[RD] Thoughts on Abortion (split off from Very Many Questions XXXII)

[Mouthwash]

None the less. This "right" is not arrived at naively, without an acknowledgement of the moral complexity of the act. I'll grant that people might hammer away at slogans, about a "woman's right to choose" as if it were morally uncomplicated- but if we judge every political position by its most simplistic sloganeers, all are likely to turn out equally vacuous, and all we can judge is whether their inventory of slogans is more or less coherent.

I began this discussion to make an argument about the usage of these slogans.

 

[Traitorfish]

You began it to talk about labels, which quite aren't the same thing. "Pro-choice" is only a slogan if you reduce it to one, if you imagine that those who identify with it see the question of abortion as being nothing more than a question or being for or against "choice".

 

[Mouthwash]

You began it to talk about labels, which quite aren't the same thing. "Pro-choice" is only a slogan if you reduce it to one, if you imagine that those who identify with it see the question of abortion as being nothing more than a question or being for or against "choice".

There's a pretty clear divide between two groups of people: those who think fetuses (or early fetuses) do not have a right to life, and those who think they do. There may be stragglers between and around those groups, but the whole abortion dispute is pretty much binary.

 

[Traitorfish]

There's a pretty clear divide between two groups of people: those who think fetuses (or early fetuses) do not have a right to life, and those who think they do. There may be stragglers between and around those groups, but the whole abortion dispute is pretty much binary.

That's an entirely partisan framing of the debate, though. "There are two groups of people, flesh-eating ghouls and the group that includes me." It does not speak to a good faith effort to engage with opposing positions.

 

[Ryika]

People who want abortions to be legal do not necessarily believe that fetuses have no right to live, there are also people who think that fetuses have a right to life, but that the mother's right to self-determination trumps that right.

 

[Traitorfish]

Equally, some people who are hostile to abortions do uphold a degree of reproductive freedom, insofar as they accept contraceptives, the morning after pill, and even early-term abortions or abortion

There are barely more people who believe that a fertilised egg bears entirely the same rights and liberties as the mother than who believe that you can dropkick a newborn baby out of a window so long as you don't let it touch the ground first.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This is a thread for sharing opinions, not for anyone to tell people persistently that they are wrong. If it is, it will close.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mouthwash]

That's an entirely partisan framing of the debate, though. "There are two groups of people, flesh-eating ghouls and the group that includes me." It does not speak to a good faith effort to engage with opposing positions.

It's an extremely common framing, and generally the one around which people organize. I am arguing against what I consider to be propagandistic terms - just because not every word I have to say on abortion deals with the nuances of my position doesn't mean I haven't made a "good faith effort."

 

[Traitorfish]

It's an extremely common framing, and generally the one around which people organize. I am arguing against what I consider to be propagandistic terms - just because not every word I have to say on abortion deals with the nuances of my position doesn't mean I haven't made a "good faith effort."

I'm talking about the nuances of a pro-choice position. You're talking the most simplified, slogan-ified version of pro-choice politics and treating that as the total and exhaustive description of the pro-choice position; that because pro-choice activists emphasise reproductive freedom over alternative concerns, they are unaware of these concerns, that they have not considered these concerns. That is untrue, and it is clearly untrue, because multiple posters in this thread have clearly and explicitly stated that they are aware and concerned.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You can't pretend you've never seen arguments that consist of "it's just a bunch of men wanting to assert control over women's bodies", even on this enlightened and intellectual forum. Even the label pro-choice erases all other concerns from the equation.

 

[Borachio]

Which argument are you referring to?

A bunch of men wanting to assert control over women's bodies by allowing them to have abortions?

Or a bunch of men wanting to assert control over women's bodies by not allowing them to have abortions?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That one

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm talking about the nuances of a pro-choice position. You're talking the most simplified, slogan-ified version of pro-choice politics and treating that as the total and exhaustive description of the pro-choice position; that because pro-choice activists emphasise reproductive freedom over alternative concerns, they are unaware of these concerns, that they have not considered these concerns. That is untrue, and it is clearly untrue, because multiple posters in this thread have clearly and explicitly stated that they are aware and concerned.

Who cares? I see plenty of people (on CFC as well) use the terms to refer to the 'opposition.' I'm addressing them and them alone.

Or a bunch of men wanting to assert control over women's bodies by not allowing them to have abortions?

Feminists claim the latter (perhaps they secretly like the idea of men controlling their sexual organs) and don't seem to understand that carrying children doesn't give them any special insight into whether a fetus has a right to live.

Also, men are the ones with the most to gain from abortion, so it doesn't make sense to attribute the more pro-abortion attitudes of women to skin in the game. It's actually the result of half a century of propaganda and societal shaming.

Moderator Action: Saying "Who cares?" In response to criticism is hardly the best way to have a sincere discussion.

 

[Samson]

carrying children doesn't give them any special insight into whether a fetus has a right to live.

I think you may find that carrying children does give an insight into a foetus's right to live in their body that is impossible for you or I to gain.

(BTW, still waiting for a reply to post #37).

 

[Cutlass]

Who cares? I see plenty of people (on CFC as well) use the terms to refer to the 'opposition.' I'm addressing them and them alone.

When people say that they are pro-choice, what they mean is not that they are in favor of abortions. But rather that they feel that they should not be making the decision for others. It is for the woman in question to make the choice, and no one else. If you want to take that choice away from the woman in question, then you need to present a case for doing so. And, because of the extremity of the situation, it had better be a damned strong case.

Anti-choice forces in the US don't do that.

Feminists claim the latter (perhaps they secretly like the idea of men controlling their sexual organs) and don't seem to understand that carrying children doesn't give them any special insight into whether a fetus has a right to live.

They do have special insight concerning whether they should be forced to do it. Being pregnant is life-altering. This is why the choice must be theirs, and not someone else's.

Also, men are the ones with the most to gain from abortion, so it doesn't make sense to attribute the more pro-abortion attitudes of women to skin in the game (keep in mind we're talking elective abortion). It's actually the result of decades of propaganda and societal shaming from elites.

This is an explicitly false statement, and part and parcel of the reasons why anti-choice forces have failed to make the case against abortion.

As we speak, the current law in the United States is taxpayer-funded abortion up until birth.

This is an explicitly false statement, and part and parcel of the reasons why anti-choice forces have failed to make the case against abortion.

http://www.businessinsider.com/taxp...ng-planned-parenthood-mike-pence-trump-2017-1

Well, I did post an alternative of defining abortion as medical malpractice (by the state, not the federal government). What's your opinion on that

In what sense would it be malpractice? This is part and parcel of the reasons why anti-choice forces have failed to make the case against abortion.

I'm just using acceptable as a shorthand for "thinks it's the woman's right to kill the fetus she's carrying."

This is an explicitly false statement, and part and parcel of the reasons why anti-choice forces have failed to make the case against abortion.


____________________________________________________________________________________


Do you see where I'm going with this? Anti-choice activists start with a moral claim, that abortion is killing babies. But they do not follow through with staking out the moral high ground with their arguments. They make false statement after false statement after false statement after false statement until the pro-choice forces just cannot be bothered anymore to treat the objections seriously. If you want to claim the moral high ground, why resort to so many false accusations? And if you won't stick to the moral high ground in the way you pursue the argument, then how can we take seriously the claim that the original point was made for moral reasoning?

If anti-choice is a moral argument, why can not the argument for it be made in a moral way? Why must the anti-choice forces always frame their arguments in terms of falsely stating their opponents positions?

 

[Mouthwash]

I think you may find that carrying children does give an insight into a foetus's right to live in their body that is impossible for you or I to gain.

Why's that? Unless you're arguing that the right to life is overridden by the right to control over one's body (even when that lack of control is entirely natural and generally harmless, at least in the relevant cases), there's no insight that can be gained that would change the moral equation.

Besides, the thing I'm against is elective abortion, which is carried out not to prevent harm but in order to postpone child-rearing (or to eliminate undesirable traits; yay progressive eugenics!). The fact that the child is involuntarily living inside their body isn't the cause of these abortions, they're merely an excuse. If there were ever an argument for stomping on rights with an iron boot, it's that.

(BTW, still waiting for a reply to post #37).

I wasn't aware you were posing a question. And upon reading it, I don't really understand what the question is. Can you please clarify?

When people say that they are pro-choice, what they mean is not that they are in favor of abortions. But rather that they feel that they should not be making the decision for others. It is for the woman in question to make the choice, and no one else. If you want to take that choice away from the woman in question, then you need to present a case for doing so. And, because of the extremity of the situation, it had better be a damned strong case.

How about "humans have the right to exist."

Anti-choice forces in the US don't do that.

So @Traitorfish, are you going to take Cutlass, your fellow secular humanist, to task over his oversimplified, binary understand of the issue?

They do have special insight concerning whether they should be forced to do it. Being pregnant is life-altering. This is why the choice must be theirs, and not someone else's.

Being killed is also pretty life-altering.

I think if the abortion crowd used half the energy they expend on making the killing of fetuses acceptable to campaign for better birth control, this entire debate would be marginalized due to lack of interest. (I'm strongly against birth control, but it's a better option than abortion.)

This is an explicitly false statement, and part and parcel of the reasons why anti-choice forces have failed to make the case against abortion.

http://www.businessinsider.com/taxp...ng-planned-parenthood-mike-pence-trump-2017-1

I don't have the patience to fact-check now, so I'll just concede that America only has totally legalized abortion up until birth.

In what sense would it be malpractice?

In the sense that it would be a violation of medical ethics (see "do no harm").

Do you see where I'm going with this? Anti-choice activists start with a moral claim, that abortion is killing babies. But they do not follow through with staking out the moral high ground with their arguments. They make false statement after false statement after false statement after false statement until the pro-choice forces just cannot be bothered anymore to treat the objections seriously. If you want to claim the moral high ground, why resort to so many false accusations? And if you won't stick to the moral high ground in the way you pursue the argument, then how can we take seriously the claim that the original point was made for moral reasoning?

If anti-choice is a moral argument, why can not the argument for it be made in a moral way? Why must the anti-choice forces always frame their arguments in terms of falsely stating their opponents positions?

The first half of this post consists of you repeatedly not understanding that the woman's rights are not the only ones at stake in abortion, so I'm not sure you have much ground to stand on.

 

[Akka]

Besides, the thing I'm against is elective abortion, which is carried out not to prevent harm but in order to postpone child-rearing (or to eliminate undesirable traits; yay progressive eugenics!). The fact that the child is involuntarily living inside their body isn't the cause of these abortions, they're merely an excuse. If there were ever an argument for stomping on rights with an iron boot, it's that.

I've already provided the argument about why there is no moral problem to abort embryo. Maybe you should first point at how it could be possible for such moral problem to exist.

 

[Ryika]

(or to eliminate undesirable traits; yay progressive eugenics!)

I almost think this merits its own thread, but... Eugenics are a good thing, and probably the best chance for humanity to get rid of the baggage that we were left with due to the evolutionary processes that we went through, if (if!) it happens on a voluntary basis. No doubt it will lead to troubling times, but the possible end product is likely worth the hustle.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not eugenics if it's done at a level involving personal choice. I mean, it's semantics, and a women is obviously making choices due to the framing imposed upon her by society, but it's not eugenics. If we live in a world with an easy Huntington's cure, then the personal decision a mother must make about her Huntington's gene will be different than a world where we've not created such a cure.

But, we now live a world where we have partial control of what type of embryos we force to become people. We don't have to play the same lottery we used to, and (as such) the moral obligations around such decisions will also change.

 

[Yeekim]

When people say that they are pro-choice, what they mean is not that they are in favor of abortions. But rather that they feel that they should not be making the decision for others. It is for the woman in question to make the choice, and no one else. If you want to take that choice away from the woman in question, then you need to present a case for doing so. And, because of the extremity of the situation, it had better be a damned strong case.

"You don't have a right to kill another person for your personal convenience" is a rather easy case to make, don't you think?