[RD] Abortion, once again

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Angst, Jan 10, 2022.

  1. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    6,768
    Location:
    UK
    You are the one affecting the cells; you are making a conscious action.

    This isn't how a pregnancy works. The parent's development is an automatic process they have very little, if any, control over. The fetus itself is actually what demands - in biological, not conscious terms - nutrients and so on from the parent body. It's involuntary. Your example is voluntary; you can stop at any time (regardless of whether or not you should). Outside of intervention (e.g. the thread topic), the pregnancy continues as far as it can, ideally to full term.
    You're the one who walked in here with a gotcha and didn't bother attempting to engage anyone's arguments. But you can substitute "ignorant" for "discounting relevant facts" if it helps at all.
     
  2. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    46,250
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Gravity also 'demands' that the ball continue to fall. (Or the ball demands that it settles its potential energy). It's just thermodynamics.

    Semantically, you seem to be excluding 'force' if there's a subconscious process. OTOH, I think that if you initiate something and allow it to continue, you've forced the result on any downstream entities.

    I flail when I sleep, so if I place a bucket of coffee at the edge of my bed, I don't think I 'enable' it to fulfill its PE. There's only one entity with will, and I'm forcing the result on my landlord (the other entity involved in the scenario).

    Now, this is just heuristics, so it doesn't matter really. But, 'enable' is value-loaded. Does excessive drinking 'enable' an FASD person into existence? 'Facilitate'? Would those be the right words?

    (Late edit) Here might be the difference ....There aren't three entities in the calculation, there are two. The mother, and any person that was forced into existence. The developing fetus is just like any other piece of matter falling down a thermodynamic gradient.
     
  3. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,383
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    Is this not just the concept typically described as "reckless" behaviour/action in british legal language?
     
  4. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    6,768
    Location:
    UK
    This reads as blame of conception, which I disagree with on a bunch of grounds. I could be wrong though. Just trying to tie it back from the abstract a bit!
     
  5. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    46,250
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    "Blame" is, again, value-laden. And if we allow people to ascribe some of the outcome to the fetus itself, it gets super-weird. The fetus is "to blame" that a person is created? It's why I wouldn't use that word.

    That's a very large heuristics jumble in order to protect the slippery slope that not all pregnancies are consensual, though.

    I mean, I factored in the understanding that free will itself could be an illusion right at the beginning of the conversation.
     
  6. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    6,768
    Location:
    UK
    Consensual or not is just one particular part of the overall reasoning. Failures in birth control, the simple fact that humans should be allowed to make mistakes, and so on. The severity of how people view the mistake comes back to the (very much aligned with religious belief and / or influence on culture) perception of the resulting action (abortion).

    Like, I'm pro-choice. If we want to talk about protecting slippery slopes, anti-choice seems to have far more. We're not weighting a nice, clean, sequence of events here. We're talking about choice, and a lack of choice. And getting philosophical about it doesn't really move the needle in terms of the actual debate at hand, either.
     
  7. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    46,250
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Er, but nothing I've said countermands this. As I've said, you're going a long way in order to protect a slope.

    Which nutrient does the fetus receive that the mother doesn't have a strong say in? I mean, when I feed my cells, it's actually simple brownian motion that introduces the mixture to the cell receptors, but their feed mixture, their gas mixture, their temperature and even their location in space-time is basically under my dominion. If we want to pretend that they have a vis or a life-essence, then yes, their transdifferentiation is not 100% under my dominion. Regardless, I force their fate.

    What else do I merely 'enable' in my body? When I drink alcohol, do I 'enable' my liver to metabolise it? When I eat glucose, do I 'enable' my pancreas to release insulin?

    I don't use the word 'blame'. If we're ascribing the concept of 'free will' to people, then let's not give any 'will' to the fetus.

    What's the debate at hand?
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2022
  8. bernie14

    bernie14 Filter Manipulator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    coastal flood plain
    Well, choice and anti choice will always be trumped by right to life. Do you confine yourself to defending extreme positions?
     
  9. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Super Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    45,245
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    If the "right to life" is a more than an "opinion" and rooted somehow in the fabric of all living things, why do we allow so many children all around the world to die needlessly? Cows and pigs for that matter.
     
    bernie14 likes this.
  10. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,434
    Distance from causal links, and in some cases disagreement over policy.

    It seems most humans agree that neglecting your own child (especially to death) is worse than ignoring the plight of children 1000s of miles away. And this makes sense. You have control over whether your own child becomes a consideration in the first place, you do not have meaningful control over whether there are 100,000 children in Pakistan or something.

    Compulsion makes more sense when agency is involved/more direct.

    Cows and pigs do not have personhood, or many rights beyond basic animal cruelty laws. One might disagree on that setting, and we could pass additional laws if enough people want them. But at least historically, people do not value cows and pigs as highly as other people in their tribe/country/etc unless said cows/pigs are their own property, and at that point it depends.
     
    bernie14 and Birdjaguar like this.
  11. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    46,250
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    I think that might be missing what Bernie was saying, which seems to mean that "right to life" is the foundation upon which much of the discussion is predicated. We implicitly nod at that every time 'risk' was mentioned, for example.

    There are three components to my answer, though.

    Firstly, we prefer to stop evil people than prevent 'natural evils', psychologically. The more mechanistic the process is, the more we dissociate the 'evil' behaviour from the 'natural' outcomes.

    Secondly, we prefer near people to far people. And not just people, we have more empathy up close.

    Thirdly, we prefer to declare what other people should be doing rather than do more ourselves.

    I think creating a grid using those spectrums would explain a lot.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2022
    bernie14 and Birdjaguar like this.
  12. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The long wait

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    21,483
    Not all the good are saints, or even good all the time. They do good anyways. When the hands are full, it's time to ask for help, not drop it all and go get ducked up. Well, maybe both.
     
  13. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Super Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    45,245
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    All three of you are correct, none-the-less, people from all over the nation fight hard to stop abortion by those both distant and unknown. At the same time they will fight as hard to deny children close by them food and shelter. The abortion wars creates acts of violence not seen in other struggles over basic rights needed to live better than "surviving." BLM is an exception though. People would rather spend millions of dollars to shut down Planned Parenthood clinics than feed or house children across town. The abortion fight is fundamentally different.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2022
    Sofista and Gorbles like this.
  14. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    6,768
    Location:
    UK
    You claimed that the slope I'm protecting was in service of a particular thing. I was clarifying the range of things at hand. But I'd be more interested in knowing more about this slope, and your general position on the subject. Why is it a slippery slope, why is the fallacy itself relevant, and where does it in your opinion lead?

    For example, I have a feel for where, say, bernie sits. He makes it obvious through his posts that he, in fact, has a position. I don't understand your position here, so these clarifications should help.
    You facilitate the exchange. But once again you're describing an action that you yourself take of your free will. The parent body (and brain) makes no active choices in the case of growing the child inside them. It happens. It is a result of various subconscious biological (and chemical) processes, which are (for the large part, mainly excepting self-destructive behaviour) out of the parent's control. If there is a single, conscious choice that you're referring to (but for some reason not explicitly clarifying), it's the act of conception.

    Of course, the parent's dietary choices (and / or other things they can do with or to their body) can absolutely factor into development. But likewise, the fetus can also take - at cost to the mother's health, either by necessity, or by a problem during said development (that doesn't actually have to arise by any action the parent has taken). I really don't think your analogy is making the point you think it is. Either that, or there's a gap in your knowledge with regards to fetal development. Which is a possibility, sure. I'm not knocking such a gap, or mocking it in any way. It's just personal bias that for me I expect your differences to be over something like philosophy, rather than a gap in knowledge.
    You don't use the word, but you certainly seem to use the concept. Why else apply the label of a slippery slope to my arguments? Why else focus so much on the semantics of force (however incorrectly, in my opinion)? Though again, hopefully your clarifications to my questions above should help us both, in case we're talking past each other.
    The right to an abortion, legal protections (or lack thereof), and cultural happenstance around it all.
     
  15. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The long wait

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    21,483
    Nothing will ever be perfect. It's only the enemy of good if I accept the fundamental dodge at the root of your post.

    Them, right? But them. Right.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2022
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  16. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,628
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    It's much less about having control and much more about having responsibility/emotional links.
     
  17. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,434
    From what do you derive responsibility though? It's not realistic to take responsibility or assign it in scenarios where the "responsible" person has no ability to determine what happens. Control isn't the only source of responsibility, but it's a mandatory one. I agree the proximity/emotional links are important too. What you're quoting is in response to policy rationale though, and emotion is something to consider using only very carefully when setting policy. We legally compel actions to keep a person's own child alive, but we do not compel that parents "love their children", even if most of us expect it.
     
    bernie14 likes this.
  18. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    46,250
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Two guesses: the first slippery slope ends in people thinking that a mother's early decisions even matter regarding later choices (Or, 'blaming' the 'choice' to have sex, as if it matters). The even worse outcome is shifting the burden of proving consent or lack thereof on the mother (shifting the onus of proving that 'blame'). So, even acknowledging that consensual conception is something forced onto the resulting person becomes 'sticky'. Not for any logical reason, but because those two slippery slopes must be defended completely. People accidentally downplay agency rather than insisting that it doesn't matter.
    I nearly included a lol emoji. I think of myself as prolific on CFC regarding this topic, so I guess it's been awhile since I've posted! This is a concise summary, but would require unpacking.


    Up until all timepoints, all decisions are at the sole discretion of the mother, especially so if the fetus is not made into a person. I become increasingly distressed about abortions after, so I think that every effort to minimize the number of unwanted fetuses at that stage are worth considering and even funding. The later dilemmas bother me, but I also know that there are enough non-compromisers such that giving too much ground (or giving reasonable ground with bad precedent) results in the line moving such that too many unwanted fetuses (and eventually full persons) are made, thus increasing the total number (and suffering) of victims overall. My arrival at '23 weeks' was not made lightly or without very sincere efforts at discovery, and the line hockey-sticks at about 30 weeks. The first goal is to decrease the number of unwanted (late) fetuses, and the stretch goal is to maximize the number of people who were glad that they were born (so that can run into my first sentence)

    The foundation of my morality in this situation (regarding the fetus) is that if I were regressed into a state of mental decay, at which point would I prefer to be regenerated (or allowed to regenerate) rather than not caring if I were ended? And if someone willfully put me into that regressed state, I would hope that incentives are such that I am regenerated (properly rather than poorly) rather than killed. Just to be careful, I decided that 'if I had encoded memories' worked reasonably well until I know more. Meh, it's so late in the process that most of the actual political efforts don't require a precise line.

    There are a multitude of conscious choices made by a multitude of people that determines the creation of the resulting person, especially so as medical knowledge and resources advances. But, whether there are one or many, none of them were made by the created person. All of their decisions are forced upon them. Any blame or appreciation (value-judgements) is in their eyes alone, but regardless, the outcome was imposed without consent. This is unsolvable, but is regardless true. The best we can do is get retroactive consent, so failing to get it is undesirable.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2022
    Gorbles likes this.
  19. Valka D'Ur

    Valka D'Ur Hosting Iron Pen in A&E Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    26,623
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
    I hadn't intended to post any more comments, having had my say earlier. But I've been reading the others... and wow.

    I've found myself going from bemused to angry, back and forth, and exasperated at how abstract this issue is for some of you. Do none of you have wives, girlfriends, daughters, nieces, or friends you can imagine in this situation? (I know Birdjaguar has referred to Mrs. Birdjaguar, so I don't include him in this question as he's already answered it)

    The abortion fight is fundamentally hypocritical. Too many of the people who claim to be on the side of the unborn have no problem ignoring the basic physical (food/clothing/shelter/medical), social, and educational needs of the recently-born if they happen to be born to low-income mothers, disabled mothers, minority-race/ethnicity mothers, drug-addicted mothers (these categories usually overlap to some extent). They have no problem looking down their noses at the mothers of these kids and saying, "Everything bad in your life is your fault, you're not worth my respect, and therefore neither is your child, and if you don't hop to it and get a life I approve of, I can and will advocate for the government to take your child away from you and put him/her into foster care. Oh, and don't even think of using birth control, because it's sinful to go against God's will. Only abstention is acceptable."

    Such people have the audacity to call themselves "pro-life."

    They should be honest and say they are pro-fetus. They couldn't give a damn once the fetus becomes a newborn baby, and they don't like to think about tax money being spent to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate these kids when they get older and help them stay healthy.

    This hypocrisy is being taught to the next generation, at least in my province. My MLA, who was formerly the president of the Catholic school board and is the current provincial Minister of Education, once approved of a "field trip" in which teenage students were bused to an anti-abortion rally. This meshed with her views on abortion, as she is also a former president of the local "pro-life" organization. This is the <individual> who is pushing abstention in the K-6 health and "wellness" portion of the draft curriculum she's hell-bent will be taught in schools this fall. Proper teaching of consent issues and that boys also need to be responsible is not part of that.

    And these people are going to profess themselves dismayed and perplexed when the usual issues of teenage pregnancy are still happening in another 12-15 years. They will still be protesting abortion and women's health clinics and lobbying in favor of "conscience rights" for doctors and pharmacists to neither prescribe nor fill birth control prescriptions, and allowing them to not refer the patient to another doctor or pharmacy.

    It's basically saying, "There is a problem that upsets me greatly, therefore I will do everything in my power to make sure the problem cannot be solved to my satisfaction, so I can continue to rant and complain and be upset and look down on and harass and belittle and preach at the individuals who are the real victims but who I won't acknowledge as people who need real help because IT'S ALL ABOUT ME."

    I don't think that's an inaccurate summation of the headspace of the average pro-life protester.


    I've seen the argument veer into the idea that it's hypocritical for pro-choice people to be glad they themselves were not aborted.

    I will say this: It's possible to be both glad to be born, yet hold the opinion that my existence was an irrational decision on my mother's part. In her defense, she only had a Grade 10 education and didn't have all the facts in the early '60s that I do now, and society was very different then. If I'd been born male, this wouldn't even be a problem (my parents did want a boy rather than a girl and had already picked out a name for a boy; when that anticipated son turned out to be a daughter, they were unprepared)... because it's not the male side of my mother's family with a multi-generational legacy of aggressive cancer. It's the female side. To the best of my knowledge, my youngest aunt and I are the only ones who have escaped this - so far. When I think of what I may be facing in the next 10 years, I think that having children was one of the dumbest decisions my mother ever made.

    When I was in my 20s, I decided that I would not have children. I have no siblings, and my aunt's children were boys. Another aunt had a daughter, and I don't know if she's still alive (I heard that she had cancer). But over 30 years ago, I decided that in this branch of the family, it stops here, in my generation, with me. I would not risk passing it along, and no amount of my mother harassing me and bleating about "I want to be a grandmother" would change my mind. It wasn't an easy decision, because it means that my grandfather's family won't continue beyond me. But I believe it was the only sane decision I could make, given the medical histories of both sides of the family.

    I've mentioned this before on the forum, years ago. MobBoss promptly berated me for "depriving the world of someone who could have been wonderful."

    Well, it's nice that MobBoss thought it possible that I might have a wonderful child. But the decision wasn't his to make, and while he was/is entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of you, every woman should have the right to choose for herself whether or not to have children. Sometimes abortion is really the only medically sane choice. It's not one I've had to make, but then I've been very careful not to get into the situation where I might have to make it. My choice would not have sat well with the rest of my family.
     
  20. bernie14

    bernie14 Filter Manipulator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    coastal flood plain
    Is it possible to add poll to the thread?

    I agree with the violinist analogy

    yes

    no
     

Share This Page