• David
    34
    Hopefully this will remain a cordial discussion :D

    It seems that many pro-choice advocates are not in favor of abortions per se, but of women's rights in terms of their right to decide what happens to, and I've heard this term used often before, their own bodies. On the other hand, there are those who take philosophical issue on the dehumanizing of what they consider to be fully human, and thereby murder or not.
    Of course there are asshats who simply don't consider other peoples' perspectives, but I will just omit those kinds of views from discussion, as I don't think that they are conducive to anything.

    Before I begin I would like to make the argument that, in my mind, the resolution of such a decision lies in whether or not humanness is a binary with all humans having an equal right to life, and if so, whether, or when, humans become "unkillable". That is, if I am certain that fetuses have the same humanness as I feel I do, then I would make the claim that abortion is in fact murder, and morally wrong. On the other hand, if I were to become convinced fetuses are in fact either subhuman, or completely unhuman, then abortions should be morally equivalent to killing a mosquito.

    Now, I am leaving the fact that only women are prone to pregnancy entirely out of this issue. It is extremely unfortunate that it might be moral to place life-altering restrictions on a group that is already considered to be treated at a substandard level (as compared to men) by a variety of institutions. However, if it were only men that might get undesirably pregnant, my stand would hold identically. I fundamentally do not think that it is a question of women; it is a question of what is murder?

    Of course there are societally pragmatic definitions for morals as those things which can bring about positive effects upon the whole of society. For example, murder is deigned inappropriate because it is harmful to society as a whole. Under this perspective, freedom of abortion is an obvious conclusion; a world in which babies that would otherwise grow up in environments where it is most often difficult to raise them, added on to the emotional baggage of the parents and the restrictions upon their own strivings, plus an understanding that a low population is no way a struggle of this century, means that abortions make society better (barring the effect of accepting it on peoples' psyches and beliefs regarding what things we are allowed to kill).

    At the same time, such a definition for morality, especially the morality of murder seems fairly misaligned with reality. For example, we do not have massive campaigns to rid ourselves of people with very heavy mental disabilities, even though this would also be societally favorable–it would mean that their genes are more certainly not passed down and it would allow for, again, a better situation of those who would otherwise have to care for them. Nonetheless, such an initiative would be almost unquestionably cruel and immoral. It would near-genocidal and it would unquestioningly be considered murder.

    It seems, therefore, that there is some fundamental nature in humans that we value, and we thinks makes them "unkillable". It is far more cruel to, most people would say, commit genocide than to hire an exterminator, even though the latter is likely killing a much larger number of individuals. Further, as much as we may deny it, it seems that many humans have a disposition to value some lives more than others. For example, when someone commits an atrocity awful enough, there is a sizable percentage of people that believe it qualifies them for being killable. More interestingly, a common response to the question "what would You do if You have a time machine?" is going back and assassinating figures who caused many deaths, such as Hitler or Stalin. And the only moral qualm with such an action is typically associated with the butterfly effect and not the moral question of whether murder to save lives is acceptable. Therefore, it seems that almost everyone thinks that many lives are worth more than one. It seems like a very basic conclusion to arrive at after all this text, but we're starting to progress.

    At another point in time, I have heard in response to the debate that it is in part an issue of deciding something where it is clear that something has at some point in time occurred, but that it is difficult to specify when. This kind of issue is apparent, for example, in all kinds of government age-limits. For example, it is recognized that 15 is probably much to young to be drinking alcohol, or being an adult and by 25 most people should be allowed to do so. Nonetheless, the exact age is a somewhat arbitrary decision between those points in time. Likewise it seems that perhaps (if we are assuming a binary human-not-human descriptor) humanity is something that occurs after sexual intercourse, but before the age of 3 years (by which point a vast majority of toddlers exhibit consciousness). Nonetheless, it seems that this binary is not reflected by policy and many opinions. The fact that abortion is widely accepted, to begin with, is a demonstration that killing a fetus does not equivalate murder. Likewise, a quick Google search informed me that the maximum sentence for manslaughter is 25 years, whereas for infanticide it is 5 years. A plausible definition for murder might include the removal of consciousness of intelligence. But then taking drugs or getting a concussion are minor murders, a lobotomy is death, and killing someone who is braindead is an entirely insignificant action. In any case, such a definition, would imply, that the mentally disabled are less deserving of life and that mentally highly functioning individuals are more deserving. Further if such is the case, there should be no difference between infanticide on newborns and an abortion a couple of weeks later. In such a case, we could define a neural scale for how alive someone is and how much we kill it but completely stopping it's brain activity. Such a definition is repulsive.

    This brings another point and another degree of consideration. The contrast between repulsiveness of actions and pain. A fetus before a certain age has little nervous system so if harm is defined in pain this should be fair game. This is especially considering that the abortion would alleviate the parents considerable pain. This approach is not unlike vegetarians who are willing to eat animals that were raised and killed in ways that did not bring them pain. On the other hand, there is something fundamentally repulsive, in my mind, in the thought of killing, anything from a fetus to a mosquito. Then again, I also think cheese is repulsive. But it seems that killing is generally a repulsive act. Movies depict (and I have no way of knowing how mythical this is, but it seems to make sense to me) people getting light-headed and vomiting on the sight of corpses (especially if they're recently, and gruesomely disease). Images of dismembered fetuses and such that pro-life activists like using, have a similar emotional effect. I think it's a tricky question.

    I ask myself, therefore, on what philosophical basis the liberal movement so immediately supports abortion. To my understanding, the entire social philosophy of liberal movements is supporting otherwise disenfranchised and powerless groups. I understand, of course, entirely how abortion helps bring women power. But at the same, this seems to overlook the point that it removes from fetuses (which really have no testimonies or internal spokespeople) an even greater degree of rights. So I ask, how can so many people look at the question of abortion without looking at the question of murder?
  • OglopTo
    122
    Generally speaking, and I'm speaking for myself...

    It feels wrong to perform abortion. I don't know though where I got this feeling -- it could have arisen from social conditioning or maybe from sympathizing with the suffering of fellow living beings.

    However...

    I also think that motives do matter in distinguishing right from wrong. If abortion is performed out of the awareness of the consequences of performing otherwise, I feel it is justified.

    An easy example to consider is aborting fetuses diagnosed with physical or mental disabilities. Another example, though not as easy to evaluate, is abortion of fetuses in poverty-ridden or war-torn environments. And finally, I'm not sure if anti-natalists will argue, abortion is a good compromise to prevent another soul from experiencing the trappings of human life.

    Bottomline...

    Both general considerations and exemptions to abortion that I described take into account sympathy/empathy/compassion for the suffering of others as criteria for judging abortion's rightness or wrongness.

    Segue...

    What I'm trying to understand, but still haven't, is why would society/parents/strangers want the fetus to develop to become a human being? I can only think of selfish reasons. Is it right to force the responsibilities of life to a new human being for any such reason?

    But then again, this is an issue in anti-natalism debates. I just thought you might also want to consider this.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Over the last couple of years I have become more pro-life, whereas before I had no strong opinions either way, although I leaned toward being pro-choice. It seems destined that one will find leftist and progressivist views attractive as a young person for at least a brief spell.

    The argument that one has the right to do whatever one wants with one's body now rings hollow to me. It's first of all not true. One does not, for example, have the right to detonate one's body in a crowded area. That's called a suicide bombing, and it's very illegal, not to mention immoral. Why is it illegal and immoral? Because it harms other human beings.

    Secondly, in the case of abortion, it too ought to be illegal and already is immoral on account of the fact that it harms a human being in the womb. What other kind of being could a fetus growing inside a human mother be? Those who value human life ought therefore to value the lives of human beings in the womb. Is the fetus dependent on the mother for its survival? Of course, but so are all humans dependent on each other for their survival, whether fetus, child, adolescent, or adult. No man is an island. Indeed, life in general is dependent on itself for its survival. Some may find this heartening; I find it tragic, but in any case it's the truth.

    Harm does not depend on physical pain. One can be harmed psychologically or by the theft of one's property, for example. This is because harm refers to the frustration of the will's striving. The fetus is harmed in that it has the desire to live, which is then frustrated when aborted. To privilege humans who have already been born as deserving the right to life is utterly arbitrary. What is the relevance of one's spatio-temporal position in relation to this right? What magic, life granting fairy dust is sprinkled on the babe's brow upon exiting its mother's birth canal? There is none. Humans inside the womb have as much a natural right to live as those outside it.

    Are there any exceptions? There is but one. When the life of the mother is at stake, an extremely rare occurrence I might add, she is justified in terminating her pregnancy. But this is because she is acting in self-defense. The same cannot be said in the case of rape, for example, for the fetus is not at fault for what happened, the rapist is. To punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is unjust.

    There is a connection here with anti-natalism. I do not like using this term as it is currently defined, but I do hold to the view that one ought not to procreate. My reasoning is two-fold: 1) one's individual existence is an imposition and 2) I have compassion for my fellow creatures. One common anti-natalist complaint is that no one ever chooses to exist; one is simply thrown into this vale of tears by powers outside of one's control. Well, if the inability to choose to exist is a reason not to have children, then by the same logic, the inability of the fetus to choose to be born is a reason not to terminate it. The concern in both cases is the same: arbitrary imposition. Parents make a decision that affects the life of a being who has no say in coming to be. A mother who chooses to have an abortion affects the life of a being who has no say in ceasing to be.

    Secondly, I have chosen not to have children not out of misanthropy, or hatred of life, but out of philanthropy, or love of life. Love entails willing the good of the other as other, the obverse of which entails never harming another. The awareness of suffering in my fellow creatures causes me to feel sympathy and compassion for them, which in turn causes me to choose not to subject another creature to such a miserable fate. In my taxonomy of moral terms, selfish actions are amoral, harmful actions immoral, and compassionate actions moral. Why do women terminate pregnancies? They do so because having a child is in some way an inconvenience for them. They do not act in the interest of the fetus, since the interest of the fetus is, by default, to live. They rather act in the interest of themselves. Consequently, their action can have no positive moral worth and is in fact positively immoral due to forcibly denying the fetus's natural right to live.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Why do women terminate pregnancies? They do so because having a child is in some way an inconvenience for them.Thorongil

    I have a tooth extracted because it is an inconvenience to be be suffering pain.

    I feel this language is loaded, and my comparison is also loaded. I think for most, but inevitably not all, women, an abortion is at least more serious and considered than a tooth extraction. I think most do consider the child as well as themselves. Indeed it is the relation that is weighed and rejected.

    This is the challenge, that the individual, the human with or without this or that right begins in such intimacy that separation is unsurvivable. This is the fact upon which morality must rest.

    I would claim that the society that creates such conflict that a woman wants to disfigure herself with surgery to conform to an image of femininity is also the same one that refuses to support the woman who finds herself supporting a new life within her. Two disfigurements that are related. My suggestion is that cosmetic surgery and abortion are not areas where prohibition will be effective while the social pressures pro are maintained. To put it baldly, society is pro abortion to the extent that it does not value motherhood, and when I say 'value', in a capitalist society, I mean put its money where its mouth is. Make child benefit equal to the living wage first, and then start to talk about the sanctity of life.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Make child benefit equal to the living wage first, and then start to talk about the sanctity of life.unenlightened

    Sounds like a red herring to me. I wasn't talking about child care. Simply because I oppose abortion doesn't mean I oppose providing adequate childcare or that I must somehow choose between the two. Such a dichotomy can go to hell.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    I wasn't talking about child care. Simply because I oppose abortion doesn't mean...Thorongil

    Well if opposing abortion isn't about child care, I fail to see what it is about at all, apart from arbitrary control of women's bodies.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    So I ask, how can so many people look at the question of abortion without looking at the question of murder?David

    It's because fetuses prior to 20 weeks gestation can't live outside the womb. Collective intuition (spanning many cultures over an extensive period of time*) is that they aren't independent entities and aren't conscious.

    I agree with you that it is a moral issue and have long wished that those who don't seem to be familiar with the concept of morality would exit the discussion because they aren't being helpful.

    *The average book on uses of North American plants will point out which ones were used by Native American women to perform abortions prior to the arrival of the White Dude.
  • David
    34
    Collective intuition (spanning many cultures over an extensive period of time*) is that they aren't independent entities and aren't conscious.Mongrel

    If that is really the case, then why is there a noticeable, at the least, number of pro-lifers out there? There are religious institutions and such that completely forbid abortion at any stage (regardless of the fetus' ability to survive on its own), and some that even go as far forbidding male masturbation. Obviously, suggesting that people have to enact every single chance of procreation and are otherwise committing murder is ridiculous. Nonetheless, I would love for you to elaborate on this collective intuition. It is not intuitive at all to me that being alive requires an ability for self-sustenance. I mean, most people consider that coma patients and people with deteriorating diseases that need machines to breath for them are, in fact, alive (regardless of whether they think it is worthwhile for them to be so).
  • Mongrel
    3k
    I believe the average pro-lifer genuinely believes that abortion is murder. You asked what accounts for the alternate view.... I was answering that with a fair amount of earnestness. It's because many people don't believe a fetus is yet a person. I was also pointing out that this is not a brand new way of looking at things. It's been around for a long time.

    I work in intensive care, and I routinely care for people who require extraordinary measures to stay alive. I used to work in neonatal and pediatric intensive care. A fetus prior to about 24 weeks can't be kept alive by any machinery. Their lungs just won't work. All the tissues are just too fragile. The brain isn't developed enough. Frankly, they look like little aliens.

    I respect the beliefs of those who say the lives of first and second trimester babies are sacred. I don't agree.
  • swstephe
    109
    Of course there are societally pragmatic definitions for morals as those things which can bring about positive effects upon the whole of society. For example, murder is deigned inappropriate because it is harmful to society as a whole.David

    Maybe it would be useful to look at the (in)famous "trolley problem". A runaway trolley is headed toward a group of people. You just happen to be standing next to a switch, (in one variation), that would redirect the trolley away from one group of people and toward another person killing them. From a utilitarian point of view, you are obligated to throw the switch to save more people at the expense of the innocent person. But most people presented with this description would still refuse to throw the switch, even when it causes more harm. Perhaps that's a more analogous drive for those who oppose abortions. It is deliberate harm to an individual, which is "wrong", regardless of the benefits. On the other hand, I think a large proportion of those same people don't have any problem with killing people, (Hitler or Stalin, enemy armies or criminals), if it benefits society as long as they or some individual they haven't authorized is directly responsible.

    I even see a kind of paradox that many people who are "pro-life" don't see any problem with being virulently "pro-gun". While those on the other side might protect "pro-choice" as a right, but oppose owning guns as a kind of right. If we took the arguments of "pro-life" to extremes, then we should ban anything that might unnaturally end human life, like guns, wars or pollution, and unequivocally support anything that helps preserve human life, like free health care or wealth redistribution to end poverty. I think the paradox is resolved when you look at who is ending life, whether it was intentional/deliberate/provoked. Pollution appears to be mostly unintentional. "Responsible" gun owners don't appear to be intentionally going out and killing people. Even when discussions are brought up about alternatives to abortion, (such as adoption), there doesn't seem to be much motivation on either side to create the costly infrastructure.

    I was thinking about this after a historian's video was discussion the moral implications of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. The usual argument is that it saved more lives than it cost, but acknowledged that it was more in line with an extreme "trolley" problem, of whether it is right to kill innocent people to save an even greater number of lives. I suppose there are even parallels with another subject touched upon in the OP: that of euthanasia of someone who is brain dead or in a permanent vegetative state. The same people who reject abortion seem to also reject euthanasia, and I tend to think it would be on the same grounds as the "trolley problem" -- that it is a deliberate, intentional, and one-side decision -- regardless of the benefit to society, or the individuals involved.

    Also, I always have to point out that the real problem is unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, which both sides actually do support, but that the arguments tend to polarize around the responses to the problem.
  • swstephe
    109
    A common statement is that "abortion is murder". But technically, "murder" is "killing outside of legal/officially sanctioned means". If abortion is legal and performed by a physician, it is not "murder" in the legal sense.
  • BC
    13.6k
    ...there is a sizable percentage of people that believe it qualifies them for being killable.David

    It seems to be the case that lots of people - prenatal and postnatal - are killable if there is sufficient reason. Most people say "killing is wrong" (God himself says that) but at the same time we are perfectly willing to support killing people when it is reasonably well organized and in pursuit of a more or less suitable goal (so is God, apparently). We frown upon individuals opting to kill other humans for their own screwy reasons on an ad hoc basis.

    Some people have a fetus fetish. Of course a woman's fetus is human -- what else would it be? Clearly a fetus is on it's way to becoming a being, provided something doesn't go wrong. (I say "becoming"; Maybe an hour-old newborn isn't quite a being yet, either, but it is a lot closer to being a being than a 5 month-old fetus.) That said, I don't think abortion needs to be "celebrated". Whatever else it does, abortion terminates a being-in-the-process-of-becoming, which is a at least a freighted decision. I find it OK if there are serious reasons for doing it.

    Pretty much everybody has engaged in, supported, paid for, grown food for, or made bullets for war at one time or another. We are quite comfortable with killing people in an organized way, even if a lot of the people who actually die aren't the cause of our anger/anxieties/discomfort/annoyance/etc. Generally we don't know them, so... bombs away.

    Does being anti-abortion (killing of innocent people) require one to be a pacifist as well? War involves killing innocent people a good share of the time. The "guilty" generally don't make themselves available for target practice. It also seems like people who are anti-abortion, pro-life, anti-contraception, and so on should also be ardent funders of orphanages. They are, generally, no such thing. "You made the choice to get pregnant with the brat that we wouldn't let you abort, so now you'd just better support it on your own, and don't come whining to us about it."
  • BC
    13.6k
    However, if it were only men that might get undesirably pregnantDavid

    "If men got pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament." Gloria Steinem.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I even see a kind of paradox that many people who are "pro-life" don't see any problem with being virulently "pro-gun".swstephe

    I wish to interject here that I am pro-life, but not virulently pro-gun, if only to confirm that such individuals do exist, despite your having implied that they might. I would not be much distraught if all guns were banned tomorrow. On the other hand, I am persuaded as to their effectiveness as a means of self-defense in certain limited circumstances, so long as one is threatened to the extent that a gun is the most prudent means of said defense. I also believe that there are just wars, on account of the same principle of self-defense. But I am not in favor of guns per se or of hunting and the culture surrounding the ownership of guns.

    then we should ban anything that might unnaturally end human life, like guns, wars or pollutionswstephe

    Which we already do to varying degrees.

    like free health care or wealth redistribution to end povertyswstephe

    These things are vague enough to be open to dispute. It was a clever attempt at inserting your political opinions on these matters by assuming them, though.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    "If men got pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament." Gloria Steinem.Bitter Crank

    I think not and find this to be a fatuous remark. Even if they did, they would still be open to the same arguments against abortion that I and others have presented. Most ironic, however, is that Steinem undermines her own position by effectively admitting, as I pointed out above, that women obtain abortions for self-interested reasons. The appeal she is making is to the perception that men are even more selfish than women and so would, by virtue of this fact, choose to have even greater numbers of abortions and minimize the number of restrictions on them. If that's the best she can do, that's the best she can do.
  • BC
    13.6k
    I think she did better, but her quippy comment is fun, anyway.
  • swstephe
    109
    I wish to interject here that I am pro-life, but not virulently pro-gun, if only to confirm that such individuals do exist, despite your having implied that they might. I would not be much distraught if all guns were banned tomorrow. On the other hand, I am persuaded as to their effectiveness as a means of self-defense in certain limited circumstances, so long as one is threatened to the extent that a gun is the most prudent means of said defense. I also believe that there are just wars, on account of the same principle of self-defense. But I am not in favor of guns per se or of hunting and the culture surrounding the ownership of guns.Thorongil

    If you were to take what meager gun usage statistics were available, and reword it as a medical procedure, there would be a call for banning it from every persuasion. In the US, (an unusual example), humans killed by guns are more often for suicide, followed homicide and accidental shooting before even getting down into clearly justified self-defense. If there were some new medical procedure that the majority of people were abusing to kill themselves and others, or would end up getting them killed, (self-defense scenarios often favor the attacker) -- someone even marginally pro-life ought to oppose it as the harm clearly outweighs the costs. The analogy to abortion would continue to say that if you need a gun to defend yourself, it is better to move to a safer neighborhood, so it is your own fault if you get shot. The abortion debate often gets pushed into some equally rare situations to justify wholesale banning of the practice.

    These things are vague enough to be open to dispute. It was a clever attempt at inserting your political opinions on these matters by assuming them, though.Thorongil

    I'm hoping to be politically neutral here. I think both sides are trying to achieve the same goals, but only differ on some of the details. I'm would like to encourage some introspection. If someone is truly pro-life, then they have to defend the life of the fetus by making sure the mother gets adequate healthcare and is either able to provide for the child or the state would. I think people avoid this contradiction by deferring authority. If abortion were banned again, then the fetus dies anyway because the mother can't afford healthcare, then why aren't the people who refused to support healthcare collectively guilty of the same murder? I think the same would go for pro-choice. If a woman has a right to defend her body from an unwanted pregnancy, then they ought to be more sympathetic to guns and wars on the same basis. But I think this debate can't be objectively rationalized because of the "trolley problem", and the assignment of authority. We, (Americans), can justify the slaughter of thousands of innocent people every year as long as we have deferred our authority, (in a democratic society), to someone else. Even then, accepting personal responsibility for all life and death decisions, seems like something as yet unthinkable or unacceptable, (I don't think the "trolley problem" has any satisfactory universal solution).
  • David
    34
    If abortion were banned again, then the fetus dies anyway because the mother can't afford healthcare, then why aren't the people who refused to support healthcare collectively guilty of the same murder? I think the same would go for pro-choice. If a woman has a right to defend her body from an unwanted pregnancy, then they ought to be more sympathetic to guns and wars on the same basis.swstephe

    You perfectly hit what I was trying to touch upon and a sense paradox I often find in political persuasions. It leads me to be increasingly convinced of the idea that Mark Twain presents in his essay "Corn-pone Opinions": an overwhelming degree of political opinion is not opinion at all. There does not seem to be a truly consistent train of logic tying together what most liberals believe; there does not seem to be truly consistent train of logic tying together what most conservatives believe. Of course, there are things that can actually be assigned to belief groups– for example, liberals tend to act in the support of minorities (which sometimes actually stifle them), while conservatives tend to try to maintain traditional values (which are sometimes romanticized views of pasts that never existed)– but, at a certain level, people don't actually think...

    On the other hand, claims about consistency with gun control and such, I don't think are necessarily "for the protection of life". Claims of many of the more reasonable (in my opinion) gun freedom advocates hinge on the opinion (misinformed or not) that an increased number of guns placed into the hands of responsible citizens will cause less deaths. Regardless of whether you think this is a ridiculous claim, if would make sense for someone holding such a belief to be against both abortions and gun-control.

    Maybe it would be useful to look at the (in)famous "trolley problem"...But most people presented with this description would still refuse to throw the switch, even when it causes more harm.swstephe

    I don't have immense background in this hypothetical. You said that most people wouldn't flip the switch (I assume because then they'd feel responsible for killing one person, rather than creditable for saving a bunch). Does the situation suggest that flipping the switch is morally correct, and merely very difficult and emotionally tolling, or that, by general consensus, one should not use the switch? My intuition seems to reach for the prior, although I don't have any logical arrivals at it.
  • swstephe
    109
    I don't have immense background in this hypothetical. You said that most people wouldn't flip the switch (I assume because then they'd feel responsible for killing one person, rather than creditable for saving a bunch). Does the situation suggest that flipping the switch is morally correct, and merely very difficult and emotionally tolling, or that, by general consensus, one should not use the switch? My intuition seems to reach for the prior, although I don't have any logical arrivals at it.David

    trolley+problem1.jpg
    (click for Wikipedia)

    In philosophy, you shouldn't just say "morally correct", without addressing a theory. A rule-based ethical system, (do not murder anyone, except under well-defined exceptions), would probably not have covered this scenario. Consequence-based ethical systems, like utilitarianism would find flipping the switch to be the best choice in most formulations. In general, though, people would agree that flipping the switch is the right thing to do. But what Phillipa Foot found was that most people would not flip the switch themselves. It isn't clear why people feel that way, but most people seem to fear they would be blamed by society for killing someone deliberately even if it saved many other lives, and perhaps projecting that attitude toward others. There are many alternate scenarios -- like pushing someone onto the tracks instead of throwing a switch, or one where you have to kill someone in order to escape a cave.

    It also illustrates that people think/feel more deeply about issues than would fit in a nice logical argument. They also tend to reduce complex general situations get overly simplified, (the pregnant woman getting an abortion so she doesn't miss her skiing trip, the store owner defending himself from robbers, torturing a suspect for information about a ticking time bomb -- all extremely rare compared to the more common situations, used to justify more clear-cut imagined support for positions).
  • BC
    13.6k
    After we run over the 5, can we back up the trolley and finish off the guy tied up by himself? Or is that against the rules, for some odd reason? It should go into reverse, since it doesn't appear to be a cable car.
  • Hanover
    13k
    I think the people should sort of roll off the track. It just doesn't look like they're secured to the track itself, so I think they ought to get out of the way. We're also not provided any explanation for how these folks found themselves in the quandary. Maybe they deserve to be just where they are.

    There's a pregnant lady in my office and I often ask her how her choice is doing. I got that joke from a bumper sticker that said "It's a baby, not a choice," which means the opposite view is that it's a choice not a baby.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I think people avoid this contradiction by deferring authority.swstephe

    People do, but not me. I agree the mother and child need adequate care. But that's a separate issue from the moral status of abortion itself.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    People do, but not me. I agree the mother and child need adequate care. But that's a separate issue from the moral status of abortion itself.Thorongil

    Good point. (Y)
  • m-theory
    1.1k
    Most "pro-lifers" don't really care what it means to be human in my experience.
    They just want pregnancy to be a punishment for sex.

    When debating pro-lifers I always use the same hypothetical situation.

    Suppose it was possible to transplant the fetus such that the woman could remove it from their body and the pro-lifer could be the one to carry it until it is time to be born. In the legal sense this would be like an adoption except with a fetus.

    Invariably pro-lifers object to this, insisting that they should not be responsible for the fetus.

    They insist that they did not have the sex and that they did not cause the fetus to exist so they should not be held responsible.
    I disagree...they should be held responsible for their values...and they claim to value the life of the fetus...ergo they should be willing to care for it.
    If you are unwilling to care for the fetus, and then the child it will become....then you are not actually pro-life you are just opinionated about what someone else ought to do.

    When posed this hypothetical reveals that the main argument of pro-lifers is that they believe that if a woman has sex one of the consequences ought to be dealing with any unwanted pregnancy by carrying the pregnancy to term and giving birth to a child.
    Here is where pro-choicer disagree. Pro-choicers argue that a woman should be able to decide if she wants to reproduce or not (a decision that a man does not face because he does not become pregnant). Because a fetus is not yet conscious it is not a person and there are no rights being violated by the termination of that pregnancy.

    While it is not actually possible to transplant a fetus yet (maybe it is technologically possible for women but not for men) it is possible to adopt a child that has been born.
    As far as I am concerned the only "pro-lifers" at this point are people who have adopted children.
    If you have not adopted a child I will insist that you are not pro-life in any practical sense of what that term means.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Suppose it was possible to transplant the fetus such that the woman could remove it from their bodym-theory

    But it's not, so it's meaningless to speculate.

    Because a fetus is not yet conscious it is not a person and there are no rights being violated by the termination of that pregnancy.m-theory

    No. You are simply assuming that rights only apply to persons and not living things more generally. I, for example, would wish to extend rights to non-human animals, but not because they're persons.

    If you have not adopted a child I will insist that you are not pro-life in any practical sense of what that term means.m-theory

    This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    But it's not, so it's meaningless to speculate.
    I pointed out why it was important to speculate.
    To determine if the person is pro-life in a practical sense.
    In my experience pro-lifers are not pro-life at all and refuse the pro-life option that would also satisfy the woman's desires as well.
    The option to take the fetus for the women is a win for everybody...but only if you are actually pro-life.
    Unless you are willing to act on your values you are not moral you are just opinionated.
    So you have an opinion on what you believe someone else ought to do...not an opinion on how you should act morally.

    No. You are simply assuming that rights only apply to persons and not living things more generally. I, for example, would wish to extend rights to non-human animals, but not because they're persons.
    I am assuming rights do not apply because nobody exists to benefit from them.
    I would say the same thing about the fetus of other animals as well.
    A fetus is not an independent living thing...the mother is.
    For this reason the fetus has no rights...the mother does.
    The question is whether or not women ought to be able to decide for themselves whom they will procreate with.
    I believe that decision is for the individual and not the state.


    This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.
    It is meaningless to say you are "pro-life" if you have not actively demonstrated that value in the context of this issue.
    You are not pro-life in any practical sense of the word unless you have adopted a child.
    It is self righteous delusion to believe otherwise.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    To determine if the person is pro-life in a practical sense.m-theory

    What you say is not practically possible, so no conclusion as to the practicability of pro-lifers can be averred based thereon.

    It is meaningless to say you are "pro-life" if you have not actively demonstrated that value in the context of this issue.m-theory

    No, it's quite meaningful to say I am pro-life if I am in fact pro-life, which I am. It has nothing to do with adoption.

    I am assuming rights do not apply because nobody exists to benefit from them.m-theory

    A fetus doesn't not exist.

    A fetus is not an independent living thing...the mother is.m-theory

    There are no independent living things. See my first post.

    The question is whether or not a women ought to be able to decide for herself whom she will procreate with.
    I believe that decision is for the individual and not the state.
    m-theory

    Good for you. I don't.
  • m-theory
    1.1k
    What you say is not practically possible, so no conclusion as to the practicability of pro-lifers can be averred based thereon.
    Actually it probably is technologically possible...but there is no demand for it...because people are not pro-life...they are pro-tell others how to live.
    I also pointed out that adoption is an option...most pro-lifers don't do that either...again they are not pro-life so much as pro-tell others what they ought to be doing.

    No, it's quite meaningful to say I am pro-life if I am in fact pro-life, which I am. That has nothing to do with adoption.
    It is not meaningful in any practical sense because you refuse any responsibility for this value.
    What you really mean is that you believe someone else ought to be forced to be pro-life.

    Good for you. I don't.
    At least here you admit that you want to force your beliefs on someone else rather than assume responsibility for those beliefs yourself.

    Again that has nothing to do with whether you are pro-life...but whether or not a woman ought to be forced to be pro-life.
    What you really mean by "pro-life" is that you believe that women (and not yourself) ought to be pro-life by force of law.
    Until you see that point I will not proceed further with the why I believe this view is mistaken.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Actually it probably is technological possiblem-theory

    :-d

    It is not meaningful in any practical sense because you refuse any responsibility for this value.
    What you really mean is believe someone else ought to be forced to be pro-life.
    m-theory

    Again, you're presenting a red herring. The topic at hand is the moral status of abortion itself, not whether one (and here this can mean society as a whole) ought to provide adequate care for the child once born. I have already ceded multiple times that one ought to do the latter. However, that doesn't mean I have a personal responsibility to adopt a child. You have simply created said responsibility out of thin air.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    No.
    The point is you are not pro-life...you actually believe that someone other than yourself ought to be pro-life by force of law.

    You have not demonstrated any pro-life morals only expressed an opinion about what you believe someone else ought to do.

    I can say"I like trucks" but then someone says "why don't you buy one" and I reply "I don't want that responsibility" then I do not actually value trucks practically...I just like the idea of trucks.
    Same thing applies here.

    You are not buying what you are selling.
    You just want others to buy it.

    I am just pointing that out.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.