• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Abortion: The Ethics of Liberty

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
My personal beliefs aside, I take issue with most of the author's rationale.


Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.

By labeling an entity a "coercive parasite", the author risks overstating her point. Organisms aren't inherently "parasites"; we describe an organism as "parasitic" as a way to classify behavior.

In this framework, the act of labeling a fetus as "parasitic" is to achieve a reductionist approach, wherein oversimplification of observed behavior replaces empirical evaluation. While certain organisms are observed as "parasites", the application of this label does nothing to ascertain value.

The author again injects a statement of personal perspective to the biological data when she describes it as "coercive". To add ethical structure to information is irrational.

Thus, the algorithim fundamental to her logical premise (If a fetus, then a "coercive parasite") is demonstrated as inherently skewed.

In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life.

This is yet another statement that suffers from oversimplification. Even if we opt to skate around the biological quandary of when life begins, it is certainly a legal/ethical obligation (especially in a clinical setting) to reasonably ensure continuity of life, irrespective of secondary expense.

It's why we have medical malpractice.

In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible viola*tion of the other person’s right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thom*son cogently puts it, “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself.”

Self-ownership is a murky phrase. From a philosophical standpoint, it is probably justifiable to assert that each individual ought to retain absolute agency over his body and what he chooses to do with it.

Yet, when you factor this endemic right against enforcement of narcotics prohibition and/or the illegality of suicide, it becomes apparent that self-ownership is an impractical basis for legal consideration.

Again, the terminology seems geared towards capitalizing from opaque biological discourse that does not expressly determine when biological "life" begins.

If my suspicion is correct -- that the author is working to gain elbow-room because the precise moment when life begins has not been legally defined -- then the argument collapses of its own weight. Logically, if we haven't established when life begins, we cannot gerrymander a legal routine against an unavailable standard. The author's point is therefore without conceivable merit.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

Again, an instance where impractical theory seeks to supersede its inherent barriers.

It isn't reasonable to reduce the parent/child relationship into a series of symbiotic behaviors. Doing so merely describes observed pattern and does not entirely address the firmament of their connection, or the social necessity in ensuring proper parental responsibilities remain constant and fulfilled.

We have an ecosystem of social welfare laws enacted to enforce precisely what the author is offering as unenforceable.

...

Disappointing.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Any argument about abortion ethics is an automatic quagmire, whether you're arguing from the standpoint of freedom or religion or whatever.

So, let's keep giving women the right to abort. Some people want society to regress and give conservative religious values another shot at power.... but fuck that.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Any argument about abortion ethics is an automatic quagmire, whether you're arguing from the standpoint of freedom or religion or whatever.

Agreed.

For that reason, we should be careful to cultivate our personal attitudes against individual analysis and not rely on institutional mimicry to decide our beliefs.

To answer the OP, I am Pro-Choice, but anti-Abortion.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Brain waves (actual brain waves, not the basic electrical activity resulting from a bunch of cells forming a brain) are usually measured at about 19-20 weeks.

I suppose it could theoretically feel pain around then because that's when the forebrain begins maturing.

An electroencephalograph is able to read electrical activity in the brain so long as the organism has functioning organs. This in no way indicates the organism's ability to feel or think.

I'd be interested in seeing your sources for this information. Everything I've read reports brain waves beginning in the 8-10week zone, but the necessary neural connections for thinking being made at around 30 weeks.

Regarding fetal pain, everything is theoretical because they don't completely understand even the adult experience of pain at this point.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
To answer the OP, I am Pro-Choice, but anti-Abortion.

How come so many pro-choicers feel the need to point out that they are also "anti-abortion"? Everyone on both sides of the issue agrees that unwanted pregnancy and abortion is a very negative scenario, no one is pro-abortion in that sense.

I think it should be enough to say you are pro-choice and not worry about catering to the people attacking you for being "pro-abortion".
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
You're presuming a perspective that isn't mine, ajblaise.

I'm Pro-Choice/anti-abortion because although I philosophically disagree with abortion, I don't believe that making it illegal will erase the sociology that instigates it.

Moreover, repealing the legality of abortion would likely drive the behavior underground and increase the risk of unhygienic infection/complication.

It's just not worth it to me.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
So what's the significance of your philosophical disagreement with abortion that makes you different from most pro-choice people? Does it just mean that ideally, you believe people shouldn't abort, but practically, you want it to be allowed?
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
So what's the significance of your philosophical disagreement with abortion that makes you different from most pro-choice people? Does it just mean that ideally, you believe people shouldn't abort, but practically, you want it to be allowed?

I don't speak for "most Pro-Choice people", so I haven't the slightest clue what you're seeking to uncover by pursuing that train of thought. Seems unreasonable to presume that I would appreciate the diverse rationale that would inspire someone to pursue abortion without investigating intimate context.

I've offered my stance. Seems pretty clear to me.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
I don't speak for "most Pro-Choice people", so I haven't the slightest clue what you're seeking to uncover by pursuing that train of thought.

Just that the anti-abortion label is unnecessary, and a little redundant. I get your stance though.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So males, what got you interested in being anti-abortion? It doesn't really have much to do with you (unless you're the father) really, it's fully the woman's choice to abort. Pro-choice ftw.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
I'd be interested in seeing your sources for this information. Everything I've read reports brain waves beginning in the 8-10week zone, but the necessary neural connections for thinking being made at around 30 weeks.

Regarding fetal pain, everything is theoretical because they don't completely understand even the adult experience of pain at this point.

Arguing over timetables and such things is irrelevant, and is simply a search for a moral/ethical excuse. Once the zygote begins cell division as a genetically unique organism, any human action that prevents the natural course of the pregnancy to be realized is preventing the life of a human being. It doesn't matter when you do it. I find terminating at 8-10 weeks no different than terminating at 30 weeks, partial birth, whatever. Why, because it has a face, a heartbeat? Is it more human? Seems silly to me. Pro-choice people should stop trying to hammer down a stage where it's still "ethical," and do more to stress the importance of personal choice and freedom over your body. That is the unassailable argument, I think.
 

professor goodstain

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,785
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7~7
So males, what got you interested in being anti-abortion? It doesn't really have much to do with you (unless you're the father) really, it's fully the woman's choice to abort. Pro-choice ftw.

I'm still wondering where the hell (daddy) went. Could very well be that the gender that is AWOL in the situation should have no buisness in the issue.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Arguing over timetables and such things is irrelevant, and is simply a search for a moral/ethical excuse. Once the zygote begins cell division as a genetically unique organism, any human action that prevents the natural course of the pregnancy to be realized is preventing the life of a human being. It doesn't matter when you do it. I find terminating at 8-10 weeks no different than terminating at 30 weeks, partial birth, whatever. Why, because it has a face, a heartbeat? Is it more human? Seems silly to me. Pro-choice people should stop trying to hammer down a stage where it's still "ethical," and do more to stress the importance of personal choice and freedom over your body. That is the unassailable argument, I think.

My intent wasn't to hammer down a stage where it's still ethical. I don't necessarily disagree with you (though I have a difficult time equating a zygote with a 30-week fetus, since I've felt a 30-week fetus moving inside my body). I just have a compulsion to correct inaccurate information when I see it given out as gospel truth.

Edit: I think my point was similar to yours- there's so much ambiguity involved in the questions of when fetuses can feel or think, and even more involved in asking when they become people. Not even the strictly scientific issues are settled at this point, and the philosophical issues will probably never be. To me this underscores the necessity for allowing it to remain an individual choice left up to the pregnant woman, while working on the sociological factors that lead to abortion being an attractive choice. That includes preventing more unwanted pregnancies, and making it easier for women who might want to continue a pregnancy to do so.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm still wondering where the hell (daddy) went. Could very well be that the gender that is AWOL in the situation should have no buisness in the issue.

That's not what I meant. I said unless you're the father, if you impregnate a girl and she wants to keep it it seems like you are SOL in that situation.

On the general abortion issue is what I meant... No specific situations. Why shouldn't men remain neutral since they cannot get pregnant? It doesn't seem that they would have any place in deciding what a woman does.
 

professor goodstain

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,785
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7~7
Arguing over timetables and such things is irrelevant, and is simply a search for a moral/ethical excuse. Once the zygote begins cell division as a genetically unique organism, any human action that prevents the natural course of the pregnancy to be realized is preventing the life of a human being. It doesn't matter when you do it. I find terminating at 8-10 weeks no different than terminating at 30 weeks, partial birth, whatever. Why, because it has a face, a heartbeat? Is it more human? Seems silly to me. Pro-choice people should stop trying to hammer down a stage where it's still "ethical," and do more to stress the importance of personal choice and freedom over your body. That is the unassailable argument, I think.

That is where the male gender comes in play. As both genders, we can argue the lyberty portion of abortion corresponding to our ethics with our belief of lyberty. Oops. i screwballed my previous post, Jock.
 

professor goodstain

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,785
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7~7
Perhaps it is possible for pro-lifers to accept that it is a womans liberty to abort, as not to be hipocritical to the nature of our confirmed belief in liberty to be numero uno.

Perhaps the pro-choicers can accept pro-life as a means to present to the youth to be aware of a potential (situation) as a possibility.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
We can all dream can't we prof? There will always be that person out there willing to kill over these types of silly issues that shouldn't even be issues at all.
 

professor goodstain

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,785
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7~7
We can all dream can't we prof? There will always be that person out there willing to kill over these types of silly issues that shouldn't even be issues at all.

With that dream in mind of abortion being a silly issue, no wonder there are people out there that go to such an extreme. Sound reminiscent of the hate that hate made.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
With that dream in mind of abortion being a silly issue, no wonder there are people out there that go to such an extreme. Sound reminiscent of the hate that hate made.

It does seem true, it's a moral thing. You can't really change someone's beliefs in that department, no matter how hard you try. When morals clash it creates hate, thus what is happening.

However it's curious, how do people get these morals? How do people become extreme anti-abortion believers? I get my morals in this area because I believe in equality and choice. I believe these things because it's fair for everyone.

I think it's a silly issue because it's basically opinion vs opinion, and no one can win.
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
Arguing over timetables and such things is irrelevant, and is simply a search for a moral/ethical excuse. Once the zygote begins cell division as a genetically unique organism, any human action that prevents the natural course of the pregnancy to be realized is preventing the life of a human being. It doesn't matter when you do it. I find terminating at 8-10 weeks no different than terminating at 30 weeks, partial birth, whatever. Why, because it has a face, a heartbeat? Is it more human? Seems silly to me.

Just because it seems silly to you doesn't mean it seems silly to other people.

It is human nature to identify with something that looks/acts human. The more it looks like a human, the more we identify with it. Why do you think pro-life people constantly flaunt those pictures of fetuses that look like little babies?

Pro-choice people should stop trying to hammer down a stage where it's still "ethical," and do more to stress the importance of personal choice and freedom over your body. That is the unassailable argument, I think.

Again, just your NT thoughts.

Majority of the population is neither N nor T.

The point I am trying to make, sensitive political issues require an emotional approach as well as logical approach.
 
Top