Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Lexicus]

The question isn't about the law, it is about the philosophical underpinnings of the abortion debate. What is the difference between five minutes before and after birth.

Well as El Mach already said, five minutes after birth the health risk posed to the mother by the baby is zero, while it is non-zero five minutes before.

Of course, as it regards philosophical underpinnings, hardly anyone (no one I'm aware of) is actually claiming that the fetus is to be regarded as an inert lump of flesh before birth and a baby with fully-realized human rights after birth. That is why late-term abortions are illegal, because pro-choice people recognize that the moral question is different at different points in the pregnancy.

If viability determines personhood then what gives people the right to murder an innocent person, even in a situation where the life of the mother is at risk?

Self-defense.

I said unrestricted abortions, there are people who genuinely believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion and normally unrestricted means unrestricted.

Like who?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's where the 'pro-choice' argument tends to have some traction. Only one group is telling the other group that their opinion matters more. "Sure, it's more complicated than I could ever understand, but I'm right" is the mantra in many political discussions, economic discussions, etc. And it's awfully hubristic.

I don't know where you stand so I genuinely don't know which side you're referring to here. From the past couple of pages I can certainly think of an example from one of those sides though.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't know where you stand so I genuinely don't know which side you're referring to here. From the past couple of pages I can certainly think of an example from one of those sides though.

How is it unclear? One side says we are making the decision for all women everywhere. The other side says let women decide on their own.

 

[Vectors]

Well as El Mach already said, five minutes after birth the health risk posed to the mother by the baby is zero, while it is non-zero five minutes before.

Of course, as it regards philosophical underpinnings, hardly anyone (no one I'm aware of) is actually claiming that the fetus is to be regarded as an inert lump of flesh before birth and a baby with fully-realized human rights after birth. That is why late-term abortions are illegal, because pro-choice people recognize that the moral question is different at different points in the pregnancy.

Do you support abortion being permissible for any reason other than life of the mother?

More like most pro-choice people are actually pro-choice only in cases of rape, incest or life of mother.

So when does a fetus become a person?

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know where you stand so I genuinely don't know which side you're referring to here. From the past couple of pages I can certainly think of an example from one of those sides though.

I cannot think of any pro-choicer telling a pro-lifer whether they must or may not have an abortion. Only one cohort feels their opinion trumps the woman's opinion

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think many abortions take place that I would think are unethical, yet I think it would be even more unethical to ban them.
Many people use their freedom under the law to do things that are widely considered to be morally wrong, yet it is considered even more morally wrong to draw up laws that place the state in a position of minutely regulating people's conduct.

So of course one can personally oppose something without believing it should be illegal. There is a lot more that goes into a strong policy argument than just "x is wrong, it must be banned."

That just means you obviously don't think it's as morally objectionable as someone who would argue that then. Would you think it reasonable to not want to "ban" rape or murder because you wouldn't want the state minutely regulating people's conduct? If you had the same level of moral objection to those crimes as you do to abortion (or some instances of it at least) then you probably would think that reasonable, but I'm guessing you don't.

Anyway, you picked one sentence out of my reply and sidestepped what my issue actually was, which was to be against the claim that only misogyny and religious zealotry could form the basis of any moral (or legal if you insist) argument against abortion.

 

[Lexicus]

That just means you obviously don't think it's as morally objectionable as someone who would argue that then. Would you think it reasonable to not want to "ban" rape or murder because you wouldn't want the state minutely regulating people's conduct? If you had the same level of moral objection to those crimes as you do to abortion (or some instances of it at least) then you probably would think that reasonable, but I'm guessing you don't.

That is correct.

Anyway, you picked one sentence out of my reply and sidestepped what my issue actually was, which was to be against the claim that only misogyny and religious zealotry could form the basis of any moral (or legal if you insist) argument against abortion.

Yeah, but you're still arguing against a position that was already disavowed by the person who initially "argued" it

Do you support abortion being permissible for any reason other than life of the mother?

Yes, I support the right to an abortion no questions asked before about 25 weeks. After that it becomes conditional, but the conditions include fetal complications that may not pose a risk to the mother, as well as cases of rape or incest that only come to light after 25 weeks.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I cannot think of any pro-choicer telling a pro-lifer whether they must or may not have an abortion. Only one cohort feels their opinion trumps the woman's opinion

Let's say we're talking about actual murder here.

A "pro-lifer" is someone who thinks murder is wrong, that it should be illegal, and that people should be punished for doing it.

A "pro-choicer" is someone who thinks it should be left up to the individual murderer to choose whether they murder or not, and the state should intervene.

Are you seriously going to tell me that the pro-lifers are 100% objectively the group in the wrong because they're the only cohort that feels their opinion trumps the murderer's opinion? Do you also really think that the pro-choicer is NOT saying their opinion trumps the other side by insisting that murder remains legal?

I really don't see how anyone can be so trapped in their own tunnel vision that they just can't see that that is literally the argument as the other side sees it. I'm not even remotely anti-abortion but even I can patently see that that is the argument that's going on. But your comprehension of it just seems to be "well I don't see murder as being unacceptably immoral at all, therefore I can't even conceive of anyone else thinking so or of that thought forming the basis of their opposition. It must just be bigotry against murderers".

 

[Vectors]

Let's say we're talking about actual murder here.

A "pro-lifer" is someone who thinks murder is wrong, that it should be illegal, and that people should be punished for doing it.

A "pro-choicer" is someone who thinks it should be left up to the individual murderer to choose whether they murder or not, and the state should intervene.

Are you seriously going to tell me that the pro-lifers are 100% objectively the group in the wrong because they're the only cohort that feels their opinion trumps the murderer's opinion? Do you also really think that the pro-choicer is NOT saying their opinion trumps the other side by insisting that murder remains legal?

I really don't see how anyone can be so trapped in their own tunnel vision that they just can't see that that is literally the argument as the other side sees it. I'm not even remotely anti-abortion but even I can patently see that that is the argument that's going on. But your comprehension of it just seems to be "well I don't see murder as being unacceptably immoral at all, therefore I can't even conceive of anyone else thinking so or of that thought forming the basis of their opposition. It must just be bigotry against murderers".

#MurderersRights

 

[El_Machinae]

I get that it's not coherent if we think it's 'actually murder'. But it's not. It's a very hard and difficult question. Chalk full of implicit and explicit biases and assumptions. So, on that front, it very much is one person imposing their will upon another's decision . And it's only one way.

 

[metalhead]

Anyway, you picked one sentence out of my reply and sidestepped what my issue actually was, which was to be against the claim that only misogyny and religious zealotry could form the basis of any moral (or legal if you insist) argument against abortion.

This is the problem - "abortion" is not one thing to which one moral determination can be made. It exists along a continuum, one on which the scales of right and wrong change drastically, dependent most heavily on how far along the woman is in her pregnancy. One can make plenty of pretty straightforward moral arguments as to why society should ban abortions in the third trimester, or after viability. Those arguments can fairly be made stretching further back in development, even.

But at some point, you get to the inescapable fact that what is growing in the woman's uterus has a tiny brain and no cognition, and no genitals. Go further back, and it has proto-organs and no nervous system, and no discernible human features. Go further back than that, and it really is just a lump of cells attached to the woman's uterus.

Moral arguments against abortion in the early stages of development hold no water. For the same reason there is no moral distinction between the above mentioned 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after (barring a threat to the mother's health), there is no real distinction between a zygote, and a sperm and an egg separately. The only way you give any kind of moral significance to the moment of conception is through a higher moral power - religion.

 

[Lexicus]

Are you seriously going to tell me that the pro-lifers are 100% objectively the group in the wrong

No, that is seriously not what he is saying. Remember, this exchange was about who is imposing whose opinion on whom, not who is "100% objectively in the wrong."

 

[El_Machinae]

Vectors, yeah, you said unrestricted abortion. My bad. Didn't notice

 

[Akka]

Just going to chime in and remind the crowd that in most countries allowing abortion, the limit is 12 weeks, and that fetus usually aren't aborted - it's embryo which are.

The reason being the difference between embryo and fetus, and it's that a fetus is when the embryo starts to develop a nervous system, and hence starts to leave the "lump of cell" stage to slowly enters in the "actual person" stage.

I always find funny and pretty revealing how this absolutely fundamental distinction is nearly always completely ignored by the anti-abortion arguments. Probably because they have absolutely no case if they don't strawman as such.

 

[Cutlass]

I've seen fairly good arguments in favour of legalising infanticide, if that became legal would you tell me I shouldn't try to advocate against it because "that's just your opinion"?

The fundamental difference being that after birth the mother is no longer physically impacted by the child. So the mother no longer has that factor in play. Now instead of abortions, we have infanticide in it's place. No one knows how much of that takes place in the US. What we do know is that in the wake of more difficult to get abortions we instead have an epidemic of abandoned children. Many of whom do not live. And we have high child mortality rates. For the most part, the worst in places with the most anti-abortion political leadership.

If you ban abortion, that doesn't mean that the children get to live. All it means is that the total human suffering in the system is maximized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

 

[Vectors]

The fundamental difference being that after birth the mother is no longer physically impacted by the child. So the mother no longer has that factor in play. Now instead of abortions, we have infanticide in it's place. No one knows how much of that takes place in the US. What we do know is that in the wake of more difficult to get abortions we instead have an epidemic of abandoned children. Many of whom do not live. And we have high child mortality rates. For the most part, the worst in places with the most anti-abortion political leadership.

If you ban abortion, that doesn't mean that the children get to live. All it means is that the total human suffering in the system is maximized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

They didn't appear to adjust for medical quality at all which is quite problematic given the correlation between hospital quality and legality of abortion.

Did you not notice me talk about how we also need to reduce things that cause women to have abortions?

 

[Agent327]

It's always amusing to hear males discussing female issues:

The fundamental difference being that after birth the mother is no longer physically impacted by the child.

You're obviously not a mother.

So what started all this?

Abortion is always justified by one of two reasons:

#1: That sapience determines moral value. This makes fetuses, being nonsapient, morally equivalent to a rock or other inanimate object. They're just some flesh, after all.

The problem here is that even if sapience were the basis for value, it doesn't follow that a nonsapient object would be valueless. Fetuses have the ability to develop sapience, an inherent capacity which is part of their nature. They may not be able to immediately exercise sapience, but this also applies to someone who is under general anesthesia, or in a coma. It clearly isn't acceptable to kill them!

Even if we accept that only active sapience counts, it's not clear that this applies to certain other things which we value. It is considered acceptable to kill animals, but it is not considered acceptable to kill children below two years of age, although their mental state isn't advanced much beyond than a chimp's. To assert otherwise would be considered abhorrent.

Finally, even fully-grown humans have varying degrees of sapience. The lives of those with Down Syndrome or other mental disabilities would therefore not be as valuable as those of healthy people.

#2: That women have an absolute right to complete control over their bodies. Therefore, since the fetus resides within her body, she has control over it, and may kill it if she desires.

This simply ignores the rights of the fetus. Yes, women are generally accepted to have rights over their bodies, but fetuses, being young human beings, also have a right to life. A woman's right to her body doesn't trump a human's right to their life. This is demonstrated by supposing that the atmosphere has developed sapience, and decides to suffocate all humans within itself, though they pose no threat to it. I think it is pretty clear that the atmosphere is not acting morally here.

A final point for those who think the right to bodily integrity is stronger than the right to life. Yes, women do, under your logic, have the right to kill their unborn child, and no one has the right to stop them, but this doesn't mean it is any less monstrous. You aren't doing it because the fetus poses a threat or hindrance to your body, you're doing it because you don't want the fetus to grow up and for you to be forced into an obligation. It's the same as the government rounding up and shooting homeless people on the grounds that productive citizens will not longer have to support them.

There. Can we all agree that abortion is wrong now, and get on with our lives?

No, we can't. For the very simple reason that basically both your arguments are wrong in the first place.

First, attributing morality to abortion is basically avoiding the issue: abortions have been performed regardless of legality.

Second, the foetus does reside in the woman's body. The only argument for anyone else having a say in it results from patriarchism.

So, while I personally may not approve of abortion, it's quite immaterial, since I can't have babies. I'm a man. Me wanting to have a say in a woman having or not having an abortion is pure male arrogance. That's the morality of abortion.

The issue is not yay or nay abortion, the issue is does society provide for safe abortions? Making abortion illegal is saying we don't want abortions to be performed as they should: as a medical procedure. This is the sole thing that should occupy law makers when regulating abortion. Sadly, this is not the case. Because morality says 'we' should decide who is to be a mother and who is not.

 

[Narz]

Safe and legalized abortion is by far the greatest social advance in the last 50 years. The amount of suffering spared is beyond measure.

 

[Birdjaguar]

there is a christian dilemma about the fate of the unborn who die. There is biblical support for all those babies going straight to heaven, but none-the-less send those babies to heaven is seen by some as not a good idea (video link).

Do aborted babies go to heaven?

Abortion as practiced today did not exist during biblical times and is not specifically spoken of in the Bible. Thus we must look at what the Bible shares regarding children in the womb and God's view of them.

First, the Bible is clear that all people are made in God's image: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). This includes the youngest child from the point of conception: "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13).

Second, the Bible suggests that those who die before they have the ability to place faith in the Lord will be with God in heaven. This concept comes from the story of the death of David's newborn son. After the baby died, David said: "But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:23).

David expected to see his son again someday. Where? The only options are the grave (a general reference to death) or with the Lord in heaven. Of these two options, the one that would give a grieving father comfort would be the understanding of seeing his son in heaven again. David clearly expected to see his son one day in the presence of the Lord.

But does this indicate that all souls of infants and aborted babies go to heaven? Jesus certainly made clear His love of children: "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14; also Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16). Though not certain from this passage, the love of Christ, as well as His death for sin on the cross, offers arguments for an understanding that God takes the souls of all young children, including aborted babies, to be with Him in heaven.

Jeremiah 1:5 also provides insight, sharing about Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah was known by God before being formed in the womb and had been set apart by God. God already had a plan prepared for him before Jeremiah's birth. The same certainly applies even of those who die in the womb. God knows the child and has a plan for that child. He clearly has a purpose in the creation of each child.

While not direct in its answer, Scripture's principles indicate God's great love for those who die in the womb and give credence to the belief that God takes the souls of aborted children to heaven with Him.

and this:

https://vimeo.com/67163411

 

[Arwon]

I get that it's not coherent if we think it's 'actually murder'. But it's not. It's a very hard and difficult question. Chalk full of implicit and explicit biases and assumptions. So, on that front, it very much is one person imposing their will upon another's decision . And it's only one way.

Yeah but if it were murder the anti-abortion side aren't being very coherent either. It would be an industrial scale mass-murder sanctioned by their own government and 95% of other world governments. Would kinda suggest stronger and more direct resistance were needed.