Abortion discussion split from Bud Struggle thread

[NGNM85]

And also for thinking pro-life positions are anything but anti-choice.

The abortion issue isn't a zero-sum game, nomatter how much you'd like it to be. The real problem is that the official party line is fundamentally bogus. It doesn't hold water.

These posts on aborton were split from the Bud Struggle thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hell-bud-strugglei-t165849/index.html)

[Quail]

Socialism will bring about an unprecedented rise in woman's rights. Just because we disagree on the ethical rights of a fetus doesn't mean we should exclude him from helping us empower women in farther reaching ways.
If everyone considered the "ethical rights of a fetus" to be more important than the rights of the woman carrying said fetus, socialism would not do much for women's rights. In order to have equal opportunities in every aspect of life, women must have control over their bodies when it comes to reproduction.

[NGNM85]

If everyone considered the "ethical rights of a fetus" to be more important than the rights of the woman carrying said fetus, socialism would not do much for women's rights. In order to have equal opportunities in every aspect of life, women must have control over their bodies when it comes to reproduction.

This is such a tangled knot, I don’t even know where to begin. First of all; the root of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate isn’t primarily about differing interpretations of women’s rights, it’s about differing interpretations of what defines us, as human beings. Pro-Lifers, being Christians, believe that we are defined by a magical essence, a ‘soul.’ This is, incidentally, the only way by which one can equate a zygote, and a full-grown adult. This is, of course, preposterous, and flies in the face of reason, and everything we know about biology. Obviously, any Socialist being, by definition, metaphysical materialists, defining human beings on the basis of biological characteristics, as opposed to imaginary essences, should dismiss this out of hand.

However; this causes problems for the other extreme end of the spectrum as well. If you take the absolutist position that there should never be any limit on abortion, whatsoever, you run into a number of problems. This position basically turns a woman’s body cavity into a magical gateway, bestowing human status to those that have successfully passed through it, as if geographical location was biologically, or ethically relevant. You also end up with bizarre paradoxes where a premature infant, born at, say, 30 weeks, is a ‘baby,’ with rights, whereas a 38-week-old ‘fetus’ is just so much worthless biomatter. This is as irrational, as it is unscientific. Once a fetus acquires the sufficient biological conditions, it is a human being, therefore; it has rights. There’s really no other way to see it.

[Azraella]

Pro-Lifers, being Christians, believe that we are defined by a magical essence, a ‘soul.’


Not all pro-life people are Christian. Seriously. There are atheistic pro-lifers (http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html), pagan pro-lifers, and much more. Seriously, people who think abortion is wrong are not all Cvhristian. There are people who really do believe life begins at conception. My own attitudes on abortion are on record here.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

However; this causes problems for the other extreme end of the spectrum as well. If you take the absolutist position that there should never be any limit on abortion, whatsoever, you run into a number of problems. This position basically turns a woman’s body cavity into a magical gateway, bestowing human status to those that have successfully passed through it, as if geographical location was biologically, or ethically relevant. You also end up with bizarre paradoxes where a premature infant, born at, say, 30 weeks, is a ‘baby,’ with rights, whereas a 38-week-old ‘fetus’ is just so much worthless biomatter. This is as irrational, as it is unscientific. Once a fetus acquires the sufficient biological conditions, it is a human being, therefore; it has rights. There’s really no other way to see it.

Since the vast majority of abortions are made in the first trimester, I'm rejecting the scenarios given as irrelevant to the larger argument. Not only that, but I cannot see how they can arise in the first place, since pregnancy is noticeable well before 30 weeks, which means that circumstances requiring an abortion during the third trimester are always going to be exceptional.

Of course, if the local fundies have sufficient political muscle then I can easily understand why there would be more unwanted pregnancies than usual, thanks to their raging hate-on for women controlling their own fertility. But I think it's obvious in such situations where the fault lies.

[NGNM85]

Not all pro-life people are Christian. Seriously. There are atheistic pro-lifers (http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html), pagan pro-lifers, and much more. Seriously, people who think abortion is wrong are not all Cvhristian. There are people who really do believe life begins at conception. My own attitudes on abortion are on record here.

Do they exist? Yes, but lets get serious. The Pro-Life movement is a religious movement, specifically, a Christian movement.

[NGNM85]

Since the vast majority of abortions are made in the first trimester, I'm rejecting the scenarios given as irrelevant to the larger argument. Not only that, but I cannot see how they can arise in the first place, since pregnancy is noticeable well before 30 weeks, which means that circumstances requiring an abortion during the third trimester are always going to be exceptional.

More than 75% of abortions are performed within the first 11-12 weeks, actually, I’m pretty sure it’s around 86%. However, this is irrelevant. I also grant that a woman would almost certainly be aware of pregnancy before 30 weeks, but this assumes that people behave in rational and predictable ways, which, clearly, is not necessarily the case, and, more importantly, is also irrelevant. The point is at that point in the gestation, the fetus has acquired the sufficient biological conditions of a human being, and, therefore, carries moral weight. There’s no other way to see it. The absolutist position (Which is part of the official ideology espoused by this website.) on abortion simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, it is both philosophically unsound, and unscientific. Furthermore; this absurd belief is not fundamental to any branch of socialism that I am aware of.


Of course, if the local fundies have sufficient political muscle then I can easily understand why there would be more unwanted pregnancies than usual, thanks to their raging hate-on for women controlling their own fertility. But I think it's obvious in such situations where the fault lies.

No-one’s saying that contraceptives shouldn’t be more accessible. (Actually, plenty of people do, but none of them are present.) This is beside the point.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

More than 75% of abortions are performed within the first 11-12 weeks, actually, I’m pretty sure it’s around 86%. However, this is irrelevant. I also grant that a woman would almost certainly be aware of pregnancy before 30 weeks, but this assumes that people behave in rational and predictable ways, which, clearly, is not necessarily the case, and, more importantly, is also irrelevant. The point is at that point in the gestation, the fetus has acquired the sufficient biological conditions of a human being, and, therefore, carries moral weight.

More "moral weight" than the woman? The woman in this instance being a fully-grown human being with friends and family, and the fetus at this point being little more than a barely-aware tabula rasa?


No-one’s saying that contraceptives shouldn’t be more accessible. (Actually, plenty of people do, but none of them are present.) This is beside the point.

The whole "concern" over late-term abortions is nothing more than some red herring promulgated by liberals bending over backwards to be nice to people who would lynch them if they had the guts. There's no issue in places with non-insane laws on women's control of their own fertility.

Also, please stop using custom fonts, because it's clear from your fuck-ups that you don't have a clue how to use them.

[Quail]

The absolutist position (Which is part of the official ideology espoused by this website.) on abortion simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, it is both philosophically unsound, and unscientific. Furthermore; this absurd belief is not fundamental to any branch of socialism that I am aware of.
A woman's complete control over her reproduction should be essential to any branch of socialism, because without it women can't have equal opportunities to make use of whatever society has to offer. But I suppose being male, perhaps that never occurred to you.

[Tychus]

I am not pro-life, but you guys undermine your credibility by claiming science to be on your side. The pro-life/pro-choice debate is a philosophical one, determined by philosophy and a spectrum of morality, not science. Science is neutral and doesn't recognize morality.

Science can only tell you at what stage the fetus develops what. Under which criteria do you determine the abortability of the baby? Around the late second trimester, the fetus becomes viable and can survive outside the womb. It has a developed nervous system and everything.

A "soul" is basically a level of sentience and higher-reasoning which you can have at 18 months at the earliest and not until you're about 3 years old on average.

But most pro-choicers disapprove of aborting an 18-month-old baby, so clearly there's no scientific criteria.

In other words, when does it stop being a fuckbubble and starts becoming a baby?

Until that question is answered, nobody is right.

[RGacky3]

Your right is essencially an ontological question of what makes a human a human, not a scientific one.

[CommunityBeliever]

I support properly-done abortions. I would specifically like to emphasize that they are properly done so that there are no abortion survivors like Gianna Jessen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen) and so that the process is painless for both the parent and the fetus.

My arguments in favor of abortion can be divided into two catogories: pro-choice, and anti-procreation. On the one hand, the pro-choice position holds that women should be free to live without the burden of pregnancy. In order to achieve this we should work to progressively decrease the threshold of fetal viability using medical technology and artificial wombs.

On the other hand, the anti-procreation position is based on a variety of factors, such as the ongoing overpopulation crisis, the predisposition to suffering, aging, and disease produced by Darwinian evolution, the relative bleakness of life under capitalism, etc.


The point is at that point in the gestation, the fetus has acquired the sufficient biological conditions of a human being, and, therefore, carries moral weight.

Whatever the "moral weight" is, the mother should be free to give up the responsibility of pregnancy.


In other words, when does it stop being a fuckbubble and starts becoming a baby?

That question isn't particularly relevant to me. I am pro-women so with little regard to the fetus's state of development I think the mother should be free to give up the responsibility of pregnancy. Rather this means delivering a lethal injection to the babies heart or continuing to raise it in an artificial womb is a technical problem.

[Rafiq]

Your right is essencially an ontological question of what makes a human a human, not a scientific one.

How absurd!

Is it an ontological question as to whether a carrott should be a human too?

It's 100% scientific.

[Tychus]

How absurd!

Is it an ontological question as to whether a carrott should be a human too?

It's 100% scientific.

A fetus in the late second trimester IS human, dawg.


That question isn't particularly relevant to me. I am pro-women so with little regard to the fetus's state of development I think the mother should be free to give up the responsibility of pregnancy. Rather this means delivering a lethal injection to the babies heart or continuing to raise it in an artificial womb is a technical problem.

I agree, but pro-lifers will say that you are being hypocritical, considering all life precious on one hand where you want a "right to life" for everyone with free healthcare and social security but not considering all life precious when it comes to giving the unborn the same right to life.

Should a mother be free to terminate the responsibility of taking care of a 2-month-old baby, for example? The world is overpopulated anyway, right?

[RGacky3]

How absurd!

Is it an ontological question as to whether a carrott should be a human too?

It's 100% scientific.

The defining feature of humanity IS an ontological quesion. But under no definition of humanity does a carrott fall under it, when it comes to Fetus' different defining features have different implications.

[Tychus]

Gacky, you said last time that your abortion stance is the sole reason you are restricted, and you refused to get into it. Can you share your stance with us now? I haven't heard from a pro-life leftist before.

[RGacky3]

I've discussed it in the past, and I don't really feel like getting into it again, but its not a left/right issue imo, its a phylisophical issue.

[Rafiq]

The defining feature of humanity IS an ontological quesion. But under no definition of humanity does a carrott fall under it, when it comes to Fetus' different defining features have different implications.

Okay but the discussion as to whether a fetus shares equal rights with a human already born is not ontological.

A fetus does not express pain or resistance

[RGacky3]

Okay but the discussion as to whether a fetus shares equal rights with a human already born is not ontological.

A fetus does not express pain or resistance

A: A fetus' expressions of pain or so on are different at different levels.
B: Your claim that a human's defining feature is the ability to express pain or resistance is an ontological claim.

The question is whether or not a fetus is a person, thats an ontological question.

Whether or not an unborn person should have differing rights is an ethical question which is based heavily on your answer to the previous ontological question.

[Crux]

I think regardless of your ontological position I cannot understand how someone can be opposed to abortion rights or feel the right to moralize over women's choices. I say this backed not only by personal experience, but also by how god awful effects restrictions on the right to abortion has. Ironically so called "pro-life" psoitions tend to increase the number of abortions and more importantly endanger the women's lives to a very serious degree. Abortions will continue to happen and if you think it is human life, fine but I think the right of bodily autonomy and the very practical implications this has trumps that everytime. Abortion isn't pretty, no one is pretending it is, but if you think it's murder well then I guess I have no problem with being Pro-Death.

[NGNM85]

More "moral weight" than the woman? The woman in this instance being a fully-grown human being with friends and family, and the fetus at this point being little more than a barely-aware tabula rasa?

That question necessitates that one has already accepted that said fetus has rights, thus, creating a situation of rights in conflict. I happen to agree. (Obviously.) However, this proposition by itself, while rational, and sensible, in fact, it seems to be inevitable, is also highly contentious, so I had to work up to that.

Equal weight in terms of their lives being equally valuable? I would lean towards the negative, however, to some degree that’s tangential. What, I think, we can absolutely agree on is a hierarchy of infractions. One of the bedrock principles of Anarchism is that authority is never inherently legitimate, that it must be subjected to a burden of proof increasing proportionally in accordance with the degree of force being exercised. Whether or not both parties rights are equivalent, the degree to which they are being infringed upon absolutely isn’t. It’s fairly plain that being killed would be the greatest violation of ones’ rights that there could be. It’s also paradoxical because if this right is sacrosanct, then it must apply to the fetus, in this case, as well. There are other paradoxes, which I’ve mentioned.


The whole "concern" over late-term abortions is nothing more than some red herring promulgated by liberals bending over backwards to be nice to people who would lynch them if they had the guts. There's no issue in places with non-insane laws on women's control of their own fertility.

Gender is really irrelevant to this discussion, as are the role this issue plays in American politics. That isn’t to say it isn’t worth discussing, it’s just not really relevant.


Also, please stop using custom fonts, because it's clear from your fuck-ups that you don't have a clue how to use them.

No reason to become upset. Actually; it was completely accidental, I was switching back and forth between a word processor, and that’s why things got screwy.

[NGNM85]

A woman's complete control over her reproduction should be essential to any branch of socialism, because without it women can't have equal opportunities to make use of whatever society has to offer. But I suppose being male, perhaps that never occurred to you.

Socialists should be concerned with the rights of all humans. No-one is arguing women shouldn't have any control over reproduction. (Actually, a number of people are, but none of them are present.) The issue it hand is to what extent, and to what degree that can, or should, infringe on the rights of others. I didn't say much about gender because it's irrelevent to the discussion.

[NGNM85]

Now that the PBA ban has been passed in the U.S, most abortions there are already properly done. With the aid of an ultrasound, doctors painlessly inject lethal quantities of substances such as Digoxin to the baby's heart, resulting in a clean and painless death. In the future, we may just transfer babies to artificial wombs.

Whether or not said fetus suffers, and I’m fairly sure it doesn’t, is not the point. Just because one is able to kill someone without inflicting the physical, or psychological distress that generally accompanies being killed doesn’t make it excusable.


Whatever the "moral weight" is, the mother should be free to give up the responsibility of pregnancy.

I’m inclined to agree, especially considering that, at such a late stage in gestation, the fetus has a greater than 90% chance of survival, on it’s own. It is as self-sufficient as any newborn.

[CommunityBeliever]

Whether or not said fetus suffers, and I’m fairly sure it doesn’t, is not the point. Just because one is able to kill someone without inflicting the physical, or psychological distress that generally accompanies being killed doesn’t make it excusable.


As comrade RGacky3 already mentioned, this is a philosophical issue. As such, your position on the acceptability of abortion is dependent upon your philosophical stance, which in my case is negative utilitarianism.

Now my reasoning is that coercing the mother to carry the fetus may cause her to suffer considerably, and producing the child will further cause suffering, as the child will inevitably suffer throughout his life. As such, in order to effectively accomplish the negative utilitarian goal of eliminating suffering from all sentient life, the best course of action is to satisfy the mother's wishes so that she doesn't have to suffer and painlessly abort the fetus so that it doesn't have to suffer either.

[Decolonize The Left]

This isn't a fucking discussion.

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a human.
It doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.
It doesn't matter if the fetus is a result of jesus and mohammad making love to buddha.
It doesn't matter what a fetus feels, or doesn't feel.
It doesn't matter what a fetus thinks, if it thinks at all.

None of this matters.

What matter is that the issue of abortion is an issue of woman's autonomy.
Woman's body = woman's choice.

- August

[CommunityBeliever]

It doesn't matter what a fetus feels, or doesn't feel.

You are wrong, it does matter. Autonomy doesn't give women the right to torture their fetus, but it does give them the right to give up the burden of pregnancy.

[Ele'ill]

Torture?

[Le Libérer]

You are wrong, it does matter. Autonomy doesn't give women the right to torture their fetus, but it does give them the right to give up the burden of pregnancy.

To say a fetus is tortured is to say there is fetal pain. Do you have any empirical data that proves your claims of torture?

Because studies (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/brownbag/brownbag0506/fetalpain.pdf) I have read say that

Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections.

Unless the fetus has been born and is conscious, then it cannot feel pain, therefore torture does not occur.

[Decolonize The Left]

You are wrong, it does matter. Autonomy doesn't give women the right to torture their fetus, but it does give them the right to give up the burden of pregnancy.

Ugh.

So now you're just drawing lines between 'giving up the burden of pregnancy,' (i.e. abortion - what we're talking about) and 'torture' (having nothing to do with anything). The issue at hand is the issue of abortion, and in regards to that issue the only discussion is in regards to a woman's autonomy.

- August

[Revolution starts with U]

I have the best stance... not to pat myself on the back.

I'm a libertarian; which means you do what you feel is right. I, meanwhile, would never get an abortion. I'm pro life. My political stance is pro choice. I win :thumbup1:

EDIT: I would get an abortion, if it threatened the life of the mother, or something like that. But just because I'm too irresponsible to raise a baby is out of the question.

[Crux]

I have the best stance... not to pat myself on the back.

I'm a libertarian; which means you do what you feel is right. I, meanwhile, would never get an abortion. I'm pro life. My political stance is pro choice. I win :thumbup1:

EDIT: I would get an abortion, if it threatened the life of the mother, or something like that. But just because I'm too irresponsible to raise a baby is out of the question.
Of the mother? Sorry, dude, if you're not female you won't have to get an abortion ever. I assume you don't use condoms or sleep with women who are on the pill, or take a morning after pill. Because that's responsible, if you believe having a kid is somehow always desirable.

[Quail]

Socialists should be concerned with the rights of all humans. No-one is arguing women shouldn't have any control over reproduction. (Actually, a number of people are, but none of them are present.) The issue it hand is to what extent, and to what degree that can, or should, infringe on the rights of others. I didn't say much about gender because it's irrelevent to the discussion.
Of course gender is irrelevant to the discussion if you're male and you'll never have to worry about being able to get an abortion without the worry of judgment or choose whether or not you want to be pregnant. It's easy for you to say that when this is an issue that you will never have to deal with. The fetus doesn't and shouldn't have rights that outweigh those of the woman giving up her body and energy to sustain it. Pregnancy isn't a lot of fun and is very physically demanding (from first hand experience), and nobody should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if they don't want to.

[CommunityBeliever]

Recently, I have come to sympathize with the anti-natalist position which states that it is wrong to have children and if you are pregnant should have an excellent reason not to abort.

http://theantinatalismmanifesto.wikispaces.com/

Nobody should be deprived from a possibly beneficial non-existence (to be thought of as more than an absolute nothing), like nobody should also be deprived of his very existance by any others will, because there should be no rights and no possibility by default to rule on occurance or absence of another human in existance, conditions both not known whether beneficial or not to whomever.

However, I do think that socialism and transhumanism will create a world worthy of bringing new children into, or as David Pearce stated in his own review of antinatalism "coming into existence will be intrinsically good".


Torture?

Registered nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer described the procedure of partial birth abortions: "The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside. The abortionist took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out."

In effect, babies are partially born, and then when they are often viable and sentient, they are tortuously killed. Fortunately, this brutal method was banned in the U.S in 2003, to be replaced with clean and painless intracardiac injections.


Do you have any empirical data that proves your claims of torture?

Yes. Premature babies have been shown to shown to react to painful stimuli with hormonal and other physiological distress, including increased blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate. From this we can extrapolate that certain post-viability fetuses have some degree of sensitivity to pain. Since these premature babies were mainly born in the third trimester, I generally agree with the claim in the conclusions section of the article you linked that "fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."

[1] Pain and its effects on the human neonate and the fetus (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/)
THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987.

[Crux]

Recently, I have come to sympathize with the anti-natalist position which states that it is wrong to have children and if you are pregnant should have an excellent reason not to abort.

http://theantinatalismmanifesto.wikispaces.com/

Nobody should be deprived from a possibly beneficial non-existence (to be thought of as more than an absolute nothing), like nobody should also be deprived of his very existance by any others will, because there should be no rights and no possibility by default to rule on occurance or absence of another human in existance, conditions both not known whether beneficial or not to whomever.

However, I do think that socialism and transhumanism will create a world worthy of bringing new children into, or as David Pearce stated in his own review of antinatalism "coming into existence will be intrinsically good".



Registered nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer described the procedure of partial birth abortions: "The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside. The abortionist took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out."

In effect, babies are partially born, and then when they are often viable and sentient, they are tortuously killed. Fortunately, this brutal method was banned in the U.S in 2003, to be replaced with clean and painless intracardiac injections.



Yes. Premature babies have been shown to shown to react to painful stimuli with hormonal and other physiological distress, including increased blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate. From this we can extrapolate that certain post-viability fetuses have some degree of sensitivity to pain. Since these premature babies were mainly born in the third trimester, I generally agree with the claim in the conclusions section of the article you linked that "fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."

[1] Pain and its effects on the human neonate and the fetus (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/)
THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987.
So how about:
Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections.
As for the anti-natalist manifesto it seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. The "right to non-existence"? Please.

[CommunityBeliever]

So how about

I already responded to this. Evidence gathered by Anand indicates that late term human fetuses have the cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception. However, that article and other studies do indicate that fetuses may not perceive pain until the third trimester:

Study: Fetus feels no pain until third trimester
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/ns/health-womens_health/t/study-fetus-feels-no-pain-until-third-trimester/#.TvimDThansc)

As for the anti-natalist manifesto it seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. The "right to non-existence"? Please.

There are a variety of anti-procreation arguments, such as the overpopulation crisis, the genetic deficiencies produced Darwinian evolution such as aging, disease, suffering, the fact that in capitalist society most people waste their lives in menial activities, etc.

Well you may disagree with these arguments to some extent, I think you should recognise that some of them to do have merit. Now if you combine the anti-procreation arguments and the pro-choice arguments, then you can make a pretty solid case in favor of abortion.

[Crux]

No I have no truck with social Darwinism or (neo)Malthusianism. Sorry.
And third trimester is post week 28, so. Still if you read my previous post you would see why I think that point is moot anyway:

I think regardless of your ontological position I cannot understand how someone can be opposed to abortion rights or feel the right to moralize over women's choices. I say this backed not only by personal experience, but also by how god awful effects restrictions on the right to abortion has. Ironically so called "pro-life" psoitions tend to increase the number of abortions and more importantly endanger the women's lives to a very serious degree. Abortions will continue to happen and if you think it is human life, fine but I think the right of bodily autonomy and the very practical implications this has trumps that everytime. Abortion isn't pretty, no one is pretending it is, but if you think it's murder well then I guess I have no problem with being Pro-Death.

[CommunityBeliever]

No I have no truck with social Darwinism or (neo)Malthusianism. Sorry.


Then how do you address the anti-procreation arguments previously mentioned, such as the overpopulation, suffering, etc. Also what do think about anti-procreation policies like the one child policy in the PRC?

[Crux]

Then how do you address the anti-procreation arguments previously mentioned, such as the overpopulation, suffering, etc. Also what do think about anti-procreation policies like the one child policy in the PRC?
The Single Child policy is just another form of social control from the regime. There is no such thing as overpopulation since there, technically, are enough to sustain everyone and more. The problem, as always, is a matter of distribution and power. The problem is a problem of capitalism not overpopulatio. Ergo "overpopulation" is a stupid argument for abortion rights since there are so many other much better arguments.

[CommunityBeliever]

There is no such thing as overpopulation since there, technically, are enough to sustain everyone and more. The problem, as always, is a matter of distribution and power.

The fact that the is enough problem to sustain everyone, doesn't mean that there aren't problems associated with overpopulation, and particularly future overpopulation resulting from unchecked procreation.

[Crux]

The fact that the is enough problem to sustain everyone, doesn't mean that there aren't problems associated with overpopulation, and particularly future overpopulation resulting from unchecked procreation.
I would suggest population tends to self-regulate. That's a side point in any case.

[NGNM85]

Of course gender is irrelevant to the discussion if you're male and you'll never have to worry about being able to get an abortion without the worry of judgment or choose whether or not you want to be pregnant. It's easy for you to say that when this is an issue that you will never have to deal with.
No, you’re misunderstanding the issue. Gender is absolutely irrelevant to what I am saying. If we concede that a fetus in the third trimester is a human being, (Which seems inevitable if one is a metaphysical materialist, as there is no prerequisite biological characteristic that said fetus lacks.) it doesn’t matter where it is, or who it’s in. There’s no bias, here. To call this ‘sexism’ is to misunderstand the concept of sexism. Although; I fully concede that, historically, women have pretty much had a monopoly on childbirth. However; this is not entirely without exception; Who knows, perhaps someday in the future, we will have sufficiently mastered our biology where both genders will have the possibility of childbirth, or maybe gender will disappear entirely. Also; we accept intrusions upon physical autonomy all the time, for very excellent reasons. Minors are not allowed to refuse life-saving medicine or treatments. (Just as parents, such as Christian Scientists, are not allowed to deny their children life-saving medicines, or treatments, and rightfully so.) We quarantine people who are suspected of carrying deadly pathogens. We incarcerate, or hospitalize the criminal, and the mentally ill. Etc., etc. Also; the idea that policy on this issue should be solely decided by women, alone is fairly bogus. It also sets a dubious precedent, you’d have to establish a separate legal system for each gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Beyond being a logistical nightmare, I think this would be socially destructive on a number of levels. I think if we’re going to have a fully integrated society of people living as equals, regardless of color, sex, or orientation (Which I think is an excellent idea, incidentally.) then we must be equal under the law, we must treat each other as equals. Incidentally, the majority of women, even a significant percentage of Pro-Choice women are opposed to arbitrarily terminating a fetus at such a late stage in gestation.
　

The fetus doesn't and shouldn't have rights that outweigh those of the woman giving up her body and energy to sustain it.
The problem is that doesn’t make sense. Again; there is no relevant biological characteristic that a fetus does not possess at such an advanced stage in gestation. You’re just drawing an arbitrary line because it’s comforting, but it has no basis in biology, it actually contradicts the evidence. Again; this also leads to weird paradoxes where a baby born at 31 weeks is an infant with a name and rights, meanwhile, a 38-week-old fetus is just meaningless biomatter.

Pregnancy isn't a lot of fun and is very physically demanding (from first hand experience),
I have no such experience, myself, but I don’t dispute that it is.

and nobody should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if they don't want to.
I never said that they should.

[Crux]

No, you’re misunderstanding the issue. Gender is absolutely irrelevant to what I am saying. If we concede that a fetus in the third trimester is a human being, (Which seems inevitable if one is a metaphysical materialist, as there is no prerequisite biological characteristic that said fetus lacks.) it doesn’t matter where it is, or who it’s in. There’s no bias, here. To call this ‘sexism’ is to misunderstand the concept of sexism. Although; I fully concede that, historically, women have pretty much had a monopoly on childbirth. However; this is not entirely without exception; Who knows, perhaps someday in the future, we will have sufficiently mastered our biology where both genders will have the possibility of childbirth, or maybe gender will disappear entirely.
Nope that is what you are doing. Nothing historical about women being able to get pregnant and men not so much. Well in the future we might also all be dead, it's a pretty lazy non-point on your behalf since this discussion is in fact not taking place in your hypothesized future but in the present time.


Also; we accept intrusions upon physical autonomy all the time, for very excellent reasons. Minors are not allowed to refuse life-saving medicine or treatments. (Just as parents, such as Christian Scientists, are not allowed to deny their children life-saving medicines, or treatments, and rightfully so.) We quarantine people who are suspected of carrying deadly pathogens. We incarcerate, or hospitalize the criminal, and the mentally ill. Etc., etc.
And sometimes wrongly IMHO. Anyway refusing medicine or suffering from a mental illness is not the same as not wanting to take a pregnancy to term, although I suppose some people consider it that way.


Also; the idea that policy on this issue should be solely decided by women, alone is fairly bogus. It also sets a dubious precedent, you’d have to establish a separate legal system for each gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Beyond being a logistical nightmare, I think this would be socially destructive on a number of levels. I think if we’re going to have a fully integrated society of people living as equals, regardless of color, sex, or orientation (Which I think is an excellent idea, incidentally.) then we must be equal under the law, we must treat each other as equals. Incidentally, the majority of women, even a significant percentage of Pro-Choice women are opposed to arbitrarily terminating a fetus at such a late stage in gestation. I don't think anyone has argued for a separate legal system, so moot point. And being that I live in a country where the abortion discussion has been pretty much over since the late sixties eh no your scenario seems very unlikely. I think the point trying to be made is this: men should not be allowed to control women's bodies. But since you seem to not understand sexism maybe that concept is foreign to you.

[Quail]

No, you’re misunderstanding the issue. Gender is absolutely irrelevant to what I am saying.
It is relevant though, in that from your perspective it doesn't really matter whether abortion is freely accessible or whether people are judged for getting one, because you will never be affected by the issue. So it's very easy for you to make judgments or put a limit on abortions because you're never going to be in the position of having to try to get one. For many women, it is an immediate issue that's affecting them very much right now, in the present, since the current reality is that women are the ones that get pregnant and carry children.


The problem is that doesn’t make sense. Again; there is no relevant biological characteristic that a fetus does not possess at such an advanced stage in gestation. You’re just drawing an arbitrary line because it’s comforting, but it has no basis in biology, it actually contradicts the evidence. Again; this also leads to weird paradoxes where a baby born at 31 weeks is an infant with a name and rights, meanwhile, a 38-week-old fetus is just meaningless biomatter.
If abortions aren't available freely, women will risk their health trying to abort if that's what they want, so it makes much more sense to allow the freedom to abort. The fetus is dependent on the resources of the woman's body, and it will take what it needs regardless of whether or not she can spare it. Pregnancy is quite a burden, and forcing someone to continue with it violates their bodily autonomy.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that either a woman wanting a late abortion be forced to carry the baby to term, or have labour induced so that the baby is born and cared for as though it were born naturally premature. In the latter case, what would happen to the baby? For the mother to want a termination so late, there must be exceptional circumstances, so in all likelihood the baby will not be wanted.

[Klaatu]

I predict that, in the future, an aborted fetus (or even a zygote) will be able to survive and be raised in-vitro in an incubator, sans host female parent. Consider that this is the way non-mammal juvenile animals grow. For example, birds and reptiles are born from external eggs.

At that point, the abortion debate is moot.

I think that the pro-lifers ought to be investing their millions of dollars into such technology instead of investing their millions into politicians trying to outlaw abortions.

[NGNM85]

It is relevant though, in that from your perspective it doesn't really matter whether abortion is freely accessible or whether people are judged for getting one, because you will never be affected by the issue.
I concede that i don’t expect to become pregnant anytime in the foreseeable future.
It isn’t relevant because gender is not a valid ethical criteria. If a 35-week-old fetus is a human being, then it has rights, regardless of where it is.

So it's very easy for you to make judgments or put a limit on abortions because you're never going to be in the position of having to try to get one.
See above.

For many women, it is an immediate issue that's affecting them very much right now, in the present, since the current reality is that women are the ones that get pregnant and carry children.
Historically that has been the case.

If abortions aren't available freely, women will risk their health trying to abort if that's what they want, so it makes much more sense to allow the freedom to abort.
That’s not an ethical argument, that’s a practical argument. Incidentally; my views on abortion are, by definition, progressive. (Small ‘p.’) I would argue that healthcare is a fundamental human right, (Abortion falling under the aegis of ‘health care.’) and, should, therefore, be available free of charge. If given the choice; I would make abortion more accessible.

The fetus is dependent on the resources of the woman's body, and it will take what it needs regardless of whether or not she can spare it.
First of all; to be clear, I have absolutely no objection (Because there aren’t any good arguments against it.) to late-term abortions where there is a medical necessity; either something is wrong with the fetus, or where continuing the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the mother. That’s a no-brainer.
Second; again, the fetuses in question are as self-sufficient as a newborn can possibly be. It has something like a 95% chance of survival, on it’s own.

Pregnancy is quite a burden, and forcing someone to continue with it violates their bodily autonomy.
Again; this muscular interpretation of bodily autonomy creates a paradox because you have to deny it to the baby girl inside her, you have to exclude the fetus from consideration as a human being, which seems to fly in the face of the biological reality. Again; it also creates bizarre paradoxes where a 35-week old infant is considered a human with rights, but a 38-week-old fetus is just so much biological material. It’s inconsistent.
Furthermore; such a hard stance would seem to preclude other intrusions on bodily autonomy that I think you would not take issue with.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that either a woman wanting a late abortion be forced to carry the baby to term, or have labour induced so that the baby is born and cared for as though it were born naturally premature.
Those seem to be the inevitable conclusions. Again; I leave my invitation open to yourself, or anyone, to dispute this. So far, I have not heard a cogent argument to the contrary.

In the latter case, what would happen to the baby? For the mother to want a termination so late, there must be exceptional circumstances, so in all likelihood the baby will not be wanted.
The same thing that happens to any infant that is unwanted; they receive essential care until a suitable home can be found.

[NGNM85]

Nope that is what you are doing.
No, it isn’t.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism

Nothing historical about women being able to get pregnant and men not so much. Well in the future we might also all be dead, it's a pretty lazy non-point on your behalf since this discussion is in fact not taking place in your hypothesized future but in the present time.
I forgot to include the hyperlink, my mistake;
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20344136,00.html (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20344136,00.html)
That was just part of a larger point. As I said in my response to Quail; if a 35-week-old fetus is a human being, with rights, where it is is completely irrelevant. Gender is not an ethically relevant criteria.

And sometimes wrongly IMHO.
Granted.

Anyway refusing medicine or suffering from a mental illness is not the same as not wanting to take a pregnancy to term, although I suppose some people consider it that way.
It’s an intrusion on their bodily autonomy. That’s the connection. There also needs to be consistency, across the board.

I don't think anyone has argued for a separate legal system, so moot point. And being that I live in a country where the abortion discussion has been pretty much over since the late sixties eh no your scenario seems very unlikely. I think the point trying to be made is this: men should not be allowed to control women's bodies. But since you seem to not understand sexism maybe that concept is foreign to you.
In the United States, abortion is an explosive issue, literally. Incidentally; as you may already be aware, in your country women seeking an abortion after 22 weeks needs to apply to the National Board of Health and Welfare. (In cases where there is a problem with the fetus, or continued pregnancy represents a serious health risk to the mother, these are generally granted, without question.) So, your country’s policy is very close to what I’m talking about, it’s actually more conservative.
This is incorrect. Just because said restriction would only affect women, in the foreseeable future, does not automatically make it sexist. However; you’re hardly the only one who has trouble with this concept.

[PhoenixAsh]

Later term abortions reasons. >16 weeks. 420 respondents:


71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other


Reasons for third trimester abortions according to a US study in 1999 (obviously results have been paraphrased by author):

* In 40%, an earlier test indicated that a defect existed but not how serious it was. Doctors delayed and re-tested to see if the defect was serious enough to be life-threatening. Some genetic conditions can be mild or severe, so to prevent unnecessary abortions the doctors waited.
* In 37%, an earlier test failed to find the serious defects that showed up later.
* In 18%, a diagnosis for this kind of defect can’t be made until the third trimester. This often seems to include anencephaly, a fatal birth defect.
* And in the remaining 5%, doctors or parents delayed the decision to abort. I correlated this with what I’ve read about doctors ordering yet another another test to make sure, waiting for a referral, parents not able to believe the news, having hysterics and going home, and praying for a miracle.

Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10426234


Edit...above reasons for third trimester abortions do not seem to me to be conclusive...as I know for a fact that there have been studies done which include reasons which are attributed to tyhe mothers physical and psychological health. Unfortunately I can not find them at the moment.

[NGNM85]

This isn't a fucking discussion.

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a human.
It doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.
It doesn't matter if the fetus is a result of jesus and mohammad making love to buddha.
It doesn't matter what a fetus feels, or doesn't feel.
It doesn't matter what a fetus thinks, if it thinks at all.

None of this matters.

What matter is that the issue of abortion is an issue of woman's autonomy.
Woman's body = woman's choice.

- August

This is just a fairly transparent rhetorical trick. This is just a poorly disguised, and poorly articulated, ethical/philosophical argument, regardless of whether, or not you choose to call it that. You are saying that the right to bodily autonomy is totally sacrosanct. Ok. One of the many problems with that is you have to deny that right to the fetus, and the only way to do that is to exclude the fetus from eligibility for this right that you have proclaimed, by declaring that it is not a human being. That's the only way that this works. The problem is that there is no sufficient biological characteristic that is not present in a 35-week-old fetus. Therefore; this argument is both philosophically unsound, and unscientific. Furthermore; I don't appreciate your attempt to erect barriers to conversation.

[dodger]

Just how cogent or more pertinent can one be. To wish to have an abortion. To be rid of a pregnancy. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: How blazingly happy were we?:laugh::laugh::laug
It's a subject for brevity ....it's for rejoicing. We pushed the boat out and had a slap-up meal to celebrate our change of fortune. That was a close shave.......the fetus was sold for stem research by her aunt so that was a freebie....and we had a dam good holiday in Amalfi. I can state with absolute candour we would not have been happy bunnies to have parenthood thrust on us. My late wife bless her would have been even more unhappy than us, if she had ever found out. So kindly step back and think....does Dodger give a Fok? About fetus or what any other person thinks. Then why would anybody else (care)? :confused:

[CommunityBeliever]

If a 35-week-old fetus is a human being, then it has rights, regardless of where it is.

I am not sure rather you would call a 35-week-old fetus, human, but I do know that is sentient, and therefore it is deserving of the rights common to sentient lifeforms, including the right to welfare, which entails providing access to anesthesia during painful abortion procedures. However, since a fetus isn't an autonomous individual, it doesn't necessarily have the right to life.

[NGNM85]

As comrade RGacky3 already mentioned, this is a philosophical issue. As such, your position on the acceptability of abortion is dependent upon your philosophical stance, which in my case is negative utilitarianism.

Now my reasoning is that coercing the mother to carry the fetus may cause her to suffer considerably, and producing the child will further cause suffering, as the child will inevitably suffer throughout his life. As such, in order to effectively accomplish the negative utilitarian goal of eliminating suffering from all sentient life, the best course of action is to satisfy the mother's wishes so that she doesn't have to suffer and painlessly abort the fetus so that it doesn't have to suffer either.

I really want to address this, in brief, anyways. So far, virtually all of the hard, pro-abortion arguments have been centered on this muscular interpretation of individual autonomy, and I’ve already pointed out the significant flaws in that line of thinking. This, however, is an entirely different formulation, and, thus, avoids many of the aforementioned problems. However; it creates entirely new ones. Reducing suffering is absolutely a laudable goal, but just because one doesn’t cause suffering doesn’t mean that one hasn’t done something wrong. I could, theoretically, kill you, in your sleep, without causing any physical discomfort. In this scenario; I would be guilty because I violated your rights, the fact that you experienced no discomfort from this would not reduce my guilt, or excuse my actions. This is the fundamental flaw in this kind of thinking.

[NGNM85]

Incidentally; I don't see how I, or anyone else, can be honestly expected to support this policy, seeing as no-one has, as of yet, been able to produce a cogent argument for it, probably because there aren't any.

[dodger]

Incidentally; I don't see how I, or anyone else, can be honestly expected to support this policy, seeing as no-one has, as of yet, been able to produce a cogent argument for it, probably because there aren't any.

Cogent..strong reason....or argument, she did not want it. That's right she did not want it. "I DON'T WANT THAT STINKING THING INSIDE ME". Good we are of the same mind...easy-peasey we fly to Italy see your Aunt....less drama". There was no drama. So convenient too, dovetailed nicely with our holiday plans. Science is a wonderful thing. Where would we be without it. I can tell you where, up shit creek without a paddle. That's where. Deaf to a woman's wishes? Not me brother......actually she used the word stronzo, not stinking, it means literally, a cylindrical mound of dog shit. Yes I got the picture all right. Too bad if others cannot. The convent school education certainly prepared her, for life's ups and downs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That question necessitates that one has already accepted that said fetus has rights, thus, creating a situation of rights in conflict. I happen to agree. (Obviously.) However, this proposition by itself, while rational, and sensible, in fact, it seems to be inevitable, is also highly contentious, so I had to work up to that.

Equal weight in terms of their lives being equally valuable? I would lean towards the negative, however, to some degree that’s tangential. What, I think, we can absolutely agree on is a hierarchy of infractions. One of the bedrock principles of Anarchism is that authority is never inherently legitimate, that it must be subjected to a burden of proof increasing proportionally in accordance with the degree of force being exercised. Whether or not both parties rights are equivalent, the degree to which they are being infringed upon absolutely isn’t. It’s fairly plain that being killed would be the greatest violation of ones’ rights that there could be. It’s also paradoxical because if this right is sacrosanct, then it must apply to the fetus, in this case, as well. There are other paradoxes, which I’ve mentioned.

I said nothing about the "rights" of either the foetus or the woman. I said that the woman has more moral weight in the situation, what with being a fully grown human being with emotional and social ties to other human beings who would also be (psychologically) hurt should the woman come to harm. A late-term foetus simply hasn't had the time to form the same kind of relations as an adult human being.


No, you’re misunderstanding the issue. Gender is absolutely irrelevant to what I am saying. If we concede that a fetus in the third trimester is a human being, (Which seems inevitable if one is a metaphysical materialist, as there is no prerequisite biological characteristic that said fetus lacks.) it doesn’t matter where it is, or who it’s in. There’s no bias, here. [...] Also; we accept intrusions upon physical autonomy all the time, for very excellent reasons. Minors are not allowed to refuse life-saving medicine or treatments. (Just as parents, such as Christian Scientists, are not allowed to deny their children life-saving medicines, or treatments, and rightfully so.) We quarantine people who are suspected of carrying deadly pathogens. We incarcerate, or hospitalize the criminal, and the mentally ill. Etc., etc. [...]

You contradict yourself here. On one hand you say that beings that are biologically human (rather than human in the more rounded sense of being a person) are automatically afforded an inviolable right to physical autonomy (not a proposition I agree with myself), then you go on to list a number of circumstances in which such an "inviolable" right is abridged in a routine fashion.

Basically, you seem to be overly-fixated on the fact that a late-term foetus has human DNA, whereas the real lynchpin of the issue is personhood, which is arguably something one doesn't even need to be biological to have.

Another reason why personhood is a better qualifier than DNA is the issue that biology isn't as neat as the textbooks would have you believe - it's a messy, squishy mass with lots of fuzziness and room for ambiguity. In other words, setting the threshold at the third trimester is just as arbitrary as setting it at birth, especially since all through the process of pregnancy the foetus has human DNA.

[NGNM85]

I said nothing about the "rights" of either the foetus or the woman.

If we’d been having a lively discussion about Tibetan sand paintings, that would make sense. However; in this case, it happens to be the heart of the matter.

The fact that, both times, you’ve skipped over the question of whether or not the fetus has any rights, instead jumping to asserting that the mother’s rights are paramount, at least implies that you accept that the fetus, again, at this stage in gestation, does have some rights, or, at the very least, that the idea is not entirely unsound.


I said that the woman has more moral weight in the situation, what with being a fully grown human being with emotional and social ties to other human beings who would also be (psychologically) hurt should the woman come to harm. A late-term foetus simply hasn't had the time to form the same kind of relations as an adult human being.

Of course. It goes without saying that a fetus in the third trimester has not formed any relationships. However; one can place greater value on the rights of the mother (Which, incidentally, I do.) and still come to the same conclusion. Let’s simplify things. Say we break it down to a numbers game, something like Bentham’s ‘Hedonistic Calculus’, (I’m well aware of the flaws in this, I’m just using it as a device to make a point.) even if we give a significant preference to the mother, the fetus may very well still win out because the imposition of not allowing the mother to arbitrarily abort the fetus, but perhaps have a caesarean, instead, is greater than the imposition of being killed. I find it difficult to see it any other way.


You contradict yourself here. On one hand you say that beings that are biologically human (rather than human in the more rounded sense of being a person) are automatically afforded an inviolable right to physical autonomy (not a proposition I agree with myself), then you go on to list a number of circumstances in which such an "inviolable" right is abridged in a routine fashion.

No, I don’t say that, they are saying that. That’s my whole point. It makes sense that we quarantine people who may be carrying deadly pathogens, it makes sense that we hospitalize people who are criminally insane, and it makes sense that the perversely-named Christian Scientists are not allowed to murder their children by denying them vital medical care. Furthermore; I think most of the people here see the wisdom in this. That is why they are hypocrites by asserting that (apparently) only in the case of pregnant women is this right inviolable. (Just as it is equally paradoxical that this right is denied the 35-week-old baby girl inside her.)


Basically, you seem to be overly-fixated on the fact that a late-term foetus has human DNA, whereas the real lynchpin of the issue is personhood, which is arguably something one doesn't even need to be biological to have.

Another reason why personhood is a better qualifier than DNA is the issue that biology isn't as neat as the textbooks would have you believe - it's a messy, squishy mass with lots of fuzziness and room for ambiguity. In other words, setting the threshold at the third trimester is just as arbitrary as setting it at birth, especially since all through the process of pregnancy the foetus has human DNA.


No, no, no. You’re absolutely wrong. Let’s tackle this one at a time. First of all; while all persons have rights, one does not need to be a person to have rights. Infants, for example, are not persons. At best, they are proto-persons. This has led some, for example, the philosopher, animal rights extremist, and crackpot; Peter Singer, who has argued in favor of infanticide on these grounds. This, again, avoids many of the aforementioned paradoxes, but it also happens to be fucking insane. Incidentally; the conversation that led to my Restriction was an argument with a Singer disciple, who advocated terminating (Read; ‘Murder’) an infant up to one-and-a-half years of age. (?!!!) That I should be restricted, while she could make such an extreme, and crazy, assertion (I have never said anything so inflammatory.) and remain a member, in good standing, is perverse, to say the least. I hope you have sufficient grasp of reality to see what’s wrong with this. For another hypothetical; consider a fully-grown adult, that has matured in a stasis module, without a second of consciousness, for forty years; can you honestly say that this forty-year-old man, who would snap awake at the push of a button, and be just as conscious, and aware, as you, or I, is just so much tissue to be discarded? I don’t find that compelling.

No; simply having human DNA is insufficient. If that were the case; livers would have rights, gall bladders would have rights, etc. That’s ridiculous. The only logically sound, and scientifically valid definition of what constitutes a human being is a minimum of functional neural hardware. I don’t have any concern for zygotes, because zygotes don’t even have the capability of consciousness. It comes down to neurology. If one were to take every human organ and attach each one to a discrete life-support unit, only one of these would have rights which we would be obligated to respect; the brain. That’s all we are, in truth. I am not a neurologist, myself, but I would say that, as brain development is the most relevant factor, rather, the only relevant factor, that we could pin the time down to a fairly small window, and that medical knowledge, and technology are already sufficiently sophisticated to make this determination.

[NGNM85]

Double Post.

[NGNM85]

Again; I leave the invitation open to anyone to defend this policy, and show me the error of my ways.

[Revolution starts with U]

Of the mother? Sorry, dude, if you're not female you won't have to get an abortion ever. I assume you don't use condoms or sleep with women who are on the pill, or take a morning after pill. Because that's responsible, if you believe having a kid is somehow always desirable.

You want to try that one with coherence next time? :confused:

[NGNM85]

"…Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? Always? Sometimes? Never? How do we decide?

…Let's consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There 's good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound--including music, but especially its mother's voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. …Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It's hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?

…As a practical matter, this isn't very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman's "innate right to control her own body" encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?

…We believe that many supporters of reproductive freedom are troubled at least occasionally by this question. But they are reluctant to raise it because it is the beginning of a slippery slope. If it is impermissible to abort a pregnancy in the ninth month, what about the eighth, seventh, sixth ... ? Once we acknowledge that the state can interfere at any time in the pregnancy, doesn't it follow that the state can interfere at all times?

… And yet, by consensus, all of us think it proper that there be prohibitions against, and penalties exacted for, murder. It would be a flimsy defense if the murderer pleads that this is just between him and his victim and none of the government's business. If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Indeed, one of the chief functions of government is to protect the weak from the strong.

…If we do not oppose abortion at some stage of pregnancy, is there not a danger of dismissing an entire category of human beings as unworthy of our protection and respect? And isn't that dismissal the hallmark of sexism, racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism? Shouldn't those dedicated to fighting such injustices be scrupulously careful not to embrace another?

…If you deliberately kill a human being, it's called murder. If you deliberately kill a chimpanzee--biologically, our closest relative, sharing 99.6 percent of our active genes--whatever else it is, it's not murder. To date, murder uniquely applies to killing human beings. Therefore, the question of when personhood (or, if we like, ensoulment) arises is key to the abortion debate. When does the fetus become human? When do distinct and characteristic human qualities emerge?

…We recognize that specifying a precise moment will overlook individual differences. Therefore, if we must draw a line, it ought to be drawn conservatively--that is, on the early side. There are people who object to having to set some numerical limit, and we share their disquiet; but if there is to be a law on this matter, and it is to effect some useful compromise between the two absolutist positions, it must specify, at least roughly, a time of transition to personhood.

…So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood?

…Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.
By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

...Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we've rejected the extremes of "always" and "never," and this puts us--like it or not--on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.

It is, in fact, a very conservative definition: Regular brain waves are rarely found in fetuses. More research would help… If we wanted to make the criterion still more stringent, to allow for occasional precocious fetal brain development, we might draw the line at six months.

…Viability arguments cannot, it seems to us, coherently determine when abortions are permissible. Some other criterion is needed. Again, we offer for consideration the earliest onset of human thinking as that criterion.
…With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester--except in cases of grave medical necessity--it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life."

-Excerpt from; Abortion: Is it Possible to be both 'Pro-Life', and 'Pro-Choice'?, or The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers, by Carl Sagan, and Ann Druyan
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml (http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml)

[citizen of industry]

I've only heard one good anti-abortion argument in my entire life. It was from an ex-girlfriend and went something like this, "My mom decided to abort me, filled out the forms and was laid out on the abortion table, and then changed her mind at the last second. You can't expect me to support abortion, no matter how good your arguments are and how much I might even agree with them, because I am here today."

This girl grew up poor, practically raised her own mother, and was a bit of a genious. I think she's a mathematics professor or something now. We agreed politically on most other things. This is why I don't agree that people opposing only one issue are automatically restricted to the OI thread. Sometimes you might understand the arguments but personal reasons prevent you from supporting them 100%.

Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that if she was aborted, she would never have existed so it doesn't matter. My life would have taken a different path as well. So it isn't really an effective argument. But try telling someone who was almost aborted that it doesn't matter because they wouldn't have existed to think about it. We talked about that issue once and I never brought it up again.

[NGNM85]

I've only heard one good anti-abortion argument in my entire life.

There aren’t any good arguments for categorically prohibiting abortion. However; there are very good arguments for some very minor limitations. In fact; it’s the only rational way to see it.



It was from an ex-girlfriend and went something like this, "My mom decided to abort me, filled out the forms and was laid out on the abortion table, and then changed her mind at the last second. You can't expect me to support abortion, no matter how good your arguments are and how much I might even agree with them, because I am here today."



Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that if she was aborted, she would never have existed so it doesn't matter. My life would have taken a different path as well. So it isn't really an effective argument. But try telling someone who was almost aborted that it doesn't matter because they wouldn't have existed to think about it. We talked about that issue once and I never brought it up again.

As you point out, yourself. This is actually a fairly terrible argument. It revolves around a circular logic. It reminds me of a saying I heard once; ‘Thank god I don’t like peas, because, if I did, I’d eat them all the time, and I hate them.’ This argument makes about as much sense.


This girl grew up poor, practically raised her own mother, and was a bit of a genious. I think she's a mathematics professor or something now. We agreed politically on most other things. This is why I don't agree that people opposing only one issue are automatically restricted to the OI thread. Sometimes you might understand the arguments but personal reasons prevent you from supporting them 100%.

There’s plenty to criticize regarding forum policy, and it’s execution. I’ve made a number of suggestions as to how this could be remedied. Others, such as #FF0000, have also made suggestions that, I think, are worthy of consideration. However; the purpose of this thread is the philosophical, and ethical implications of Abortion, and we shouldn’t get off track.

[~Spectre]

[FONT=Verdana]However; this causes problems for the other extreme end of the spectrum as well. If you take the absolutist position that there should never be any limit on abortion, whatsoever, you run into a number of problems. This position basically turns a woman’s body cavity into a magical gateway, bestowing human status to those that have successfully passed through it, as if geographical location was biologically, or ethically relevant. You also end up with bizarre paradoxes where a premature infant, born at, say, 30 weeks, is a ‘baby,’ with rights, whereas a 38-week-old ‘fetus’ is just so much worthless biomatter. This is as irrational, as it is unscientific. Once a fetus acquires the sufficient biological conditions, it is a human being, therefore; it has rights. There’s really no other way to see it.[FONT]

There really are other ways to see it. It has nothing to do with "human vs. worthless biological matter". It's about whether a woman can be in control of her own body.

If it were possible to attach a fully grown human to a woman- under similar conditions of biological dependency, she should be able to "abort" that fully grown human too.

Even if you attached yourself with chains to a woman, we'd still accept that she'd be justified in using violence to remove you.

[NGNM85]

There really are other ways to see it.

Well, yes, of course, there are, they just don’t stand up to scrutiny.


It has nothing to do with "human vs. worthless biological matter". It's about whether a woman can be in control of her own body.

If it were possible to attach a fully grown human to a woman- under similar conditions of biological dependency, she should be able to "abort" that fully grown human too.

First of all; this is a little bit disingenuous. Let’s get serious; there are any number of circumstances, I’m sure, where you have absolutely no problem overriding bodily autonomy. For example; incarcerating, or hospitalizing the criminal, or mentally ill, quarantining persons suspected of carrying deadly pathogens, disallowing minors to refuse essential medical care, even if they happen to be Jehovah’s witnesses, or Christian Scientists, or whatever. Etc., etc. So, apparently, bodily autonomy is only inviolable in the case of pregnant women. That’s arbitrary, and sexist.

Before the fetus develops the capacity for thought,there’s simply no reason to care why a woman wants an abortion, because the zygote, embryo, etc., cannot be said to have rights. It’s not really any different from a tumor, or a gall bladder. However; once it develops the prerequisite neural architecture, it becomes a human being, with rights, creating a situation of rights in conflict, that has to be resolved. The answer, which I have suggested, is the only one that is logically, ethically, and scientifically sound.


Even if you attached yourself with chains to a woman, we'd still accept that she'd be justified in using violence to remove you.

You don’t constitute a ‘we.’

There’s really no comparison, whatsoever. For starters; the chains could easily be severed, without injuring either party. Also; this is disingenuous because we’re not talking about removing the fetus. I never even suggested that a woman should be prohibited from doing so, especially seeing as, at this point in gestation, the fetus has a greater than 90% chance of survival, on it’s own, anyhow. It’s as self-sufficient as any newborn can be expected to be. What you’re saying is a woman’s right to bodily autonomy (Because, according to you, only women have this right.) goes far further; that she not only has the right to remove the fetus, but to kill it. Let’s be clear.

One of the many problems with this is you have to deny this muscular interpretation of bodily autonomy (Which precludes all of the aforementioned instances.) to the baby girl, inside her. The only way to resolve this incongruity is to deny human status to the fetus, which is fine, until it develops the capacity for thought. By such time, it posesses every essential, prerequisite characteristic. Another problem is that it is impossible to justify killing a fetus, in such an advanced state of development, in such a way that would preclude killing an infant, for some considerable period after birth. Some, like Peter Singer, have argued as much. The young woman I was debating, when I was Restricted, (Who remains a member, in good standing.) maintained that it was justifiable to kill an infant up to one-and-a-half-years of age. This does avoid the aforementioned paradoxes, but it also happens to be fucking insane.

As an aside; while your arguments aren’t impressive, I give you the credit for actually being able to engage in some form of debate, on this issue, without resorting to just regurgitating empty platitudes, or becoming hysterical.

[~Spectre]

are[/I], they just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Oh sure they do. Some of the most intense scrutiny, which is why you'd be in a tiny minority of educated people on your position. Of course, you can still find some word soup to try to spin it your way, but that's because all ethical theories are mystical nonsense.

This is simply an exercise is "I don't like abortion because____"



First of all; this is a little bit disingenuous. Let’s get serious; there are any number of circumstances, I’m sure, where you have absolutely no problem overriding bodily autonomy. For example; incarcerating, or hospitalizing the criminal, or mentally ill, quarantining persons suspected of carrying deadly pathogens, disallowing minors to refuse essential medical care, even if they happen to be Jehovah’s witnesses, or Christian Scientists, or whatever. Etc., etc. So, apparently, bodily autonomy is only inviolable in the case of pregnant women. That’s arbitrary, and sexist.[/FONT]


It's not arbitrary. You'll notice a consistent pattern in your examples. "Chldren", "mentally ill", "criminals" - to say that they're equivalent to a pregnant woman, that's arbitrary and sexist.

There's no link there. It's like saying "you wouldn't let a child of 3 run through traffic, therefor forced sterilization".





a]Before the fetus develops the capacity for thought,there’s simply no reason to care why a woman wants an abortion, because the zygote, embryo, etc., cannot be said to have rights. It’s not really any different from a tumor, or a gall bladder. However; once it develops the prerequisite neural architecture, it becomes a human being, with rights, creating a situation of rights in conflict, that has to be resolved.


Fetus's have less capacity for thought than a pig. Thus, pig farmers are murderers that should be stopped?



The answer, which I have suggested, is the only one that is logically, ethically, and scientifically sound.[/FONT][/COLOR]

There's no real "science" involved other, since abortions where the fetus is practically a developed new born already, usually involve a dangerous pregnancy to the mother, making it irrelevant.



You don’t constitute a ‘we.’ [/SIZE

Interesting. So you think women should not be allowed to use violence to remove someone that chains themselves to them? That's sexist.



One of the many problems with this is you have to deny this muscular interpretation of bodily autonomy (Which precludes all of the aforementioned instances.) to the baby girl, inside her. The only way to resolve this incongruity is to deny human status to the fetus

Not at all. It could be a human, or non-human. No one gives a shit. Killing humans isn't always wrong under certain conditions. For example, self-defense.

A fetus outside the womb is no longer biologically dependent on its mother. Inside the womb it is. That's the difference. Like I said in the argument that you ignored: If there were a way to stick you onto a woman, with the same level of biological dependency as a fetus, she should be able to abort you as well.




[SIZE=2]
[SIE=2]As an aside; while your arguments aren’t impressive, I give you the credit for actually being able to engage in some form of debate, on this issue, without resorting to just regurgitating empty platitudes, or becoming hysterical.[SIZE]

What's that supposed to mean?;)

[NGNM85]

Author’s Note; When I first responded to this post, I was in a rush, and unable to give it the required time, and attention. As the original post was hastily composed, and, I feel, an unsatisfactory representation of myself, and my ideas, I have edited, or expanded on my initial comments, for these reasons.


Oh sure they do. Some of the most intense scrutiny, which is why you'd be in a tiny minority of educated people on your position. Of course, you can still find some word soup to try to spin it your way, but that's because all ethical theories are mystical nonsense.

It’s not a minority position. In fact most women would be inclined to agree.

Second; you don’t get to accuse a person, or an idea of being ignorant, simply because you disagree.

Third; if I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying you categoically reject morals, and ethics. That’s interesting. Obviously, I completely disagree. This is also irrelevant because this has been, from the beginning, an ethical/moral debate.Moreover; all of your following arguments are moral/ethical arguments, which isn’t surprising. As for Anti-Moralists, I would refer to to RGacky’s recent comments on the subject. Back to the matter at hand…


This is simply an exercise is "I don't like abortion because____"

No, it isn’t. Again; I totally support, and vociferously defend abortion in something like 99% of cases, probably more. The overwhelming majority of abbortions are performed very early in the pregnancy, therefore; there simply isn’t any ethical, or moral issue, beyond the rights of said women. There’s no conflict.


It's not arbitrary. You'll notice a consistent pattern in your examples. "Chldren", "mentally ill", "criminals" - to say that they're equivalent to a pregnant woman, that's arbitrary and sexist.


You neglected persons quarantined under suspicion of carrying a dangerous pathogen. There are, also, as I said, other examples. You are also completely missing the point, and misconstruing what I said. The common thread was that there are numerous instances where it is entirely justifiable to override an individuals’ bodily autonomy. Nobody, at least not so far, has contested the inevitable conclusion that when the rights of individuals, periodically, come into conflict, it may be necessary to curb, or limit an individual, or individuals, in the exercise of their rights, in order to avert a greater imposition on the rights of another individual, or individuals. What’s arbitrary is that suddenly, in the case of pregnant women, and only pregnant women, this right, suddenly, becomes inviolable. This is also sexist because it asserts that pregnant women have special rights, or that their rights have preeminence, based, at least, in part, on their gender. That’s textbook sexism. I don’t do that. As far as I’m concerned, characteristics as arbitrary as gender, like ethnicity, etc., have absolutely no bearing on the matter of rights. That’s the only consistent Leftist position, the only consistent Socialist position.



There's no link there. It's like saying "you wouldn't let a child of 3 run through traffic, therefor forced sterilization".

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but that’s not, in any way, analogous to what I said.


Fetus's have less capacity for thought than a pig. Thus, pig farmers are murderers that should be stopped?

That’s irrelevent. All the matters is the capacity for sentience. Animals carry less moral weight than human beings because they lack this capacity. Not only are pigs not persons, they do not possess the hardware that one requires in order to be a person.


There's no real "science" involved other, since abortions where the fetus is practically a developed new born already, usually involve a dangerous pregnancy to the mother, making it irrelevant.

Again; the policy is unscientific because it necessitates that a fetus magically becomes a human being at birth. Presuming we’re metaphysical materialists, that we believe in science, what constitutes a human being is an empirical question based in biology, the most significant metric being neurological development, as the brain is the seat of consciousness.

Usually, yes. I pointed that out. In such circumstances, that’s entirely justifiable. What I was saying is that it is ethically, and morally wrong to terminate (Read; ‘Kill.’) a perfectly healthy fetus, at such an advanced stage of gestation, when the pregnancy does not constitute a significant health risk to the mother. I concede that this scenario is rare. I’ve said so, several times. The frequency, or likelihood of such an eventuality, is, however, irrelevent.


Interesting. So you think women should not be allowed to use violence to remove someone that chains themselves to them? That's sexist.

Actually, I said the opposite. Also; that has absolutely no relationship to the statement you quoted. That statement was merely pointing out that you were, incorrectly, referring to yourself in the plural.


Not at all. It could be a human, or non-human. No one gives a shit. Killing humans isn't always wrong under certain conditions. For example, self-defense.

Agreed. However; the two aren’t comperable. In the case of self-defense, the aggressor represents a significant threat to the victim, and deliberately so. Otherwise, we call it an ‘accident.’


A fetus outside the womb is no longer biologically dependent on its mother. Inside the womb it is. That's the difference. Like I said in the argument that you ignored: If there were a way to stick you onto a woman, with the same level of biological dependency as a fetus, she should be able to abort you as well.

The only ethical position is to always err on the side of preserving life. For this analogy to be comperable, she should also have the option of, safely, removing me, without harming either of us. Just as essential is the fact that, as previously mentioned, the fetuses’ circumstances are no fault of it’s own. It is an innocent. It’s important to protect and preserve the rights of all human beings, but we must take special care in the case of the weak, or the defenseless. We must speak for those who do not have a voice. Furthermore; to deny rights to a fetus, in such an advanced state of gestation, is to deny rights to a category of human beings according to an arbitrary characteristic, like race, or gender. Clearly, this should be anathema to any Leftist, especially a Socialist. There are other fundamental differences. This is a bad analogy.


What's that supposed to mean?

It’s an accurate characterization of the responses I’ve received. I also resent your implication.

[CommunityBeliever]

I could, theoretically, kill you, in your sleep, without causing any physical discomfort. In this scenario; I would be guilty because I violated your rights, the fact that you experienced no discomfort from this would not reduce my guilt, or excuse my actions. This is the fundamental flaw in this kind of thinking.

I do not believe that this is a flaw in this kind of thinking. If you kill me you will cause suffering in my parents and other people in my community. Whenever you forcibly kill someone, you will inevitably negatively effect the people around that person.

Now lets suppose you could painlessly kill everyone on Earth using weapons of mass destruction. This would also be unacceptable because it will prevent us from helping to relieve the suffering of all the other species spread across the galaxy.

It is our ethical duty to use technology to become transhuman and free ourselves suffering, disease, aging, disability and other flaws and then to spread that benefit to all other species on Earth and across the galaxy. We should also try to refrain from bringing new humans into this world that may suffer from these flaws.

http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/

[NGNM85]

I do not believe that this is a flaw in this kind of thinking. If you kill me you will cause suffering in my parents and other people in my community. Whenever you forcibly kill someone, you will inevitably negatively effect the people around that person.

Not necessarily. Consider a lonely hermit, in the remote wilderness, who lives completely apart from society. He has no contact with the outside world, and hasn’t for decades. He has no pets. He has no living relatives that he is aware of, or that are aware of him. One could, theoretically, kill such an individual, in his sleep, without causing any distress to anyone, including the victim. Is it still wrong? Of course. It’s wrong because you’ve violated his rights.


Now lets suppose you could painlessly kill everyone on Earth using weapons of mass destruction. This would also be unacceptable because it will prevent us from helping to relieve the suffering of all the other species spread across the galaxy.

No, it would be unacceptable because it would be mass murder. It would be a gross violation of the rights of something like 6 billion people.


It is our ethical duty to use technology to become transhuman and free ourselves suffering, disease, aging, disability and other flaws and then to spread that benefit to all other species on Earth and across the galaxy. We should also try to refrain from bringing new humans into this world that may suffer from these flaws.

http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/

I tend to agree, for the most part.