Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

drkpower · 06-05-2013 10:33PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think there is a very clear reason for this.

I learned it when I decided to look at the issue myself. I had always been pro-choice without knowing why so I decided it was time to really explore the issue and pick a side.

Part of that journey involved going into those people who campaign against it on the streets of dublin, with their pictures and stalls and so forth. I simply went down and in a non-confrontational ways asked them what their arguments for their side were.

Basically they pointed at the photos they had of aborted fetuses. The ones they see fit to hang in front of the general public of all ages. "Look at the pictures man!" one of them said. I pressed a little more asking what their actual moral arguments or thinking was and I just got "Just look at the pictures maaaaaan!".

It has not improved any since. I think the reason you can not get a rational and coherent discussion on the issue is that the anti abortion side is made up ENTIRELY of "arguments from emotion". The lack of any intellectual content to their side of the issue therefore leads to very fast... and as threads like this show, very emotional.... break downs in communications on both sides and the resulting farce is rarely pretty.

Even Christopher Hitchens who I was clearly a fan of had a poor basis for his pro choice position in that it was purely linguistic. He decided basically he likes the term "Unborn child" and if that term is to hold any meaning then that entails protecting the fetus. A leap of "reasoning" that was uncharacteristically egregious on his part.

I would be all for having a coherent intellectual conversation on the issue were they to start presenting some cogent arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to support their positions. But if hanging up bloody photos and rebranding "pro choice" as "pro death" is the best they have to offer... then they can take up someone elses time.

No doubt there are many from a prolife perspective whose arguments fit the description you have just given. But not all. There are some who have some logic to support their position. Effectively, they believe that a conceptus is a living human and as such, should have a right to life. They consider that this entities right to life should be equal to its mothers, except where there is a risk of the mothers destruction. They don't believe that any risk to the mother, short of destruction warrants this other life's destruction. While I don't agree with them, there is a degree of logic in that position.

Nodin · 06-05-2013 10:45PM

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Legitimate and Warranted means "not Phill's Mom, girlfriend or sister." That is the usual hypocrisy.

Well its hard to tell. Reading some of Phills posts you'd think he was against abortion entirely, yet there he seems to allude to some grounds where its ok....why theres a blank refusal to explain seem bizarre.

Obliq · 06-05-2013 10:47PM

drkpower wrote: »

No doubt there are many from a prolife perspective whose arguments fit the description you have just given. But not all. There are some who have some logic to support their position. Effectively, they believe that a conceptus is a living human and as such, should have a right to life. They consider that this entities right to life should be equal to its mothers, except where there is a risk of the mothers destruction. They don't believe that any risk to the mother, short of destruction warrants this other life's destruction. While I don't agree with them, there is a degree of logic in that position.

How do they arrive at that logic then? It doesn't seem.....well....logical

drkpower · 06-05-2013 11:04PM

Obliq wrote: »

How do they arrive at that logic then? It doesn't seem.....well....logical

Which bit?!

Obliq · 06-05-2013 11:13PM

drkpower wrote: »

No doubt there are many from a prolife perspective whose arguments fit the description you have just given. But not all. There are some who have some logic to support their position. Effectively, they believe that a conceptus is a living human and as such, should have a right to life. They consider that this entities right to life should be equal to its mothers, except where there is a risk of the mothers destruction. They don't believe that any risk to the mother, short of destruction warrants this other life's destruction. While I don't agree with them, there is a degree of logic in that position.

Well, quite! Which bit? You say there is a degree of logic in that postition - the only position I see in your description of prolife perspective is the one of a conceptus being a living human. Granted, yes, it is living and it is human. The logic of it's right to life is entirely down to a person's take on the sanctity of human life and whether it has more right to life than, say, a chicken, just by virtue of being human. There are many kinds of morality drkpower - all based on some kind of logic.

I am more of the opinion that a tiny non-sentient human is not such a great loss to humanity. It may be a great personal loss, depending on the circumstances, or it's loss may be welcomed.

The prolife logic in your scenario is entirely relative to where your coming from. I don't see the logic in that position at all!

drkpower · 06-05-2013 11:25PM

Obliq wrote: »

Well, quite! Which bit? You say there is a degree of logic in that postition - the only position I see in your description of prolife perspective is the one of a conceptus being a living human. Granted, yes, it is living and it is human. The logic of it's right to life is entirely down to a person's take on the sanctity of human life and whether it has more right to life than, say, a chicken, just by virtue of being human. There are many kinds of morality drkpower - all based on some kind of logic.

I am more of the opinion that a tiny non-sentient human is not such a great loss to humanity. It may be a great personal loss, depending on the circumstances, or it's loss may be welcomed.

The prolife logic in your scenario is entirely relative to where your coming from. I don't see the logic in that position at all!

I appreciate you come from a different position, so do I.

However, a conceptus is human life. Technically, most agree with that position.
We value human life above other life. (Chicken or otherwise) Most agree with that position.
The right to life carries a higher weight than most other fundamental rights (although this is where I, personally differ from most of a prolife disposition).

As I say,there is a relatively logical progression of ideas in the above.

I appreciate your distinction regarding sentience. But that also has a logical difficulty (aside from the practical difficulty of determining when sentience begins). If we believe sentience, per se, affords the unborn the same rights as you or I, how do we then deal with a situation where a mothers health or life is threatened by a sentient unborn life? Should the mother take precedence, and if so, why?

Phill Ewinn · 06-05-2013 11:34PM

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Legitimate and Warranted means "not Phill's Mom, girlfriend or sister." That is the usual hypocrisy.

Or people who are essentially forced into making a decision by other people, their parents or piers. By finacial circumstances, by the lack of support, because of stigma, because the unborn child is the wrong sex, the wrong colour or concieved at the wrong time.

No body here is discussing the reasons that so outway the right to life for the unborn. Care to start ES?

Nodin · 06-05-2013 11:37PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Or people who are essentially forced into making a decision by other people, their parents or piers. By finacial circumstances, by the lack of support, because of stigma, because the unborn child is the wrong sex, the wrong colour or concieved at the wrong time.

No body here is discussing the reasons that so outway the right to life for the unborn. Care to start ES?

Why not lay out your own position before asking people theirs?

Obliq · 06-05-2013 11:48PM

drkpower wrote: »

I appreciate you come from a different position, so do I.

However, a conceptus is human life. Technically, most agree with that position.
We value human life above other life. (Chicken or otherwise) Most agree with that position.
The right to life carries a higher weight than most other fundamental rights (although this is where I, personally differ from most of a prolife disposition).

As I say,there is a relatively logical progression of ideas in the above.

Yes, I agree that this progression is logical. However, for me, where I part company with people who espouse the idea of the sanctity of human life is where I have bolded. WE humans being the operative word that I would use, they might say "because we were made to be more important by god". Even people who don't believe in god seem to have some idea that we are more entitled to life than animals - that sanctity is somehow a "thing" not made up by us to explain why we kill/don't kill.

Me? I think we believe we are more important than other animals because we are social animals, therefore we find killing each other more morally repugnant than killing other animals. We have empathy for each other, we recognise each other's emotions and social connectivity. But is human life sacred? Not in my book. It is important though (before anyone calls the men in white coats - or should that be black frocks and dog collars?)

I appreciate your distinction regarding sentience. But that also has a logical difficulty (aside from the practical difficulty of determining when sentience begins). If we believe sentience, per se, affords the unborn the same rights as you or I, how do we then deal with a situation where a mothers health or life is threatened by a sentient unborn life? Should the mother take precedence, and if so, why?

You are basing that question on the premise of sentience being some sort of guideline. I would personally base the question of whose life should take precedence in terms of the greater need. I know that is where pro-life people start to speak up for the embryo (because it can't speak for itself, etc.) but essentially it comes down to whether we see every human life as sacred or not.

I think Reginald D Hunter said it best (not to say that all prolifers are fundamentalist or even conservative christians, but his point about sacredness is the same as my own) - "“Fundamentalists…conservative Christians…they believe that an embryo in a woman’s body is sacred and no one should harm it. They don’t believe, that the same embryo, once it leaves a woman’s body, should be exempt from execution. Or going off to war and killing other embryos…as long as they’re foreign. So if we are specific, and stay on topic with this debate, what we are trying to decide between us is,what age is appropriate to start killing human beings?”

Off to bed now, more another day!

Sarky · 06-05-2013 11:53PM

drkpower wrote: »

I appreciate your distinction regarding sentience. But that also has a logical difficulty (aside from the practical difficulty of determining when sentience begins). If we believe sentience, per se, affords the unborn the same rights as you or I, how do we then deal with a situation where a mothers health or life is threatened by a sentient unborn life? Should the mother take precedence, and if so, why?

Before the end of the first trimester is a pretty safe bet at least. The foetus might have a load of brain cells, but the synapses that link them up only start growing around the second trimester. A brain without synapses is just a lump of jelly. So at the very least, that's about 20 weeks where you can be confident there's less sentience than the last spider you just flattened with a book.

The balance of rights is a bit tricky, and rightly so because despite what Youth Defence or the Iona Institute and all their flying monkeys would have you believe, nobody WANTS to have an abortion. And yet, it's sometimes necessary. You can find 12 different women every day in this country who'll tell you that. Well, actually you can't, because they're forced overseas to get the help they need.

Me, I'm in favour of what most women want, which is letting them have the right to their own body. Having known a few pregnant women, I'm well aware that it's a rather unpleasant experience. Hell, one of my closest friends is currently about week 21, and I'm dreading (and so is she) the extra crazy she'll be saddled with as the foetus develops beyond jelly-bean size. She wants a baby, no doubt about that, but she wouldn't hesitate for a second before heading to the UK if there was a problem. And I'd happily support her decision, because I'm pretty sure she's more important to me, her husband and her friends than a small clump of barely sentient cells that could kill her.

The choice has to be there, or you have to admit that women can't be trusted. There's not much in the way of middle ground. Abortions are going to happen one way or another. Might as well be done by professionals in a safe clean environment.

drkpower · 06-05-2013 11:56PM

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, I agree that this progression is logical. However, for me, where I part company with people who espouse the idea of the sanctity of human life is where I have bolded. WE humans being the operative word that I would use, they might say "because we were made to be more important by god". Even people who don't believe in god seem to have some idea that we are more entitled to life than animals - that sanctity is somehow a "thing" not made up by us to explain why we kill/don't kill.

Me? I think we believe we are more important than other animals because we are social animals, therefore we find killing each other more morally repugnant than killing other animals. We have empathy for each other, we recognise each other's emotions and social connectivity. But is human life sacred? Not in my book. It is important though (before anyone calls the men in white coats - or should that be black frocks and dog collars?)

You are basing that question on the premise of sentience being some sort of guideline. I would personally base the question of whose life should take precedence in terms of the greater need. I know that is where pro-life people start to speak up for the embryo (because it can't speak for itself, etc.) but essentially it comes down to whether we see every human life as sacred or not.

I think Reginald D Hunter said it best (not to say that all prolifers are fundamentalist or even conservative christians, but his point about sacredness is the same as my own) - "“Fundamentalists…conservative Christians…they believe that an embryo in a woman’s body is sacred and no one should harm it. They don’t believe, that the same embryo, once it leaves a woman’s body, should be exempt from execution. Or going off to war and killing other embryos…as long as they’re foreign. So if we are specific, and stay on topic with this debate, what we are trying to decide between us is,what age is appropriate to start killing human beings?”

Off to bed now, more another day!

i hear what you are saying but I never mentioned the word sacred and one can hold the prolife views I posited above without having any belief in the supernatural.

The greater need, as a basis or guideline for determine which sentient life should take precedence, is not one with any particular logic to it.

drkpower · 06-05-2013 11:59PM

Sarky wrote: »

Before the end of the first trimester is a pretty safe bet at least. The foetus might have a load of brain cells, but the synapses that link them up only start growing around the second trimester. A brain without synapses is just a lump of jelly. So at the very least, that's about 20 weeks where you can be confident there's no more sentience than the last spider you just flattened with a book.

The balance of rights is a bit tricky, and rightly so because despite what Youth Defence or the Iona Institute and all their flying monkeys would have you believe, nobody WANTS to have an abortion. And yet, it's sometimes necessary. You can find 12 different women every day in this country who'll tell you that. Well, actually you can't, because they're forced overseas to get the help they need.

Me, I'm in favour of what most women want, which is letting them have the right to their own body. Having known a few pregnant women, I'm well aware that it's a rather unpleasant experience. Hell, one of my closest friends is currently about week 21, and I'm dreading (and so is she) the extra crazy she'll be saddled with as the foetus develops beyond jelly-bean size. She wants a baby, no doubt about that, but she wouldn't hesitate for a second before heading to the UK if there was a problem. And I'd happily support her decision, because I'm pretty sure she's more important to me, her husband and her friends than a small clump of barely sentient cells that could kill her.

The choice has to be there, or you have to admit that women can't be trusted. There's not much in the way of middle ground. Abortions are going to happen one way or another. Might as well be done by professionals in a safe clean environment.

I agree with pretty much all of the above.

But I'm not sure it answers the question logically: if what affords us rights is sentience, why should a woman's right to health, life or bodily integrity trumps sentient unborns right to life?

Obliq · 07-05-2013 12:04AM

drkpower wrote: »

i hear what you are saying but I never mentioned the word sacred and one can hold the prolife views I posited above without having any belief in the supernatural.

The greater need, as a basis or guideline for determine which sentient life should take precedence, is not one with any particular logic to it.

Still here, bed calling me...!

Funnily enough though drkpower, it's logical enough that women who need abortions take that decision - 12 a day from Ireland. The greater need has so many variables that you cannot hope to measure them and set any guidelines or structures YET it is this that women use when seeking an abortion. They go about getting one when they need one, unless they are stopped by some regime. So it has been since the first woman discovered that you lost a baby when you fell down, or ate too much of a particular plant.

And no, you never mentioned the word sacred, but I was trying to explain that that is pretty much where we get our notion of "right to life" from IMO.

drkpower · 07-05-2013 12:10AM

Obliq wrote: »

Still here, bed calling me...!

Funnily enough though drkpower, it's logical enough that women who need abortions take that decision - 12 a day from Ireland. The greater need has so many variables that you cannot hope to measure them and set any guidelines or structures YET it is this that women use when seeking an abortion. They go about getting one when they need one, unless they are stopped by some regime. So it has been since the first woman discovered that you lost a baby when you fell down, or ate too much of a particular plant.

And no, you never mentioned the word sacred, but I was trying to explain that that is pretty much where we get our notion of "right to life" from IMO.

Go to bed!
I certainly agree that abortions have happened, are happening and will always happen. But that doesn't necessarily help us with the logic of either position.

Also, while you are right that the right to life probably does in part stem from supernaturalism, I think we can all agree that in the absence of supernaturalism, we can and do accept that such a right is a fundamental part of what we are.

But none of the above can really help us with the question of why a woman's right to health or self determination should trump a sentient unborns right to life.

Sarky · 07-05-2013 12:14AM

drkpower wrote: »

I agree with pretty much all of the above.

But I'm not sure it answers the question logically: if what affords us rights is sentience, why should a woman's right to health, life or bodily integrity trumps sentient unborns right to life?

There are degrees of sentience. You don't see anyone but PETA crying out about aborting unborn cats and dogs, or euthanising animals that are old and suffering. In fact it's almost universally seen as doing them a favour. It seems strange that it should be arseways when it comes to humans.

A baby is pretty much a blank slate when it's born. It has a few instincts and automatic responses, but that's really about it. They've no concept of religion, money, facial recognition, bladder control or anything more complicated than eating, crying and pooping. They learn quickly, granted, but always start the same. Very little in the way of uniqueness between any two foetuses.

A fully grown woman though, unless they were tragically unlucky, they generally have 15+ years of developing their sentience before becoming pregnant. They have long-established ties of family and friendship, they've got accomplishments and personalities. I'd class them as more valuable in every sense.

I suppose, if one wants to be brutally callous about it, you have this argument: if one chooses the woman over the foetus, she can usually make another one, when she actually WANTS a child. There are nearly 8 billion of us on the planet. Life isn't quite as special as we'd all like to believe.

But I prefer the first argument myself. I think there's enough there to justify my stance. If there's not, let me know and I'll see if I need to change that stance.

drkpower · 07-05-2013 12:18AM

Sarky wrote: »

There are degrees of sentience. You don't see anyone but PETA crying out about aborting unborn cats and dogs, or euthanising animals that are old and suffering. In fact it's almost universally seen as doing them a favour. It seems strange that it should be arseways when it comes to humans.

A baby is pretty much a blank slate when it's born. It has a few instincts and automatic responses, but that's really about it. They've no concept of religion, money, facial recognition, bladder control or anything more complicated than eating, crying and pooping. They learn quickly, granted, but always start the same. Very little in the way of uniqueness between any two foetuses.

A fully grown woman though, unless they were tragically unlucky, they generally have 15+ years of developing their sentience before becoming pregnant. They have long-established ties of family and friendship, they've got accomplishments and personalities. I'd class them as more valuable in every sense.

I suppose, if one wants to be brutally callous about it, you have this argument: if one chooses the woman over the foetus, she can usually make another one, when she actually WANTS a child. There are nearly 8 billion of us on the planet. Life isn't quite as special as we'd all like to believe.

But I prefer the first argument myself. I think there's enough there to justify my stance. If there's not, let me know and I'll see if I need to change that stance.

But doesn't that stance permit a situation where a woman should be permitted to terminate a 38 week, or a 28 week old foetus? Is that something that we should countenance.

(Of course I appreciate that the chances of any woman wanting to do such a thing is incredibly unlikely - although not impossible)

Mardy Bum · 07-05-2013 12:35AM

Sarky wrote: »

There are degrees of sentience. You don't see anyone but PETA crying out about aborting unborn cats and dogs, or euthanising animals that are old and suffering. In fact it's almost universally seen as doing them a favour. It seems strange that it should be arseways when it comes to humans.

A baby is pretty much a blank slate when it's born. It has a few instincts and automatic responses, but that's really about it. They've no concept of religion, money, facial recognition, bladder control or anything more complicated than eating, crying and pooping. They learn quickly, granted, but always start the same. Very little in the way of uniqueness between any two foetuses.

But I prefer the first argument myself. I think there's enough there to justify my stance. If there's not, let me know and I'll see if I need to change that stance.

Exactly. We don't get a sense of self until we are able to process memories so there is literally nothing unique about a foetus (bar some extraordinary physical defect).

Sarky · 07-05-2013 12:35AM

drkpower wrote: »

But doesn't that stance permit a situation where a woman should be permitted to terminate a 38 week, or a 28 week old foetus? Is that something that we should countenance.

(Of course I appreciate that the chances of any woman wanting to do such a thing is incredibly unlikely - although not impossible)

It does, yes. And while far less common than early-term abortions, there may yet be compelling reasons to support it. Being pregnant is actually rather dangerous, and complications can arise all the way. Some deliveries require a c-section or the woman and/or child will die, it's perfectly reasonable that other problems would necessitate the choice of one life over the other. It's not nice, no, but sometimes that's what it comes down to.

I've heard that some mothers choose to take the risk and go ahead with a pregnancy or delivery knowing that they'll likely die during or soon after. That's their choice. It should also be their choice to go the other way.

Like any system, you'll eventually find someone willing to abuse it. That's no reason to deny such options, otherwise we'd have banned cars, alcohol, tall buildings and a thousand other things. Like I said before, abortions are going to happen whether they're legal or not, and some of those will probably be late term. I'd like to see a system that gives the option when necessary, and does things safely, instead of what we currently have which is a culture obsessed with shaming women in a bloody tough situation and forcing them out of the country to get medical aid they should be able to get here, or jumping through ridiculous legal hoops to satisfy too many people, or being forced to carry to term if it does anything less than kill the woman.

drkpower · 07-05-2013 12:51AM

Sarky wrote: »

It does, yes. And while far less common than early-term abortions, there may yet be compelling reasons to support it. Being pregnant is actually rather dangerous, and complications can arise all the way. Some deliveries require a c-section or the woman and/or child will die, it's perfectly reasonable that other problems would necessitate the choice of one life over the other. It's not nice, no, but sometimes that's what it comes down to.

I've heard that some mothers choose to take the risk and go ahead with a pregnancy or delivery knowing that they'll likely die during or soon after. That's their choice. It should also be their choice to go the other way.

Like any system, you'll eventually find someone willing to abuse it. That's no reason to deny such options, otherwise we'd have banned cars, alcohol, tall buildings and a thousand other things. Like I said before, abortions are going to happen whether they're legal or not, and some of those will probably be late term. I'd like to see a system that gives the option when necessary, and does things safely, instead of what we currently have which is a culture obsessed with shaming women in a bloody tough situation and forcing them out of the country to get medical aid they should be able to get here, or jumping through ridiculous legal hoops to satisfy too many people, or being forced to carry to term if it does anything less than kill the woman.

You mention the choice of one life over another. But what if we are speaking of a risk to a woman short of life (ie. health risk or even a violation of bodily integrity). Why should those rights of a mother tru mp the right to life of a sentient unborn?

Sarky · 07-05-2013 01:03AM

Like I said, balancing those rights is a tricky business. I don't have an answer for you, at least in part because it's late and I'm up to my eyeballs on pain medication for a slipped disc.

It's well worth discussing, though. As long as we keep the "OMG DE BAYBEES" stuff out of it and the pro-choice equivalent, assuming there is one. I'll try to remember to come back to it when my head is less stuffed with pink sparkly magical dancing candy floss. Or if the thread's moved on by then (quite likely, I was prescribed about a fortnight's worth of Diazepam), why not PM me if you want to continue?

Czarcasm · 07-05-2013 01:05AM

drkpower wrote: »

You mention the choice of one life over another. But what if we are speaking of a risk to a woman short of life (ie. health risk or even a violation of bodily integrity). Why should those rights of a mother tru mp the right to life of a sentient unborn?

It's quite simple really drk- because the foetus can be aborted with much less risk to the pregnant female, than the risk to the foetus should the pregnant female die. Therefore when we talk about the rights of the foetus, the pregnant females rights take immediate precedence as she is the one from whom the foetus derives nourishment to develop. Without nourishment (such as in the case of the pregnant female denying herself nourishment), the foetus will die and the formerly pregnant female will have put her own life in danger to achieve this result.

drkpower · 07-05-2013 01:14AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's quite simple really drk- because the foetus can be aborted with much less risk to the pregnant female, than the risk to the foetus should the pregnant female die. Therefore when we talk about the rights of the foetus, the pregnant females rights take immediate precedence as she is the one from whom the foetus derives nourishment to develop. Without nourishment (such as in the case of the pregnant female denying herself nourishment), the foetus will die and the formerly pregnant female will have put her own life in danger to achieve this result.

But, again, doesn't that position advocate a woman being entitled to terminate/ deliver a foetus at 38 or 28 weeks?

Czarcasm · 07-05-2013 01:19AM

drkpower wrote: »

But, again, doesn't that position advocate a woman being entitled to terminate/ deliver a foetus at 38 or 28 weeks?

Yes, it does, as should be her decision and her decision to make for herself, not having to be subjected to the delaying tactics of being interviewed by a panel before she be permitted to abort the foetus or be forced to bear a child when she has no wish to do so.

Cody Pomeray · 07-05-2013 01:24AM

drkpower wrote: »

But none of the above can really help us with the question of why a woman's right to health or self determination should trump a sentient unborns right to life.

Because of the principle of individual liberty over one's own body.

We don't force mothers to donate organs or undergo any other type of donor surgery for their children post-partum, even if no other genetic match can be found.

Why should we force them to safeguard their babies during pregnancy, and stop making these demands as soon as the baby is born?

Moving on from that,

Sentience doesn't enter into the abortion debate as far as I am concerned. I don't see the logical imperative of considering it at all.

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-05-2013 08:06AM

drkpower wrote: »

No doubt there are many from a prolife perspective whose arguments fit the description you have just given. But not all. There are some who have some logic to support their position.

Having not met anyone who does not fit it... I can but take your word for it. If you are aware of any good arguments, evidence, data or reasoning which lends any utility at all... or anyone else who is able to espouse same... then by all means get them on a relevant thread to discuss it. I can link to many on here.

drkpower wrote: »

Effectively, they believe that a conceptus is a living human and as such, should have a right to life.

Yeah I am aware of what their position actually _is_. I certainly did not mean to suggest otherwise and my apologies if I gave that impression.

It is the reasoning behind.... and support for.... said position that I am saying is lacking. Certainly re-stating a position does not substantiate a position however and laying out what the position actually is certainly does not indicate the position is logical.

Cody Pomeray · 07-05-2013 10:25AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Having not met anyone who does not fit it... I can but take your word for it. If you are aware of any good arguments, evidence, data or reasoning which lends any utility at all... or anyone else who is able to espouse same... then by all means get them on a relevant thread to discuss it. I can link to many on here.

It's a bit much to propose that there is no logical argument on the pro-life side.

I mean just to play devil's advocate against my own argument, stated in the second to last post, it could be argued that a pregnancy is unlike any other natural situation wherein a parent may find herself.

In the case of organ donation post partum, there may be many potential donors.

In the case of a foetus during the early stages of implantation and until viability, there is only one 'donor' the whole world over who can safeguard that individual's life without grievously compromising her own liberty.

Given the uniqueness of that situation, it might be that there is a moral imperative on the mother to support that life, at least in circumstances where there is no risk to her health.

Do I take this opinion?
No
Do I think it's a fairly logical counterargument to my opinion?
Yes, it is.

drkpower · 07-05-2013 10:26AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes, it does, as should be her decision and her decision to make for herself, not having to be subjected to the delaying tactics of being interviewed by a panel before she be permitted to abort the foetus or be forced to bear a child when she has no wish to do so.

That's fair enough, but do you believe that no rights should be afforded to a 38 week old or a 28 week old foetus?

Many would say - including myself - that the proposition that a 28 or a 38 week old sentient foetus has no rights while inside the womb, but once outsiðe the womb, it has effectively the same rights as you or I, is not a logical one.

Obliq · 07-05-2013 10:30AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Given the uniqueness of that situation, it might be that there is a moral imperative on the mother to support that life, at least in circumstances where there is no risk to her health.

And how is there a moral imperative if she has an unwanted or unintended pregnancy? Which as you know could have come about through anything from rape, to unprotected sex. Who imposes that morality on her? Not me, that's for sure.

drkpower · 07-05-2013 10:32AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Because of the principle of individual liberty over one's own body.

We don't force mothers to donate organs or undergo any other type of donor surgery for their children post-partum, even if no other genetic match can be found.

Why should we force them to safeguard their babies during pregnancy, and stop making these demands as soon as the baby is born?

Moving on from that,

Sentience doesn't enter into the abortion debate as far as I am concerned. I don't see the logical imperative of considering it at all.

I agree with your position on individual autonomy, up to a point. I cannot though agree with the proposition that individual autonomy is a right of such importance that it should trump the right to life of, for instance, a 30 week or 38 week foetus.

My own view, for what it is worth, is that the developing foetus gains rights throughout its ðevelopment. While a woman's right to autonomy is an important one, it is not absolute. Of course, at what stage of development and in what circumstances, the rights of one trumps the other is an incredibly difficult judgment to make. I would not rule out sentience as a relevant factor in that overall assessment, but I don't believe it has all of the answers.

Cody Pomeray · 07-05-2013 10:33AM

drkpower wrote: »

I agree with your position on individual autonomy, up to a point. I cannot though agree with the proposition that individual autonomy is a right of such importance that it should trump the right to life of, for instance, a 30 week or 38 week foetus.

what about at 100 weeks?

I know I just argued against it for the purposes of playing devil's advocate, but to take this to its logical conclusion, why does a mother's right to liberty only increase after giving birth?

That is to say, why would we let her baby die if she was an unwilling donor, after birth? Why stop making demands at 40 weeks?

Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Comments