that you're willing to justify and equivocate in favor of the procedure is proof enough that you're already headed down the philosophical "slippery slope".

Belz...

27th March 2008, 07:07 AM

I still wouldn't call that "consent". It's accepting a risk, but that is something different.

Agreed.

Belz...

27th March 2008, 07:10 AM

How would that be any different from her "changing her mind" after the child is born?

The child is born.

Belz, there are plenty of scenarios where a pregnancy seriously endangers the life of the mother and the only available solution is the termination of the pregnancy.

I was talking about scenarios where EITHER one or the other could die, depending on the mother's decision. Please understand this.

I said that it is an undeveloped human but a human none the less.

You said that it was a human nonetheless BECAUSE it had those properties, but it DOESN'T have them yet.

Belz, you're not using your brain to the fullest...Its an issue of legal precedent.

I thought we agreed NOT to mention the law, again ?

Whether or not PB abortion is identical to infanticide is a question of fact, not a question of what I find moral.

Ridiculous. A lot of people can find some things identical to one another while other people can disagree. It's not that simple.

PB abortion is the deliberate killing of an infant.

Why do they use a separate term, then ?

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 09:35 AM

How would that be any different from her "changing her mind" after the child is born?

The child is born.

The point is that the rationale, subsequent action, and consequence would be the same; the only difference is the timing and the amount of biological matter to clean up afterwards.

You said that it was a human nonetheless BECAUSE it had those properties, but it DOESN'T have them yet.

I said that it is human because all human properties are inherent to it. A human child does not exhibit all the properties of being an adult human, but it is still human. A human fetus does not exhibit all the properties of being a human child but it is still human. If you kill the individual in question at any stage in their development they are a dead human. I don't see how I could make it any clearer than that.

I thought we agreed NOT to mention the law, again ?

We agreed to no such thing.

It was you who first invoked the law as moral authority and then requested that I not bring it up again after I stated that legal authority was moot if the law in question were wrong. My central point is that the current law concerning abortion is morally incorrect and a step in the wrong ethical direction.

Ridiculous. A lot of people can find some things identical to one another while other people can disagree. It's not that simple.

Don't look down now, Belz, but you're not even standing on a limb; thats open air.

The procedure kills an infant, therefore PB abortion is an infanticidal act. The procedure is legal; therefore it is legal infanticide. Those are objective facts whether one chooses to accept it or not and regardless of the moral position one takes concerning those facts.

PB abortion is the deliberate killing of an infant.

Why do they use a separate term, then ?

Oh, 'cmon, Belz...; I know you're a lot smarter than that :p

Thats a text book instance of equivocation.

The act of killing an infant is infanticide. PB abortion kills an infant. Ergo, it is an instance of infanticide. The label of PB abortion doesn't make it categorically different from infanticide any more than "execution by falling piano" is categorically different from killing.

Safe-Keeper

27th March 2008, 10:35 AM

How was I "using" the gross-out factor?Are you really implying that you were not posting the picture to freak people out, or at the very least to use the gross nature as a 'weapon'? You say yourself that the procedure 'vilifies itself':
The fact is, the procedure pretty much vilifies itself.And it doesn't. You can't point to a procedure and demonize it without first researching the other side.

There's something deeply wrong with a person to whom I have to argue why the killing of an infant is wrong -- regardless of how it is carried out.Is that supposed to add something to the debate, or support your position somewhat? 'Partial-birth abortion is wrong because Safe-Keeper is allegedly mentally ill'? I don't follow.

Should someone exhibiting photos of Auschwitz and the details of it's operation "read up on the reasons behind it and tell us why they're not viable arguments"? Er...:confused: yes? At least when I learned about the Holocaust, we were taught why Hitler carried it out. You can't just throw something in someone's face and go 'x did this to y, now do with that as you will'. I can't just show a picture demonstrating the procedure of capital punishment by electric chair and leave the viewer to demonize it... when I know that if I told them why the people were executed, they might suddenly hold an entirely different view - lots of people support execution of for example murderers.

Would you like it if Norwegian schools taught their kids about the Hiroshima bombing by merely showing pictures of the bomb, telling th kids how many civilians were killed, and then describing what it did to its victims, including descriptions of the burns and the symptoms of radiation sickness? Or are you happy that they explain reason, context and consequences so that the children don't leave the classroom hating the Americans for an event that 'vilifies itself'?

Oh, and nice Godwin:rolleyes:.

What would it matter whether or not you found the method gross if it still results in the death of a healthy, fully formed infant, and in such a brutal manner at that? Do I have to break it down for you why such a procedure is wrong?Appeal to emotion fallacy. Just jumping up and down going 'Wrong! Gross! Wrong!' won't convince me. Talking about the reasons for and against might. Think about it - if somebody told you he thought you were mentally ill for supporting the Hiroshima bombing (if you do), would you appreciate it if he did not bother to understand the context and reasoning? Or would you prefer he actually knew what he was talking about before he started insulting you for not agreeing with him?

Another example:
On 1/1 0000, a fighter jet from the dictatorship of Farlandia shot down a civilian Nearlandia passenger jet with a Farstriker missile. Of 500 passengers , 394 died when the plane crashed, with many of the survivors suffered horrible burns, maiming, broken necks, and other severe injuries. The plane, upon impact, hit a house and killed a kitten.

On 1/1 0000, a fighter jet from the dictatorship of Farlandia shot down a civilian Nearlandia passenger with a Farstriker missile. The passenger jet had been hijacked by Faithist extremists, who were attempting to fly it into one of Farlandia's largest dams. If this operation had been successful, 100 000 people in the town of Damtown would've drowned as the dam burst and the waters flooded the city. Three counties of Farlandia would also be without electricity for months.

Of 500 passengers (this number includes the 14 hijackers), 394 died when the plane crashed, with many of the survivors suffered horrible burns, maiming, broken necks, and other severe injuries. The plane, upon impact, hit a house but fortunately killed nothing but a cat, as the inhabitants of the house were at school, learning about partial-birth abortion.As a citizen of Farlandia, which version would you prefer Nearlandian students be taught?

If you're so gun-ho for the procedure why don't you make the supporting arguments for it.No. You brought up the procedure. You can't just bring up a stance and tell me to do the research for you. Sorry, but that's not going to happen.

What does it matter how many millennial it was practiced for?It matters because if there was such an 'abortion leads to infanticide'-slippery slope, then surely infanticide would be widespread?

I said that it is human because all human properties are inherent to it. A human child does not exhibit all the properties of being an adult human, but it is still human. A human fetus does not exhibit all the properties of being a human child but it is still human.A fetus exhibits nearly none, if any of the properties of being a human. Nor do sperm and egg cells. Do I commit murder when I masturbate? Do women commit murder when they menstruate? After all, the sperm and eggs are well on their way to become humans - the process started when they became egg and sperm cells.

Belz...

27th March 2008, 12:14 PM

The point is that the rationale, subsequent action, and consequence would be the same; the only difference is the timing and the amount of biological matter to clean up afterwards.

The timing is of critical importance, Aku, since the entire point is finding out at what point we consider this biological matter to be a "person".

I said that it is human because all human properties are inherent to it.

What do you mean by "inherent" ? Part of its genetic makeup ? Part of its future ? Certainly not "always present" because it certainly isn't.

A human child does not exhibit all the properties of being an adult human, but it is still human.

Nice try, again. A human child does not exhibit all the properties of being an adult human, and therefore it is not an adult. But since it is a "human" child, obviously it's a human. A foetus does not exhibit all the properties of being a person, and therefore is not a person.

A human fetus does not exhibit all the properties of being a human child but it is still human.

It's homo sapiens, sure. But that's not the question.

It was you who first invoked the law as moral authority

I have never said the law was moral authority. I said that the law was a REFLECTION of social morality, plain and simple. Your contention that it does not make something right might be correct, but it is also irrelevant.

and then requested that I not bring it up again after I stated that legal authority was moot if the law in question were wrong.

I requested so because you keep hand-waving the law as though it means nothing.

My central point is that the current law concerning abortion is morally incorrect and a step in the wrong ethical direction.

That is your opinion that you have been unable to support.

The procedure kills an infant, therefore PB abortion is an infanticidal act. The procedure is legal; therefore it is legal infanticide. Those are objective facts whether one chooses to accept it or not and regardless of the moral position one takes concerning those facts.

Is it abortion or not ? Is the child born or not ?

The act of killing an infant is infanticide. PB abortion kills an infant. Ergo, it is an instance of infanticide. The label of PB abortion doesn't make it categorically different from infanticide any more than "execution by falling piano" is categorically different from killing.

The problem is, there is no such thing as PB abortion. Basically, a foetus is either born, in which case it's now a child, or not, in which case it's not.

There is no in-between. The term is used to make it seem to be something else than late-term abortion. But the foetus is NOT BORN yet. Ergo, still a foetus, albeit a pretty late one. So, contrary to your claim, there IS a very important distinction. That you refuse to make it is largely irrelevant.

Radrook

27th March 2008, 12:46 PM

Here is the way in which the Bible wants us to view the life of an unborn human:

Exodus 21
22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul,22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,[/b].... NWT

This article provides more info along those lines:

Abortion
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

Abortion
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

Radrook

27th March 2008, 12:50 PM

Here is the way in which the Bible wants us to view the life of an unborn human:

Exodus 21
22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul,22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,[/b].... NWT

Notioce that oit makes no distinctions in reference to gestation times:
This article provides more info along those lines:

Abortion
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

Abortion
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

orangenblue2

27th March 2008, 03:39 PM

If you're so gun-ho for the procedure why don't you make the supporting arguments for it.

Interesting thread. Since everyone posting so far hasn't an inkling of real-world experience in the matter, I feel that I have to step in.
First of all, Aku...I don't believe anybody is "gung-ho" for the procedure. By the way, the procedure's actual name is a Dilation & Extraction (D&E). Your continued use of the pro-life, pejorative term, "partial-birth abortion", makes you sound like one of those religio-crazy wackos that try to block access to abortion clinics. On to my story...

Just three weeks ago, my wife and I went to our OB-GYN for a routine mid-term (20 weeks gestational age) ultrasound. We went in as two relatively normal, sane, happily expectant parents. We came out an hour later dazed and scared. You see, our doctor had noticed that the ventricles that carry the spinal fluid around the brain were enlarged. Very enlarged. Without telling us exactly what that meant, she scheduled us for a second opinion and another ultrasound with a Perinatologist, who specializes in high-risk and problem pregnancy. This specialist was three hours away. We made arrangements for our other three children and hit the road. I'd like to say that the travel was easy and light, but it wasn't. Between the tears, I tried to downplay the significance of the abnormal ultrasound, reassure and console my distraught wife, and convince myself that something terrible couldn't be happening to our family again. That's right...again. You see, our beautiful baby girl died shortly after birth in the summer of 2005. If you've never lost a child, you can never know what it is like to live through that.

Back to the present.
On arrival, my wife was given another ultrasound. The Perinatologist's diagnosis was the same. The specialist asked at that time, if termination would be an option. Before I could blink, my wife said no. My wife was next given an amniocentesis. We were scheduled for an MRI the next morning. After a sleepless night at the hotel, we arrived at the hospital for the MRI. The next six hours were a blur, as we were shuttled from doctor to doctor. We had consultations with a Pediatric Neurologist, a Geneticist, and finally, a Neurosurgeon. We were given the news that our baby had a severe form of Hydrocephalus. So severe, that none of the doctors or surgeons could recall a similar case. The MRI films showed an almost complete absence of brain. In addition, a cleft or skull defect was plainly visible and showed that there was indeed a hole in the skull.

Now, I must go on record as revealing that I'm an atheist and I've always been pro-choice. My wife considers herself a Christian, and while not militant, is nominally pro-life. I can't tell you how agonizing, nor could you ever imagine, the decisions we were about to face. Even if the baby could make it to full term, the odds were that it wouldn't survive very long. If by some chance the baby did survive, what quality of life would it have?

My wife and I, as responsible, caring, and loving parents, came to the same tortuous conclusion...termination of the pregnancy. We were put in contact with a clinic in Minnesota. They informed us that due to the measurements of our child's head coupled with the gestational age of our child, they were unable to perform the abortion. We were referred to Dr. George Tiller, in Wichita, KS.

From the first phone call to Dr. Tiller's clinic, we were treated with the utmost care and compassion. Dr. Tiller, his nurses, and office staff were kind and supportive. They deal with tragedies like this every day. During our three day stay in Wichita, we came to know and trust them all. In fact, by the time we left, we felt like we were leaving family. I would never wish these circumstances on anyone, but I'm so very thankful that this wonderful man was there to help us...when nobody else could.

My point in sharing this isn't to change people's minds. Armchair experts abound on all message boards. Emotional words like "kill", "infanticide", "murder", and "partial birth" are meant to shock and wound deeply. All I'd ask is that before you condemn...before you set your opinion in concrete...before you make ridiculous sweeping pronouncements......just walk a mile in our shoes. You might find out some things you didn't know about yourself...

Thanks for listening...Peace

articulett

27th March 2008, 04:10 PM

I have an inkling of the experience... I was a genetic counselor, and the place in Kansas is one of the few that will do late term termination. I agree that the only people who deserve to have any say in the matter are the people involved. I get so angry that this is an issue discussed with holier-than-thou platitudes from people who don't have a clue. I'm glad you dropped by to give the real story. And almost all late term terminations involve a similar situation.

It really isn't anyone else's business-- not lawmakers or self important pundits... this must remain the right of the people involved. Aku, your sanctimonious platitudes would mean that that family would have had to bear and go through the raising and probable early death of a severely damaged child... a child that would take time, money, and resources from their other children... money that society has to pick up when parents cannot... and for what? What kind of life do you think that child would have?

Nature is not perfect. Science has given us tools to make horrific situations less horrific.

Read orangeblue2 and see what he's saying. You don't know the choice you'd make. And there is not a "good" choice. Only hard choices. But at least there are choices.

Magenta

27th March 2008, 04:34 PM

We both recognize this biological dependence. But where you look at it and see entitlement I look at it and see obligation. Our two differing views are contingent upon the identity we place on the prenate.

Yes, I think the fetus is a potential person, and does not have the same rights as the mother, specifically autonomy over her own body and the right to control her reproductive life.

Just out of curiousity; what is your personal view of partial birth abortion (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html)?

I don't think it's a procedure someone would have carried out on a whim…

Investigating a bit further, I see that this is not a medical term but a political term used in the US to describe one type of procedure used in late term abortions.

However, I do have some serius issues with the fact that in the US you can get an abortion until the 24th week of the pregnancy. In Denmark, the limit is 12 weeks. The limit is set for pure medicinal purposes, I think, as it has been proven that before the 13th or 14th week of the pregnancy, the fetus cannot live outside the womb.

I think currently the earliest surviving pre-term babies are around 21 weeks.

Its an issue of legal precedent. Legalized abortion provides the legal precedent necessary for the possible legalization of infanticide and so on. It does not make that legalization inevitable but it makes it more likely; it's a legal step in that direction. You can call it a "fallacy" all you want but that does not change the fact.

A topic for a new thread. I thought the legal precedent for abortion in the US (where I assume you are) was Roe v Wade which was about a constitutional right to privacy. Not sure how you would get from there to legalised infanticide, but I'm not a lawyer.

Here is the way in which the Bible wants us to view the life of an unborn human:

Did you miss the title of this thread?

Interesting thread. Since everyone posting so far hasn't an inkling of real-world experience in the matter, I feel that I have to step in.

[...]

Thanks for listening...Peace

Thank you for giving us such a personal perspective. It's very sad news and must still be very raw for you and your wife.

Fiona

27th March 2008, 04:44 PM

@orangenblue2. I am grateful for your brave contribution to this thread and I am very sorry indeed you have had to go through this horror. I do not wish to co-opt your experience, and I hope you can forgive me if I point Aku to it: for this is the very situation which I meant when we had our disagreement: the threat to the life of the mother is not the only situation which justifies abortion, even for pro-life people; and he has indeed ignored this kind of situation.

Cactus Wren

27th March 2008, 07:06 PM

Catching up:

Congratulations in taking what was a fascinating and reasonable debate on a complex moral issue and returning us to black and white political labeling and strawman bashing that we so know and love.
It was not I who brought up the strawman image of a woman "deciding" to abort at eight months.

What I'm trying to understand is HOW you determine when the child is a human. When he has a full set of genes ? Why this moment, specifically ?Because it is a clear and unambiguous dividing line.
Conception is very far from being either "clear" or "unambiguous".

How can you tell whether conception has taken place without intruding into the body of a woman?

Even a person who has no idea how old he is (think of Crocodile Dundee: ""I asked one of the tribal elders once when I was born. He said, `In the summertime.'") knows that he has been born. There is no point at which you can look at a fetus or infant and say, "Has it been born yet? I can't tell."

Now, look at a woman. All you know about her is that she has had sex seven times in the past three weeks.

Has she conceived? Is there a fertilized ovum in her body? Has it implanted? Twinned? More-than-twinned? Are there several? Are two melding together, to form a single embryo? YOU CAN'T TELL, not without physically intruding into her body.

No, conception is neither "clear" nor "unambiguous".

On the other hand, there's this trivial little incident called "birth". Which, by some coincidence, is the point at which personhood begins in just about every culture in the world.

I said that it would be ethical to terminate the pregnancy of the mother's life were at stake.Thank you. Now, can you tell me why it would be ethical, in your opinion ?In the above scenario the child's life is already forfeit because it is dependent on the life of the mother. It would make no sense to needlessly have two parties die unnecessarily when one can be saved. What makes such an abortion more ethical than in the other scenarios is that more is at stake than simply factors of psychological or economic convenience.
What about heart failure due to unresolved cardiomyopathy of pregnancy? In a second pregnancy that's nearly 100% fatal to the pregnant woman, but not necessarily during the pregnancy.

A woman who will almost certainly die if she doesn't have an abortion.

An embryo/fetus that can almost certainly be saved.

ONE life can be saved: EITHER the woman OR the fetus.

What do you propose we do, sir? How shall we deal with this decision? "Flip a coin"?

I view them all as unfortunate just as the mother often views it as such. As I mentioned earlier, a pregnant mother who miscarries is often emotionally distraught and views it as the loss of her child. In such cases the death is merely a tragedy with no direct moral implication.
This is called prolepsis (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prolepsis): "the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished". Seeing or speaking of a fetus as one's "baby", perceiving a miscarriage is "the loss of her child", is analogous to a person soon to be married speaking of "our wedding", or a small child talking about "my birthday party" a week before his birthday.

Some cultures recognize conception as the beginning of a person's life.Name one.

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 07:10 PM

Interesting thread. Since everyone posting so far hasn't an inkling of real-world experience in the matter, I feel that I have to step in.
First of all, Aku...I don't believe anybody is "gung-ho" for the procedure. By the way, the procedure's actual name is a Dilation & Extraction (D&E). Your continued use of the pro-life, pejorative term, "partial-birth abortion", makes you sound like one of those religio-crazy wackos that try to block access to abortion clinics. On to my story...

{snip}

First off orange, I would like to extend my deepest regret for your tragic loss.

I'm not sure how much of the thread you have been following but my position is not of being against abortion under any circumstance. What I've been arguing against is the unnecessary abortion of viable pregnancies. I've specifically stated that I'm am for abortion if it is for a clear medical reason, and in your tragic case, you had a very dire medical reason to have the procedure carried out.

Again, my condolences :(

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 08:22 PM

Are you really implying that you were not posting the picture to freak people out, or at the very least to use the gross nature as a 'weapon'? You say yourself that the procedure 'vilifies itself':
And it doesn't. You can't point to a procedure and demonize it without first researching the other side.

All I did was point to the procedure and you accuse me of "demonizing" it. Lets go back and review what it was I actually posted:

Just out of curiosity; what is your personal view of partial birth abortion (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html)?

If instead I had posted:

Just out of curiosity; what is your personal view of this pecan pie recipe (http://www.myhomecooking.net/pecan-pie/)?

Would that be a demonization of the baking of pecan pie? Would I have to equivocate for the reasons one might be excused for using the recipe? Of course not, because its perfectly innocuous.

The fact of the matter is that all I did was post a link detailing the actual procedure and and you fly off the handle accusing me of "demonzing" partial birth abortion. Well buddy, if just exhibiting what the procedure actually entails is "demonizing" then I guess there might just be something a lil wrong with it, dontcha think?

Is that supposed to add something to the debate, or support your position somewhat? 'Partial-birth abortion is wrong because Safe-Keeper is allegedly mentally ill'?

No, I consider it wrong for the reasons i explicitly and unabigously presented. The state of Safe-Keeper's mental heath is merely incidental and unfortunate.

I don't follow.

You clearly don't

Should someone exhibiting photos of Auschwitz and the details of it's operation "read up on the reasons behind it and tell us why they're not viable arguments"?

Er...:confused: yes? At least when I learned about the Holocaust, we were taught why Hitler carried it out. You can't just throw something in someone's face and go 'x did this to y, now do with that as you will'. I can't just show a picture demonstrating the procedure of capital punishment by electric chair and leave the viewer to demonize it... when I know that if I told them why the people were executed, they might suddenly hold an entirely different view - lots of people support execution of for example murderers.

First off, even if one did list the rationale behind Nazi's Germany's genocide campaign I'm very certain it wouldn't excuse it in the minds of almost anyone; let alone someone who actually gets to see the product of their rationale first hand.

Secondly, I've also made it very clear -- stated it in almost every post I've made on this thread -- under what conditions I consider an abortion a viable and ethical alternative. I'm quite certain that Magenta is familiar with what her position on PB abortion is; I merely asked her to elaborate on it so that we could discuss that position.

Your "ZOMG! THATS PROPAGANDA!!" response was not necessary.

Would you like it if Norwegian schools taught their kids about the Hiroshima bombing by merely showing pictures of the bomb, telling th kids how many civilians were killed, and then describing what it did to its victims, including descriptions of the burns and the symptoms of radiation sickness? Or are you happy that they explain reason, context and consequences so that the children don't leave the classroom hating the Americans for an event that 'vilifies itself'?

I wasn't explaining the procedure to a child. I was asking an adult what their view on the procedure is. We could discuss the nuances after I found out what that view is.

Appeal to emotion fallacy. Just jumping up and down going 'Wrong! Gross! Wrong!' won't convince me.

What do you call your "ZOMG! CAPZLOK! response to my direct query to another poster? :rolleyes:

Talking about the reasons for and against might.

I have been arguing my reasons for and against. Apparently you'd prefer to simply disregard that fact so you can harp over the alleged insidious propaganda tactics I'm employing against the impressionable minds on the JREF forum :rolleyes:

Think about it - if somebody told you he thought you were mentally ill for supporting the Hiroshima bombing (if you do), would you appreciate it if he did not bother to understand the context and reasoning? Or would you prefer he actually knew what he was talking about before he started insulting you for not agreeing with him?

What do you call someone who accuses you of dishonesty because you asked some else a question?

It matters because if there was such an 'abortion leads to infanticide'-slippery slope, then surely infanticide would be widespread?

Surely, if you had read what I've actually been arguing you'd stop chasing your own shadow. I clearly stated:

"Its an issue of legal precedent. Legalized abortion provides the legal precedent necessary for the possible legalization of infanticide and so on. It does not make that legalization inevitable but it makes it more likely; it's a legal step in that direction."

A fetus exhibits nearly none, if any of the properties of being a human. Nor do sperm and egg cells. Do I commit murder when I masturbate? Do women commit murder when they menstruate? After all, the sperm and eggs are well on their way to become humans - the process started when they became egg and sperm cells.

I've already explained my position (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3562082&postcount=299) repeatedly and why I hold said position.

Since you obviously haven't picked up on that I'll atleast take the time to explain to you why I distinguish a prenate as person and not gametes:

gam·ete /ˈgæmit, gəˈmit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gam-eet, guh-meet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Biology.

a mature sexual reproductive cell, as a sperm or egg, that unites with another cell to form a new organism.

[emphasis added]

The life of a new organism does not begin until it is conceived. Until that point the gametes in question are just germ line cells -- merely part of a parent organism. The moment they become a zygote they are no longer simply part of the parent organism; they've become an entirely new and separate organism. A prenate isn't merely a [I]potential human [as is the case for germline cells] but the first developmental phase of a human in the same way childhood, adolecence, and adulthood are developmental phases of an individual human. A sperm or an egg cell are simply part of a human; the prenate they produce is a new and separate human.

articulett

27th March 2008, 08:32 PM

First off orange, I would like to extend my deepest regret for your tragic loss.

I'm not sure how much of the thread you have been following but my position is not of being against abortion under any circumstance. What I've been arguing against is the unnecessary abortion of viable pregnancies. I've specifically stated that I'm am for abortion if it is for a clear medical reason, and in your tragic case, you had a very dire medical reason to have the procedure carried out.

Again, my condolences :(

But he had the kind of abortion you mentioned...

Nobody has an abortion that late in pregnancy willy-nilly. It's quite a horrific ordeal. But giving birth would cause more suffering for more people for longer. The place they went to in Kansas is one of the only places--if not the only place in the country that will terminate a pregnancy that far along-- so, in all of the United States, for all our advanced health care, a woman in his wife's situation has to travel and come up with the funds for the procedure on top of bad news and mourning and the procedure itself.

Your attitude makes things harder. You are talking about things you don't understand. If we have the technology to know which babies cannot be healthy... then we must offer options. And this option is better than finding out on the baby's "birth day". Because women are healthier, many pregnancies that would spontaneously abort in the past, survive-- we have to make decisions that nature used to make in the days when only the fittest survived. And nature is no friend of humans--particularly not human infants.

Surely you can understand that orange's story is similar to most stories. Those who are not involved should not have a say. Nobody is forcing them to terminate a pregnancy. And you may find yourself in the same situation. Moreover, a handicapped child places a huge strain on a marriage-- most marriages do not survive such a crisis. For the sake of anybody in orange's situation-- you need to reconsider what you are saying and what you hope to accomplish. Your point of view just sounds so "unthought" out.

If you are against abortion--don't have one... and don't put a woman in a situation where she will have one... or prepare to raise any children on your own should anything happen to the mother of your child or should a handicapped child cause your relationship to fail. Don't you see that it's awful enough without the self important people pretending to care about babies?

BTW, every bean and seed is an embryo of a plant or tree made from gametes (pollen and ovules)-- humans have been more than privileged to have so many of their offspring survive... and it's only modern medicine which makes this possible. Nature has always been incredibly cruel and wasteful. We have the power to make things better, and I don't think self appointed moralists are the ones that should be in charge.

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 09:24 PM

The timing is of critical importance, Aku, since the entire point is finding out at what point we consider this biological matter to be a "person".

I've already made my position clear on when that time is and why I consider it to be so. None of my rationale contradict any facts of human developmental biology so it is a tenable position.

I said that it is human because all human properties are inherent to it.

What do you mean by "inherent" ? Part of its genetic makeup ? Part of its future ? Certainly not "always present" because it certainly isn't.

Inherent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inherent)

or

Essential (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essential)

A human child does not exhibit all the properties of being an adult human, but it is still human.

Nice try, again. A human child does not exhibit all the properties of being an adult human, and therefore it is not an adult. But since it is a "human" child, obviously it's a human. A foetus does not exhibit all the properties of being a person, and therefore is not a person.

It posses the fundamental characteristic of being a person:

per·son /ˈpɜrsən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a human
2. a human being as distinguished from another animal or a thing.

A human begins their existence at conception. A human is a person. A person begins at conception. The conceived is a person.

A human fetus does not exhibit all the properties of being a human child but it is still human.

It's homo sapiens, sure. But that's not the question.

Me and Mr.Dictionary disagree with you on that one.

I have never said the law was moral authority. I said that the law was a REFLECTION of social morality, plain and simple. Your contention that it does not make something right might be correct, but it is also irrelevant.

My basic contention is that the law is wrong in its current form. It is not only relevant to this discussion but central to it.

I requested so because you keep hand-waving the law as though it means nothing.

Lets go back to what was originally said, shall we?

Its not a question of the mother's "freedom"; its a question of the fundamental right for her progeny to live.

You are fundamentally incorrect: it is a question of determine which of the two has precedence, and the law says that, before a certain time, the mother's decision has precedence and, after that time, the child's human rights do.

Clearly you invoked the law in question as your supporting argument. Being as how I'm contesting it to begin with and arguing the explicit reasons why I'm contesting it's more than a gross inaccuracy to say that I'm simply "hand-waving" it away.

My central point is that the current law concerning abortion is morally incorrect and a step in the wrong ethical direction.

That is your opinion that you have been unable to support.

I've typed several pages worth of supporting arguments for my position. They don't all disappear because you choose not to accept them.

The procedure kills an infant, therefore PB abortion is an infanticidal act. The procedure is legal; therefore it is legal infanticide. Those are objective facts whether one chooses to accept it or not and regardless of the moral position one takes concerning those facts.

Is it abortion or not ? Is the child born or not ?

The definition of infanticide doesn't specify how or where the infant is killed, just that it is killed. If you have no valid arguments concerning this particular topic I suggest you stop wasting our time with feeble equivocations.

The problem is, there is no such thing as PB abortion. Basically, a foetus is either born, in which case it's now a child, or not, in which case it's not. There is no in-between. The term is used to make it seem to be something else than late-term abortion. But the foetus is NOT BORN yet. Ergo, still a foetus, albeit a pretty late one. So, contrary to your claim, there IS a very important distinction. That you refuse to make it is largely irrelevant.

First off an infant is still an infant whether is in the womb or out of it. Secondly, what you just typed is a steaming pile of bull; you're grasping at straws on this one and you know it. Even if someone were mindless enough to accept that an infant is not an infant just before birth your "truth by technicality" is still semantically incorrect:

in·fant /ˈɪnfənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a child during the earliest period of its life, esp. before he or she can walk; baby.
2. Law. a person who is not of full age, esp. one who has not reached the age of 18 years; a minor.
3. a beginner, as in experience or learning; novice: The new candidate is a political infant.
4. anything in the first stage of existence or progress.

The infant is an infant whether only part or the whole of its body is still in the womb. The procedure kills an infant. The procedure is infanticide. Your point on this one is factually and semantically wrong. Stop tap dancing.

articulett

27th March 2008, 10:05 PM

Whatever an infant is-- he is foremost a part of his mother's body until he can live apart from it. He is a parasite that lives so long as she lets him. Just as you have the right to determine rather you will donate your kidney to save someone's life-- or not... the mother can choose to give the baby life-- or not. Most mothers would instinctively give up their life for their fetus... it takes a lot for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy that is showing. I think we can trust their judgment over your platitudes aku.

What if someone would force you to give up your kidney or bone marrow because you are the only person who could save someone's life. Would you be murdering them if you refused? Who will raise these children that would have/ should have been terminated. Sure there's a market for the healthy white infants... but how many "special needs" kids have you adopted lately?

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 10:12 PM

But he had the kind of abortion you mentioned...

Nobody has an abortion that late in pregnancy willy-nilly. It's quite a horrific ordeal.

It wouldn't be a horrific ordeal if the aborted were just a mass of tissue. I'm failing to understand your doublethink. On one hand you argue that the prenate is not a person but in the next breath you want to argue that the loss of the prenate is traumatic. Why would it be traumatic unless there were the implication that a person's child is being killed?

But giving birth would cause more suffering for more people for longer. The place they went to in Kansas is one of the only places--if not the only place in the country that will terminate a pregnancy that far along-- so, in all of the United States, for all our advanced health care, a woman in his wife's situation has to travel and come up with the funds for the procedure on top of bad news and mourning and the procedure itself.

He and his wife had definite medical reasons for carrying out the procedure. I've already explained dozens of times that I am not against abortion in such scenarios -- the fact that you keep ignoring this is beyond aggravating.

Your attitude makes things harder.

Oh, so every expecting parent takes my personal views into consideration now? You can't be serious.

In such such scenarios the decision is very difficult for the parent precisely because they recognize the prenate as their child. It doesn't become more difficult simply because a person they haven't met happens to agree with them on that fact.

You are talking about things you don't understand. If we have the technology to know which babies cannot be healthy... then we must offer options. And this option is better than finding out on the baby's "birth day". Because women are healthier, many pregnancies that would spontaneously abort in the past, survive-- we have to make decisions that nature used to make in the days when only the fittest survived. And nature is no friend of humans--particularly not human infants.

And you think I'm not already aware of that? :confused:

Surely you can understand that orange's story is similar to most stories.

As I've said dozens of times -- and probably will have to dozens more -- my contention is not, and never has been, with scenarios like orange's.

Those who are not involved should not have a say. Nobody is forcing them to terminate a pregnancy.

Nobody is forcing them not to. That still doesn't change the tragedy of them losing their child.

Moreover, a handicapped child places a huge strain on a marriage-- most marriages do not survive such a crisis. For the sake of anybody in orange's situation-- you need to reconsider what you are saying and what you hope to accomplish. Your point of view just sounds so "unthought" out.

One can get that impression if they don't take the time to listen to what my point of view actually is.

If you are against abortion--don't have one... and don't put a woman in a situation where she will have one...

Why do you feel the need to explain that to me? Do you think that I spent hours of my time discussing this issue merely for sh*ts and giggles...?

or prepare to raise any children on your own should anything happen to the mother of your child or should a handicapped child cause your relationship to fail.

Why the h3LL wouldn't I??

Don't you see that it's awful enough without the self important people pretending to care about babies?

So anyone who has any problem with abortion hates women and babies? Good grief -- are you serious?!?

Oh yea, I forgot that I'm just saying all this because I like psychologically tormenting women. In actuality, I secretly hate babies and want women to kill more of them but my hatred for women actually exceeds my hatred for children so I argue vehemently for the preservation of the lives of children in and out of the womb :rolleyes:

BTW, every bean and seed is an embryo of a plant or tree made from gametes (pollen and ovules)-- humans have been more than privileged to have so many of their offspring survive... and it's only modern medicine which makes this possible. Nature has always been incredibly cruel and wasteful.

This disputes what I've been saying, how?

We have the power to make things better, and I don't think self appointed moralists are the ones that should be in charge.

Self appointed? Does someone have to appoint you to have a moral position? And who the h3LL said anything about being in charge?

I merely argued my view that abortions for anything other that solid medical reasons should be prohibited and all I've gotten from you is constant baseless ad hom from you insulting my personal integrity and accusing me of hating women and children. You'd best look in the mirror, sista'.

AkuManiMani

27th March 2008, 11:20 PM

Whatever an infant is-- he is foremost a part of his mother's body until he can live apart from it. He is a parasite that lives so long as she lets him.

[emphasis added]

I've already demonstrated that a prenate is not part of it's mother's body [279 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3559130&postcount=279)] and established that the child is not in the womb uninvited or of it's own volition. By your reasoning a parent has the right to kill their child as for as long as it is dependent. The parent is morally responsible for the child they created for as long as it is in their care -- especially at it's most vulnerable in the prenatal stage.

[Aside: Just an observation but a psychologist could have a field day with your use of the words "he" and "him" in this context; your forum avatar is even more suggestive considering the context. The reasoning behind your ad hom becomes more apparent...]

Just as you have the right to determine rather you will donate your kidney to save someone's life-- or not... the mother can choose to give the baby life-- or not.

Not this argument again...

Look, if a person is the cause of a person's kidney damage they are personally responsible for making sure that kidney is replaced. A parent is responsible for the prenate precisely because THEY put it in that situation of dependency. There are many arguments you can use in justification for an abortion [such as life endangerment] but this is probably one of the flimsiest you can use.

Most mothers would instinctively give up their life for their fetus... it takes a lot for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy that is showing.

:confused::confused::confused:

Why in the world would they instinctively give their life for the fetus if it were not their child? And if that were the case, then why would so many choose to sacrifice their unborn children even when the pregnancy is viable? If I were truly willing to give my life for someone I wouldn't have them die because their living would be too much of a bother for me.

I think we can trust their judgment over your platitudes aku.

That depends on the woman making the judgment; some mothers are better parents than others.

If the woman will only abort as a last resort to a life-threatening circumstance then I would have to agree with you. If its a woman who claims to be willing to give her life for the fetus but has it killed simply because the prospect of a full term pregnancy is too problematic or the child would be too much of a financial strain when born I would not only question the sincerity of that statement but also her moral judgment.

What if someone would force you to give up your kidney or bone marrow because you are the only person who could save someone's life. Would you be murdering them if you refused?

How could I refuse if I had no choice? I'm being forced [presumably at gunpoint] remember?

And if I were the only person who could donate the marrow I would gladly give it. Now what? Would you? Is the question even relevant?

Who will raise these children that would have/ should have been terminated.

Their inept parents should be but, barring that, their next of kin should be responsible. If there are no living/competent/capable parents or relatives then the child should be put up to be adopted by anyone of thousands of people who dearly want children but can't conceive any.

My position is that if a person does not want to have children they should take every necessary precaution to prevent it; if that fails they are still personally responsible for the life of that child.

Sure there's a market for the healthy white infants... but how many "special needs" kids have you adopted lately?

You've a very irrational and incoherent view of moral obligation. First of all, you haven't explained to me why a complete stranger is responsible for rearing the child but their own parent isn't -- because you can't. No one forced the parent to conceive their child and theres no reason why they wouldn't be obligated to that child. Secondly, if I adopted every unwanted child would you agree that arbitrary abortion is wrong? I don't hold my self morally responsible for every unfortunate child but I DO hold myself responsible for any child that *I* produce. Any child that I elect to raise beyond the realm of my personal responsibility would be at my own personal discretion -- but if I decide to adopt them they would be as good as blood.

Cactus Wren

28th March 2008, 12:56 AM

Look, if a person is the cause of a person's kidney damage they are personally responsible for making sure that kidney is replaced. A parent is responsible for the prenate precisely because THEY put it in that situation of dependency. There are many arguments you can use in justification for an abortion [such as life endangerment] but this is probably one of the flimsiest you can use.

This is a very good point.

If I make a change to your condition, what is my responsibility?

To restore you to your previous condition.

Not to an improved one. Although I may do so if I choose to, I am not responsible to.

If I break your arm by accident, I am responsible for medical care to restore your arm to its previous condition.

I am not, however, required to pay for your violin lessons to make you a concert violinist if you were not a violinist before the accident. I only have to return you to your status quo ante. Similarly, if you're driving a $5000 car and I total it, I'm not required to replace it with a $25,000 car.

If I change someone's status, I am required only to return them to their previous status.

What was the embryo's condition, its status, before it "encountered" the woman?

Nonexistence.

So, her only responsibility is to return it to its status quo ante. Nonexistence.

If she chooses to improve its condition, that's her choice. Just as if I choose to pay for your violin lessons, that's my choice.

But I'm not required to improve your condition beyond what it was before our encounter. I'm not required to leave you better off than before. And nor is she.

Belz...

28th March 2008, 04:36 AM

If you've never lost a child, you can never know what it is like to live through that.

[...]

My wife and I, as responsible, caring, and loving parents, came to the same tortuous conclusion...termination of the pregnancy.

I cannot possibly imagine the anguish you went through, and I hope I never have to go through that hell.

You have my sincerest sympathies.

Belz...

28th March 2008, 04:46 AM

No, I consider it wrong for the reasons i explicitly and unabigously presented. The state of Safe-Keeper's mental heath is merely incidental and unfortunate.

Gosh, I hate it when people are condescending. You do really think you own morality, after all.

First off, even if one did list the rationale behind Nazi's Germany's genocide campaign I'm very certain it wouldn't excuse it in the minds of almost anyone; let alone someone who actually gets to see the product of their rationale first hand.

No, but understanding the reason behind something is crucial, wouldn't you say ?

"Its an issue of legal precedent. Legalized abortion provides the legal precedent necessary for the possible legalization of infanticide and so on. It does not make that legalization inevitable but it makes it more likely; it's a legal step in that direction."

:rolleyes:

Since you obviously haven't picked up on that I'll atleast take the time to explain to you why I distinguish a prenate as person and not gametes:

You distinguish them because the textbook definition is different. How useful.

The life of a new organism does not begin until it is conceived.

Actually, when you get right down to it, life is one continuous process. There is no interruption or start to it. It just goes on. Gametes are alive, and they are a mere continuation of the organisms that gave them birth, and so on. So it's not so clear at all when life starts.

But when you're born, however, is very unambiguous.

Until that point the gametes in question are just germ line cells -- merely part of a parent organism. The moment they become a zygote they are no longer simply part of the parent organism; they've become an entirely new and separate organism.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, now. The foetus is not easily describe as "separate", is it ?

A prenate isn't merely a [I]potential human [as is the case for germline cells] but the first developmental phase of a human in the same way childhood, adolecence, and adulthood are developmental phases of an individual human. A sperm or an egg cell are simply part of a human; the prenate they produce is a new and separate human.

That is another arbitrary distinction. ALL human cells share the same characteristics as a zygote save the sperm and the egg. Are they all "humans" ?

Belz...

28th March 2008, 04:56 AM

I've already made my position clear on when that time is and why I consider it to be so. None of my rationale contradict any facts of human developmental biology so it is a tenable position.

Who cares ? I'm aware it's your opinion. I'm saying that other people have mutually-exclusive opinions on the matter and they are all tenable. You seem to deny this.

Inherent (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inherent)

That's what I said. Zygotes don't have those.

It posses the fundamental characteristic of being a person:

Again, nice quote mining. You forgot these:

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child

Man, woman, child or foetus. No, wait. No mention of those.

4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

Far cry from the embryo, eh ?

A human begins their existence at conception. A human is a person. A person begins at conception. The conceived is a person.

I'm aware of YOUR definition. I'm looking for justifications, not more rhetoric.

Me and Mr.Dictionary disagree with you on that one.

:rolleyes: Crap, you are one arrogant man, aren't you ?

My basic contention is that the law is wrong in its current form. It is not only relevant to this discussion but central to it.

Then you are arguing that your morality is better than everyone else's.

Clearly you invoked the law in question as your supporting argument.

Fine, fine. Believe what you will.

I've typed several pages worth of supporting arguments for my position. They don't all disappear because you choose not to accept them.

You have few supporting arguments but a lot of assumptions.

The definition of infanticide doesn't specify how or where the infant is killed, just that it is killed. If you have no valid arguments concerning this particular topic I suggest you stop wasting our time with feeble equivocations.

Aku, now you're being completely irrational. Late-term abortions do not kill infants because THEY ARE STILL FOETUSES. Ergo, you CANNOT say it is infanticide. You've just decided to redefine "infant" to mean what you want it to mean.

First off an infant is still an infant whether is in the womb or out of it.

See ? Tell me, at what point does it stop being a foetus and becomes an infant, now ?

Secondly, what you just typed is a steaming pile of bull; you're grasping at straws on this one and you know it.

I certainly don't. Do you honestly think I'd waste my time saying things I don't believe ? A child is either born or not, and if he's NOT born he's not an infant yet and ergo still a foetus.

The infant is an infant whether only part or the whole of its body is still in the womb. The procedure kills an infant. The procedure is infanticide. Your point on this one is factually and semantically wrong. Stop tap dancing.

Aku, you are a fanatic, not a rationalist.

If the definition you just gave is correct, then a zygote is an infant and therefore ANY abortion is infanticide. If that's true then your entire line of argument is retarded because abortions CANNOT lead to infanticide: THEY ARE infanticide.

Make up your mind and stop trying to be right at all costs, including making up your own English language.

Belz...

28th March 2008, 05:00 AM

[Aside: Just an observation but a psychologist could have a field day with your use of the words "he" and "him" in this context; your forum avatar is even more suggestive considering the context. The reasoning behind your ad hom becomes more apparent...]

You're losing credibility by the minute. How insulting can you get ?

Ichneumonwasp

28th March 2008, 05:27 AM

I've already demonstrated that a prenate is not part of it's mother's body [279 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3559130&postcount=279)] and established that the child is not in the womb uninvited or of it's own volition. By your reasoning a parent has the right to kill their child as for as long as it is dependent. The parent is morally responsible for the child they created for as long as it is in their care -- especially at it's most vulnerable in the prenatal stage.

Dude, I'm sorry, but that was a biologically naive argument and smacks of a rationalization. There is no "you" without a host of genetically disimilar organisms that are part of the colony that make up 'your body'. We can pretend that we are some genetically distinct entity that is made of two sets of DNA instructions, but that is really just a polite fiction. Our structure is symbiotic to its very core -- and I mean that literally, since every eukaryotic cell in your body is a colony. The only situation in which we do not live with other organisms (SCID) requires incredible maneuvers so that the kids can survive. Those kids don't really have an immune system. Are they no one?

The argument from the immune system is simply untenable. Does this mean that all autoimmune diseases result from 'not you' -- the thyroid gland in Grave's disease is not the person's who has the disease?

We speak of 'you' and 'not you' when it comes to the immune system, but this is only for ease of explanation -- it isn't meant to be taken absolutely literally. Granted, there is great truth to it, but it is not a means of absolutely reliable demonstration of 'you' and 'not you', which for purposes of this sort of discussion are conventions.

As for the distinctness of the baby's and mother's circulatory systems: first, this system develops over time. It is not in place from the instant of implantation (this is a minor point because it develops very quickly). Second, and more importantly, this can never be used as a valid argument to determine 'you' and 'not you'. The nervous tissue in our brains is separated from our circulatory system by a barrier (with notable exceptions) -- the only way that our brains can function in the way that they do. Does this mean that our brains are 'not us'?

I apologize if this has already been covered since I haven't been following that closely.

martu

28th March 2008, 05:51 AM

This is a very good point.

If I make a change to your condition, what is my responsibility?

To restore you to your previous condition.

Not to an improved one. Although I may do so if I choose to, I am not responsible to.

If I break your arm by accident, I am responsible for medical care to restore your arm to its previous condition.

I am not, however, required to pay for your violin lessons to make you a concert violinist if you were not a violinist before the accident. I only have to return you to your status quo ante. Similarly, if you're driving a $5000 car and I total it, I'm not required to replace it with a $25,000 car.

If I change someone's status, I am required only to return them to their previous status.

What was the embryo's condition, its status, before it "encountered" the woman?

Nonexistence.

So, her only responsibility is to return it to its status quo ante. Nonexistence.

If she chooses to improve its condition, that's her choice. Just as if I choose to pay for your violin lessons, that's my choice.

But I'm not required to improve your condition beyond what it was before our encounter. I'm not required to leave you better off than before. And nor is she.

Well put.

martu

28th March 2008, 06:15 AM

Dude, I'm sorry, but that was a biologically naive argument and smacks of a rationalization. There is no "you" without a host of genetically disimilar organisms that are part of the colony that make up 'your body'. We can pretend that we are some genetically distinct entity that is made of two sets of DNA instructions, but that is really just a polite fiction. Our structure is symbiotic to its very core -- and I mean that literally, since every eukaryotic cell in your body is a colony. The only situation in which we do not live with other organisms (SCID) requires incredible maneuvers so that the kids can survive. Those kids don't really have an immune system. Are they no one?

The argument from the immune system is simply untenable. Does this mean that all autoimmune diseases result from 'not you' -- the thyroid gland in Grave's disease is not the person's who has the disease?

We speak of 'you' and 'not you' when it comes to the immune system, but this is only for ease of explanation -- it isn't meant to be taken absolutely literally. Granted, there is great truth to it, but it is not a means of absolutely reliable demonstration of 'you' and 'not you', which for purposes of this sort of discussion are conventions.

As for the distinctness of the baby's and mother's circulatory systems: first, this system develops over time. It is not in place from the instant of implantation (this is a minor point because it develops very quickly). Second, and more importantly, this can never be used as a valid argument to determine 'you' and 'not you'. The nervous tissue in our brains is separated from our circulatory system by a barrier (with notable exceptions) -- the only way that our brains can function in the way that they do. Does this mean that our brains are 'not us'?

Yes spot on.

The only viable reasons to oppose abortion are religious reasons in my opinion. I do not agree with them but I understand where they're coming from, if you believe in souls for example it makes logical sense.

The Independent (UK paper) had embryo research on it's front page this week A clump of cells? Or a living being with a soul? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-clump-of-cells-or-a-living-being-with-a-soul-800583.html) and though it's not abortions it's the same discussion, how we treat embryos. As you can see from the headline they clearly see it as souls v non-souls too.

Safe-Keeper

28th March 2008, 08:45 AM

Exodus 21
22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul,22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,[/b].... NWTForcing a miscarriage by brawling is not abortion.

Safe-Keeper

28th March 2008, 08:53 AM

Doublepost. Sorry.

Radrook

28th March 2008, 09:13 AM

Forcing a miscarriage by brawling is not abortion.

I used the example to show how God views life in the womb regardless of its developmental stage as opposed to how many humans view life in the womb.

Safe-Keeper

28th March 2008, 09:19 AM

First of all, orangeblue, thank you for your insightful post. I'm sorry you had to go through that and I appreciate you taking the effort and courage to contribute to the discussion with your post. Take care.

http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3553525#post3553525) I said that it would be ethical to terminate the pregnancy of the mother's life were at stake. But you call others mentally ill when we do (read: 'partial-birth abortion'). See, this is why I urged you to read up on the procedure before demonizing it and the people who supported a woman's right to carry it out. Now you know.

[Aside: Just an observation but a psychologist could have a field day with your use of the words "he" and "him" in this context; your forum avatar is even more suggestive considering the context. The reasoning behind your ad hom becomes more apparent...]I think any psychologist who came within ten miles of this thread would be too disturbed by how you diagnose people with mental illnesses left and right to care about the sociological reasons for people to use the male gender as the 'default' when discussing hypothetical people.

Why in the world would they instinctively give their life for the fetus if it were not their child? And if that were the case, then why would so many choose to sacrifice their unborn children even when the pregnancy is viable? If I were truly willing to give my life for someone I wouldn't have them die because their living would be too much of a bother for me.You are of the mistaken impression that abortion is something that's carried out lightly. It isn't. Having an abortion is a mental burden and causes depression in a significant number of would-be mothers.

You've a very irrational and incoherent view of moral obligation. First of all, you haven't explained to me why a complete stranger is responsible for rearing the child but their own parent isn't -- because you can't.By all means. Preach how much you care about the innocent, sacred little babies... then sit on your lazy butt and do nothing to help them.

I have an adopted cousin, Aku. I'm very, very glad for her sake that she was born and adopted instead of being aborted. My family donates money to the Norwegian Red Cross, which in turn distributes free condoms and offers free sex education and awareness programs. What have you done? What actions are you taking to save the lives of these incredibly cute little fetuses that need saving?

It's amazing how so many abortion haters sooo want the little innocous, all-important fetuses to live... and then turn around down the 'it's a complete stranger, why am I obligated' trail once asked what he does. You fit the 'Conservative Christian' in this comic (http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050330.htm) so well it's almost amusing.

martu

28th March 2008, 09:54 AM

I used the example to show how God views life in the womb regardless of its developmental stage as opposed to how many humans view life in the womb.

So why does she allow so many to die? Miscarriage in early pregnancy is very common.

Cactus Wren

28th March 2008, 09:58 AM

You're losing credibility by the minute. How insulting can you get ?

And if Articulett had referred to the z/e/f as "it", don't you suspect that Aku would have complained that she was dehumanizing or depersonalizing it?

martu

28th March 2008, 09:59 AM

orangeblue thank you for sharing that with us, my best wishes to you and your family.

Safe-Keeper

28th March 2008, 10:28 AM

On the somehow off-topic tangent I find myself on with Radrook: is there a thread out there already on whether or not the Bible handles abortion, or should I create one? I feel it would be counter-productive to discuss Scripture in a secular arguments thread.

Fiona

28th March 2008, 11:06 AM

The only time I consider it an ethical option is when its a matter of life and death

I clearly stated earlier that it is morally acceptable if the pregnancy put the life of the mother [and by extension the child] at stake.

Belz:I remember. Are there other circumstances ?

AkuManiMani: I can think of none at the moment.

IMO, the choice of the mother to abort her unborn child for any reasons other than life and death is a betrayal to the live she created.

I said that it would be ethical to terminate the pregnancy of the mother's life were at stake.

there is nothing that distinguishes late term and partial birth abortion from infanticide.

In the above scenario the child's life is already forfeit because it is dependent on the life of the mother. It would make no sense to needlessly have two parties die unnecessarily when one can be saved.

Some would, certainly. Some are forced to abort wanted foetuses too, but you persist in ignoring this

I ignored no such thing. As Mark Twain would say: "Thats a damn lie". I repeatedly stated that the condition in which I would consider abortion an ethical option is if the mother's life were at risk because of the pregnancy. The fact that I have said this several times and you claim that I've ignored it is evidence that you're either not paying attention to what I've actually said or you're deliberately being dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've just made an honest mistake.

You did ignore it. You ignored the fact that that there are other circumstances in which people are forced to abort wanted foetuses, apart from risk to the mother's life. Hokulele showed how complex these things can be and so did Orangenblue. I was not dishonest and I was not mistaken. Does that log in your eye hurt much ?

Ichneumonwasp

28th March 2008, 12:47 PM

Whoa.

Orangenblue2, I only just read your story. So sorry. No words.

Bob Blaylock

28th March 2008, 01:09 PM

The only viable reasons to oppose abortion are religious reasons in my opinion. I do not agree with them but I understand where they're coming from, if you believe in souls for example it makes logical sense.

Would you say the same about genocide, or slavery? They are the same thing as abortion, really — taking some subset of humanity, denying them the status of human beings, and thus denying them the rights to which one might otherwise agree that all human beings are entitled.

Fiona

28th March 2008, 01:38 PM

AkuManiMani

28th March 2008, 01:59 PM

Gosh, I hate it when people are condescending. You do really think you own morality, after all.

No. It's merely that I don't change my moral position merely because someone else's differs from my own. My morality is my own and I prefer it over others because I perceive it as more correct that others. If I perceive another moral position as different but of equal weight to my own I grant it the due I feel it should be given. Just because you are fundamentally opposed to someone else's moral position does no mean that you think you "own morality".

No, but understanding the reason behind something is crucial, wouldn't you say ?

I'm already aware of what reasons there are for the procedure and which I consider acceptable justifications for the procedure. I was merely asking Magenta what her view on it was so we could discuss it further. I can't argue for or against her position if I don't know what it is.

You distinguish them because the textbook definition is different. How useful.

I distinguish them by their distinguishing characteristics. Whether the textbook definition happens to agree with me is incidental.

Actually, when you get right down to it, life is one continuous process. There is no interruption or start to it. It just goes on. Gametes are alive, and they are a mere continuation of the organisms that gave them birth, and so on. So it's not so clear at all when life starts.

Of course life is a continuous process. But that does not mean that your life is identical to that of your mother or father. You are distinct from them as an individual the moment you're conceived.

But when you're born, however, is very unambiguous.

So because a fully formed infant has not emerged from the womb yet its a different entity? You're not making any sense on this on, Belz.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, now. The foetus is not easily describe as "separate", is it ?

It couldn't be said to be dependent if it weren't separate and we couldn't talk of it being a fetus if we didn't distinguish it from the mother.

That is another arbitrary distinction. ALL human cells share the same characteristics as a zygote save the sperm and the egg. Are they all "humans" ?

The somatic and germ cells of an multicellular organism belong to that organism -- they are part of that organism. A cheek cell or sperm cell is part of a pysical person; the cell line of a prenate is the entirety of a physical person.

AkuManiMani

28th March 2008, 02:33 PM

Who cares ? I'm aware it's your opinion. I'm saying that other people have mutually-exclusive opinions on the matter and they are all tenable. You seem to deny this.

[emphasis added]

As a matter of fact I said from the get go that this discussion is, at its core, subjective. It was you who explicitly denied that fact.

That's what I said. Zygotes don't have those.

That is not what you said. If a zygote does not have inherent characteristics it would not only be unable to develop, but it also would not exist.

Again, nice quote mining. You forgot these:

Man, woman, child or foetus. No, wait. No mention of [fetuses].

Far cry from the embryo, eh ?

O Rly?

child /tʃaɪld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chahyld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. >>>a human fetus.<<<
5. a childish person: He's such a child about money.
6. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed.
7. any person or thing regarded as the product or result of particular agencies, influences, etc.: Abstract art is a child of the 20th century.
8. a person regarded as conditioned or marked by a given circumstance, situation, etc.: a child of poverty; a child of famine.

S-S-say wot, now?

I'm aware of YOUR definition. I'm looking for justifications, not more rhetoric.

I have provided plenty of justifications and supporting arguments for my position-- you simply do not like them and choose not to accept them based upon your own strongly held opinions. Too bad.

:rolleyes: Crap, you are one arrogant man, aren't you ?

So I'd stop being "arrogant" if I simply agreed with you? Sorry for not hand wringing and cow-towing to your every word :rolleyes:

[FYI, I'm not arrogant. I'm simply cursed with the tact of a 5 yearold :p]

Then you are arguing that your morality is better than everyone else's.

No, just yours.

Fine, fine. Believe what you will.

I'm glad I have your permission to hold my own views, m'lord.

You have few supporting arguments but a lot of assumptions.

You have few supporting arguments but a lot of assumptions.

See, I can do it to. :p

Aku, now you're being completely irrational. Late-term abortions do not kill infants because THEY ARE STILL FOETUSES. Ergo, you CANNOT say it is infanticide. You've just decided to redefine "infant" to mean what you want it to mean.

See ? Tell me, at what point does it stop being a foetus and becomes an infant, now ?

Tell me at what point a label changes the nature of the entity it's labeling . If you live in your home county you're called a "native" if you move to another country you're call an "expat". Whether someone kills you under either title you're still a dead man. An infant in the womb or just out of it is still biologically the same, and if it is killed inside or outside of the womb it is still the same dead entity.

Again, you're at odds with both fact and the english language (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child). You just adamantly refuse to concede on this one, dontchat? While I admire your determination this is getting more than a little cringe worthy.

I certainly don't. Do you honestly think I'd waste my time saying things I don't believe ? A child is either born or not, and if he's NOT born he's not an infant yet and ergo still a foetus.

All fetuses are infants (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infant). Not all infants are fetuses.

Aku, you are a fanatic, not a rationalist.

I'm rationally defending my logically tenable position. While your position may or may not be tenable, your current line of argument is factually wrong and logically incoherent. I suggest you rethink who the fanatic is in this case.

If the definition you just gave is correct, then a zygote is an infant and therefore ANY abortion is infanticide.

DING! DING! DING! You're finally catching on

If that's true then your entire line of argument is retarded because abortions CANNOT lead to infanticide: THEY ARE infanticide.

Well hows about that. I'm even more right than I thought. Thank you, Belz! :)

Make up your mind and stop trying to be right at all costs, including making up your own English language.

You're too kind. While I appreciate your recognition of my linguistic skills, the authorship of the English dictionary cannot be attributed to me. It was already there since before I was even born. I'm simply in agreement with it, is all.

You're losing credibility by the minute. How insulting can you get ?

Oh, I get it. Everyone gets a free pass to personally insult me but if I retaliate I lose credibility. Very rational and fair minded of you, Belz.

AkuManiMani

28th March 2008, 02:45 PM

Would you say the same about genocide, or slavery? They are the same thing as abortion, really — taking some subset of humanity, denying them the status of human beings, and thus denying them the rights to which one might otherwise agree that all human beings are entitled.

If you object to slavery then why do you think it is ok to take control of someone else's body for your own purposes? Denying abortions is just the same as slavery, really - taking some subset of humanity and denying them the status of human beings, and thus denying them the rights to which one might otherwise agree that all human beings are entitled

So is a restraining order slavery and dehumanizing to the the person under that restraint?

Also, I'm still waiting for you answer to my earlier hypothetical:

You've come to find out that some temporal anomaly threatens to change the past and among these changes would be that your mother would adamantly insist that she terminate her pregnancy of you. You have no way of undoing the anomaly. Your only recourse is to travel back in time and convince your mother not to abort you or you will die. The problem is she doesn't believe you're her future child and thinks you're just a loony pro-life nut and refuses to change her mind. Would you do everything in your power to get her to carry you to term or would you allow her to abort you?

Also, in trying to prevent your own abortion, would you be "dehumanizing" your mother?

orangenblue2

28th March 2008, 03:10 PM

Thanks to all for the kind words. I didn't post that for the sympathy, rather, I posted because I lived it; and I wanted to put a personal story behind what everyone was talking about. I suppose that there is some cathartic value in sharing, however the main purpose was to illustrate that abortion, and more specifically late-term abortion, isn't some abstract event that can be summed up in black and white terms. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of shades of gray. There are literally hundreds, nay thousands, of couples who face or will face the unbelievably sad and difficult decision that we did. As in most tragic events in life, it is only the ones who've actually lived it, that can understand.

It is very short-sighted to cling to absolutes. For example, despite Aku's genuine condolences, I would suspect that in Aku's world of definitions, my wife and I "murdered" our child. I can assure you, neither of us feels that way. On the contrary, I loved my unborn child too much to let her live a short while or be born with defects so profoundly connected to any quality of life. I realize that Aku has said that he supports abortion in cases like ours. IMO, the problems arise, when people feel that they can arbitrarily say "Yes, this is justified" and "No, you are committing infanticide". I would hope that Aku would extend the same courtesy to anyone facing such a difficult decision, as he did to me. Contrary to what the rabid pro-lifers and armchair moralists would have you believe, abortion isn't a flippant decision made on a whim. Oh, I suppose that you could find some cases of women who have made a habit out of it, but I'd surmise that they would be few and far between. The vast majority of abortion procedures are first trimester. Second trimester numbers come next, and third trimester a distant last. These last two seem to be the ones that pro-lifers and the moral police have such a hard time with. If you believed the pro-life propaganda, you would think that all of these very pregnant ladies were having abortions willy-nilly...and thats just not the case.

Thats my two cents anyway...Peace

articulett

28th March 2008, 03:24 PM

Fiona

28th March 2008, 03:44 PM

Also, in trying to prevent your own abortion, would you be "dehumanizing" your mother?

I wouldn't try to prevent my own abortion. Why would I do that?:confused:

articulett

28th March 2008, 04:24 PM

I counseled a Mormon Family who was supposedly against abortion... they had an amniocentesis because of elevated levels of a particular hormone. The fetus came back as a male with Klinefelter syndrome. (XXY). Now, Klinefelters males are feminized and have some learning disabilities and social problems-- and they are sterile. But they are not recognizable as "different at birth", and it's often not until puberty when the male parts don't grow that a diagnosis is made. They are fairly normal. But the family terminated.

The father sounded like Aku and Bob Baylock beforehand... and when I read their words, I think of him. I think some people ought to be very glad not be in such a situation and ashamed lest they find themselves sitting in judgment of themselves in a similar situation--or their mates or loved ones. Simple minded folks have these things happen to them too. So do the holier-than-thou.

There are several sex chromosome abnormalities, but it's the one's that lead to sterility that people are more likely to terminate. And when there are other kids, then you have to consider whether you may be unduly burdening them by bringing a child into the world that will take time and resources from them-- a child they may have to care for after the parents die.

articulett

28th March 2008, 04:27 PM

Yes, aku... none of us "chose" to be born. It happened to us. And most of us won't "choose" to die but that will happen to us too. Most of us will have loved ones die in our lives too, with or without our consent. We don't choose our parents or our weaknesses or the shape and condition of our bodies. We are dealt assorted cards and we play the hand we are dealt.

AkuManiMani

28th March 2008, 06:41 PM

Akumanimani

People are insulting you because you show no capacity for empathy while imagining yourself as having empathy for a being that cannot even feel. You come across as clueless, sexist, holier than thou-- and lacking in a basic understanding of the issues. You are blinded to how obnoxious you sound and how righteous you seem to imagine yourself with every breath.

At the risk of a derail I'll try to address your points.

While I understand why you may get that impression people aren't always what they seem. I don't think I'm superior to any of you; I just think that I'm right & you're incorrect and I don't care to hide that fact or sugarcoat it. If thats a crime then crucify me now and get it over with. Like I've said before, tact isn't exactly my strong point. I've always been brutally candid about what I perceive and what I think. Unfortunately, this causes many people to oppose my position even if they would normally agree with it. So yea, I'm well aware of the fact that I often rub people the wrong way and they assume that I mean them ill-will or that I'm some evil bogey man. But you see the thing is -- and I hate to admit it --I really..really...don't care. Personal fault of mine. Nobody's perfect.

You just seems so hypocritical-- like someone no one would want to be around or discuss depthful issues with. You are passing judgment on a poster who shared his history, and you show not an iota of empathy or understanding. We empathize with him.

I do empathize with his situation. I'm not condemning him nor his wife. Nor does that fact cause me to change anything I've said. Do you even know what my position is, really? Because if you did you wouldn't have said what you just did. Or does that even matter to you? Maybe you just prefer to cast your personal demons on to me so you have an excuse to vent. Go ahead then. Scream, yell, name call -- get it all out of your system.

It's a tragic situation. It would be more tragic to give birth to a severely brain damaged child. What benefit could possibly come from that? What if the child was vegetative and died a slow, expensive death without ever having much "life"... Why would you think you have a right to comment on such a thing. Why wouldn't it be the family involved who has the say?

What in the world does that have to do with anything I've said? :confused::confused:

Nobody would wish that tragedy on anyone... and instead of showing understanding, you just come across as judgmental. And yet we know that you might very well choose a similar route for your own family--especially if there were other children involved. How horrible that you think it's okay to opine on this subject and try to take away these rights from others. Nobody cares what you think. Nobody is looking to you for moral advice.

I'm not here giving anyone moral advice. This is an open forum where people come to express, discuss, and debate differing points of view. If you haven't noticed, we just so happen to be having a discussion about a moral issue. Being human beings, we all have moral positions and inevitably there will be some differences. Its not a crime for me to participate with views different from your own.

My view is that arbitrary abortion is morally wrong -- simple as that. If you don't like me because of that thats its your own affair but don't sit there and accuse me of self-righteousness while completely ignoring the the fact that you're personally attacking people just because they disagree with you. Not only is your melodramatic soapboxing completely irrelevant to the topic at hand but you're using it as a platform to make baseless ad hom attacks. I dunno exactly whats goin on in that head of yours but I ain't the one who wronged you.

You haven't demonstrated the depth of personality to even grasp the complexity of the issue.

I can't believe I'm actually hearing that from you of all people. You haven't even shown the maturity to have a casual debate about this issue without acting like an emotional vindictive basket case. Belz manages to disagree with me using logic and argues rationally without acting like a psychjob. Fiona makes poignant observations and articulates thoughtful arguments. All I've gotten from you so far is irrelevant bile. You accuse me of self-righteousness while all you've done is make direct personal attacks on any and everyone here who disagrees with you. Like I said before, all you've done is act like a gender obsessed fem-nazi with an axe to grind -- so don't you dare lecture me about depth of personality.

After you've donated your kidney or bone marrow to save a life, then maybe we could take your claims a little more seriously--but armchair moralizing--

What the hell is it that you think you're doing right now??? Best take care of the gigantic pulsating tumor on your own face before you go picking at a mole on mine.

Spare us all, please.

Irony, much?

Thabiguy

28th March 2008, 06:55 PM

To begin with, I'd like to say that I don't have a strong opinion on abortion; I am pretty much content with current legislation in my country of residence (which is not the USA), and I won't get into a debate about abortion in general.

But, as late as I am to the discussion, I feel compelled to speak up against an argument that I find particularly flawed. And that is Fiona's argument of "someone else using a woman's body".

But if I did believe it was a human being then it has no right to use another's body against that other's will. I have said this from the start.

Fiona, I believe that the central idea of your argument is wrong. People do have rights to use another person's body against their will, if circumstances require that.

You have argued that if a child needs a transplant to survive and the parent is the only person who can provide the organ, they are neither legally nor morally required to do that. That much is true. But you have ignored other variations on the same scenario that invalidate your argument. For example: if my child is hungry or thirsty, I am morally and legally required to get my precious ass off the couch and provide my child with food and water - yes, I am actually forced to use my body to do that, even if it is not my will. If I don't do that, I will be criminally prosecuted. If I am in a business meeting and I learn that my child has knocked over a piece of furniture at home and is lying there trapped and bleeding, I am morally and legally required to leave the meeting immediately and go help my child - yes, I am actually forced to use my precious body to do that, even if it is against my will. If I fail to do so, I will be criminally prosecuted.

And it needn't be my own child - if I knock down a pedestrian with my car, and fail to get out of the car and use my precious arms and hands to help them, I will be criminally prosecuted. If a drowning person grabs my leg as I sit on the edge of a boat, and I shake them off screaming "don't you dare use my body" and they drown, I will be criminally prosecuted.

And it doesn't even help if it's consensual. Let's say that I and my girlfriend decide to spice things up a little; with her consent, I bind her hands and legs and put her into a bathtub full of water. In order for her to survive, I now have to put my head in the water and breathe into her mouth. Weird, admittedly, but let's say she likes that and it really turns her on. - Can I then, after a minute, change my mind and say, "oh, I agreed to this originally, but now I no longer feel like putting my head in the water all the time"? No, of course not. And it doesn't matter that I might prefer to take a nap, or do something else with my body. If I stop breathing into her mouth and she drowns, I will be criminally prosecuted.

Whenever you find yourself in a situation where another person's survival is immediately dependent on you either performing or avoiding a reasonable action, you are both morally and legally required to perform or avoid that action - even if it is against your will and even if it involves your body (after all, which action doesn't involve one's body?). Citing examples of unreasonable actions (such as providing organs for a transplant, or, for example, flying off to Africa and personally feeding a starving child) does not make the case that carrying a child to birth is an unreasonable action.

You have said, Fiona, that losing the freedom to do whatever I like with my body is depriving me of personhood. That is, of course, patent nonsense. Let's say I would very much like to do a particular thing with my body - grab a loaded gun in my hand, place it against my neighbor's forehead, and pull the trigger. Too bad: I am both morally and legally restricted from doing that thing - and millions and millions of other things that I might love to do with my body. Does that deprive me of personhood? Does it make me a slave? Hogwash. I am restricted in my rights and freedoms whenever they interfere with rights and freedoms of others, and rightly so.

If a late term unborn child were considered a person, and if a woman finds herself in a situation where there is a person inside her body, I would find it perfectly moral that she be required to carry that child. If she didn't want to find herself in a situation where another person depends on her for survival, she has had plenty of opportunities to avoid it - she could have used protection, she could have had an early abortion, etc. At the point where a person depends on her, she would have no more right to "change her mind" than I have the right to change my mind about my girlfriend, stop breathing into her mouth, leave the room and call the police to get her thrown out of my house. If I do that and she dies, I'll go to jail, quite regardless of my intentions or excuses.

Now, you may argue (as you in fact do) that an unborn child is not a person. And then I have little to say. If the unborn child is not considered a person (this is in fact the case in my country) and does not have the right to live, then the above doesn't really matter. What I disagree with is your argument that even if it were a person, it wouldn't have a moral or legal right to use your body against your will. My opinion, detailed above, is - oh yes, it would.

(Disclaimer: I have based this post on the legal situation in my country. I am not that familiar with laws in other countries, for example the USA. Nevertheless, I feel that this deals more with general morality than with specific legal loopholes.)

Cactus Wren

28th March 2008, 07:43 PM

You have argued that if a child needs a transplant to survive and the parent is the only person who can provide the organ, they are neither legally nor morally required to do that. That much is true. But you have ignored other variations on the same scenario that invalidate your argument. For example: if my child is hungry or thirsty, I am morally and legally required to get my precious ass off the couch and provide my child with food and water - yes, I am actually forced to use my body to do that, even if it is not my will. If I don't do that, I will be criminally prosecuted.

False.

If your child is hungry or thirsty, you are morally and legally required to see that your child is provided with food or water. You can, as you say, "get {your} precious ass off the couch" and provide it. Or you can allow your spouse to do it, or your sibling or parent, or your child's sibling, or a hireling (what's commonly called a "babysitter"), or an employee of your state's foster-care system, or an adoptive parent. ANYONE can provide your child with food and water and care.

You can ask someone to provide your child's care, you can hire someone, you can place your child for adoption -- and you most assuredly will not be "criminally prosecuted". In fact, in some circumstances you can put your child down in a strange place and walk away, and not be "criminally prosecuted" or even liable (Google "safe haven law").

articulett

28th March 2008, 07:44 PM

Thabiguy

28th March 2008, 07:56 PM

If your child is hungry or thirsty, you are morally and legally required to see that your child is provided with food or water.

You are correct, but sidestepping the point I made. If you read my post, you will find other examples of situations where you, personally, are forced by law to let another person use your body, unless you want to be criminally prosecuted. And it needn't even be your child or someone you care for.

articulett

28th March 2008, 08:12 PM

I just notice that guys who talk like you seem to change their mind when they find out their infant has Klinefelter syndrome. Now, this isn't even that big a deal... you'd never know if not for amniocentesis. In genetic counseling there was concern over whether we should tell people about this because macho men who though women were horrible to have abortions seemed all too eager to abort their babies when they were found to have this abnormality.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/klinefelter_syndrome.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter's_syndrome

And most latter abortions are much, much more significantly impaired infants or a threat to the mother. All the talk from the anti-abortion men exhibits a weird sort of sexism to me-- they see women more as objects... and they don't want their sons to have any feminine characteristics or to be sterile.

Thabiguy

28th March 2008, 08:15 PM

But thabiguy... others could serve in your place if you didn't or couldn't-- and they do. People can adopt unwanted children (they tend to just prefer the healthy white ones, but there is a surplus of adoptable children that don't fit those categories.) Moreover, most kids become self sufficient with time once they are no longer neonates...

I do not see the relevance of this to the argument that I made - specifically, that you may be required by law to use your body for someone else's benefit under the threat of criminal prosecution, which invalidates Fiona's argument that such use is indefensible.

The law cannot compel you to donate your bone marrow, for instance, for someone else-- even if you are the only suitable match and the person will die without it.

The law cannot compel you to donate your bone marrow, or to use your life savings to keep someone else alive, or to go out in the streets, find a person about to commit suicide and save them - there are many unreasonable things that the law doesn't require you to do, in order to save someone's life. On the other hand, it can and does compel you to do some things that are reasonable. I have mentioned several examples of those in my post.

You cannot force a person to use their body to keep another person alive. Parents can be charged with neglect... but they cannot be forced to give up a body part to save the life of their child.

Yes. Giving up a body part could hardly be considered a reasonable effort. - What you have not done is shown that carrying one's child to birth is unreasonable effort, or shown how giving birth is in any way like giving up a body part.

It isn't just the care, quality of life of the child, the other family members, and the cost of health care and raising a child-- it's the womans body-- your laws would beliefs would compel a woman to give birth to a baby that cannot survive--but will die over a matter of days or weeks as the family watches... unable to do anything. Find out what the life of an anecephalic infant is like. The parents cannot even donate the babies perfectly formed organs to save another life... they have to let the baby die "naturally"... the baby has no brain... just a brain stem... it cannot survive... but it can be born. What you are asking of people is just so cruel and inhumane... you just do not have the capacity to understand and I feel sorry for any woman who would have to deal with that along with your moralizing...

If you think I have been moralizing, I am inclined to believe that you have misread or miscomprehended my post. Perhaps you have only skimmed it and automatically tagged me "pro-life", assigning to me various ideas I have never mentioned or implied.

If you have comments about my actual argument (that it is not always true that another person doesn't have the right to use your body against your will, as Fiona claimed), I'd like to hear them. If you prefer emotional and moral appeals that have nothing to do with what I said, good for you, but don't expect me to respond.

Until you have adopted a special needs child and used your time, resources, and money to raise one and/or given up a part of your body to prolong a life-- you really aren't in a position to have an opinion worth respecting. It's like a priest giving marital advice, frankly. Pontificate all you want-- and hope you are never put in a position where your hypocrisy is revealed.

That's good to know. When you have something to say about my actual argument (that it is not always true that another person doesn't have the right to use your body against your will), let me know.

Magenta

28th March 2008, 08:23 PM

You are correct, but sidestepping the point I made. If you read my post, you will find other examples of situations where you, personally, are forced by law to let another person use your body, unless you want to be criminally prosecuted. And it needn't even be your child or someone you care for.

I'm having difficulty seeing how rendering assistance at the scene of an accident is "using my body" in the same sense as carrying a pregnancy to term. Depending on the circumstances of the accident, all that I might be able, or indeed required, to do might be calling for emergency assistance and not leaving the scene.

Thabiguy

28th March 2008, 09:24 PM

I'm having difficulty seeing how rendering assistance at the scene of an accident is "using my body" in the same sense as carrying a pregnancy to term. Depending on the circumstances of the accident, all that I might be able, or indeed required, to do might be calling for emergency assistance and not leaving the scene.

Yes. That would be a specific use of your body that may very well be against your will - you may have hoped to continue driving to a friend's birthday party - but is required from you by law.

The essence of what you say seems to be that carrying a child to birth is a different kind of "use of one's body" than other actions that the law might require you to take (even though these actions may sometimes be pretty complex, as the example with the girlfriend in the bathtub shows). I.e. if an unborn child were a person, then carrying the child to birth would be an unreasonable effort to save the child's life. But that still remains to be shown. Mere "I don't like things moving around in my uterus" is not enough. I may very well hate it when people cling to my leg as I sit on my boat - but I am still legally prohibited from kicking away a drowning person. We are not entirely free to follow our whims when another person's life is at stake.

If the pregnancy presents a hazard to the mother's health, the grounds for refusing it would be pretty obvious. But if it doesn't, I need arguments why it is unreasonable effort. What I say is that saying "because it's my womb and I don't want to" is not sufficient, just as "because it's my mouth and I don't want to" would not be a valid excuse for deciding to stop breathing into my girlfriend's mouth and letting her drown.

(Remainder: all of this assumes that an unborn child is a person. If it is not, the whole issue becomes irrelevant. See my original post.)

hodgy

28th March 2008, 09:26 PM

Here is a justification of abortion (quoted from this thread):

If you have two kids and find out the next one has Trisomy 13-- you are bringing a burden into your family that will affect the lives of your healthy kids. And kids with this disorder rarely live past their first birthday. It's only advances in health care which makes them able to be born at all.

Let's see you go and adopt the next Trisomy 13 baby left in state care... OR let's see if you don't change your mind about abortion when a women you impregnate finds out she's carrying a child with Down Syndrome. Or Batten Syndrome. Would you raise the child by yourself if she couldn't bear dealing with the situation? Many of these kids are abandoned.

There are other variations on this theme expressed here. I think they are right, BUT, does every contributor really believe that these special cases justify a general principle that it is ok to destroy unborn children at a Mother's whim?

Do special cases of suffering or hardship provide a general moral excuse for the arbitrary destruction of children? I do not think so.

I am also an atheist.

articulett

28th March 2008, 09:53 PM

The point is, who is better to decide--

The woman or you guys?

And pregnancy is more taxing than bone marrow donation or a kidney donation. Late term abortions are almost always due to situations you guys haven't got a clue abort. And what good can come of forcing people to have babies they do not want--that they cannot care for? A child should not be a punishment... not every life is worth living. Not every life is worth sacrificing for. It's up to the one making the sacrifice to choose. It's not an easy choice-- just because you can look at pregnancy as "no big deal" or you think a child is the price people must pay for unprotected sex or whatever your reasoning is-- or just because you wouldn't have one-- doesn't mean you have a right to make that decision for others. To me, it's like little kids telling grown ups what to do.

Or people telling those who wish to have euthanasia that they cannot--

The moral police are welcome to refrain from these actions-- but they are not in a position to make a decision for anybody else. You know what, cats born with their guts on the outside or anal atresia are given a peaceful death so they don't have to suffer... Life is full of these sorts of thorny issues... and your feelings about the issue do nothing to solve the problem.

You are free to have your opinions... but, to me, it just makes you sound clueless and judgmental. Perhaps you've impregnated a woman who has had an abortion, but didn't feel she could tell you she was pregnant because of your demeanor. You don't stop anybody from doing anything with your platitudes-- you just keep people from sharing their issues with you. It would be like me pontificating about circumcision... or an unmarried priest giving marital advice.

Magenta

28th March 2008, 10:43 PM

Yes. That would be a specific use of your body that may very well be against your will - you may have hoped to continue driving to a friend's birthday party - but is required from you by law.

The essence of what you say seems to be that carrying a child to birth is a different kind of "use of one's body" than other actions that the law might require you to take (even though these actions may sometimes be pretty complex, as the example with the girlfriend in the bathtub shows). I.e. if an unborn child were a person, then carrying the child to birth would be an unreasonable effort to save the child's life. But that still remains to be shown. Mere "I don't like things moving around in my uterus" is not enough. I may very well hate it when people cling to my leg as I sit on my boat - but I am still legally prohibited from kicking away a drowning person.

You're using "using your body" in an idiosyncratic way. What is required of you in an emergency situation is to take some kind of action. That could mean anything from hauling someone out of harm's way to simply calling 000 and waiting for assistance. Unless you have telekinetic powers it'll require some physical action, but it's not the same thing as having the right to autonomy over your own body or the choice over whether to reproduce or not, overruled by some dubious moral authority.

We are not entirely free to follow our whims when another person's life is at stake.

What is it with some men and equating the decision to abort with "following our whims"?

If the pregnancy presents a hazard to the mother's health, the grounds for refusing it would be pretty obvious. But if it doesn't, I need arguments why it is unreasonable effort. What I say is that saying "because it's my womb and I don't want to" is not sufficient, just as "because it's my mouth and I don't want to" would not be a valid excuse for deciding to stop breathing into my girlfriend's mouth and letting her drown.

There have been plenty of arguments for abortion given throughout this thread. I don't have the energy or enthusiasm to go over them again.

I'm not going anywhere near your "girlfriend in the bathtub" scenario…

(Remainder: all of this assumes that an unborn child is a person. If it is not, the whole issue becomes irrelevant. See my original post.)

That actually was Fiona's main argument:

No this is not true. I do not agree that a foetus is a human being: so far so good. But if I did believe it was a human being then it has no right to use another's body against that other's will. I have said this from the start. I do not particularly appreciate your attempt to co-opt me in this way.

Radrook

28th March 2008, 10:44 PM

So why does she allow so many to die? Miscarriage in early pregnancy is very common.

Well, that is an entirely different subject so in order not to deviate the thread I will answer it briefly. The present situation is tolerated due to issues raised in Eden but not approved and not a permanent one.

Revelation 21:4
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

However, while this situation persists he wants us to treat unborn human life with respect.

BTW

The biblical God is described as male. It's like my calling Venus "he" or Thor or Jupiter "she".
You would quickly bring it to my attention-correct?

Thabiguy

28th March 2008, 11:13 PM

You're using "using your body" in an idiosyncratic way. What is required of you in an emergency situation is to take some kind of action. That could mean anything from hauling someone out of harm's way to simply calling 000 and waiting for assistance. Unless you have telekinetic powers it'll require some physical action, but it's not the same thing as having the right to autonomy over your own body or the choice over whether to reproduce or not, overruled by some dubious moral authority.

We are straying away from the argument. If it makes you feel better, I support the right to the choice over whether to reproduce or not.

The original argument was: even if an unborn child was a real person, they wouldn't have a right to use your body against your will, because nobody has that right. I say that is wrong, and I say that people can have a right to use your body against your will. If you want another clear example, here you go: if I start strangling you, you will have full right not just to use my body against my will, but to quite thoroughly abuse it, in order to preserve your life and health.

What does that have to do with abortion, you ask? Nothing! Just like, in my opinion, Fiona's argument has nothing meaningful to do with abortion. But it clearly demonstrates that it is simply not true that people do not have a right to use your body against your will. Which is the substance of my contention against Fiona's argument. Is it becoming clearer?

What is it with men equating the decision to abort with "following our whims"?

What is it with people equating hypothetical scenarios meant to illustrate invalidity of an argument with "the decision to abort"?

ETA: Also, what is it with all the ad hominems in these debates? I always thought that a discussion should address the substance of arguments, and not the personal characteristics of those making them. But in these abortion and circumcision threads, it's all "men/women are not qualified to have a valid opinion, or present valid arguments". Oh, goodie.

There have been plenty of arguments for abortion given throughout this thread. I don't have the energy or enthusiasm to go over them again.

I have never questioned those arguments, nor have I questioned women's right to choose to abort. If you must know, I actually support that right.

What I did was challenge one very specific argument as flawed. Please keep up.

That actually was Fiona's main argument:

And if you had read my original post carefully, you would have known that I explicitly acknowledged that she argues that, and that I said that as long as an unborn child is not considered a person, I have little to say.

Once again, what I disagree with is the argument that even if the unborn child was a person, they wouldn't have the right to use your body against your will. This is an argument that Fiona also specifically made, and that I find incorrect. That's why I pointed that out.

Sheesh.

Bob Blaylock

28th March 2008, 11:30 PM

If you object to slavery then why do you think it is ok to take control of someone else's body for your own purposes?

The person who you repeatedly accuse of “tak[i] control of someone else's body for [his] own purposes” is an innocent child; the fact of his existence, and the fact of his dependence on his mother's body is entirely a consequence of choices made by his mother and his father, with him having no say and no choice at all in the matter.

How is it that you think there can be any justification in killing this innocent child, simply because his existence is so inconvenient to his mother?

Denying abortions is just the same as slavery, really - taking some subset of humanity and denying them the status of human beings, and thus denying them the rights to which one might otherwise agree that all human beings are entitled

Now that's just absurd. Among the rights to which all human beings are entitled, there is not any right to be completely immune to the consequences and responsibilities that come from the choices that we make. The choice to engage in sexual union carries with it the possibility that one may, as a consequence, become responsible for the life of a new human being. This new human being did not choose to be brought into existence; nor did he have any choice in the circumstances required for his survival.

ceo_esq

29th March 2008, 12:46 AM

And pregnancy is more taxing than bone marrow donation or a kidney donation.

I'm not sure why this is particularly relevant. From an ethical standpoint, the relationship between a potential donor and donee, as such, is not very analogous to the relationship between an unborn child and its mother.

Not every life is worth sacrificing for. It's up to the one making the sacrifice to choose.

As jurist James Bohan has put it:

The problem with the argument reduced to this level is that it can be turned on its head. If it is wrong to sacrifice one person on behalf of another, then it is also wrong to sacrifice the unborn on behalf of the woman. In either case, one person will be used as a means to benefit the other. The question is, which of the two will be used less – the woman who has to live through the pregnancy, or the unborn who will not?

ceo_esq

29th March 2008, 01:05 AM

But if I did believe it was a human being then it has no right to use another's body against that other's will. I have said this from the start.

This argument can also be turned around. The mother may not (let's assume) have given the unborn child the right to use her body, but then the child has not given the mother the right to sacrifice him or her. Moreover, as between the two, the mother is more likely to be responsible for bringing the pair to this impasse, and also (generally speaking) at less risk of harm. Should the impasse, as a rule, be resolved in favor of the mother?

Fiona

29th March 2008, 01:30 AM

@Thabiguy. As Magenta has said, you are using the phrase " using someone else's body" in an odd way. It is curious that Aku has also chosen to conflate different senses of words to support his argument more than once: it suggests that we perhaps need to be clearer in our definitions.

None of the hypotheticals you have presented are comparable, because as Ich said earlier, and Magenta has also said here, they do not require you to give up the autonomy of your own body directly to another. It is very hard for some people to grasp the enormity of that. I do not know why it is hard, but it clearly is. And to some extent I think that is why this debate gets very heated. So I ask you and others to truly try to imagine what that means. Can you accept that your nonchalance in dismissing that as in some way unimportant is apt to make women furious, and that this results in some of the anger which you then say devalues the view they put forward?

Let me try to make this plain yet again: Aku has already argued again and again that this is a moral question; and he says that this is both subjective and emotional. I agree to some extent, though I think he overvalues that. I do not know if you agree with him but I think it is reasonable to suppose for a moment that you do.

If that is conceded then there is no final answer to this question. There is only the moral conclusion of the people involved. Often in this debate, and again in your post, though I am sure it is not what you intend, there is an assumption that the woman making the decision is in some way "light minded", unlike you. You are perfectly sure that carrying the foetus to term cannot be characterised as "unreasonable effort", but that forced organ donation is (in this connection bear in mind that Aku does not agree with you so this is not self-evident either - again it is a moral question). The point here is that it is not your decision to take. You cannot know what informs the woman's decison and what is more you have no right to know. She has considered the moral questions just as you have. She has reached a conclusion, just as you have. What is it that you think gives you the right to use her body for your purposes? Because that is what we are talking about. The foetus does not have that right because it is not a human right: but in one sense that is secondary. Denying the right to abortion is saying that YOU have the right to use her body to further YOUR moral conclusions. And I cannot see any argument at all in favour of that. This is why I say it is predicated on a view of women which denies their humanity: you effectively enslave a person to support a moral stance which is no better than her own, and CANNOT be any better.

Kahalachan

29th March 2008, 01:34 AM

Orangeblue,

I can understand this must've been a painful experience. And definitely one where I can say "It's a shame human life must be killed, but warranted."

I think this is one issue of seeing this as a black and white, binary logic issue. It's not always moral and not always immoral.

Edit:

Someone brought up bone marrow transplants in order to save a fetus. I would gladly give up parts of my body to save a human life. The point is, I want to have a choice on the matter. I shouldn't be forced to because as a moral being, I would gladly do it willingly.

This is the choice we should give women, provided the fetus is not conscious and at the 3rd trimester, in order to choose to be moral agents.

Fiona

29th March 2008, 03:03 AM

The person who you repeatedly accuse of “tak[i] control of someone else's body for [his] own purposes” is an innocent child; the fact of his existence, and the fact of his dependence on his mother's body is entirely a consequence of choices made by his mother and his father, with him having no say and no choice at all in the matter.

In the first place it is not a child.
But even if I were to accept it was human, then it is using someone else's body, and that is not a human right: however it is not the one taking control of that body: indeed it could not since it cannot act: The ones taking control of the woman's body are the other people who seek to deny her choice. What gives them that right?

How is it that you think there can be any justification in killing this innocent child, simply because his existence is so inconvenient to his mother?

How is it you think there can be any justification in taking control of this woman simply because her moral choice is so inconvenient to your emotional comfort?

Now that's just absurd. Among the rights to which all human beings are entitled, there is not any right to be completely immune to the consequences and responsibilities that come from the choices that we make. The choice to engage in sexual union carries with it the possibility that one may, as a consequence, become responsible for the life of a new human being. This new human being did not choose to be brought into existence; nor did he have any choice in the circumstances required for his survival.

Now that is just absurd. Among the rights to which all human beings are entitled (and that is itself a subject of debate in another thread) there is not any right to deny the autonomy of another human being. The choice to enslave someone is immoral. The existing human being did not choose to be enslaved, as demonstrated by her decision to have an abortion:if you deny her that right then neither did she have any choice in the circumstances required for her freedom.

Thabiguy

29th March 2008, 03:22 AM

Concise and right on topic. Thanks for a thoughtful reply, Fiona.

@Thabiguy. As Magenta has said, you are using the phrase " using someone else's body" in an odd way. It is curious that Aku has also chosen to conflate different senses of words to support his argument more than once: it suggests that we perhaps need to be clearer in our definitions.
Maybe that would help. Any ideas?
None of the hypotheticals you have presented are comparable, because as Ich said earlier, and Magenta has also said here, they do not require you to give up the autonomy of your own body directly to another. It is very hard for some people to grasp the enormity of that. I do not know why it is hard, but it clearly is. And to some extent I think that is why this debate gets very heated. So I ask you and others to truly try to imagine what that means. Can you accept that your nonchalance in dismissing that as in some way unimportant is apt to make women furious, and that this results in some of the anger which you then say devalues the view they put forward?
I can accept that they might see it that way, yes. However, I do not dismiss that as unimportant. Quite on the contrary, I consider it very important. Important enough to guarantee a woman the right to choose whether she wants to go through all that. Not just before conception; not just after conception; but for whole months, during which a woman could avoid getting into that situation by getting an abortion before the child would (hypothetically) become a legal person.

Can you accept that your nonchalance in dismissing all that willingly ignored opportunity as in some way irrelevant is apt to weaken your claim that women's rights would in some way be unfairly restricted?
Let me try to make this plain yet again: Aku has already argued again and again that this is a moral question; and he says that this is both subjective and emotional. I agree to some extent, though I think he overvalues that. I do not know if you agree with him but I think it is reasonable to suppose for a moment that you do.
I actually do not agree with that. Once the child (hypothetically) becomes a legal person, I think the situation is pretty clear, and I will elaborate on that later. I think the only moral question here would be whether or not the child should be considered a person before it is born. This is a question which I have not attempted to answer. I have only dealt with the hypothetical case that the unborn child is, in fact, considered a person.
If that is conceded then there is no final answer to this question. There is only the moral conclusion of the people involved. Often in this debate, and again in your post, though I am sure it is not what you intend, there is an assumption that the woman making the decision is in some way "light minded", unlike you. You are perfectly sure that carrying the foetus to term cannot be characterised as "unreasonable effort", but that forced organ donation is (in this connection bear in mind that Aku does not agree with you so this is not self-evident either - again it is a moral question). The point here is that it is not your decision to take. You cannot know what informs the woman's decison and what is more you have no right to know. She has considered the moral questions just as you have. She has reached a conclusion, just as you have. What is it that you think gives you the right to use her body for your purposes? Because that is what we are talking about. The foetus does not have that right because it is not a human right: but in one sense that is secondary. Denying the right to abortion is saying that YOU have the right to use her body to further YOUR moral conclusions. And I cannot see any argument at all in favour of that. This is why I say it is predicated on a view of women which denies their humanity: you effectively enslave a person to support a moral stance which is no better than her own, and CANNOT be any better.
You have made some good points here, and I am forced to reevaluate some of the arguments that I used to support my position. However, I still believe that the basic answer - that an unborn child, if it were a person, would indeed have a right to use a woman's body against her will - is correct. If you don't mind, I will present a refined argument to support that, this time trying to avoid the question of what is reasonable and unreasonable effort.

Let us get back to your original analogy with the organ donation. You have said that a person has a right not to have their organs transplanted to another person, without their consent - not even if it means that the potential recipient should die. I think we can all agree with that. However, the analogy is not complete in this case. The person's right not to have their organs transplanted without their consent only works up to the point where the organs are actually transplanted. After that, you can no longer get your organs back at the expense of another patient's life. If a hospital goofs up and somehow transplants your kidney to another person without your consent, your rights have been violated, and you can sue the hospital and probably win big - but under no circumstances will they kill the recipient to give you your kidney back. If things go that far, the recipient has acquired the right to use your kidney - by virtue of having the right not to be killed in order to rectify the violation of your rights. Some sort of agreement could perhaps be reached, but it would never involve putting the recipient in mortal danger so that your rights can be respected.

This situation is analogous with the late term pregnancy in a different way than you originally implied. I can agree that a woman has a right not to be forced to give up the autonomy over her body by having another person grow inside her. But again, this right will only work up to the point where there is actually another person growing inside her. At that point, she cannot enforce her rights at the expense of another person's life. If things go that far, the unborn child has acquired the right to use the woman's body - by virtue of already using it and having the right not to be killed so that the woman's rights can be respected. It would be difficult to imagine a situation where a woman would find herself in such situation through no fault of her own (namely failing to get an earlier abortion), but it is conceivable. In such a case, she would be entitled to a compensation for the violation of her rights by whoever violated them - but she would not have the right to kill another person to remedy the situation.

Other analogies can be thought of - for example that of a private plane. You have a right to let anyone you like on a private plane, or refuse to take someone with you. But once you decide to take uncle Joe to fly with you, you cannot change your mind in mid-flight and kick him out of the plane. Although he nominally does not have the right to be on your plane, he gains that right by virtue of having the right not to be killed by being pushed out of a plane (unless of course he presents a grave threat to you of some sort). Even if uncle Joe sneaks onboard without your consent and approval, you're still not allowed to kick him out of the plane when you find him. You can only do that after you land. - Many other examples could be thought of to illustrate the concept.

To sum up, although the woman should have a right not to be forced to carry a child to birth against her will, the unborn child (if it actually were a person) would have a right not to be killed except in extreme circumstances, and this would give it the right to use her body even against her will - as long as this situation is actually allowed to occur. This doesn't mean that her right would cease to exist, but she couldn't enforce it by killing another person; if she could prove that her rights were violated, she would have to be compensated in some other way.

Thabiguy

29th March 2008, 03:53 AM

One more thing that I'd like to address...
The point here is that it is not your decision to take. You cannot know what informs the woman's decison and what is more you have no right to know. She has considered the moral questions just as you have. She has reached a conclusion, just as you have. What is it that you think gives you the right to use her body for your purposes? Because that is what we are talking about. The foetus does not have that right because it is not a human right: but in one sense that is secondary. Denying the right to abortion is saying that YOU have the right to use her body to further YOUR moral conclusions.
I believe that if the unborn child were actually a legal person, this claim would be incorrect. Not because I propose that some additional special rules should be enforced to resolve this dilemma - but because it is already resolved by the very act of declaring the unborn child a legal person. With that come rights - and rights are limitations to freedoms of others. In this case, limitations to the mother's freedom to choose whether or not she can kill her child according to her own decision. When someone is a legal person, we are denied the freedom to decide about their life arbitrarily - we are bound by very strict rules. This is what would limit the mother's freedom to choose - not MY morals. In fact, my morals would not get involved at all. Or anyone else's, for that matter. It would become the issue of the state's interest, and would be governed by whatever laws the state has adopted to protect its citizens from harm.

As long as the unborn child is not a person, the mother has the freedom to choose all the way (unless some special laws exist). But this freedom is unequivocally taken away by declaring the child a person. This is what I meant when I said that the moral question is whether or not the unborn child should be considered a person. Once the decision is made (that it is a person), I believe the situation is pretty much resolved.

orangenblue2

29th March 2008, 06:39 AM

How is it that you think there can be any justification in killing this innocent child, simply because his existence is so inconvenient to his mother?

How is it that you keep trying to insinuate that mothers only terminate their pregnancies for reasons of "inconvenience"? Sheesh, this thread has been full of reasons that a woman or a couple would opt for an abortion...and I don't believe "inconvenience" has ever been mentioned, except by you. It must be glorious to inhabit such a black/white, us/them world.

articulett

29th March 2008, 06:51 AM

Fiona

29th March 2008, 07:05 AM

Can you accept that your nonchalance in dismissing all that willingly ignored opportunity as in some way irrelevant is apt to weaken your claim that women's rights would in some way be unfairly restricted?

As has been pointed out many times, late abortion is very rare. It is usually done for very, very good reasons, for example foetal abnormality; maternal risk; concealed pregnancy by a very young girl. Why do you not understand that it is not in women's interest to seek late abortion if it is available earlier? Can you not see that this is part of the same mindset which does not give women the respect which you yourself take for granted? Is it impossible for you to see that the difficulties placed in the way of early abortion is also a part of any residual problem? In short, no, I do not see it weakens the position I am taking: but even if it did you still have to show me the woman who willfully waits till very late in pregnancy to decide to have an abortion in the way you suggest. Other people have asked for evidence for this claim and it is not forthcoming. Do you have it?

<snip>

Let us get back to your original analogy with the organ donation. You have said that a person has a right not to have their organs transplanted to another person, without their consent - not even if it means that the potential recipient should die. I think we can all agree with that.

AkuManiMani cannot agree with it. And his is the more consistent position, I think. I disagree with him, obviously: but you have yet to show any reason why compulsory organ donation is not permissable. on your own reasoning

However, the analogy is not complete in this case. The person's right not to have their organs transplanted without their consent only works up to the point where the organs are actually transplanted. After that, you can no longer get your organs back at the expense of another patient's life. If a hospital goofs up and somehow transplants your kidney to another person without your consent, your rights have been violated, and you can sue the hospital and probably win big - but under no circumstances will they kill the recipient to give you your kidney back. If things go that far, the recipient has acquired the right to use your kidney - by virtue of having the right not to be killed in order to rectify the violation of your rights. Some sort of agreement could perhaps be reached, but it would never involve putting the recipient in mortal danger so that your rights can be respected.

This situation is analogous with the late term pregnancy in a different way than you originally implied. I can agree that a woman has a right not to be forced to give up the autonomy over her body by having another person grow inside her. But again, this right will only work up to the point where there is actually another person growing inside her. At that point, she cannot enforce her rights at the expense of another person's life. If things go that far, the unborn child has acquired the right to use the woman's body - by virtue of already using it and having the right not to be killed so that the woman's rights can be respected. It would be difficult to imagine a situation where a woman would find herself in such situation through no fault of her own (namely failing to get an earlier abortion), but it is conceivable. In such a case, she would be entitled to a compensation for the violation of her rights by whoever violated them - but she would not have the right to kill another person to remedy the situation.

Ok, let me propose a different scenario. Let us suppose that instead of an organ donation we have a situation where there is another person, your son let us say, who is in a profound coma because you hit him with your car: his body is so badly damaged that he cannot function in any way at all unless you consent to allow him to use yours. All of yours. Your blood supply shared with him and pumped by your heart: your nutrition shared with him through a line between you. Etc. This is not a one off event, done and then dusted. You must do this for months. He is quite clearly a human being: he is your son: you caused his conditon; he may or may not recover but we cannot tell. Do you think you should be forced to stay in that hospital and provide that life support for as long as it takes? Now I know this is not a great analogy: there is no easy analogy to make you understand what you are asking. But does this give you any pause? It is a closer analogy than yours.

Let me try it another way: What you are actually suggesting is that the surgeon who has "goofed up" has started the transplant operation: he has opened both bodies and he has removed your organ: he then realises he has goofed. You now say he must continue and you cannot have your organ back? Really? He must continue because he has started although his reasons for starting are false? Although you do not consent and have never consented? I think he should put your kidney back, myself. I don't think there is any question about it. Even though the other person will surely die and you would not die if he continued. I just cannot see any other conclusion.

Other analogies can be thought of - for example that of a private plane. You have a right to let anyone you like on a private plane, or refuse to take someone with you. But once you decide to take uncle Joe to fly with you, you cannot change your mind in mid-flight and kick him out of the plane. Although he nominally does not have the right to be on your plane, he gains that right by virtue of having the right not to be killed by being pushed out of a plane (unless of course he presents a grave threat to you of some sort). Even if uncle Joe sneaks onboard without your consent and approval, you're still not allowed to kick him out of the plane when you find him. You can only do that after you land. - Many other examples could be thought of to illustrate the concept.

I do not think a human's own body is like a vehicle in any way at all. I think this analogy is frankly ridiculous. As I said before: we are our bodies. It is a measure of how far you seem to find it difficult to really try to put yourself in the situation, that you can honestly suggest that uninvited entry to my plane is anything like uninvited use of my body. If Uncle Joe sneaked into your house and took command of your body then repeatedly took blood from you forcibly because he needed that blood to survive, do you think you have no right to prevent him doing so by any means you can ? If he bleeds you carefully he will not kill you; he might not even do you any lasting physical harm. And he might only do this for, say, 3 months while waiting for another solution to his problem. Do you say he has the right to force you to comply?

If you wish to persist with this line of thought then let me propose this: you are in the position of the people in the film "Alien". The alien is inside your body. It is there because you did something thoughtless, or stupid, or for any other reason where you were instrumental in getting it there. But you did not intend to nurture an alien. Let us say it is potentially intelligent and it has a right to life in common with any other sentient entity. There is nothing wrong with it. Let us say this alien is in fact fully developed well before it is ready to emerge from your body. But having realised it is there, you no longer want it there. Do you argue that this alien's rights override your own? Perhaps you do. I do not.

To sum up, although the woman should have a right not to be forced to carry a child to birth against her will, the unborn child (if it actually were a person) would have a right not to be killed except in extreme circumstances, and this would give it the right to use her body even against her will - as long as this situation is actually allowed to occur.

The situation is by definition extreme circumstances. One person is using another person's body. You assume the right to life is greater than the right to autonomy: I do not see that this is demonstrated.

This doesn't mean that her right would cease to exist, but she couldn't enforce it by killing another person; if she could prove that her rights were violated, she would have to be compensated in some other way.

And this is where my moral values differ from yours. That is irresolvable and since there is no final answer you have no right to impose yours over someone else who comes to a different conclusion

orangenblue2

29th March 2008, 07:09 AM

Fiona

29th March 2008, 07:32 AM

One more thing that I'd like to address...

I believe that if the unborn child were actually a legal person, this claim would be incorrect. Not because I propose that some additional special rules should be enforced to resolve this dilemma - but because it is already resolved by the very act of declaring the unborn child a legal person.

No I am sorry but in fact you are proposing additional special rules in fact. You are proposing that this subset of human beings should get rights that nobody else gets: the right to use someone else's body without consent. You don't have that right: I don't have that right. If a foetus is a person then it does not have that right either. So even if there were some objective way to determine that a foetus is a person (which there is not) that does not of itself resolve the dilemma in any way

With that come rights - and rights are limitations to freedoms of others. In this case, limitations to the mother's freedom to choose whether or not she can kill her child according to her own decision.

You do not have any automatic right to life which permits you to take control of someone else. If you did then you would be able to demand that the organ donor who is compatible with you sacrifice his organ for your survival. If you try to take it without consent then I think that person has the right to use any measures at all to prevent you doing so, including killing you. This is because you are your body and you have absolute control over it no matter how much any other human being would benefit if your rights were overidden. You cannot have it both ways. If he foetus is a person then it has no right at all to use someone else's body: no more than you do.

When someone is a legal person, we are denied the freedom to decide about their life arbitrarily - we are bound by very strict rules. This is what would limit the mother's freedom to choose - not MY morals. In fact, my morals would not get involved at all. Or anyone else's, for that matter. It would become the issue of the state's interest, and would be governed by whatever laws the state has adopted to protect its citizens from harm.

The decision is to terminate the pregnancy. That may result in the "death" of the foetus, though that is not a given, as previously discussed. But I am curious about how you imagine such laws are made if not on the basis of collective decisions about morals.

As long as the unborn child is not a person, the mother has the freedom to choose all the way (unless some special laws exist). But this freedom is unequivocally taken away by declaring the child a person. This is what I meant when I said that the moral question is whether or not the unborn child should be considered a person. Once the decision is made (that it is a person), I believe the situation is pretty much resolved.

I disagree, for the reasons given. :)

Thabiguy

29th March 2008, 10:55 AM

(Warning: long and boring post ahead; if you're not for some strange reason interested in actually following the discussion, you better skip it.)
As has been pointed out many times, late abortion is very rare. It is usually done for very, very good reasons, for example foetal abnormality; maternal risk; concealed pregnancy by a very young girl. Why do you not understand that it is not in women's interest to seek late abortion if it is available earlier?
What would make you think that I don't understand that? When abortion is necessary, it is desirable for everyone involved to get it done as soon as possible. Also because late abortions are a greater threat to the mother's health. And for other reasons as well.
Can you not see that this is part of the same mindset which does not give women the respect which you yourself take for granted? Is it impossible for you to see that the difficulties placed in the way of early abortion is also a part of any residual problem?
I honestly have no idea what respect you are talking about. Quite on the contrary, it seems to me that you are requesting extraordinary privileges that other people do not have. No matter how much pressure I am exposed to, no matter how good and understandable my reasons for failing to do something are, no matter how abused I am by my family, I never get the right to terminate the life of a legal person in order to exercise my right to autonomy over my body - or any other right for that matter, with extreme exceptions such as self-defense. If I kill another person, except in extreme circumstances of immediate danger, I will go to jail, and any excuses I may have will at best lower my sentence.
In short, no, I do not see it weakens the position I am taking: but even if it did you still have to show me the woman who willfully waits till very late in pregnancy to decide to have an abortion in the way you suggest. Other people have asked for evidence for this claim and it is not forthcoming. Do you have it?
Why? Should it be acceptable if a person terminated the life of another person after they were pressured by someone, rather than by neglect? I don't see what difference that would make. As for me, I'll go to jail in both cases.
AkuManiMani cannot agree with it. And his is the more consistent position, I think. I disagree with him, obviously: but you have yet to show any reason why compulsory organ donation is not permissable. on your own reasoning
It puts the donor's own life and health at risk. One should have the right to refuse these risks. Just as a woman should have the right to refuse the risks of pregnancy. Also, you are not required to decide to donate an organ because deciding not to will not cause the death of a person. It may lead to it, but it will not cause it. Late abortion would, on the other hand, cause the death of a person (if the unborn child were a person), as opposed to just leading to it.
Ok, let me propose a different scenario. Let us suppose that instead of an organ donation we have a situation where there is another person, your son let us say, who is in a profound coma because you hit him with your car: his body is so badly damaged that he cannot function in any way at all unless you consent to allow him to use yours. All of yours. Your blood supply shared with him and pumped by your heart: your nutrition shared with him through a line between you. Etc. This is not a one off event, done and then dusted. You must do this for months. He is quite clearly a human being: he is your son: you caused his conditon; he may or may not recover but we cannot tell. Do you think you should be forced to stay in that hospital and provide that life support for as long as it takes? Now I know this is not a great analogy: there is no easy analogy to make you understand what you are asking. But does this give you any pause? It is a closer analogy than yours.
It doesn't give me much of a pause. No, I don't think a parent should be forced to agree to provide such life support to their child - just as a woman should not be forced to agree to become pregnant or to carry the pregnancy to late term.

On the other hand, once that I decide to provide such life support - knowing that I will not be allowed to terminate it except in case of medical complications - then yes, of course I should be prevented from terminating it. That's what I decided for.
Let me try it another way: What you are actually suggesting is that the surgeon who has "goofed up" has started the transplant operation: he has opened both bodies and he has removed your organ: he then realises he has goofed. You now say he must continue and you cannot have your organ back? Really?
No, of course not. Where are you getting that? If the recipient person has not received your kidney, then they are not using it. That is not an analogy of a person inside a woman's body, using it; that might be at best an analogy of a fetus that has not yet become a legal person.
He must continue because he has started although his reasons for starting are false? Although you do not consent and have never consented? I think he should put your kidney back, myself. I don't think there is any question about it. Even though the other person will surely die and you would not die if he continued. I just cannot see any other conclusion.
This analogy is obviously incorrect. If another person is not using your organ, then they are not using it. If there is no person inside you using your body, then there is no person using it. In such a situation, nothing prevents the whole thing from being reverted. - It is only after the other person has received that organ and begins using it (or analogously, after there is a legal person inside you using your body) that the situation becomes irreversible, as an attempt to reverse it would cause the death of another person that would not have occurred if no action had taken place.
I do not think a human's own body is like a vehicle in any way at all. I think this analogy is frankly ridiculous. As I said before: we are our bodies. It is a measure of how far you seem to find it difficult to really try to put yourself in the situation, that you can honestly suggest that uninvited entry to my plane is anything like uninvited use of my body. If Uncle Joe sneaked into your house and took command of your body then repeatedly took blood from you forcibly because he needed that blood to survive, do you think you have no right to prevent him doing so by any means you can ?
Such vampire scenario is inconceivable. If I use a more likely scenario of Uncle Joe using the warmth of your home and the food in your home to survive while there is a snow blizzard outside, then yes, I believe that unless your own survival is endangered, you have no right to refuse him warmth and food and kick him out to die of exposure. You can at best charge him (or his relatives) for your expenses afterwards.
If he bleeds you carefully he will not kill you; he might not even do you any lasting physical harm. And he might only do this for, say, 3 months while waiting for another solution to his problem. Do you say he has the right to force you to comply?
I say that as long as your home is capable of sustaining both, you have no right to kick him out and let him die. Even for the whole 3 months until the arctic winter is over. If you let him starve or freeze for no grave reason, you will be criminally prosecuted.

You keep using loaded words such as drawing blood and bleeding. That implies injury; human body is not constructed to share blood externally. Sharing nutrients with a fetus does not involve injuries and is therefore more analogous to sharing your warmth, food and water with someone else, which also does not involve injuries, yet draws on your resources.
If you wish to persist with this line of thought then let me propose this: you are in the position of the people in the film "Alien". The alien is inside your body. It is there because you did something thoughtless, or stupid, or for any other reason where you were instrumental in getting it there. But you did not intend to nurture an alien. Let us say it is potentially intelligent and it has a right to life in common with any other sentient entity. There is nothing wrong with it. Let us say this alien is in fact fully developed well before it is ready to emerge from your body. But having realised it is there, you no longer want it there. Do you argue that this alien's rights override your own? Perhaps you do. I do not.
If the creature inside you is a legal person, then yes, of course his right to live overrides your right to comfort. If you can get this person out of your body without killing it, good - everybody wins. But your not wanting it there is not an excuse for killing it. Just as me not wanting uncle Joe to spend an arctic winter with me would not be an excuse for killing him. Even if I really, really hate him, and really don't want to share my food with him.
The situation is by definition extreme circumstances. One person is using another person's body. You assume the right to life is greater than the right to autonomy: I do not see that this is demonstrated.
Oh, okay. I claim that having a roommate is by definition extreme circumstances. One person is using another person's room. You assume the right to life is greater than the right to a private room: I do not see that this is demonstrated.

Ergo, by your logic, I should be allowed to kill my roommate.

The problem with that reasoning is that the right to life is established, widely respected and valued as the most basic human right. The right to autonomy (or to a private room) not nearly so.
And this is where my moral values differ from yours. That is irresolvable and since there is no final answer you have no right to impose yours over someone else who comes to a different conclusion
You are right when the life of a child isn't protected and the mother's freedom to decide about it is virtually absolute. By assigning the status of a legal person to an unborn child, the child receives the same protection as any other person - including the mother - and by that protection, the mother is denied her former freedom to decide the child's fate. When the child becomes a person (currently mostly at birth), there is an immediate, final answer that is imposed over you and me and everyone else: nobody is allowed to kill that person under the threat of criminal prosecution.
No I am sorry but in fact you are proposing additional special rules in fact. You are proposing that this subset of human beings should get rights that nobody else gets: the right to use someone else's body without consent. You don't have that right: I don't have that right. If a foetus is a person then it does not have that right either. So even if there were some objective way to determine that a foetus is a person (which there is not) that does not of itself resolve the dilemma in any way
A person's rights vary during their lifetime. For example, children have special rights to education, to be protected from abuse, from criminal prosecution, etc. This "subset of human beings" is no subset at all: it is the set of all human beings. If an unborn child is considered a person, then every single human being has the right to use someone else's body without consent. Including me, and including you. Both of us have already done that. Your request to extend that right to adults makes no more sense than requesting that adults, like children, be also protected from criminal prosecution. It is silly.
You do not have any automatic right to life which permits you to take control of someone else. If you did then you would be able to demand that the organ donor who is compatible with you sacrifice his organ for your survival. If you try to take it without consent then I think that person has the right to use any measures at all to prevent you doing so, including killing you. This is because you are your body and you have absolute control over it no matter how much any other human being would benefit if your rights were overidden. You cannot have it both ways. If he foetus is a person then it has no right at all to use someone else's body: no more than you do.
You do have a right to life which prevents others from exercising their own rights by actions that would cause your death. Not donating an organ is not a cause of death; the cause of death would be the respective injury or illness. Taking away an organ, however, would be a cause of death.

The claim that you have absolute control over your body no matter how much any other human being would benefit, is ridiculous. If you commit a crime, for example, you will be denied substantial control of your body for the sake of others. The unborn child that is a person would have the right to use your body, just as you, as an adult, have the right not to be thrown out of a house if there is a hungry lion outside. It doesn't conflict with the absolute control of one's body because there is no such thing; our control of our bodies is legally restricted in various ways throughout our entire lives.
The decision is to terminate the pregnancy. That may result in the "death" of the foetus, though that is not a given, as previously discussed. But I am curious about how you imagine such laws are made if not on the basis of collective decisions about morals.
You are not allowed to make decisions that will cause the death of another person, or you will be criminally prosecuted. If you can terminate the pregnancy without killing the person, good. Laws are, of course, decided collectively. Currently, I am not aware of any legal provision that would allow to kill a person except for extreme circumstances - which in no developed country, I believe, include the circumstance of "someone using someone else's body". Ergo, if an unborn child was considered a legal person as it stands these days, a mother would quite definitely not have the right to kill it by terminating the pregnancy.
I disagree, for the reasons given.
That much, I believe, we can agree on. :)

Gaaahhh... so much text and so much time, I believe we're (or at least I am) beginning to reiterate things that were already said, and no-one seems to have changed their mind an inch. You know what - we both said what we meant to say; and of course, if you want to reply to something, go ahead; but how about we spare our time and keyboards and just leave it at that?

ceo_esq

29th March 2008, 11:31 AM

You are proposing that this subset of human beings should get rights that nobody else gets: the right to use someone else's body without consent. You don't have that right: I don't have that right. If a foetus is a person then it does not have that right either.

This strikes me not so much as a question of an alleged right that a subset of human beings gets that nobody else gets, but a question of an alleged right that all human beings possess but which can be exercised under certain circumstances; namely, in the womb. Thus, if the right exists, you and I both have it latently (even though, biology being what it is, it is not foreseeable that it can be actualized any longer in the same way for us).

This is because you are your body and you have absolute control over it no matter how much any other human being would benefit if your rights were overidden.

I suspect very few people would concur with this if they actually thought hard about it, because even in a purely legal sense it's demonstrably untrue. Hardly any right is absolute, and the right of control over one's body is no exception. Although it's not entirely clear to me what you consider control over one's body to entail, almost every possible dimension of such control can validly be limited. In the right combination of circumstances, you can be obliged to undertake or refrain from undertaking certain bodily actions, to submit to a wide variety of medical and non-medical bodily invasions, and so forth. In each case, whether the autonomy of your person can be subjected to such limitations and violations depends in large part on "how much any other human being would benefit would benefit if your rights were overridden", so it makes little sense to suggest that this is "no matter".

* * * *

It is difficult to come up with good ethical analogies for abortion, because it is something of a unique circumstance in human experience. But that does not mean that we cannot analyze it in terms of the convergence of various broadly recognized ethical duties.

I think that in order to provide an adequate analogy to the typical abortion situation, a hypothetical scenario probably ought to have facts that bring at least the following three kinds of duty into consideration:
Duty to provide aid to someone you have put in a position where aid is required
Duty to avoid affirmative acts which would worsen the situation of someone already in need of aid
Heightened duty of parents toward their children
In addition, the circumstances regarding the balance of harms must broadly approximate those entailed by the mother-unborn child situation.

This is a tall order when it comes to proposing hypothetical scenarios, which only underscores the uniqueness of the circumstances. Few easily conceivable analogies manage to cover all relevant considerations. For example, the basic organ donation scenario does not necessarily entail any of the three duties I mentioned. Even your comatose-child hypothetical only hits two of the three (it does not entail the second). Sometimes it's easier to separate these considerations in order to understand them better. Here, for example, is a hypothetical constructed by James Bohan (The House of Atreus: Abortion as a Human Rights Issue (Praeger 1999)) to explore a particular point your comatose-child analogy omits:

Consider, for instance, the situation of Fred, a boat owner, and Emily. Fred would not violate Emily's right to life if he refused to take Emily on a tropical cruise - even if she needs that cruise to cure a lifethreatening disease. But if Emily is already aboard the craft -whether by invitation (a planned pregnancy) or stowing away (an unplanned pregnancy) - Fred would violate her right to life if he forced her overboard when the boat was so far offshore that she could not reach land safely. Whether Fred's actions violate Emily's right to life turns, in each instance, on whether he is simply refusing to do something necessary to save Emily or he is engaging in some affirmative conduct which puts her life in greater danger. If he is simply refusing to do something necessary to save Emily, Fred does not violate her right to life. But he does violate her right to life if he deliberately undertakes a course of action that puts Emily's life in danger. The fact that he ordinarily has no duty to aid Emily does not give him the right to force her overboard - even if forcing her overboard is the only way he can avoid helping her. Fred's duty to let Emily remain aboard his boat flows not from any duty to affirmatively help Emily, but from his duty to avoid harming her.

* * * *

That is irresolvable and since there is no final answer you have no right to impose yours over someone else who comes to a different conclusion

Either I have misunderstood part of what you've been saying, or there is arguably a tension between the foregoing and what you said earlier when you asked Thabiguy "how you imagine such laws are made if not on the basis of collective decisions about morals."

articulett

29th March 2008, 12:52 PM

Fiona, your writing is superb... your audience cannot compute. There are a few forum members-- I call them the "apologist/vigilantes"-- they always seem to be apologizing for religion while claiming they are not religious. They have imagined expertise and a holier than thou attitude that is unwarranted given the reaction from others here. Eventually they just get put on ignore by most members I suspect. They tend to have misogynistic leanings too.

On the other hand, the make the other members stand out and shine in comparison. I notice you are a newer member, and I want you to know that you are welcomed here-- make sure you have a thick skin and learn to use the blowhards and self-important for your own amusement.

Do not ever let yourself have the expectation that they will get a clue. I haven't seen it happen. If it hasn't happened during their course of discussion on this thread, it is unlikely to ever happen in any forum conversation with them ever. They are interested in preaching--not dialogue... and they would rather believe they are "right" than to find out they might not have thought things over thoroughly. But lots of people read your words, and it's good to learn to address such arguments. I hope to read more of you on this forum. I agree with what you write, and I like the majority of others, get tired of reading the same old nothingness from the same old people certain that we consider their opinions on a topic more important than the actual people involved. It is amazing how they seem to expect that we respect their opinions, when most show very little respect for opinions that differ from their own.

Magenta

29th March 2008, 05:46 PM

We are straying away from the argument. If it makes you feel better, I support the right to the choice over whether to reproduce or not.

The original argument was: even if an unborn child was a real person, they wouldn't have a right to use your body against your will, because nobody has that right. I say that is wrong, and I say that people can have a right to use your body against your will. If you want another clear example, here you go: if I start strangling you, you will have full right not just to use my body against my will, but to quite thoroughly abuse it, in order to preserve your life and health.

What does that have to do with abortion, you ask? Nothing! Just like, in my opinion, Fiona's argument has nothing meaningful to do with abortion. But it clearly demonstrates that it is simply not true that people do not have a right to use your body against your will. Which is the substance of my contention against Fiona's argument. Is it becoming clearer?

And I say that the examples you gave of using someone else's body are not analogous with pregnancy, and don't demonstrate that a woman has no right to autonomy over her body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Is that clear?

What is it with people equating hypothetical scenarios meant to illustrate invalidity of an argument with "the decision to abort"?

You are either being disingenuous or you chose your words carelessly in the first place. In the paragraph below, you are clearly referring to a woman's decision to abort, and not the hypothetical scenario, when you refer to the "mere" dislike of "things moving around in my uterus". The use of "whims" in the following sentence can be inferred in same way:

Mere "I don't like things moving around in my uterus" is not enough. I may very well hate it when people cling to my leg as I sit on my boat - but I am still legally prohibited from kicking away a drowning person. We are not entirely free to follow our whims when another person's life is at stake.

If you didn't want to imply that meaning, perhaps you should be more careful with your wording.

ETA: Also, what is it with all the ad hominems in these debates? I always thought that a discussion should address the substance of arguments, and not the personal characteristics of those making them. But in these abortion and circumcision threads, it's all "men/women are not qualified to have a valid opinion, or present valid arguments". Oh, goodie.

I was objecting to the choice of language used in the argument. A large part of the abortion debate centres around women's moral and intellectual capacity to make the decision to abort or not as they see fit. Dismissing what is a difficult decision by using words like "whim" is derogatory and unhelpful to discussion, IMO. You're the third person to use "whim" in this way in this thread and my patience is wearing thin.

Also, I have previously said in this thread that I think men should be knowledgeable and involved in the discussion about abortion. What I object to is the patronising attitude of some men. I did amend my sentence: "What is it with men equating the decision [...]" to read "some men" to more accurately reflect my objection. Obviously this was after you quoted me, but before you posted your reply.

I have never questioned those arguments, nor have I questioned women's right to choose to abort. If you must know, I actually support that right.

What I did was challenge one very specific argument as flawed. Please keep up.

I am keeping up. I was responding to this post of yours which indicated only limited support for the "right to choose" in specific circumstances:

If the pregnancy presents a hazard to the mother's health, the grounds for refusing it would be pretty obvious. But if it doesn't, I need arguments why it is unreasonable effort. What I say is that saying "because it's my womb and I don't want to" is not sufficient,[...]

And if you had read my original post carefully, you would have known that I explicitly acknowledged that she argues that, and that I said that as long as an unborn child is not considered a person, I have little to say.

Once again, what I disagree with is the argument that even if the unborn child was a person, they wouldn't have the right to use your body against your will. This is an argument that Fiona also specifically made, and that I find incorrect. That's why I pointed that out.

Sheesh.

Well it's a little perplexing that you chose to argue at length (and not very convincingly, IMO) against a minor point when the pro-choice stance is that a fetus is not a person in the same way that an infant or adult is, and is not considered a person by law wherever abortion is legally available.

Fiona

29th March 2008, 05:58 PM

Such vampire scenario is inconceivable.

I realise you do not wish to continue but I must just comment on this: it is not inconceivable, because I just conceived it. I hope you are making a pun?

articulett

29th March 2008, 06:26 PM

Yes, magenta... notice those who use "whim"--

Fetuses are "people" but women are "whimsical creatures" that should not be trusted with a decision. Instead we should trust the moral police who haven't got a clue nor the ability to show understanding or engage in thoughtful dialogue?

They are egotistical and clueless. Thankfully they are not reflective of the majority. To me, they are "little boys" using big words to feel like they are super duper moral and the savior of potential people (whom they'll immediately stop caring for or about once born--especially if they are a female... who might one day abort for reasons they feel are "whimsical").

I suspect a religious meme infection--where words and belief mean more than thought and reality. The judges are not people I'd ever seek advice from or the opinion of in the first place; I can't imagine why they think their notions should be respected while stomping upon the knowledge, opinions, beliefs, and experiences of others. Shame on them. Their nobility and morality exist only in their mind.

Fiona

29th March 2008, 08:10 PM

This strikes me not so much as a question of an alleged right that a subset of human beings gets that nobody else gets, but a question of an alleged right that all human beings possess but which can be exercised under certain circumstances; namely, in the womb. Thus, if the right exists, you and I both have it latently (even though, biology being what it is, it is not foreseeable that it can be actualized any longer in the same way for us).

I think this begs the question, though I may be wrong. What you are saying is that you and I both have the right to use someone else's body very directly, but that in practice we cannot exercise it because it is tied to a particular stage of development. I hope that is correct. This seems convoluted, at best. You say it cannot be actualised in the same way. Can you envisage any way at all in which it can be actualised? If you cannot, then I put it to you that it is not latent: it does not exist. This is a far simpler way to look at it; though certainly not conclusive. Can you say why you think that simpler assumption should not be adopted?

It is interesting that Uncle Joe the vampire is dismissed because that is directly comparable: though apparently "inconceivable". What that dismissal means is that the question need not be answered, nor the relevant difference identified. I do not claim it as a good analogy: but I think this is because there is no situation where a human being is able to use another's body directly in the way that a foetus does.

I suspect very few people would concur with this if they actually thought hard about it, because even in a purely legal sense it's demonstrably untrue. Hardly any right is absolute, and the right of control over one's body is no exception. Although it's not entirely clear to me what you consider control over one's body to entail, almost every possible dimension of such control can validly be limited. In the right combination of circumstances, you can be obliged to undertake or refrain from undertaking certain bodily actions, to submit to a wide variety of medical and non-medical bodily invasions, and so forth. In each case, whether the autonomy of your person can be subjected to such limitations and violations depends in large part on "how much any other human being would benefit would benefit if your rights were overridden", so it makes little sense to suggest that this is "no matter".

You are correct, in that I phrased this poorly. Let me try again. There is no separation of person and body: The body is what we are. It is all that we are. To take control of another's body is monumental. This is a thread which runs through our culture in such bombastic phrases as "give me liberty or give me death". Now many will say that the right to life supersedes even this, and will disagree with the values enshrined in that statement: but none would deny its importance completely, I think.

Do we hold bodily autonomy above the right to life? Our stance on suicide suggests that we do, though this was not always true. Do we hold it as indefensible to take control of another's body where that person is adult and competent? Well you say that we can be forced to submit to medical invasions, for example; and this is not my understanding of the law: consent is required and can only be overidden in the case of incapacity, or for children who are not competent to make a decision. A woman is not incapable and she is not a child.

It is difficult to come up with good ethical analogies for abortion, because it is something of a unique circumstance in human experience. But that does not mean that we cannot analyze it in terms of the convergence of various broadly recognized ethical duties.

I think that in order to provide an adequate analogy to the typical abortion situation, a hypothetical scenario probably ought to have facts that bring at least the following three kinds of duty into consideration:
Duty to provide aid to someone you have put in a position where aid is required
Duty to avoid affirmative acts which would worsen the situation of someone already in need of aid
Heightened duty of parents toward their children
In addition, the circumstances regarding the balance of harms must broadly approximate those entailed by the mother-unborn child situation.

It is argued that we can be deprived of the right to bodily autonomy by analogy with various situations such as murder. But as we have already established there is no analogy which meets the case. It is for those who would deny the right to abortion to show that the situation is similar to those they adduce in proclaiming that the right to life is paramount: and they have not done so precisely because there is no comparable case. I do not see that it is for me to show the difference because I think the difference is obvious: it is for them to show how other situations are similar, rather.

Turning to your list of duties: they are partial, not least because they only consider the moral responsibilities of the woman and not of those who would take control of her:but I will try to address them as they stand: All three can be part of a decision to abort. For example a woman may be in a position where she needs to consider the needs of existing dependents. Avoiding bringing another child into a family can impair the ability to "provide aid to someone you have put in a position where aid is required" and can be an "affirmative action which would worsen the situation of those already in need of aid". Once again the situation is not simple and the moral choices a woman makes are serious: who can take those decisions better than she?

This is a tall order when it comes to proposing hypothetical scenarios, which only underscores the uniqueness of the circumstances. Few easily conceivable analogies manage to cover all relevant considerations. For example, the basic organ donation scenario does not necessarily entail any of the three duties I mentioned. Even your comatose-child hypothetical only hits two of the three (it does not entail the second). Sometimes it's easier to separate these considerations in order to understand them better. Here, for example, is a hypothetical constructed by James Bohan (The House of Atreus: Abortion as a Human Rights Issue (Praeger 1999)) to explore a particular point your comatose-child analogy omits:

Consider, for instance, the situation of Fred, a boat owner, and Emily. Fred would not violate Emily's right to life if he refused to take Emily on a tropical cruise - even if she needs that cruise to cure a lifethreatening disease. But if Emily is already aboard the craft -whether by invitation (a planned pregnancy) or stowing away (an unplanned pregnancy) - Fred would violate her right to life if he forced her overboard when the boat was so far offshore that she could not reach land safely. Whether Fred's actions violate Emily's right to life turns, in each instance, on whether he is simply refusing to do something necessary to save Emily or he is engaging in some affirmative conduct which puts her life in greater danger. If he is simply refusing to do something necessary to save Emily, Fred does not violate her right to life. But he does violate her right to life if he deliberately undertakes a course of action that puts Emily's life in danger. The fact that he ordinarily has no duty to aid Emily does not give him the right to force her overboard - even if forcing her overboard is the only way he can avoid helping her. Fred's duty to let Emily remain aboard his boat flows not from any duty to affirmatively help Emily, but from his duty to avoid harming her.

This example is the same as the one proposed by Thabiguy. I have answered it. My answer is "inconceivable", apparently. :) But my vampire uncle Joe is much closer to the situation than is your Emily.

Either I have misunderstood part of what you've been saying, or there is arguably a tension between the foregoing and what you said earlier when you asked Thabiguy "how you imagine such laws are made if not on the basis of collective decisions about morals."

I asked him a question. My stance is unambiguous: I consider that abortion is a moral decision to be made by those directly concerned. but I am practical: laws will be made about this. I believe that those laws should properly be based on the case I have laid out here: but they will still be the result of a collective decision about what is in play and what is not. Thabiguy did not seem to see that there is any room for disagreement about the outcome if the foetus is legally determined to be a person: I do not accept that. I am not sure if that clarifies your confusion because I am not very sure of its source. If not then perhaps you can explain what is troubling you

Magenta

29th March 2008, 11:35 PM

I have never questioned those arguments, nor have I questioned women's right to choose to abort. If you must know, I actually support that right.

What I did was challenge one very specific argument as flawed. Please keep up.

I am keeping up. I was responding to this post of yours which indicated only limited support for the "right to choose" in specific circumstances:

Actually, scratch that comment of mine above. On rereading I see that I misunderstood that your heavily qualified support for "choice" was still part of your hypothetical "if the fetus is a person" scenario.

Thabiguy

30th March 2008, 04:46 AM

And I say that the examples you gave of using someone else's body are not analogous with pregnancy, and don't demonstrate that a woman has no right to autonomy over her body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Is that clear?
I have never said that a woman has no right to autonomy over her body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Quite on the contrary: even if an unborn child were considered a person, and also if it were not, women should still have the right to autonomy over their body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

What I was saying is that in the hypothetical case that an unborn child was considered a person (which is not my idea or something I support, but the premise of Fiona's argument which I disagree with), this person would have the right to use its mother's body (by virtue of having the right not to be killed, like any other person) and so women would be unable to exercise their right at the expense of another person's life, and would have to be compensated in a different way if their rights were violated. Before the fetus (hypothetically) becomes a person, and also in real life where women have this right that they should have (I'm not aware of a country that considers unborn children to be legal persons), women can exercise their right by, for example, getting an abortion.

I wonder why you said "don't demonstrate that a woman has no right to autonomy over her body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy" when I never claimed that women don't or shouldn't have that right. Perhaps you live under the impression that either a woman can have a right to autonomy over her body, or the unborn child that is a person can have a right to life, and these rights cannot coexist. So by affirming the latter, you may have thought I was denying the former. - If that is the case, rest assured that the society is full of rights that conflict, and yet coexist. Resolving those situations is what puts people behind bars and/or gives lawyers' daughters new cars.
You are either being disingenuous or you chose your words carelessly in the first place. In the paragraph below, you are clearly referring to a woman's decision to abort, and not the hypothetical scenario, when you refer to the "mere" dislike of "things moving around in my uterus".
I have said that dislike of "things moving around in my uterus" would not justify removing those things if another person's life were at stake. I have clearly written that premise in that paragraph - go ahead and check. It refers to the hypothetical scenario that the unborn child was a person. Which is, again, the premise of the argument which I disagree with.
The use of "whims" in the following sentence can be inferred in same way:
If you didn't want to imply that meaning, perhaps you should be more careful with your wording.
It's quite possible that I have chosen an inappropriate word; I'm not a native English speaker. I have wanted to choose a word that meant 'unrestrained personal decision for private reasons'. I thought 'whim' meant that. If the word carries negative connotations that I'm not aware of, I apologize. Care to suggest a more appropriate word?
I was objecting to the choice of language used in the argument. A large part of the abortion debate centres around women's moral and intellectual capacity to make the decision to abort or not as they see fit. Dismissing what is a difficult decision by using words like "whim" is derogatory and unhelpful to discussion, IMO. You're the third person to use "whim" in this way in this thread and my patience is wearing thin.
I would say that perhaps you are taking things too personally. I am not responsible for other people's comments, nor have I read them in full. Making so much fuss over one single word, and hardly touching much of the rest that I have written, is what I'd call unhelpful to discussion.

If you suggest that before I write something, I should first carefully read comments that I disagree with, and then choose a vocabulary as distinct from those as possible, I respectfully decline. But, since you have brought this up explicitly, I will attempt to avoid that word in the future. My intent was not to derogate.
Also, I have previously said in this thread that I think men should be knowledgeable and involved in the discussion about abortion. What I object to is the patronising attitude of some men. I did amend my sentence: "What is it with men equating the decision [...]" to read "some men" to more accurately reflect my objection. Obviously this was after you quoted me, but before you posted your reply.
Ah, okay. Just a bad timing, then.
I am keeping up. I was responding to this post of yours which indicated only limited support for the "right to choose" in specific circumstances:
Actually, scratch that comment of mine above. On rereading I see that I misunderstood that your heavily qualified support for "choice" was still part of your hypothetical "if the fetus is a person" scenario.
If by "heavily qualified" you mean roughly the same thing as by "only limited" in the previous comment, then okay.
Well it's a little perplexing that you chose to argue at length (and not very convincingly, IMO) against a minor point when the pro-choice stance is that a fetus is not a person in the same way that an infant or adult is, and is not considered a person by law wherever abortion is legally available.
The assumption that unborn children are persons is the premise of the argument that I disagree with and chose to argue against.

I don't understand the point of your comment. Are you suggesting that arguments with hypothetical premises - which are mentioned repeatedly - should not be discussed? That they are off topic? That I shouldn't disagree with arguments that I believe to be wrong, when they seem to support a position I otherwise agree with? Or what?

You don't have to discuss that argument if you don't want to. Fiona apparently has had no troubles understanding the spirit of my objections, and responded very thoughtfully. Even though we weren't able to come to an agreement, she's been very civil and on-topic and I respect her for that. Unlike some other posters in this thread who just seem to spout venom and if they can't find opponents, they fabricate them (no, I don't mean you).

Thabiguy

30th March 2008, 05:39 AM

I realise you do not wish to continue but I must just comment on this: it is not inconceivable, because I just conceived it. I hope you are making a pun?
I think I have used a wrong word. I apologize, I am not a native speaker and this can sometimes happen.

What I meant to say is this: when choosing analogies, I have attempted to remain realistic and stick with scenarios that have occurred or can occur. The example with the boy in the hospital stretches that a little (I can't imagine a condition that would require such procedure), but okay, hospitals are weird places. But a vampire uncle who periodically needs blood to survive goes so far into the unreal that it is virtually useless. The whole purpose of analogies is to convert the issue into circumstances we are familiar with, or at least we can imagine how they would be dealt with, normally. I think nobody is familiar with vampires or can imagine how such situation would be dealt 'normally'. That's what I meant to express.

This is related to it:
It is interesting that Uncle Joe the vampire is dismissed because that is directly comparable: though apparently "inconceivable". What that dismissal means is that the question need not be answered, nor the relevant difference identified. I do not claim it as a good analogy: but I think this is because there is no situation where a human being is able to use another's body directly in the way that a foetus does.
I think I understand the point that you were trying to make with uncle Joe the vampire: that the fetus is using the woman's blood and this is something huge. Our blood is a part of us, and our right not to have it used by someone else is greater than another person's right to life. Correct me if I misinterpret your position.

Well, one thing is that others can legally use our blood against our will (for example court-ordered blood tests) without forfeiting their right to life. But my objection was that the situation was not as directly comparable as suggested. The fetus uses the mother's blood without her intervention or conscious assistance, and the blood is never removed from her body. (Literally: mother's blood does not enter the fetus. It never crosses the placenta.) This makes it more comparable to situations like using another person's bodily warmth, sweat, saliva, etc. (which are all taken from blood without interrupting its closed circuit). And especially, there is no injury involved. That's why I think an uncle eating your food, drinking your water and sharing a room with you (analogy to the discomfort of pregnancy, which does limit you, but doesn't "take over" your body in any meaningful sense) is more comparable (he draws on your nutrients and can potentially starve you, like the baby) - and even more importantly, it can actually occur.

You are entitled to disagree with me; I just wanted to clarify what I meant to say.

Fiona

30th March 2008, 06:03 AM

Ok I understand. I did not realise you were not a native speaker (which is very impressive in itself: much kudos to you for your command of the language, btw)

I do understand your objection to unrealistic scenarios. The problem is, as I said above, that there are NO other circumstances which are comparable. What I was trying to do was to get you to think about what it means to be "colonised". This is apparently very hard for men to do and it is also very hard for me to see why this is so: it should not be an impossible stretch of the imagination on the face of it. Yet the evidence is against that conclusion.

Imagine an intelligent tapeworm: or the alien I mentioned before: or any other thing which helps you to understand the enormity of this. Perhaps it is impossible for you. Sometimes I think so. You talk about court ordered blood tests - surely you can see that this is not even slightly comparable: yet even that is very, very carefully circumscribed because it is such an infringement of the normal rights we all share. Uncle Joe uses her blood without her intervention or her conscious assistance too. The fact that he removes her blood from her body is a trivial difference in comparison with the similarity that both are using her self without her consent. At least to me it is, and I truly cannot understand why this is hard to grasp.

One thing I did want to address, or rather address again, was the question of definitions. Since you are not a native speaker it may be that your use of several terms interchangeably is not significant but I would like to clarify. Do you recognse any distinction between "human", in the sense that AkuManiMani uses it (that is fully human from the moment of conception on the grounds that in the course of uninterrupted development the foetus will not end up a tree frog or a water lily) and "person" (in the sense of a separate fully human being with all the attributes that entails?)

One of the differences we have seems to be that you state that once a foetus is legally determined to be a person/human then the right to life is trumps. As you know I disgree no matter what definition you are using: but I wondered if you make any distinction. I would like to know what it is about a person/human which distinguishes it from everything else and which is the source of the rights you believe it to have? I would also like to know what other rights you believe people have and whence they derive.

Though if you are truly fed up with this conversation do not feel pressured to answer: you did indicate your wish to withdraw and I do not want to disrespect that wish if it still obtains

AkuManiMani

30th March 2008, 07:20 AM

I wouldn't try to prevent my own abortion. Why would I do that?:confused:

Erm...Because you'd rather be alive than dead?

I find it a bit odd that you would allege that I have little to no regard for the lives and humanity of women yet you seem to value your own life so little :confused:

articulett

30th March 2008, 08:01 AM

Fiona

30th March 2008, 10:06 AM

Erm...Because you'd rather be alive than dead?

I find it a bit odd that you would allege that I have little to no regard for the lives and humanity of women yet you seem to value your own life so little :confused:

If I was aborted I would not have a life. I would never have had a life. How could that possibly matter to the me that would not be? Your question is really peculiar :con2:

Thabiguy

30th March 2008, 10:07 AM

Though if you are truly fed up with this conversation do not feel pressured to answer: you did indicate your wish to withdraw and I do not want to disrespect that wish if it still obtains
Okay, I'll answer. I'm not fed up with the conversation - that was fine - just with the time it takes. We can close with a couple more posts, as long as we gradually wrap it up and converge towards an end.

I do understand your objection to unrealistic scenarios. The problem is, as I said above, that there are NO other circumstances which are comparable. What I was trying to do was to get you to think about what it means to be "colonised".
I would say it doesn't "mean" anything, per se. I think different women can have different thoughts and feelings about pregnancy. Some enjoy it, many have mixed feelings, some despise it or are terrified by the idea. Some say it's huge, some say it feels natural. I think assigning specific feelings and emotions to pregnancy would be rather disrespectful to women who feel differently.
This is apparently very hard for men to do and it is also very hard for me to see why this is so: it should not be an impossible stretch of the imagination on the face of it. Yet the evidence is against that conclusion.
Interesting. Would you say it's also hard for women who have never been pregnant, or for some reason it's not? Would you say I am one of those who the evidence shows cannot imagine what it would be like if I were pregnant?
Imagine an intelligent tapeworm: or the alien I mentioned before: or any other thing which helps you to understand the enormity of this. Perhaps it is impossible for you. Sometimes I think so.
Well, I have had parasites. It was not pleasant, but not particularly enormous. I don't think that's quite like pregnancy, though.

I think intelligence is not a factor. The unborn or newborn child is not substantially intelligent: I dare say that the difference between its intelligence and the intelligence of a tapeworm is insignificant, as far as pregnancy is concerned. Would you say that carrying a severely retarded child, who does have the intelligence of a tapeworm, perceivably alters the experience?

I can understand that some women can feel very strongly and negatively about pregnancy, to the extent of perceiving to be colonized by an intelligent alien who feeds on their innards, or worse. That's another good reason not to become pregnant, or to terminate a pregnancy, as early as possible. But would this give them the right to terminate the life of a person, if the unborn child were actually a person? There are people who have just as strong phobias about other aspects of human reproduction, or life in general, and yet their feelings don't entitle them to kill other persons, even if these persons directly trigger their, very real, psychological torment. These people are required to control their feelings, and if they kill someone, they're imprisoned or placed in a mental institution. Killing another person can't be justified by subjective feelings; only by the existence of an objective threat. Or can you name some existing situation to the contrary?
You talk about court ordered blood tests - surely you can see that this is not even slightly comparable: yet even that is very, very carefully circumscribed because it is such an infringement of the normal rights we all share. Uncle Joe uses her blood without her intervention or her conscious assistance too. The fact that he removes her blood from her body is a trivial difference in comparison with the similarity that both are using her self without her consent. At least to me it is, and I truly cannot understand why this is hard to grasp.
But I understand that. The thing is that people use my self without my consent all the time. - Earlier, you have implied that when, for example, a policeman forces me to get out of my car, he is not using my body in quite the same way as a fetus. That such use is special and incomparable to other uses of the body. But now that I have pointed out specific characteristics of that special use, you dismiss them as "trivial difference" and insist that the important thing is that it is my self that is being used. Well, gee - it's also my self that has to get out of the car! I think you should clarify what specifically is important here and commit to it.
One thing I did want to address, or rather address again, was the question of definitions. Since you are not a native speaker it may be that your use of several terms interchangeably is not significant but I would like to clarify. Do you recognse any distinction between "human", in the sense that AkuManiMani uses it (that is fully human from the moment of conception on the grounds that in the course of uninterrupted development the foetus will not end up a tree frog or a water lily) and "person" (in the sense of a separate fully human being with all the attributes that entails?)
I have not read more than a few AkuManiMani's posts; there were many and the thread is long. - I try to use "human" to refer to the species homo sapiens sapiens, and "person" to refer to the legal entity, though I may slip occasionally.
One of the differences we have seems to be that you state that once a foetus is legally determined to be a person/human then the right to life is trumps. As you know I disgree no matter what definition you are using: but I wondered if you make any distinction. I would like to know what it is about a person/human which distinguishes it from everything else and which is the source of the rights you believe it to have? I would also like to know what other rights you believe people have and whence they derive.
In this case, it would be "person". The source of the rights are the laws that enforce them; the distinction between a person and everything else is in whether they are recognized as such by the relevant law. I don't think there's an independent quality of "being a person" that earns them certain rights: the fact that the law grants those rights to somebody makes them a legal person.

The same with the unborn child: recognizing it as a person would not mean that a state official comes and mumbles, "hereby, henceforth, notwithstanding, thou art a person". The child would become a person when the laws that guarantee rights to persons (for example by punishing those who violate them) begin to apply to it.

I won't attempt an exhaustive reply to your final question, as that wouldn't bring us to a timely end. I'll reply as briefly as I can, only to the extent that I find relevant to this particular issue: I think people's rights vary across the globe and derive from the consensus of the society. Some rights, like the right to life, or to property, are recognized virtually everywhere; you could say that those derive from the consensus of mankind. - Ultimately, rights come out of some kind of consensus. The reason why I believe a person's right to life overrides a person's right to "autonomy over their body" is that I can point to hundreds of countries where laws grant persons the right not to be killed. That's one heck of a consensus. That right is not absolute and can be overriden under various extreme circumstances; but I don't know of a place where that right is overriden in the case of "someone using someone else's body". That's not... much of a consensus. That makes me say that if an unborn child were considered a person - meaning what "being a person" means around the world these days - their right not to be killed would not be overriden by the mother's decisions, and by extension, it would have the right to continue to use her body.

Ichneumonwasp

30th March 2008, 10:22 AM

Why not collapse the 'right to life' and 'right to control one's body' into a simplified 'right to autonomy'?

That way, we needn't speak of one right trumping another, but rather throw this into starker relief -- for abortion we are saying that one person's right of autonomy trumps another's (if you view the fetus as a person) because of the peculiar situation (and it may be that in no other situation will we allow this, but it is certainly possible that we might when it comes to this unique arrangement), or that a fetus is not a person (so that abortion amounts to our allowance of one person killing another human non-person).

Fiona

30th March 2008, 11:38 AM

Thank you Ichneumonwasp. I think that expresses something I have been struggling towards and it makes things much clearer for me. :)

articulett

30th March 2008, 12:40 PM

I've been in a lot of counseling situations as a genetic counselor, and I can tell you that most women feel they are to blame no matter what happens. Every mother who finds out her kid has an abnormality thinks it must have been something she did--the pot she smoked in college or something.

As many as 1 in 3 conceptuses are spontaneously aborted... often before the mother knows she is pregnant... nature is a rather cruel culling device. In the past most babies with abnormalities did not live to be born or died shortly thereafter... even babies with things like a cord around the neck... We have made advances so that we can save babies that were not savable before and we can make babies that would not have been conceived before. I counseled a woman who was pregnant with 5 fetuses due to infertility treatment... all at some additional risk due to advanced maternal and paternal age... plus the risk that a multiple pregnancy has... the more there are... the more likely you are to lose them all... and the more the ones that survive are likely to be handicapped. Moreover, having a litter puts the mother at increased risk for all sorts of tragedies--eclampsia, diabetes, and embolism for example.

You can reduce the number of fetuses and increase the odds for the mother and the survivors, but how do you choose? And how much money should society pay to keep infants alive who will never be able to live without extensive expense and medical care? It seems like the moral police just add to a difficult situation. Just because people can live with enough medical attention or the donation of body parts from others etc... doesn't mean you should guilt people or punish people to ensure that they do. Sometimes not having a life is better than having a difficult one. Sometimes not being born is better than being born and being a burden to those who love you most. Help those who have birthed such children before judging those who choose not to.

A mother feels guilty when her child is in pain, if her child hates life, if her child is a burden to others, if her child takes from her other children, if her child isn't born healthy and perfect, if her child cries a lot... or is sick.... Do you really need to make women feel bad about a no win situation? Can't you trust the people in the situation to decide on the best choice rather than people who imagine themselves as being "more moral than thou". I and others am interested in the thoughts of those forced to make such a decision. I want them to have choices. I am not interested in the opinion of those who don't seem to have a clue. -Who don't understand that their morality is not something others find useful or "moral". I am thankful never have to have been in such a situation. But in a way I can relate. My young husband was dying of cancer, and requested "help" (euthanasia), but the doctor from the hospice was "Catholic" and wouldn't hear of it. How horribly helpless do you think I felt not to be able to do the one thing the best friend was requesting of me because of abstract morality of someone not in the situation?

I have never had an abortion; I don't know if I could or would have one. I imagine I would in orangeblue's situation. It seems like the lesser of two tragedies. But I sure as hell wouldn't dictate the decision to anyone else and I sure am grateful not to ever have been in a difficult situation where terminating a pregnancy was a better choice than continuing it. When you bring a person in the world, you feel an obligation to make sure that life is worth living. When you are talking about a disabled child... you are talking about a child that will need care, attention, and help even after the parents cannot do it. Some people don't feel it's morally right to put their family members, children, society, etc. in that position... especially not for a life that is unlikely to ever enjoy life. Once a child is here, humans tend to rally, but when you have a choice-- why would you compel birth? When you've watched one child die of a terrible illness, wouldn't you terminate if you found out your next fetus had it? And if you wouldn't, then maybe it's your morality that needs to be examined.

Bob Blaylock

30th March 2008, 04:11 PM

He's a Mormon... usually it's religion that encourages that black and white thinking-- moral infancy even in adulthood. Such people consider themselves to be moral examples without noticing that nobody else finds them the moral examples that they imagine themselves. It's easy to claim expertise on something you know nothing about. They do it for their invisible savior-- and they do it for women-- and everybody else.

You must wonder about people who think their morality should extend to others... I suspect they are not people who make friends easily in real life either. Perhaps they will pick up a clue here-- or maybe they will be forced to learn them by life experiences.

As with your similar attack against me earlier in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108993&page=6#274), this one indicates, more than anything else, that you need to take a very hard look in the mirror, if you want to see what the faults truly look like that you are attributing to me.

If there is anything that is very clear, it is that you haven't the faintest clue about Mormons in general, nor about me, my own beliefs, or how my religion fits into the picture.

It's apparent that not only do you know nothing about me, but you care nothing for any truth about me — real or imagined — unless it is something that you think you can use as a basis for an entirely irrelevant ad hominem attack against me.

As you said yourself, “It's easy to claim expertise on something you know nothing about.”

Surely, you must know that if your position is so weak that think that you must resort to tactics such as this to get your point across, then perhaps your position is too weak to be worth the trouble of trying to support at all.

articulett

30th March 2008, 04:22 PM

Bob, everything I know about you is from what you have posted here. I am entitled to my opinions. Moreover, I know quite a bit about Mormonism... I just don't think it's true like you do... I think it's wacky-- like Scientology. I'm glad to provide evidence for why have reached these conclusions... not that I think it matters to you... not that I think it's necessary for sharing my knowledge here.

You came across as very insulting to a forum member who had a tragic personal story. Moreover, you interrupted this thread without having read anything it seems... your issues had all been addressed... your views are sexist... you are clueless on the topic... and I have counseled Male Mormons in genetic counseling situations who were against abortion until they found out their sons had an extra X chromosome. Ask any genetic counselor in Utah about this phenomenon. There's always this issue as to whether we should give amnio results when that is the result. Suddenly abortion is an option for these manly men of god.

You are not someone whom I feel has anything to offer on this subject. You imagine yourself more moral than I see you as. And you insulted a forum member that I'd like to hear more from. You are free to your opinions... I felt I successfully conveyed the reason for your insensitivity to a poster I like. You are blinded by your faith. You imagine yourself as more moral than we see you. Your opinion on the topic is no more valid than any other guy not in the situation... it's just an uninformed opinion based on your feelings and very little understanding of the topic or any real knowledge as to what you would do. Naturally, orangeblue has more to offer on the subject than you. Your crassness was uncalled for in my opinion.

You are free to have your opinions... but they are just opinions. As are mine. And I am as free to give my opinion about you as you are to give your opinion about me, abortion, or your beliefs. I know you see me as "attacking"-- others don't agree. I see you as insensitive, illogical, and judgmental. I don't get my answers or my morality from your golden plates, magic book, or invisible man... and neither do the majority here. We don't find you as moral as you find yourself and we respect your opinions on this subject about as much as you respect ours. It appears you didn't even bother to read before posting. That's mighty self important of you, preacher boy.

AkuManiMani

30th March 2008, 05:03 PM

If I was aborted I would not have a life. I would never have had a life. How could that possibly matter to the me that would not be? Your question is really peculiar :con2:

It was a peculiar hypothetical [time travel and all that]; but the basic question was that, if given the choice, would you prefer to be aborted or brought to term? Of course if you're dead/non-existent you would have no preference either way but in the hypothetical you are given the choice of whether or not you would wish to convince your mother to go to term with her viable pregnancy of you. Also, depending on when she chooses to abort the pregnancy, your termination could be quite painful indeed :covereyes

articulett

30th March 2008, 05:05 PM

Life, itself, can be painful indeed.

Fiona

30th March 2008, 05:09 PM

It was a peculiar hypothetical [time travel and all that]; but the basic question was that, if given the choice, would you prefer to be aborted or brought to term? Of course if you're dead/non-existent you would have no preference either way but in the hypothetical you are given the choice of whether or not you would wish to convince your mother to go to term with her viable pregnancy of you. Also, depending on when she chooses to abort the pregnancy, your termination could be quite painful indeed :covereyes

I can give no better answer than I have already given. I can see no reason whatsoever to oppose my mother's right to abortion. I would not be dead: I would never have been. There are many many worse things *shrugs*

jfquackenbush

30th March 2008, 05:30 PM

Hi, I'm a johnny come lately to this thread and a new member, but I wanted to contribute something here, because I think there's something missing from this discussion. given that i think most folks who are non-theists look to the scientific model for knowledge about the physical and the metaphysical realms (the latter being a mistake, but that's OT), i think if you're going to have conversations like this, it's important to consider the meta-ethical positions at play. Reading over the thread it looks like most of the people involved on both sides of the conversation have adopted some version of the idea of human rights as a foundation for morality.

the first thing I wanted to point out is that rights really only make sense in the context of trying to construct a just legal system, and that the idea of right and wrong is separate from this concept of rights and is in some sense prior to it.

the place where I think non-religious arguments against abortion often go wrong is here, in assigning to a human who is still in utero the same rights as we accord to humans capable of surviving ex utero. I don't think it's necessarily obvious that that should be the case.

secondarily, to say that something is wrong, it's important to state what you mean by that. When I say something is wrong, I mean that it shouldn't be done and that there should be social or legal consequences for someone who does it. In the absence of a deity to tell us what the principles by which an action is right or wrong are, then it's important that we be logical and critical in our attempt to work out which rules are correct and should be used as a guide for action, and which rules should be dismissed as mere cultural taboos, goofy superstition, or themselves immoral methods of social control.

I think it's fairly clear that opposition to abortion is an immoral method of social control, at least by the set of metaethical standards I use for analyzing the non-obvious moral questions which are more or less agreed on to be "sticky."

Here's how the argument goes:

1.) I more or less accept for pragmatic and theoretical reasons that aren't particularly germane to the discussion as the best metaethical principle I've encountered, T.M. Scanlon's contractualist position that a principle must be evaluated based on whether or not anyone can reasonably reject it.

2.) It is possible to construct a principle that allows for abortion to be blameless that no one other than the fetus can reasonably reject. My version of this principle is as follows: A woman is entitled to terminate a pregnancy at any point she chooses without any moral compulsion to do otherwise. I believe this works because the only person who could reasonably raise objections to this principle is in fact a non-person in the form of her unborn offspring. such offspring have the potential to become persons with the ability to participate in the framing of morality, but they are not persons yet, and as such get no say in the matter. I think it is clear that there are a number of persons who are uncomfortable with abortion for whatever reason. However, those persons discomfort with abortion is not a good reason to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and frankly, that discomfort is more of a personal problem for those persons, and really is something they should try to do something about. As in, they should seek therapy for having irrational discomfort over the decisions being made by other people that do not affect them or anyone they care about in any way whatsoever.

Bob Blaylock

30th March 2008, 07:46 PM

Moreover, I know quite a bit about Mormonism...

This is very obviously a lie. Everything that you have said on the subject indicates an amazing degree both of bigotry and outright ignorance about Mormonism. Either you do not actually know anything about Mormonism, or else you are intentionally choosing to lie about it and misrepresent it.

In any event, that's not really relevant to this thread. You're the only one who thinks that it is.

You came across as very insulting to a forum member who had a tragic personal story.

I think I know which “forum member who had a tragic personal story” you are referring to. Where have I said anything to this member, or anything about the tragic story in question?

I see you as insensitive, illogical, and judgmental.

I happen to think that killing an innocent, defenseless human being is wrong, and that no society should tolerate it. If this makes me “judgmental”, then so be it.

Once again, if you want to see what “insensitive, illogical, and judgmental” really looks like, take a hard look in the mirror. these words certainly are a fair characteristic of your treatment of me, and, it seems, of anyone who is so horrid as to believe in a higher power.

your views are sexist...

You're characterizing me as “sexist” because I am opposed to a particularly savage form of murder which is primarily perpetrated by or on behalf of women. This makes no more sense than characterizing me as being bigoted against Islam, for being opposed to attacks such as those that happened on 11 September 2001.

I understand that not all (or even most) women would ever murder their own children, and that not all (or even most) Muslims would ever participate in acts of terrorism.

You seem not to grasp this principal; as evidenced by the fact that your every mention of my religion is being used to make the case that because I am a Mormon, I must be sexist and judgmental and hypocritical and so on.

One again, before you accuse me of any form of bigotry, you really need to take a hard look at yourself.

ceo_esq

30th March 2008, 09:15 PM

I think this begs the question, though I may be wrong. What you are saying is that you and I both have the right to use someone else's body very directly, but that in practice we cannot exercise it because it is tied to a particular stage of development. I hope that is correct. This seems convoluted, at best. You say it cannot be actualised in the same way. Can you envisage any way at all in which it can be actualised? If you cannot, then I put it to you that it is not latent: it does not exist. This is a far simpler way to look at it; though certainly not conclusive. Can you say why you think that simpler assumption should not be adopted?

First of all, I don't think I was question-begging inasmuch as I did not assume that the right in fact exists for anyone (I believe I referred to it as an "alleged" right). I was suggesting that to whatever extent such a right exists, it's misleading to think of it as a right that belongs to a subset of human beings (and to fault it on that basis as being in some sense discriminatory or non-universal, which you seemed to be suggesting). It makes little sense to me to attack on such grounds a right (or putative right) that is extended to all human beings but the exercise of which, by its nature, can only be realized under certain circumstances or more specifically at a certain stage of human development. This is generally true, after all, of what might call "children's rights" (whether conceived of as a subset of human rights, or purely statutory in nature).

It is interesting that Uncle Joe the vampire is dismissed because that is directly comparable: though apparently "inconceivable". What that dismissal means is that the question need not be answered, nor the relevant difference identified. I do not claim it as a good analogy: but I think this is because there is no situation where a human being is able to use another's body directly in the way that a foetus does.

You are quite right that there is no real situation that is directly and adequately comparable to pregnancy, but unfortunately that doesn't mean that it's illuminating to compare pregnancy - one of the most basic and vital aspects of collective human experience - to being fed on by a vampire. I think what Thabiguy's "dismissal" was getting at, in part, was that the use of what are sometimes called "science-fiction" arguments in ethics is notoriously unreliable. In the case of the vampire uncle, your instinct is to say that in a world in which vampirism exists and is comparable to pregnancy, Uncle Joe has no right to do what he does. But we don't really know what such a world would be like. Wouldn't every family have an Uncle Joe? Indeed, wouldn't everybody be like Uncle Joe at some point? The hypothetical doesn't really give enough information for us to be able to draw ready conclusions about what family members would perceive as their obligations in such a world. As the ethicist John Wilcox has noted, "This sort of problem is found in almost all science-fiction arguments. Our ethical intuitions are shaped by this world and would be clumsy in a real other world; but when we are not really transported to another world, but only asked to imagine a little bit of another one, our intuitions fail us entirely."

You are correct, in that I phrased this poorly. Let me try again. There is no separation of person and body: The body is what we are. It is all that we are. To take control of another's body is monumental. This is a thread which runs through our culture in such bombastic phrases as "give me liberty or give me death". Now many will say that the right to life supersedes even this, and will disagree with the values enshrined in that statement: but none would deny its importance completely, I think.

I tend to agree with the foregoing, with the exception that I cannot tell with certainty whether the body is all that we are (but this, I think, is not essential to your point).

Do we hold bodily autonomy above the right to life? Our stance on suicide suggests that we do, though this was not always true. Do we hold it as indefensible to take control of another's body where that person is adult and competent? Well you say that we can be forced to submit to medical invasions, for example; and this is not my understanding of the law: consent is required and can only be overidden in the case of incapacity, or for children who are not competent to make a decision. A woman is not incapable and she is not a child.

I presume that we do not need to adduce examples where a person's bodily autonomy could legitimately be overridden by obliging them to carry out or refrain from certain physical actions. As for physical invasions of one's person, I would note that under the right circumstances, you could be forced to submit to invasive procedures, for example, in the interest of the safety of others (body-cavity searches) or the interest of producing legal evidence (a blood test, or removal of a bullet or drug packet). Now, it's clear that under some circumstances you could not be forced to undergo such a thing, and it really comes down to a case-by-case analysis. The "right circumstances" to which I referred which generally involve both the gravity of the countervailing third-party interests and whether there is any other feasible way to attain them - but of course, in the case these are arguably aligned in such a way as to produce the "right circumstances". Remember that for purposes of this particular argument we are assuming that the fetus is a person, so we have already acknowledged that his or her countervailing interests are very weighty, and we also must acknowledge that at present there are few or no ways to secure those interests unless the pregnancy is not terminated.

Turning to your list of duties: they are partial, not least because they only consider the moral responsibilities of the woman and not of those who would take control of her:

By this are you referring to the moral responsibilities of the unborn child?

but I will try to address them as they stand: All three can be part of a decision to abort. For example a woman may be in a position where she needs to consider the needs of existing dependents. Avoiding bringing another child into a family can impair the ability to "provide aid to someone you have put in a position where aid is required" and can be an "affirmative action which would worsen the situation of those already in need of aid".

Brava. I think I want you on my team the next time I'm litigating a case. However, although that's a creative approach, I don't think it will fly. It could equally be applied, in the novel sense you are suggesting, to defeat a great many duties that would otherwise obtain and that we already know are not excused by this sort of consideration of "the needs of existing dependents". If valid, what you're suggesting could be used to excuse a mother of four children from the duty to come to the aid of her newborn infant in distress, for example, or indeed to expend time or resources (that could benefit her existing dependents) complying with just about any other legal or ethical duty. That such compliance might, for example, prevent her from providing a legally or ethically adequate level of aid to her dependents (or a subset of her dependents) is just too contingent and too far removed from the more immediate (and arguably graver in terms of the balance of harms) situation at hand. Not to mention that if this rule obtained it would arguably discourage people from giving due considerationas to how to fulfill both duties or how to mitigate the effect of one on the other (such as, among many other possibilities, via adoption).

Once again the situation is not simple and the moral choices a woman makes are serious: who can take those decisions better than she?

At bottom, I think this is a red herring, Fiona. We are discussing, inter alia, whether this belongs to the category of private and personal decisions that an individual is entitled to take for him or herself (and have it respected in law, etc.). I hope we can agree, however, we do not generally determine whether a decision is the kind that belongs to this category based on whether or not the individual can take the decision better than any other person (or body of persons). If something is a matter of inviolably private and personal decision, then the person is entitled to take it regardless of whether he or she is best qualified to do so. The question, which we ought not beg, is whether this is one of those decisions.

This example is the same as the one proposed by Thabiguy. I have answered it.

I'm starting to lose track of the various examples and their originators; I apologize. To which of Thabiguy's proposed examples are you referring?

But my vampire uncle Joe is much closer to the situation than is your Emily.

For reasons I explained above, concerning the characteristic problems of using science-fiction arguments in ethics, I don't think we can usefully tell whether the vampire example is close or not.

articulett

30th March 2008, 09:40 PM

I am curious to know if those against abortion would fight to make sure males weren't circumcised... after all, it's painful and the baby has no choice and it's not medically necessary... some might even call it the "whim" of the parent.

The kid is alive and born and should have all the rights you want to give it in the womb, right? Cutting off body parts and causing unnecessary pain for whimsical reasons seems cruel to me--
why wouldn't you be fighting against that or opposed to that... rather than concerned about what a fetus might experience if his parents abort him if... he is capable of experiencing anything. Why should your opinion on the subject be taken more seriously than my opinion on circumcision. I think that as long as the fetus is a part of someone else's body-- that someone else has a right to choose what to do with their body... whether it offends someone else's moral sensibilities or not. I don't think a women should care about an uninterested party's opinion... just as I'm sure they don't want to hear my opinion about circumcision.

gumboot

30th March 2008, 10:19 PM

Hokulele

30th March 2008, 10:43 PM

Personally, given the choice, I'd rather be aborted.

I don't believe in any afterlife at all. Once I die I simply cease to exist. I find that terrifying, and even more traumatic is the daily experience of living, knowing that at some unknown point in the future it will all come to an end and there is nothing I can do to avoid it.

It would be better never to have been, than to life a lifetime in anticipation of oblivion.

Although I can certainly understand your position, I am more of a "'Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all" type. For me, knowing that this is my only chance inspires me to appreciate it while I can. YMMV. :)

For those who want to know my opinion regarding the OP, go back a few pages to my exchange with kahalachan.

autumn1971

30th March 2008, 11:28 PM

Aku, nobody chooses to have life...

The will to live is a product of evolution-- even the bugs you step on will resist being stepped on.

As fetuses, we don't have enough awareness to choose life or "not life"... we don't even know we are separate from our mothers or that we run our own bodies until some months after we are born. Being glad you have life or wishing you didn't is a product of a developed mind... not a neonate with minimal awareness. Suppose the neonate would later commit suicide because they had a disease they found intolerable--say schizophrenia... it's not like they could know or choose not to be born, now could they? The will to live develops from primal instincts that cause us to do things that keep us alive and to fear and avoid pain and things that kill us. We don't have to have a thought or understand the reasoning to develop these feelings.

Nobody has a choice about being born or dying (except for suicides)-- it appears we fade into consciousness and fade out with oblivion-- nothingness-- the place we are before hand and after. We just don't exist. Pregnant woman are conscious... they do exist... your opinion and platitudes on the subject don't change that...You cannot miss what you don't know about--what you never had. Moreover, you cannot suffer or have an opinion or be glad unless or until you have a life. Fetuses have the potential to have these feelings... just as sunflowers have the potential to become sunflowers. But until they can exist without the body of a person who already has these feelings, they cannot request that such a person make such a sacrifice of their body until they can. They are free to be grateful to the person who utilized her body so they could be born should they develop the the brains to do so.

It's just not a decision for the clueless to make. You don't get it. You cannot decide that a potential person gets to use the body of some woman because you are morally opposed to abortion. I find unwanted and uncared for children to be a tragedy... but I don't get to decide that issue for anyone else. Nor should I. I can aim to make it happen less... and I suggest you do the same regarding issues that concern you. Your vapid moralizing is useless except as a means to make you feel "holier-than-thou".

I prefer to hear the real life stories of people like orange... rather than the self important pedantry of people such as you. I think people like him make the world a better place... he spreads understanding... you just talk to build up your own image of yourself. He clarifies why this is an issue that people like you must never be allowed to make for anyone else.

Thank you for not making me the first to say this.
I may, in fact, be an arrogant, unfeeling, amoral bastard (I am also a man, so cross the T and let the broadsides fly), but I am very certain that my son was no more "aware" after he was born than immediately before.
Human infants are very simply bags of organs with a rudimentary stimulus-response package.
Yes, there are variations of the basic package, but there has never been a newborn baby "aware" of its status as a newly born person. I was also right there when he was born. My wife doesn't like needles, so all of her children (my son is the last of three) were born with the assistance of midwives, with no pain-killers or other medical intrusions (I am not in any way trying to minimize the experience of childbirth as experienced by those who have chosen the hospital route, I am only emphasizing the closeness that my experience affords a father; I was not standing next to my wife, I was on the bed holding her, I think that I was even recruited to hold a leg back at one point).
Even though I was instantly intimately involved with this young life, I never had the idea that my son had any "awareness" above the level of "self/not self".
Newborn human babies are machines for growing brains. Remember that our increased awareness as a species has come about by what must be considered the pre-term birth of our children. Our brains have made our heads so big that our pelvic girdles can only handle birth if the child is brought out well before other primate children (I apologize for using the "pregnancy 'we'" to describe pelvic girdles and birth. I have no idea what women actually know, but I suspect that, if I'm good, I won't be fed to the future ultra-gyno-babies).

Thus ends the attackable ramble.

"Bring 'em on"-pre-term chimp

Fiona

31st March 2008, 01:36 AM

@ quackenbush.Thank you for a very articulate and thoughtful way of presenting part of the argument I am trying to make. You have outlined the issues far better in one post than I have managed in many :)

@Ceo. I have little time this morning. I will just say for now that my use of he word "vampire" was shorthand because that is how Thabiguy chose to describe my hypothetical. Uncle Joe was not a vampire: he was like you and me but had a need for regular blood transfusions to survive for a period while a different solution was sought. The question was whether if he forced his way into my house and restrained me and regularly took that blood forcibly would I have the right to stop him? It is not a great analogy, but not so far out as you suggest. Both Ichneumonwasp and Quackenbush have presented the case without analogy better than I have managed to do, however and this is a far better way to couch the dicussion

Magenta

31st March 2008, 02:05 AM

I have never said that a woman has no right to autonomy over her body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Quite on the contrary: even if an unborn child were considered a person, and also if it were not, women should still have the right to autonomy over their body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

What I was saying is that in the hypothetical case that an unborn child was considered a person (which is not my idea or something I support, but the premise of Fiona's argument which I disagree with), this person would have the right to use its mother's body (by virtue of having the right not to be killed, like any other person) and so women would be unable to exercise their right at the expense of another person's life, and would have to be compensated in a different way if their rights were violated. Before the fetus (hypothetically) becomes a person, and also in real life where women have this right that they should have (I'm not aware of a country that considers unborn children to be legal persons), women can exercise their right by, for example, getting an abortion.

I wonder why you said "don't demonstrate that a woman has no right to autonomy over her body in the case of an unwanted pregnancy" when I never claimed that women don't or shouldn't have that right. Perhaps you live under the impression that either a woman can have a right to autonomy over her body, or the unborn child that is a person can have a right to life, and these rights cannot coexist. So by affirming the latter, you may have thought I was denying the former. - If that is the case, rest assured that the society is full of rights that conflict, and yet coexist. Resolving those situations is what puts people behind bars and/or gives lawyers' daughters new cars.

OK, thank you for clarifying.

I have said that dislike of "things moving around in my uterus" would not justify removing those things if another person's life were at stake. I have clearly written that premise in that paragraph - go ahead and check. It refers to the hypothetical scenario that the unborn child was a person. Which is, again, the premise of the argument which I disagree with.

OK, by "hypothetical scenario" I meant the "kicking away the drowning person" scenario, not the other hypothetical scenario.

It's quite possible that I have chosen an inappropriate word; I'm not a native English speaker. I have wanted to choose a word that meant 'unrestrained personal decision for private reasons'. I thought 'whim' meant that. If the word carries negative connotations that I'm not aware of, I apologize. Care to suggest a more appropriate word?

I didn't know English was not your first language. "Whim" doesn’t normally have negative connotations - it implies a light-hearted and impulsive decision – but the context can render it inappropriate. You could perhaps have said something like "We are not entirely free to choose as we want when another person's life is at stake" instead of "We are not entirely free to follow our whims when another person's life is at stake."

I would say that perhaps you are taking things too personally. I am not responsible for other people's comments, nor have I read them in full. Making so much fuss over one single word, and hardly touching much of the rest that I have written, is what I'd call unhelpful to discussion.

If you suggest that before I write something, I should first carefully read comments that I disagree with, and then choose a vocabulary as distinct from those as possible, I respectfully decline. But, since you have brought this up explicitly, I will attempt to avoid that word in the future. My intent was not to derogate.

I don't think a one line retort constitutes a fuss. I only elaborated and explained the context when I thought you didn't understand the reason for my objection. I was hard-pressed to understand why someone would use the word in a discussion about abortion, hypothetical or not. It hadn't occurred to me that you were using it in an idiosyncratic way.

[...]
I don't understand the point of your comment. Are you suggesting that arguments with hypothetical premises - which are mentioned repeatedly - should not be discussed? That they are off topic? That I shouldn't disagree with arguments that I believe to be wrong, when they seem to support a position I otherwise agree with? Or what?

You don't have to discuss that argument if you don't want to. Fiona apparently has had no troubles understanding the spirit of my objections, and responded very thoughtfully. Even though we weren't able to come to an agreement, she's been very civil and on-topic and I respect her for that. Unlike some other posters in this thread who just seem to spout venom and if they can't find opponents, they fabricate them (no, I don't mean you).

There was no great point. You're entirely free to discuss hypothetical situations as you wish and ignore unhelpful comments from me. I get a little exasperated at times that people seem to find discussions on abortion more interesting the more abstract they become. I agree though that there has been some thought-provoking discussion.