Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

But the one thing you haven't done yet is considered why the right you believe is absolute is distinguishable from other rights that are not absolute. Until you have done that it seems that any conclusions you have drawn are premature.

Until a situation arises whereby the human mind is demountable from the body, an individual must have entire dominion over his external anatomy, his viscera and its many processes, including the processes that suffer the mind to perceive pain and emotional torment.

That is to say, invasively making a facility of the body has no significant bearing on any other individual's perception of pain and distress except for the body's owner... it does not even have an effect on the human being growing inside a woman at that moment in time, since that human being is completely incapable of perceiving pain.

Therefore the reason why the right to bodily (anatomic) autonomy is absolute is because the consequences of invasion are absolute - they are suffered uniquely by the victim, who in this case is a pregnant woman.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Until a situation arises whereby the human mind is demountable from the body, an individual must have entire dominion over his external anatomy, his viscera and its many processes, including the processes that suffer the mind to perceive pain and emotional torment.

That is to say, invasively making a facility of the body has no significant bearing on any other individual's perception of pain and distress except for the body's owner... it does not even have an effect on the human being growing inside a woman at that moment in time, since that human being is completely incapable of perceiving pain.

Therefore the reason why the right to bodily (anatomic) autonomy is absolute is because the consequences of invasion are absolute - they are suffered uniquely by the victim, who in this case is a pregnant woman.

The consequences of a breach to the right to life are absolute, yet even the right to life is not absolute.

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

The consequences of a breach to the right to life are absolute, yet even the right to life is not absolute.

What right to life?

Under whose moral code does anyone have the right to life by forcing themselves on another's body system?

Edit:

Someone (can't remember who) stated a few pages back that they had never come across a logical attempt at the pro life argument. I think there are some good contributions in this thread, but in terms of academic papers, there is one particularly good (but ultimately flawed) analysis. It's a shame it doesn't appear to be on google scholar or free pdf, if anyone has access they should read it.

"Female Genital Mutilation and the Moral Status of Abortion", Christopher Hughes Conn. Public Affairs Quarterly. Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 1-15.

Seachmall

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Someone (can't remember who) stated a few pages back that they had never come across a logical attempt at the pro choice argument.

The problem is of course it is not up to the pro-choice side to present arguments in favour of abortion, they must simply present rebuttals to the arguments made by pro-lifers (as they have the burden of proof).

Cody Pomeray

I had said pro-choice argument in my previous post and I had meant pro life. post edited accordingly.

Seachmall wrote: »

The problem is of course it is not up to the pro-choice side to present arguments in favour of abortion, they must simply present rebuttals to the arguments made by pro-lifers (as they have the burden of proof).

Actually, I don't think it's that simple, and I think that point is in danger of sounding like the pro-choice side is running away from the debate.

Why do you say that the burden of proof is on their side?

Surely there are so many assertions, and counter assertions, that the minimum evidential thresholds occur on both sides.

mohawk

A few pages back someone wanted an example of an enforced pregnancy. IMO this is one. Her situation is stable at the moment but what about her health, does that not matter? I would hope that if a similar case were to happen in Ireland a woman would be given a choice.

As she waits for a supreme court ruling that could decide whether she lives or dies, a young Salvadoran at the centre of Latin America's abortion debate is calling on the world to respect her right to choose.
It is an extraordinary case that has convulsed the country and led to interventions from the UN and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). "Beatriz", as the 22-year-old is known, is five months pregnant with a foetus that is missing a large part of its brain and skull. Even if it survives past birth, the baby will almost certainly die soon after. Doctors have warned Beatriz that she too could die if she carries to term because her kidneys are weakened by lupus disease.
But a request to terminate the pregnancy has run up against one of the world's strictest anti-abortion laws, which forbids intervention even in cases of rape, incest and when there is a threat to the life of the woman.
In this overwhelmingly Catholic nation, the case has set bishops and anti-abortion campaigners against the health ministry and women's rights groups. Doctors and judges have weighed in, as have newspapers.
Largely missing from the debate until now, however, has been the voice of Beatriz herself. But with the risks growing with each day that passes, the young woman is now speaking out.
"I'd like [people in the outside world] to respect my decision. I want to tell them that I'd feel better if I was allowed to have an interruption," she told the Observer.
The health ministry has backed her appeal, along with the IACHR, the United Nations and pro-choice groups.
But doctors are afraid to go ahead without the backing of the courts because the maximum penalty for terminating a foetus is 12 years in prison.
The church is also lobbying fiercely against an abortion. The Episcopal Conference says that Beatriz is being used by pro-choice campaigners to weaken the country's prohibition. "This case should not be used to legislate against human life, especially against the unborn," the church said. The supreme court was asked to rule on the matter on 17 April, but it has withheld a decision, pending further tests.
Told by the court to assess the risks, the institute of legal medicine recommended last week that Beatriz continue with the pregnancy, contradicting an earlier recommendation to terminate the pregnancy made by the medical committee of the national maternity hospital.
"At this time, [Beatriz] is clinically stable, which means that for today there is no imminent risk of death," said one passage from the insitute's assessment, printed in the newspaper El Diario de Hoy. It said that there was no clinical evidence of renal failure.
But the diagnosis is contested by the health minister María Isabel Rodríguez. "We are not denying that in her current condition she is not going to die tomorrow, but we know she is at risk and every passing day of pregnancy increases the risk of potentially fatal complications."
Beatriz said she hoped for a rapid decision before her situation worsens. "I feel bad because of all of this, because they don't want to help me," she said. "I'm not seriously ill, but I feel bad, because I get really tired and I'm short of breath ... I'd like them to interrupt the pregnancy now."
Supporters say a further complication is that Beatriz nearly died during the birth of her previous child, which was delivered by caesarean section.
"I was talking to her mother today and she told me that only she and the doctors at that hospital know what they went through last time," said Morena Herrera of the citizens' group for the decriminalisation of abortion. "So they've been trying to stop things reaching the condition she was in during the previous birth.
"There has been a lot of manipulation, but I think that most people are clear that the foetus is not going to survive. Given the combination of risk to her life and an anencephalic pregnancy, it doesn't make any sense to prolong her suffering and the risk."
To get around the ban, some campaigners say the foetus could be prematurely induced. Although the outcome would be the same as an abortion, this semantic change may be legal after 23 weeks' gestation. But that would also require a supreme court ruling.
Pro-choice and other civil rights groups have called on the court to make a swift decision. "We hope that the supreme court treats this case with the urgency it merits, given that Beatriz's life and health are at risk," Esther Major, Amnesty International's expert on Central America, said last month. "She is suffering cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in being denied the medical intervention she so urgently needs."
Beatriz hopes that a decision will be made soon. Looking ahead, she says the priority is not just her own life, but that of her one-year-old child.
"I'm still waiting. They told me that maybe they'll say something next week," she said. "I'd like to be with my son, to be able to look after him and give him what he needs. I'd like to be well, not to be sick."

Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/11/abortion-plight-grips-el-salvador

Czarcasm

mohawk wrote: »

A few pages back someone wanted an example of an enforced pregnancy. IMO this is one. Her situation is stable at the moment but what about her health, does that not matter? I would hope that if a similar case were to happen in Ireland a woman would be given a choice.


Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/11/abortion-plight-grips-el-salvador

This is an example of the delaying tactics that would happen in Ireland with this proposed panel of medical experts determining a woman's right to an abortion on a case by case basis and why no woman will willingly go before said panel to effectively ask permission from them for their approval to exercise her semi-right to an abortion.

It's a ham fisted effort to try and keep all "sides" happy, while completely disregarding the only person affected by the outcome of their decision.

Aseth

mohawk wrote: »

A few pages back someone wanted an example of an enforced pregnancy. IMO this is one. Her situation is stable at the moment but what about her health, does that not matter? I would hope that if a similar case were to happen in Ireland a woman would be given a choice.


Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/11/abortion-plight-grips-el-salvador

Why look that far? It already happened HERE. The doctors were afraid of being prosecuted and didn't go with termination.

Seachmall

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why do you say that the burden of proof is on their side?

Surely there are so many assertions, and counter assertions, that the minimum evidential thresholds occur on both sides.

The fundamental assertions are made by the Pro-Lifers.

The idea that all humans have an absolute right to life and that the fetus is a human worthy of human rights by point X being two examples*.

These are the two most basic arguments that must be proven for the discussion to go anywhere and they're ultimately impossible to prove. I wouldn't waste time addressing more abstract arguments if the most basic and important ones are lame-ducks.


'Point X' most commonly being conception, but occasionally varying.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why do you say that the burden of proof is on their side?

Surely there are so many assertions, and counter assertions, that the minimum evidential thresholds occur on both sides.

I would say "innocent until proven guilty" in this case. Unless there is something to suggest something is wrong or immoral with X then there should be nothing wrong with engaging in doing X.

Unless the anti abortion activities can argue, therefore, that something is wrong or immoral about abortion, or abortion before a given stage of development, then there should be nothing wrong with engaging in it.

So I agree the onus of argument should be entirely on those trying to argue for abortion being wrong.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What right to life?

Under whose moral code does anyone have the right to life by forcing themselves on another's body system?

I am talking about the right to life simpliciter (ie. of you, and of I). Even that is not absolute.

Yet you have declared that the right that you have identifed as being relevant to the abortion debate (the right to bodily liberty or something along those lines) is 100% absolute, without even attempting to distinguish that absolute right from all other non-absolute rights.

Again, while i know you dont agree, it seems that you have found the right that suits your view on one particular topic and have declared that right to be supreme, without considering the issue in a wider context.

Cody Pomeray

Seachmall wrote: »

The fundamental assertions are made by the Pro-Lifers.

Yes, of course. Having reflected on this, any intervention to limit bodily autonomy is prima facie objectionable. So in order to justify a legal bar to such intervention, there is an initial burden of proof on the pro life side. to establish that there lies within the maternal uterus another human being enjoying bodily autonomy OR the embodiment of a future human enjoying the same level of autonomy as a human being.

However, thereafter it gets a little messier.

I am less sure about where the burden of proof for limiting intervention lies whereby the child is agreed to be the embodiment of a future human being, or a human being in his own right.

In the latter case, at least, there is a prima facie case for the right to a future two times over, once for the potential child, and once for the potential mother. I suspect there is a burden of proof on the pro choice side to demonstrate that the mother's right to a future would be compromised to a certain threshold.

drkpower wrote: »

I am talking about the right to life simpliciter (ie. of you, and of I). Even that is not absolute.

Yes the right to life is not absolute. I have already described why I think the right to bodily liberty must be absolute. It may sound strange to say that there is an absolute right to bodily liberty, but not to life, but there you go.

I'm not seeing the logical relevance of one to the other.

The fact that the absolute right to life may or may not be unique is also irrelevant. There is no rule in law, ethics or philosophy which says that laws must arrive in pairs or bundles.

Obliq

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I suspect there is a burden of proof on the pro choice side to demonstrate that the mother's right to a future would be compromised to a certain threshold.

Sod that, why should a woman have to prove they don't want a child? Many women have abortions because they know themselves that they have NO intention of having a child, besides all those who know it's just not the right time for them. Who is anyone to say they should? What a ridiculous argument.

Nodin

This conversation is being fairly rational lads.....

Cody Pomeray

Obliq wrote: »

Sod that, why should a woman have to prove they don't want a child?

I didn't say they need to prove that.

I said that IF there is a case where the foetus has been shown to be (a) human or (b) potentially human and in either case is shown to enjoy bodily autonomy, then since there are 2 human beings present, there is a prima facie objection to ending either life.

So it may be that there exists a burden of proof on the pro choice side to demonstrate that the woman's right to autonomy supercedes the child's right to life,and that the woman's right to autonomy is sufficiently compromised by her continuation with the pregnancy.

Clearly I believe that the woman's right to autonomy does supercede the child's right to life, I'm just talking about which side of the argument the burden of proof falls on in this respect.

Obliq

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I didn't say they need to prove that.

I said that IF there is a case where the foetus has been shown to be (a) human or (b) potentially human and in either case is shown to enjoy bodily autonomy, then since there are 2 human beings present, there is a prima facie objection to ending either life.

Ah, ok thanks. The bolded part above is what I misunderstood. And I do understand you are hammering out these hypothetical situations. Since a fetus can only actually enjoy bodily autonomy when detatched from the woman's body, the argument is impossible (but interesting, I'll grant you that )

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes the right to life is not absolute. I have already described why I think the right to bodily liberty must be absolute. It may sound strange to say that there is an absolute right to bodily liberty, but not to life, but there you go.

I'm not seeing the logical relevance of one to the other.

The fact that the absolute right to life may or may not be unique is also irrelevant. There is no rule in law, ethics or philosophy which says that laws must arrive in pairs or bundles.

Agreed; there certainly is no rule that laws/rights must arrive in pairs. But as you have recognised yourself, there is an inherent 'strangeness' in the right to life not being absolute yet the right to bodily liberty being absolute. In thise cirumstances, i think there is an onus on you to distinguish them, to explain away that apparent 'strangeness'.

I dont think you have yet.

Seachmall

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

However, thereafter it gets a little messier.

I am less sure about where the burden of proof for limiting intervention lies whereby the child is agreed to be the embodiment of a future human being, or a human being in his own right.

I agree, but as I was once told "Don't go wading through shit unless you absolutely have to".

It makes for interesting thought but in practical discourse I disengage when assertions that can't be supported are required to progress the discussion.

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

Agreed; there certainly is no rule that laws/rights must arrive in pairs. But as you have recognised yourself, there is an inherent 'strangeness' in the right to life not being absolute yet the right to bodily liberty being absolute. In thise cirumstances, i think there is an onus on you to distinguish them, to explain away that apparent 'strangeness'.

I dont think you have yet.

The reason why this apparent anomaly occurs relates to self-awareness.

It is one thing to extinguish life from the human body: the consequences of that fact are not borne by the individual's consciousness, for obvious reasons. He literally doesn't have to live with the consequences of his death. The cadaver has no mental capacity.

It is wrong, on the other hand, to intrude upon the body of an individual who, because he or she has adequate mental capacity, must bear the entirety of that burden. That burden has no bearing on any other individual, except for the 'captive', whose invaded body is never detachable from his or her consciousness, and never shall be detached. It is a very singular situation with not many parallells.

It is for a similar reason that it is acceptable to intervene in the anatomy of a child who is not yet self aware, or an adult who lacks the capacity for self awareness, say, in the case of general anaesthetic to remove a tumour. However, it is not acceptable to so intervene in an adult who refuses all intervention. This, for what its worth, is generally held to be the case in Bunreacht na h-Eireann (Ryan v Attorney General (1965)),and rightly so.


There is a second logical reason why it is immoral to capture ownership of a body and its organs and its various systems. This is a consequentialist approach whereby, if society were ever to condone anatomic trespass, then this would act as a major barrier to social co-operation. Man would be reluctant to enter contracts, adventures and projects with his fellow man, and groups of men, for fear of the consequences of the legitimate anatomic trespass, should he ever fail to execute his duties to the counterparty's satisfaction.

In the same vein, the right to a legitimate right to trespass man's body confers upon the greatest powers in society - the State - an unacceptable level of control over the citizens who may one day wish to rebel and overthrow it.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The reason why this apparent anomaly occurs relates to self-awareness.

It is one thing to extinguish life from the human body: the consequences of that fact are not borne by the individual's consciousness, for obvious reasons. He literally doesn't have to live with the consequences of his death. The cadaver has no mental capacity.

It is wrong, on the other hand, to intrude upon the body of an individual who, because he or she has adequate mental capacity, must bear the entirety of that burden. That burden has no bearing on any other individual, except for the 'captive', whose invaded body is never detachable from his or her consciousness, and never shall be detached. It is a very singular situation with not many parallells.

It is for a similar reason that it is acceptable to intervene in the anatomy of a child who is not yet self aware, or an adult who lacks the capacity for self awareness, say, in the case of general anaesthetic to remove a tumour. However, it is not acceptable to so intervene in an adult who refuses all intervention. This, for what its worth, is generally held to be the case in Bunreacht na h-Eireann (Ryan v Attorney General (1965)),and rightly so.


There is a second logical reason why it is immoral to capture ownership of a body and its organs and its various systems. This is a consequentialist approach whereby, if society were ever to condone anatomic trespass, then this would act as a major barrier to social co-operation. Man would be reluctant to enter contracts, adventures and projects with his fellow man, and groups of men, for fear of the consequences of the legitimate anatomic trespass, should he ever fail to execute his duties to the counterparty's satisfaction.

In the same vein, the right to a legitimate right to trespass man's body confers upon the greatest powers in society - the State - an unacceptable level of control over the citizens who may one day wish to rebel and overthrow it.

So, in summary, it is reasonable to infringe upon the right to life because after death, the dead person doesn't realise his right has been breached...?

Well, you have explained the distinction but, eh, I don't think it is especially convincing!

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

So, in summary, it is reasonable to infringe upon the right to life because after death, the dead person doesn't realise his right has been breached...?

Well no I wouldn't like to put it like that either.

It's not that there is no right to life (or better, right to a future), after all. This right exists, and in fact must be protected to the death in most cases, it is just not absolute.

In a small number of cases, it may be overcome where the consequences of upholding it would be an undesirable outcome relative to a more crucial priority (the preservation of anatomic liberty, man's only guaranteed birthright).

CaraMay

I don't believe in god and have absolutely no religion at all but something inside me tells me that it is not right to kill another human being no matter how young.... Maybe a party of it is down to the fact that I have a small baby now but the thoughts of him having been chopped up or sucked into a tube or having potassium chloride injected into his heart to kill him, makes me feel violently ill. It's just not right. It's vicious and cruel and like suicide there is no going back from it. Another permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Foxhound38

CaraMay wrote: »

I don't believe in god and have absolutely no religion at all but something inside me tells me that it is not right to kill another human being no matter how young.... Maybe a party of it is down to the fact that I have a small baby now but the thoughts of him having been chopped up or sucked into a tube or having potassium chloride injected into his heart to kill him, makes me feel violently ill. It's just not right. It's vicious and cruel and like suicide there is no going back from it. Another permanent solution to a temporary problem.

but what about foetal abnormality whereby it couldn't exist outside the womb for any real length of time and would be in pain?

looking_around

CaraMay wrote: »

Another permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Whats temporary about life?

What if the mother completely despises the pregnancy and is at risk of harming herself?

What if the foetus has an extreme physical disability, that again said mother cannot imagine/does not want to care for.
(It would actually be more cruel if the foetus was allowed grow and then learn that)

What if the foetus/eventual baby has a high risk or WILL die after birth?

Are these not reasonable reasons for abortion.

And remember just because you're against, does not mean you should force your feelings and beliefs on others.

pablomakaveli

Didn't want to start a new thread for this but thought this was worth bringing to peoples attention.

Pro-life activists threaten to slit throat of TD

Thursday, May 16, 2013
A Fine Gael TD has revealed that pro-life activists have threatened to slit her throat and burn down her house.


The Fine Gael-Labour coalition has proposed liberalising Ireland’s abortion laws and Oireachtas hearings on draft legislation to allow for terminations in some cases will begin tomorrow.

However, Meath East TD Regina Doherty has outlined the horrific level of abuse she is getting.

Ms Doherty told TV3’s Vincent Browne this week about threatening emails she has recently received.

“The level of abuse and physical threats that I am getting at the moment, even though people know exactly where I’m standing, It is off the wall”.

She said she was having “normal conversations” with some people about the proposed legislation but in relation to other people, she added: “I have a number of people at the moment who are going to burn my house down with my children in it, they are going to spit at me when I walk inside my church grounds at Sunday morning at Mass.

“I received an email which I’m sure we all did last week where I’m going to have my throats [sic] cut from my neck to my naval and my entrails are going to spill out. There are some very strange people in this country who call themselves Christians.”

The TD said she was glad to have the protection of the party whip system, which enforces how deputies vote on an issue in the Dáil. Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said the whip system will be enforced for Fine Gael when the Dáil votes on the abortion legislation in July.

“I’m glad I have the protection of a whip system to be able to say I am supported and protected by the people in my party as opposed to being vulnerable, to being picked off.”

A male Fine Gael TD yesterday also revealed he had received similar threats. Not wanting to be named, he said: “Yes, I’ve got a couple of them.”

Other TDs have previously revealed that they have received threats. European Affairs Minister Lucinda Creighton told the Irish Examiner earlier this year that she received “vicious, personal and horrific” emails regarding abortion from both pro-choice and pro-life groups.

Government chief whip Paul Kehoe said yesterday that there were “loads of TDs” getting similar threats to Ms Doherty.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-activists-threaten-to-slit-throat-of-td-231358.html

I suppose this is a good example of how irrational some people get when it comes to abortion.

I wonder is the irony of threatening to kill someone when you consider yourself "pro-life" lost on these people.

I Heart Internet

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I suppose this is a good example of how irrational some people get when it comes to abortion.

I wonder is the irony of threatening to kill someone when you consider yourself "pro-life" lost on these people.

Good reminder that "Crazy people be crazy."

Threatening violence, no matter what your aim is absolutely wrong.

TheLastMohican

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-says-ignorance-of-safe-sex-to-blame-for-13-million-abortions-a-year-8218939.html

I wonder what kind of rational discussion takes place here?

nozzferrahhtoo

CaraMay wrote: »

but something inside me tells me that it is not right

This is probably one of the answers to the OPs question as to why we often can not have a rational conversation about it. People like yourself (maybe not you specifically but people like you) have no intellectual arguments against abortion... can not adumbrate a single thing that is wrong with it.... but are against it anyway because of a "feeling".

I would say that for those who have a "feeling" it is wrong.... simply do not _have_ an abortion. Problem solved. It is those people who think _no one else_ should be allowed have one either that cause the break down in conversation. Those people need more than just a "feeling" to bring to the table.

Qualitymark

We were just as hysterical about divorce a few years ago, and about contraception when the law on that was being changed.
At some stage we'll probably change the law so we're the same as most of Europe: abortion on request in the first 12 weeks, and abortion on medical advice when the tests done later in pregnancy show that the baby being carried has no hope of life.
Then we'll stop being all screechy about it.

Grayson

Qualitymark wrote: »

We were just as hysterical about divorce a few years ago, and about contraception when the law on that was being changed.
At some stage we'll probably change the law so we're the same as most of Europe: abortion on request in the first 12 weeks, and abortion on medical advice when the tests done later in pregnancy show that the baby being carried has no hope of life.
Then we'll stop being all screechy about it.

Or we'll turn into america.