an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I really think that sentience should be the proper metric. To me, this handily explains why we toss the placenta but keep the baby

Maybe you could re-post your example with the 2 sets of conjoined twins ? That was quite an eye opener for me

 

[Traitorfish]

Would you explain what you mean by 'shared metaphysical framework', and why it's necessary?

Well, in this context, I mean a shared understanding of the metaphysical nature of the subject. (Generalising a bit,) People who hold an idealist conception of the subject as "a life", an immaterial "vital spark" prior to concious being, will overwhelmingly be pro-life, because they view a newly-fertilised egg as possessing the same vital spark as you or I. People who hold a materialist conception of the subject as a sentient organism will tend to be pro-choice, because they do not regard a foetus as attaining moral significance until it develops a sentient mind. People who hold a dualist conception of the subject, as immaterial but necessarily sentient, and tend to be moderate on the issue, because they regard the foetus as not possessing intrinsic moral value, but developing it quite quickly, generally at the first signs of neural activity. (Not all of these frameworks are made explicit, not least the number of self-proclaimed "materialists" working in a de facto dualist framework, but I think that it's more or less fair as a rough characterisation of the three main tendencies.) What this means is that we're working with a number of different assumptions about what a person actually is, and thus how it is that we are to act towards other people in an ethical manner; while I might consider a foetus to be nothing more than a blob of cells, a pro-lifer considers a full-blown person (and, by the same token, where I might hypothetically consider an advanced AI to be a full-blown person, a pro-lifer might see it as nothing more than a bundle of cables and microchips). It makes debate pretty pointless, because for the most part we're just hammering away at foundations that for the most part none of us really recognise that we have and which we don't stand much of a chance of denting. All you can really hope for is compromise, and that much is never gong to emerge from a debate between evangelical fundamentalist like CelticEmpire and an epitome of godlessness like Useless.

 

[timtofly]

Part of the metric though deals with the female who makes choices even before their brain is fully developed as an adult. Abstinance is said not to work, because the "animal" attraction is stronger than the responsible developement. Humans have slipped past the point where we want things now, and cannot wait until the brain is fully developed to enjoy them.

or however any one wants to parse this

 

[bernie14]

I am not sure I see your point. Are you implying that moral obligations become irrelevant once they require collective effort to be fulfilled?

sorry, no....actually, kinda the opposite....my point was that one person cannot really assume the burden of conceiving "potential" humans because gametes are only 1/2 potential humans....one would need "cooperation" to conceive.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

People can just ask to be transferred to another hospital to get the abortion done though, can they not?

That assumes that:

1. There is another hospital within a reasonable distance where abortions are performed.

2. The Catholic doctor will do the needed paperwork and referrals, without whining about his/her "conscience."

Considering that a bunch of New Jersey nurses insist on not doing ANYTHING for abortion patients - even bringing them pills or taking their blood pressure - some medical "professionals" stretch the so-called conscience clause excuse far beyond anything remotely reasonable.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Well, in this context, I mean a shared understanding of the metaphysical nature of the subject. (Generalising a bit,) People who hold an idealist conception of the subject as "a life", an immaterial "vital spark" prior to concious being, will overwhelmingly be pro-life, because they view a newly-fertilised egg as possessing the same vital spark as you or I. People who hold a materialist conception of the subject as a sentient organism will tend to be pro-choice, because they do not regard a foetus as attaining moral significance until it develops a sentient mind. People who hold a dualist conception of the subject, as immaterial but necessarily sentient, and tend to be moderate on the issue, because they regard the foetus as not possessing intrinsic moral value, but developing it quite quickly, generally at the first signs of neural activity. (Not all of these frameworks are made explicit, not least the number of self-proclaimed "materialists" working in a de facto dualist framework, but I think that it's more or less fair as a rough characterisation of the three main tendencies.) What this means is that we're working with a number of different assumptions about what a person actually is, and thus how it is that we are to act towards other people in an ethical manner; while I might consider a foetus to be nothing more than a blob of cells, a pro-lifer considers a full-blown person (and, by the same token, where I might hypothetically consider an advanced AI to be a full-blown person, a pro-lifer might see it as nothing more than a bundle of cables and microchips). It makes debate pretty pointless, because for the most part we're just hammering away at foundations that for the most part none of us really recognise that we have and which we don't stand much of a chance of denting. All you can really hope for is compromise, and that much is never gong to emerge from a debate between evangelical fundamentalist like CelticEmpire and an epitome of godlessness like Useless.

I'm not sure it makes the debate pointless, so much as it shows that - when certain people get involved - the debate is too easily turned from substantive discussion to empty sloganeering. This is why I say it's a problem of oppositional politics (in the US, at least; elsewhere it seems far less difficult): the primary motivation of those who derail the debate is not for anybody to arrive at a better understanding, but rather to make a show of their political allegiances by attacking the enemy. I see no other great reason why one should not be able to appreciate and weigh up multiple different conceptions of the nature and value of human life.

 

[LucyDuke]

The fact that pregnancy can be terminated moots the claim that consent to sex is consent to possible parenthood. It really is as simple as that. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of either parenthood or termination.

(Not a comprehensive rebuttal to all the wrong in this thread, but I don't think anyone else has touched it.)


This "debate" has nowhere new to go. Engaging it can be a fun exercise in rhetoric or a jump-off for other interesting topics, but here we have a deadlock. SO. If we stopped shouting at each other about misogyny and murder then we could work together to actually prevent abortions, like, in the real world! We all want to do that (particularly the folks that keep shreiking about evil), and there are methods that we all actually agree on (except the sex-haters with screwy priorities). Or maybe yelling is more important.

(I'm tired.)

The fact that these women harp on about choice when they refuse to choose other choices is a cop-out for bad behaviour.

I'll spare you the reply to the insulting rest of the post, but this part is special.

If you can work out why that statement expresses nothing but contempt for the concept of choice, I will give you a cookie.

Here's your hint: Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.

How many pro-lifers here have had a family member require an abortion for one medical reason or another? Just asking.

This will be underrepresented, since abortion is a very private thing and still carries a lot of stigma.


BTW Winston Hughes won the thread.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

sorry, no....actually, kinda the opposite....my point was that one person cannot really assume the burden of conceiving "potential" humans because gametes are only 1/2 potential humans....one would need "cooperation" to conceive.

Yes, your point is that you need two person to assume the burden. And as a consequence, I ask you if you want to suggest that the need for collective effort frees one of moral obligations. And then you go on to say that this were the opposite? Are you sure you know what "collective" means?

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, your point is that you need two person to assume the burden. And as a consequence, I ask you if you want to suggest that the need for collective effort frees one of moral obligations. And then you go on to say that this were the opposite? Are you sure you know what "collective" means?

I'm not following you here, I thought bernie was responding to the possibility of considering eggs alone as worthy of human protections and what, if any, moral burden a woman would have by not conceiving a child every time she would possibly be able to.

Walk me through it?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure it makes the debate pointless, so much as it shows that - when certain people get involved - the debate is too easily turned from substantive discussion to empty sloganeering. This is why I say it's a problem of oppositional politics (in the US, at least; elsewhere it seems far less difficult): the primary motivation of those who derail the debate is not for anybody to arrive at a better understanding, but rather to make a show of their political allegiances by attacking the enemy. I see no other great reason why one should not be able to appreciate and weigh up multiple different conceptions of the nature and value of human life.

Well, experience has tended to suggest that the Christian idealists find the conception of the self as a sort of meat-golem to be incomprehensible, if not abhorrent, and that the materialists don't think much more of the conception of the self as a fleshy mecha piloted by a ghost. It's possible to compromise between the two at the level of policy, mebbe, but establishing any sort of ethical consensus is a different question altogether.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Well, experience has tended to suggest that the Christian idealists find the conception of the self as a sort of meat-golem to be incomprehensible, if not abhorrent, and that the materialists don't think much more of the conception of the self as a fleshy mecha piloted by a ghost.

But why is it that people in the US cleave so hard to these metaphysical conceptions when abortion is the issue at hand? The answer, I believe, can be found in the historical and constitutional circumstances surrounding Roe vs. Wade, and the way in which that judgement became a defining moment in American politics. Debate has not become so difficult because the metaphysical tension is any greater in the US, but because of the political subtext.

 

[JollyRoger]

The fact that these women harp on about choice when they refuse to choose other choices is a cop-out for bad behaviour.

Many women choose to give birth. Most women choose to decline to have sex with some males that have expressed a desire to the woman to have sex.

 

[Traitorfish]

But why is it that people in the US cleave so hard to these metaphysical conceptions when abortion is the issue at hand? The answer, I believe, can be found in the historical and constitutional circumstances surrounding Roe vs. Wade, and the way in which that judgement became a defining moment in American politics. Debate has not become so difficult because the metaphysical tension is any greater in the US, but because of the political subtext.

That's a very fair point, yeah.

 

[bernie14]

Yes, your point is that you need two person to assume the burden. And as a consequence, I ask you if you want to suggest that the need for collective effort frees one of moral obligations. And then you go on to say that this were the opposite? Are you sure you know what "collective" means?

my posts were specifically responding to the following question that you posed…..

why wouldn't it be immoral to deny all those potential human beings I could have already conceived existence?

in regards to whether moral obligations become irrelevant once they require collective effort, I would certainly say so, if they depend on the collective or for that matter just one other person, unless you believe an individual has the right to force their morality on others?

I'm not following you here, I thought bernie was responding to the possibility of considering eggs alone as worthy of human protections and what, if any, moral burden a woman would have by not conceiving a child every time she would possibly be able to.

....or the couple of hundred million "potential" humans a male fails to conceive every time he....well you know....a heavy burden indeed

 

[Zelig]

A few months ago, I got into a car wreck because abortion protestors were blocking the entrance to the plaza where the clinic was. The first car slammed on its brakes. The second car did the same, and I hit the second car. According to someone who lived nearby, this has happened numerous times, and each time, the protestors take no responsibility for what happens, but instead say it's our fault for driving by the clinic. Note that this is a major road so there's no way to even drive around it!

This sounds to me like you got into a car wreck because you weren't maintaining safe stopping distance to the car in front of you.

Well, a seed is by definition a plant and an embryo is by definition human.

Not by commonly accepted definitions.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?

For a random dude on the street, no. For ypur own living child (And I'm not talking about abortion yet, I'm talking about an indisputable child who is going to die unless he can temporarily borrow his parents' kidneys) I would have no real issue with the government mandating it, just like a parent can't kick their kid out on the street, or whatever. You have a responsibility to take care of your kid.

Now, if its your life VS their life, its a bit more of a challenge, and one that I'm not going to address here.

So if you take the above, combined with a belief that it would apply to a fetus, you would be pro-life (At least in theory.) That's where I stand.

If you think a fetus has human rights, as per above, but do NOT think that you could force a parent to help their child, you might be pro-choice, but I really think that's a pretty awful position, to the point that I'm not even really going to consider it. Which leaves us with:

At what point does a fetus have human rights?

Wherever you draw that line is when you think abortion should be illegal.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't believe in human rights.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Explain????

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think they exist. I don't think we have any reason to believe that they exist.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So, what do you believe regarding rights? And if people have no rights, can I shoot you in the head? (Serious question BTW, since life is protected BECAUSE it is a right.)