An Honest Debate of Abortion

[Silurian]

If science ever advances to the point that a fertilized egg can be brought to term without the mother, then abortion should be completely illegal (though the mother should have the right to have the egg taken out of her body).

Well women having IVF can have an embryo transferred into them up to about 7 days now, and the possible transfer day it is getting longer.

I would not be surprised if this could be extended to a few weeks in the next ten years.

That does open up the possibility that if a woman wants a very early abortion she could donate the embryo to another woman.

I do not know if there will be enough women to accept such a donation when it becomes possible.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Does the second choice have to outweigh the original choice?

The problem lies in the fact that the woman "most-often" has no say in the "original" choice and that society has come to the conclusion that allowing the second choice to be "ok" is the only way to avoid mental anguish, however slightly, since there are mental and physical detrimental effects, that have been whitewashed out of the picture.

Men should be forced to let the woman make the first choice, and also declare that any choice should also be made at the same time and bound by a contract to enforce both entities ability to choose the second choice if and when it happens.

I agree with "most" females here that the men have been given too many opportunities to abuse any choice a woman may have.

Freedom is never free!

Wait wait wait. This post is way too weird to be ignored. Are you saying that women have no say in (what I believe you're implying) the choice to have sex? Most often? Are you really trying to say that? And that men should be "forced" to let women make the choice to have sex? Do you even live in the same universe that I do? Because, uh, I don't know about you, but where I live women aren't "most-often" forced to have sex.

 

[timtofly]

Wait wait wait. This post is way too weird to be ignored. Are you saying that women have no say in (what I believe you're implying) the choice to have sex? Most often? Are you really trying to say that? And that men should be "forced" to let women make the choice to have sex? Do you even live in the same universe that I do? Because, uh, I don't know about you, but where I live women aren't "most-often" forced to have sex.

I was trying to break down the "excuse" to even have an abortion. If two people regular involve in making the decision to create and destroy life in an equal agreement, then I have no problem with the use of abortion as it stands.

I do not think that just "aborting because I can" stands up "equallly" to two people coming to a binding agreement on what happens before it even gets to that point.

Abortion in and of itself is a personal choice that only can be made by that person. Allowing it to happen without consequences is what has caused all the mental and physical problems. Until those consequences are addressed, then the "free" ability to have abortions willy-nilly is going to continue to be a sticky topic.

 

[useless]

Allowing it to happen without consequences is what has caused all the mental and physical problems.

[Citation Needed]

 

[Traitorfish]

It's never seemed that complicated to me, if you think a fetus is a person, then you will probably consider abortion murder. I really can't argue with that stance, as personhood has less to do with scientific absolutes than it does philosophy. So I don't think there's an empirically correct answer.

If you're going to have an honest conversation about abortion, I think you have to be clear that the other side has a logically consistent position as well.

Doesn't that assume that they really do have a logically consistent position? And without meaning to sound tediously partisan, I generally find that this isn't very frequently the case with people espousing a pro-life politics. There arguments have a pretty strong tendency to display a lot of clumsy and poorly-examined assumptions about conciousness, about personhood, about ethics, even about biology, more often than not the result of trying to secularise a logic originally constructed within the terms of religious belief. (And let's get it straight, there are legitimately secular dualisms. You could try to make a Cartesian defence of a pro-life position, for example; it would actually be very interesting. But that is not what these people do, because their theology is rarely empirical and rational, and very commonly mystical and irrationalist.) Granted, pro-choicers are often guilty of many similar points of insufficiency, but their logic is generally unpolished rather than simply incoherent; a second- (or third-, or fourth-)hand copy from a more coherent thinker, rather than a semi-literate translation between two different conceptual frameworks. They are making arguments badly, rather than making bad arguments.

Now, I suppose you could argue that this is consistent within certain limits, but that's not the same thing as simply being consistent. (If a foetus really is a person from Day One, then, yes, it's logically coherent to regard abortion as murder, but on what basis are we making that initial assumption?) And if we're only allowed to address the aspects of each others positions that are unassailable coherent, then, well, there's really no such thing as philosophical debate any more, is there? There's just a lot of people saying "well I suppose you're entitled to your opinion" in a very insincere tone of voice.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that a person has an internally coherent position if they have one. And, biased as I may be, none of those pro-lifers in possession of such a position- and I know they exist, because I've read their arguments- seem to have the energy for these debates.

 

[Frozen In Ice]

I think the best possible compromise on abortion is that pro-life people don't use it if they don't want to, and pro-choice people can use if they need to (under certain limitations of course). I think this is truely an issue that people should be able to agree to disagree and just have themselves follow their own beliefs. Unfortunately too many pro-lifers see this as defeat and feel it is necessary to force their views on others.

 

[Cutlass]

I think this is a topic that reasonable people can disagree on (unlike gay marriage, among other topics), since it really depends on how you define life, which is a very difficult question. Here, even religious views are relevant as science doesn't exactly provide a clear guideline, so it is largely a personal-values decision.

I am pro-choice, but the argument that the government has no right to interfere with women here is ridiculous. If a fertilized egg is universally seen as a life, then someone that destroys it commits murder. It isn't an attack on women in that case, just protecting a life. It is this kind of thinking that leads to fathers being marginalized in custody disputes. It is sexist.

However, as I said in the other thread on this topic, I think that life begins once doctors say a child can survive outside of its mother. If science ever advances to the point that a fertilized egg can be brought to term without the mother, then abortion should be completely illegal (though the mother should have the right to have the egg taken out of her body).

Contraceptives however are absolutely okay and anyone that argues that is being unreasonable.

Reasonable people cannot agree to disagree when others hold opinions like the one below your posts. It becomes all or nothing.

 

[Cutlass]

Thanks Cutlass. This lays out my point much clearer than I could have, do you have a link? I have found almost invariably that when I have discussions about abortion that eventually some component of "personal responsibility" comes into play often in a way that leaves me thinking that this is a more dominant motive than the life issue.

I think it is common in most of our arguments. If you're rich (or richer than a percieved mass of lazy people) you frame opposition to government on the basis of "freedom" or "inefficiency" rather than selfishness.

If you're chicken you frame opposition to war as pacifism and concern for life.

We always consciously or unconsiously come up with reasoning that put us in the best light- it is just more stark with abortion.

Sorry. Had that saved on my comp and don't recall the source of it.

 

[emzie]

While it is perfectly possible to have a logically consistent position on the pro-life side I think many do not, that is the whole point of the thread, not to rehash the biology or philosophy. How is the senator or the other quotes I posted from old CFC threads logically consistent? Wanting to let babies get AIDS so the mothers will feel guilty about her assumed promiscuity-how is that pro-life or concern for human life? This is a frequent strain in conservative arguments and as I said the only way I can reconcile this is that for some it is not so much a concern for life but a concern for imposing consequences for sex/getting pregnant. There are so many ways you can save innocent human life or express concern for that life, why is abortion at the top of the list and why is it often paired with a complete distain or at least opposition to public social programs designed to help kids? This is what must be reconciled.

It's an utterly arbitrary line drawn. It is taken as a given that life begins at conception, when in fact this is a huge assumption that should be discussed. I've tried to bring this up in face-to-face discussions on the subject, but I always get shouted down and told that I support murder.

I think we celebrate birthdays and not "conception days" for a reason.

Doesn't that assume that they really do have a logically consistent position? And without meaning to sound tediously partisan, I generally find that this isn't very frequently the case with people espousing a pro-life politics. There arguments have a pretty strong tendency to display a lot of clumsy and poorly-examined assumptions about conciousness, about personhood, about ethics, even about biology, more often than not the result of trying to secularise a logic originally constructed within the terms of religious belief. (And let's get it straight, there are legitimately secular dualisms. You could try to make a Cartesian defence of a pro-life position, for example; it would actually be very interesting. But that is not what these people do, because their theology is rarely empirical and rational, and very commonly mystical and irrationalist.) Granted, pro-choicers are often guilty of many similar points of insufficiency, but their logic is generally unpolished rather than simply incoherent; a second- (or third-, or fourth-)hand copy from a more coherent thinker, rather than a semi-literate translation between two different conceptual frameworks. They are making arguments badly, rather than making bad arguments.

Now, I suppose you could argue that this is consistent within certain limits, but that's not the same thing as simply being consistent. (If a foetus really is a person from Day One, then, yes, it's logically coherent to regard abortion as murder, but on what basis are we making that initial assumption?) And if we're only allowed to address the aspects of each others positions that are unassailable coherent, then, well, there's really no such thing as philosophical debate any more, is there? There's just a lot of people saying "well I suppose you're entitled to your opinion" in a very insincere tone of voice.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that a person has an internally coherent position if they have one. And, biased as I may be, none of those pro-lifers in possession of such a position- and I know they exist, because I've read their arguments- seem to have the energy for these debates.

Oh, I don't disagree with you guys. I think many pro-life arguments are poorly thought out and logically inconstant (my favourite, for lack of a better term, is except in the case of rape or incest). I'm not trying to shield irrational people from criticism by saying, "it's a matter of opinion" but point out abortion is a topic where there's no "true" correct answer.

The second part of pointing out that abortion is a question of philosophy with no correct answer is to derail any charges or "murderer!" -- if someone doesn't think a zygote is a person then birth control pills can't be equated to murder.

In my idealistic world, it's important that both sides at least respect that the other, in general, isn't a group of hate-filled monsters. From that point, steps should be taken to reduce the number of abortions period. In a perfect world, they would be rare.

 

[Patroklos]

The "except for rape or incest" hypocrisy is a pro choice problem, not a pro life. This is obvious as it clearly involves allowing a choice.

The real logical inconstancies that cloud the debate are the two I highlighted with warpus and useless, where they proclaim the supremacy of the right to kill while at the same time saying there should be restrictions in the same breath. That requirment of restrictions really is an acknowledgement of a belief in the personhood of the unborn at some point or at least something deserving of protection, yet they then allow for exceptions that allow killing that would not be allowed anywhere else.

It's a have your cake and eat it too problem.

I would like useless and warpus to explain why they believe in restrictions on late term abortions for clarification sake.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't think that forbidding late term abortions is inconsistent per se, but I do think that requires you to forgo the "bodily autonomy" argument (which I consider the strongest one, and which convinces me that abortion should be legal, after all).

 

[vypernight]

I tend to be pro-choice because there are too many variables involved, too many instances where having the abortion may be in the woman's best interest. That and no one really can agree on when life officially starts, so this will take a long time to be 100% legal or not.

What I DO think should be illegal is the controversy. Freedom of speech is one thing, claiming you're pro-life then shooting a doctor is another. Down the street from us is a clinic right next to the post office. EVERY single time my wife has gone to send out mail, she's been harrassed, and she can't even have kids! We also got into a car accident because the protestors were blocking the road as we were trying to drive by.

I read and hear instances about this all over the country, and it seems like too many who claim to be Pro-life don't give a **** about anyone who's actually alive. Yet they throw hissy fits over a clump of cells!

I'm not Pro-life; I'm Anti-Stupid.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, I don't disagree with you guys. I think many pro-life arguments are poorly thought out and logically inconstant (my favourite, for lack of a better term, is except in the case of rape or incest). I'm not trying to shield irrational people from criticism by saying, "it's a matter of opinion" but point out abortion is a topic where there's no "true" correct answer.

The second part of pointing out that abortion is a question of philosophy with no correct answer is to derail any charges or "murderer!" -- if someone doesn't think a zygote is a person then birth control pills can't be equated to murder.

In my idealistic world, it's important that both sides at least respect that the other, in general, isn't a group of hate-filled monsters. From that point, steps should be taken to reduce the number of abortions period. In a perfect world, they would be rare.

Fair dos.

I don't think that forbidding late term abortions is inconsistent per se, but I do think that requires you to forgo the "bodily autonomy" argument (which I consider the strongest one, and which convinces me that abortion should be legal, after all).

It seems to be a case of balancing bodily autonomies, rather than of abandoning it as a consideration altogether. The argument would be that the foetus is now of a sufficient level of mental development that it also has some right to bodily autonomy, and thus precludes the mother from exercising her bodily autonomy in a way which infringes upon it; the old "freedom to swing your fists" qualification. (Speaking for myself, I tend to go heavily on the autonomy-of-the-mother side of things, being the tedious little anarkiddie that I am, although on a purely personal level I do find it somewhat distasteful. It's a bit like slaughtering, say, a chicken; I'm not going to bash you over the head rather than see you do it, but I'd prefer if you didn't.)

 

[useless]

where they proclaim the supremacy of the right to kill while

I do not proclaim such a thing, because I do not view the fetus as a person.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It seems to be a case of balancing bodily autonomies, rather than of abandoning it as a consideration altogether. The argument would be that the foetus is now of a sufficient level of mental development that it also has some right to bodily autonomy, and thus precludes the mother from exercising her bodily autonomy in a way which infringes upon it; the old "freedom to swing your fists" qualification. Speaking for myself, I tend to go heavily on the autonomy-of-the-mother side of things, being the tedious little anarkiddie that I am, although on a purely personal level I do find it somewhat distasteful.

That's the point of my analogy with Little Mary and Snidely Whiplash. A fetus is a technical parasite in a sense that he can't exist without the mother's bodily fluids. Survival of Little Mary also requires her technically parasiting for a while on Snidely's bodily fluids. Both Snidely and the mother have the legal right to take actions that lead to death of their respective "parasites", but that doesn't mean that they are morally correct in these actions. Even if Mary doesn't want to die and constantly cries, even if Mary's cute fluffy rabbit dies after her death, because Mary no longer strokes him and plays with him*, Snidely still has the right to refuse the transfusion.

There's the "intervention" aspect - killing a fetus requires an intervention to the "natural order of things", but killing Little Mary requires no intervention at all. But I ascribe no moral value to the "natural order" in itself, and regard the "intervention" issue as secondary - no matter what, Snidely condemns Mary (and, potentially, her fluffy rabbit) to death by denying the blood transfusion, and the mother condemns her fetus to death by having an abortion.

*Just think of the horrible and pointless tragic sadness of it all!

 

[Patroklos]

I do not proclaim such a thing, because I do not view the fetus as a person.

I didn't say murder, I said kill.

I didn't give you flak for blatantly back tracking from supporting abortion up to the moment of birth to now two weeks, so answer the question.

What is so important about that two week mark that you would throw your bodily autonomy argument out the window?

 

[useless]

If a woman wants to have an abortion at around 1-2 weeks, fine. I wouldn't feel great about it, but then again i don't feel good about any abortion. The point is that I wouldn't limit abortions because it isn't for me (a man) to tell a woman how she should or should not deal with her own body.

As long as the abortion isn't happening as she is literally giving birth.

 

[emzie]

The "except for rape or incest" hypocrisy is a pro choice problem, not a pro life. This is obvious as it clearly involves allowing a choice.

Don't be snarky. Such people self-identify as pro-life with exceptions, not as pro-choice.

If a woman wants to have an abortion at around 1-2 weeks, fine. I wouldn't feel great about it, but then again i don't feel good about any abortion. The point is that I wouldn't limit abortions because it isn't for me (a man) to tell a woman how she should or should not deal with her own body.

As long as the abortion isn't happening as she is literally giving birth.

1-2 weeks is pretty unrealistic. Most women won't know they're pregnant at that point.

 

[useless]

Sorry, should of clarified, one-two weeks before they give birth.

 

[emzie]

Okay... I'm pretty adamantly pro-choice but that's basically infanticide.