Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[El_Machinae]

One thing relativists commonly do is conflate relativism with context sensitivity. So they hold relativistic principles as their foundation when just acknowledging context sensitivity is just as parsimonious.

 

[Akka]

You're talking past me here. What does 'the core concept of morality is absolute' mean?

That morality is based on a concept, a principle, which is always true (i.e. absolute), but that the minutiae of the application ("is this action actually good or bad ?") must take into account the context, and so might end up with very different conclusions depending on the situation.

Probably what El Machinae means with "context sensitivity".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I also find it revealing that you would phrase it like that, given that this has not been mentioned in the thread (up to this point) by the pro-abortion arguers either. One of whom specifically supported abortion up to about 25 weeks.

Would it be too much trouble to not jump to the conclusion that pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion?

Just because I know what I would choose for myself, that in no way means that I would order another woman to do the same as I would do. My body, my decision. Her body, her decision. In other words: CHOICE.

I read it as her criticising your view that it WOULD become moral the moment the majority supported the position. I believe she was saying that it would always be immoral even if only a small minority felt it was such. So I think in that respect you two disagree. That's my take on it anyway.

This is correct.

 

[Phrossack]

I think you may have misread my comment. Read it again and I think you will find we are in agreement on this issue.



By the standards of the time, yes. By modern standards, no.

Then thank goodness lots of people don't think like you, or we'd still have slavery and you'd defend it because "it's just the way things are," "it has always been like this," and "life isn't fair."

 

[Lexicus]

That morality is based on a concept, a principle, which is always true (i.e. absolute), but that the minutiae of the application ("is this action actually good or bad ?") must take into account the context, and so might end up with very different conclusions depending on the situation.

Where does the principle come from? Ultimately, it is just assumed at some point. And thus, morality is not objective but subjective, because different people can and do have different basic assumptions that can then be reasoned from.

 

[Commodore]

Then thank goodness lots of people don't think like you, or we'd still have slavery and you'd defend it because "it's just the way things are," "it has always been like this," and "life isn't fair."

Wow, that's a hell of a leap in logic from what I actually said. I wasn't expressing my actual views on any particular issue, just stating the fact that morality is 100% subjective, and that morality on the societal level is determined by the majority opinion. As the majority opinion changes, so do the moral standards of a given society. Is that really such a hard concept to understand? Is it really so shocking that there may actually be no such thing as objective good and objective evil in this world?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Wow, that's a hell of a leap in logic from what I actually said. I wasn't expressing my actual views on any particular issue, just stating the fact that morality is 100% subjective, and that morality on the societal level is determined by the majority opinion. As the majority opinion changes, so do the moral standards of a given society. Is that really such a hard concept to understand? Is it really so shocking that there may actually be no such thing as objective good and objective evil in this world?

It's an extrapolation of sorts. Once upon a time, the majority of the people in a particular geographic region thought that slavery was moral, and the minority thought it wasn't. But plenty of people outside of that geographic region also thought slavery to be immoral. Were that not the case, your country's history (and mine, for that matter, as these events in the 19th century impacted both our countries) would be very different.

If I were to wear my anthropologist's hat and look at this as an academic exercise, I'd have to agree with you. But I'm not, and I cannot agree with you that the majority's idea of morality is always right, at least not when it comes to women's reproductive choices.

People really need to mind their own business. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Don't want someone else to have one? Sorry, it's not your business. Unless, of course, you're the father or the spouse (not always the same person), but even in that case, it's still the woman's decision.

 

[Commodore]

If I were to wear my anthropologist's hat and look at this as an academic exercise, I'd have to agree with you. But I'm not, and I cannot agree with you that the majority's idea of morality is always right, at least not when it comes to women's reproductive choices.

But again, I'm not saying I like it or that I think that's the way it should be, just that it's the way things are. It is simply way too easy for a majority to impose their beliefs and values upon a society, even if that society has laws that are supposed to prevent that from happening.

 

[Akka]

Where does the principle come from? Ultimately, it is just assumed at some point. And thus, morality is not objective but subjective, because different people can and do have different basic assumptions that can then be reasoned from.

Where does the gut feeling "it's not right" ? Where does come "fair is fair" ? The core principle is always the same : reciprocity.
"would I like it to be done to me if I were in his place ?" is always the basis of all morality. The result DOES change with culture and people (obviously what a Viking and a Buddhist monk would like to happen in their life is pretty different), obviously different assumptions, different places in life, different perceptions all changes what someone would think about "would I like it to be done to me ?", but the reasoning, the concept, is always the same.

 

[Lexicus]

Where does the gut feeling "it's not right" ? Where does come "fair is fair" ? The core principle is always the same : reciprocity.

No, it certainly isn't.
I suggest studying anthropology and perhaps some history, because this is just simply not true.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I'm coming into this fairly late, but I have a few things I wanted to respond to.

I approach abortion from an explicitly religious point of view. I simply cannot separate being a Christian from my views on abortion. I realize most of you may not be religious and thus won't find religious arguments compelling, and that's fine. We don't live in a religious state, and I hope we never become one. That's why I, along with a high percentage of other religious-minded people, don't advocate for the complete banning of all abortions.

From my perspective, abortion is wrong because yes, it kills a human being with a soul. But just because something is wrong doesn't mean that thing should be illegal.

I don't believe abortion is ever a good choice, but sometimes it's the best choice out of a menu of terrible choices. Is the life of the mother in danger? Is the pregnancy a result of rape? Incest? I'm not trying to make an exhaustive list of "exceptions", but these are examples where abortion may be the best choice. I believe our laws and approach to laws have to reflect the fact that we don't live in an ideal world, but a broken and often ugly world.

interesting to consider this when most of them attempt to operate from some sort of moral highground, when it's clear they don't care about the lives of affected parents, nor about children born into poor circumstances

And that's what is wrong with so many anti-choice people. They're not pro-life. They don't give a damn what happens to the kid after it's born. The kid can live in squalor, with an inadequate diet, inadequate shelter, inadequate health care, inadequate education, and so on, and of course it's the mother's fault, no matter what her circumstances are.

Pro-lifers with this mindset should be honest about what they really are: pro-pregnancy.

Spoiler :

Removed - see moderator action message

Speaking from my religious perspective...

There are plenty of pro-lifers who put their money where their mouth is. Many churches provide financial aid and care to those within their congregation and within their community. Many churches run food pantries, or provide child care, education, rent assistance, and more. There are plenty of private Christian schools which take students that have been expelled from public schools for violent or anti-social behavior. Many Christians act as foster parents. It's easy to point to "bad" Christians and judge the whole lot by them, but there are also lots of good ones who view caring for the disadvantaged as a moral responsibility and sacrifice lots of time and money to do so.

So quit this BS about prolifers only caring about your life until you're born.

"If you don't want an abortion, don't have sex" is the most insulting line of reasoning I have heard this week. Who the hell is going to stop having sex? Look at how well abstinence works..

What is needed is more support and resources for women in such situations.

Some types of birth control do have medical consequences, and yes, there are some people for whom a few dollars is a lot - because they don't have it and have no legal way to get it. I've actually been in the position of not being able to afford a $13 bottle of pills that I needed - a medication that I'll be on for the rest of my life.

Personal peeve: abstinence, by definition, works. If you're having sex, you're not abstaining. There are plenty of people who "wait", and...surprise surprise, no virgin births.

More seriously, though, widespread contraceptive use is absolutely needed, and they should be made very cheap or free if possible. Women should also be getting more support than they have now. We have a tremendous way to go.

Missed the point. Even if you make a legitimate moral argument, and a few actually do, wonder of wonders. It doesn't add up to a compelling public interest in depriving people of their rights in such a personal matter.

There's actually a very compelling public interest in having more babies.

I disagree entirely that abortion should be banned, but I agree that measures such as these should be taken to (hopefully) reduce the number of abortions that happen. I think reducing abortion is a worthy goal. But it must be done the way you say, and not by implementing BS restrictions on abortion such as those recently struck down in Texas, and certainly not by making abortions illegal (no one has ever shown me evidence that making abortion illegal reduces abortions anyway).

Why would you think reducing abortions is a worthy goal if there's nothing wrong with abortion?

What it makes you is an outlyer. Now in my not too careful shorthand, I'm dealing with the majority of people on the issue. And many of them are women. But many of the women against abortion are of the social conservative position that women really shouldn't have the same rights as men. Many women really do believe it's a man's world, and that is should stay that way. That's the way they were raised.

This is astounding arrogance. Even in Christian circles, those who believe women should not have the same rights as men are a relatively fringe minority. This is coming from someone who grew up knowing quite a few of those people (grew up in a conservative Christian homeschool environment, which included many from that group). You can't dismiss prolife women out of hand like that.

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

If a man has parental responsibilities after the baby is born, then the man should have a say in whether the baby is born. If the woman goes ahead and has an abortion, he can't stop her, but he should have a voice in the matter.

I know this isn't a popular opinion, and most people promptly shout it down with "it's legal, so shut up! It's none of your business if a woman wants to smoke or drink when she's pregnant."

Well, if that's none of my business, why would it be my business if a woman opts for abortion? It's her body, not mine.

Just because something is law doesn't mean that (a) the law is right or (b) the discussion about it is over. Laws change all the time.

Moderator Action: Googling the image you put in the spoiler and looking at the URL, it appears it represents "one big pile of triceratops [feces]". Roundabout ways of calling your opponents full of [feces] are not appropriate for an RD thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lexicus]

Why would you think reducing abortions is a worthy goal if there's nothing wrong with abortion?

I don't recall ever saying there's nothing wrong with it. My opinion is that you can't make blanket statements either way. There are situations where I would say "this abortion was unethical in my opinion" and there are situations where I would say "getting an abortion was the most ethical choice."

I think reducing abortion is a worthy goal because I would like to see more people using contraception to have sex more responsibly, and I would like to see more social welfare support for mothers and families so that some of the reasons people currently get abortions are removed. Each of those things, it seems, would reduce the number of abortions gotten. The easier we make things for families and mothers, the fewer will be driven to something that no one really feels good about.

My concern is for the welfare of families, and particularly for women who are placed in a vulnerable position both by society and biology. I think it's foolish to formulate policy based on a priori rules like "there's something wrong with abortion".

 

[Akka]

No, it certainly isn't.
I suggest studying anthropology and perhaps some history, because this is just simply not true.

Such powerful counter-argument "no you're wrong". You certainly makes a strong case.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Would it be too much trouble to not jump to the conclusion that pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion?

If you're opposing people who are anti-abortion, then you must be pro-abortion, at least in some circumstances. I'll say anti-anti-abortion if you like.

Interesting you bring this up though as weren't you the one trying change the label "pro-life" to "pro-pregnancy" and "anti-choice" not long ago? It's almost like... you want to deny labels with positive connotations to the opposition, but demand you only have labels with positive connotations yourself. How very sneaky.

Anyway it doesn't really matter as only people who make judgements based solely on labels and don't look any deeper would be swayed either way, and who cares what they think.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I don't recall ever saying there's nothing wrong with it. My opinion is that you can't make blanket statements either way. There are situations where I would say "this abortion was unethical in my opinion" and there are situations where I would say "getting an abortion was the most ethical choice."

I think reducing abortion is a worthy goal because I would like to see more people using contraception to have sex more responsibly, and I would like to see more social welfare support for mothers and families so that some of the reasons people currently get abortions are removed. Each of those things, it seems, would reduce the number of abortions gotten. The easier we make things for families and mothers, the fewer will be driven to something that no one really feels good about.

My concern is for the welfare of families, and particularly for women who are placed in a vulnerable position both by society and biology. I think it's foolish to formulate policy based on a priori rules like "there's something wrong with abortion".

Fair enough. We definitely should be encouraging more contraceptive use and more support for mothers and families - both of those are the most effective (and moral, IMO) ways to reduce abortion. I think our divergence may be more on our opinions as to whether abortion is objectively wrong, but we seem to agree on our general approach to policymaking.

But just because something is wrong doesn't mean that thing should be illegal....I believe our laws and approach to laws have to reflect the fact that we don't live in an ideal world, but a broken and often ugly world.

 

[Lexicus]

Such powerful counter-argument "no you're wrong". You certainly makes a strong case.

Well one doesn't need to look far in history (or in our own time, for that matter) to find situations where no one is applying the golden rule to moral calculations. Reciprocity makes no sense in relationships between people who aren't equals, whether in a practical sense or in a more abstract sense. You don't feed, clothe, and shelter your children with the expectation that they will pay you back. Masters don't treat their slaves the way that the master would want to be treated, because to even be a master in a sense precludes imagining yourself in the place of a slave. That is all the more true in societies which evolved ideologies of fundamental human inequality (racism for example) to uphold these kinds of unequal relations.

This obviously has a bearing on people's "gut instinct" of what's fair, what's wrong, and what's right.

I would recommend reading Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality for a pretty interesting discussion of some of the issues that go into this. This essay by David Graeber is also a good introduction to the topic (it also gives examples of three sets of moral principles other than reciprocity which actually govern human activity and moral sensibilities).

 

[Akka]

Maybe you should have gone farther than the very first sentence and read the rest of the post :

"would I like it to be done to me if I were in his place ?" is always the basis of all morality. The result DOES change with culture and people (obviously what a Viking and a Buddhist monk would like to happen in their life is pretty different), obviously different assumptions, different places in life, different perceptions all changes what someone would think about "would I like it to be done to me ?", but the reasoning, the concept, is always the same.

It's obvious that a cultural context which applies castes and the like will change how people will react and perceive, but it doesn't change the underlying concept - it adds another layer of processing on top of it, separating the worth, duties and rights of people along social lines.
In fact, I'd like to point that it's the absoluteness of morality which justify making these castes and slavery and the like immoral - there would be no reason to actually consider human sacrifice or slavery immoral and bring change to society if there weren't some impetus outside contemporary values.

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe you should have gone farther than the very first sentence and read the rest of the post :

The fact that you think I didn't read your whole post is stupefying to me.

It's obvious that a cultural context which applies castes and the like will change how people will react and perceive, but it doesn't change the underlying concept

Except that it clearly does change the underlying concept. And this, incidentally, is another reason I didn't want to get into this: I knew that if presented with direct falsifications of your "theory" you would simply come up with just-so stories to keep it intact (which is why it isn't a theory at all, really).

In fact, I'd like to point that it's the absoluteness of morality which justify making these castes and slavery and the like immoral - there would be no reason to actually consider human sacrifice or slavery immoral and bring change to society if there weren't some impetus outside contemporary values.

I don't understand what you mean by this. No one "made slavery and castes immoral," people began to view them as immoral (and AFAIK the caste system is still going in India).
If you're talking about why slavery for example was legally abolished, it's clear the reasons were political-economic and had nothing to do with some kind of moral awakening...

 

[Akka]

The fact that you think I didn't read your whole post is stupefying to me.

The rest of the post is basically explaining your counter. So no it's not stupefying to think you didn't read the rest of the post before answering when your answer is what was already treated in said rest.

Except that it clearly does change the underlying concept. And this, incidentally, is another reason I didn't want to get into this: I knew that if presented with direct falsifications of your "theory" you would simply come up with just-so stories to keep it intact (which is why it isn't a theory at all, really).

It's funny, because I didn't bother to enter the details for the same reason : I knew that you would just ignore the subtleties of the point requiring an honest attempt to understand what's meant, and just jump back to your preferred narrative so you can blindly dismiss what you disagree with.
Well, I saved myself a wall of text, good call !
/self-pat on the back

I don't understand what you mean by this. No one "made slavery and castes immoral," people began to view them as immoral (and AFAIK the caste system is still going in India). If you're talking about why slavery for example was legally abolished, it's clear the reasons were political-economic and had nothing to do with some kind of moral awakening...

Political-economic reasons can give the power to an idea, but the basics of an idea don't spawn out of nowhere. If people starts to see something as immoral, and the reason given is about always how it's unfair to treat people that way (unfair compared to who ? Oh, that's right, compared to oneself), it's not a coincidence.

 

[Lexicus]

The rest of the post is basically explaining your counter. So no it's not stupefying to think you didn't read the rest of the post before answering when your answer is what was already treated in said rest.

No, it wasn't, but okay.

I knew that you would just ignore the subtleties of the point

Well, I would rather "ignore the subtleties of the point" than ignore the subtleties of reality, which is what you're doing with your insistence that all morality boils down to one transcendent principle.