|
Pro-life vs. pro-choice (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renzo
1. But what about if both parents agree that an abortion is the way to go? Or are you referring to the fetus not being considered a literal person yet?
2. But isn't personhood extremely significant here? One may argue the mother has a wide spectrum of maternal rights, but they are not greater than those who have no voice. Yet. |
In the first case, I'm referring to the question of literal personhood, yes.
In the second, I'm not suggesting that personhood ought to be sidestepped when looking at abortion through other angles; I'm just saying that this approach has indeed been taken up by both camps, and I would really recommend looking into the arguments advanced by both Marquis and Thompson in order to see how they do this- it's actually rather interesting. Both these arguments are by no means without their critics, of course, but anyone seriously interested in the abortion debate owes it to themselves to look into them, as they've both been proven to be very infuluential.
I'm just raising some issues for consideration, is all. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Pretty much every element of murder as defined in most common law jurisdictions comes from Coke's 17th century formulation that goes something like:
"when a man of sound mind and of the age of discretion unlawfully killeth a reasonable creature in being under the King's peace with malice aforethought, either express or implied, death taking place within a year and a day"
The part that comes into question in cases of abortion is "reasonable creature in being". IMHO foetuses (like animals) do not come under the definition. |
Thanks, Astro, that's the bit I wanted to bring up.
The line drawn between murder and abortion is often the presence of either reason or consciousness (I've never seen a line being drawn anywhere else, but unless you happen to be pro-murder as well, this must be decided somewhere in the discussion).
My point is, mainly, that there's some arbitrariness regarding where one draws the line, and this particular choice is too biased a distinction. Firstly, I'm going to say why, and then I'm going to say what distinction may be fairer.
I'm really suspicious of this emphasis on reason, and here's why: Based on nothing but your gut feeling, think of the following scenarios.
- Amanda wants to abort her baby because the doctor said it's got no brain and, once it's out, there's no chance of survival;
- Beatrice wants to abort her baby because the exams show it's mentally impaired;
- Clara wants to abort her baby because the doctor said it's got just one arm;
- Deborah wants to abort her baby because the doctor said it's a girl;
- Ellen wants to abort her baby because an experimental geneticist, who understands the human genome quite well, predicted the child is going to have red hair;
- Francine wants to abort her baby because she doesn't have the money to raise the child.
- Georgia wants to abort her baby because she broke up with the father.
- Harriet wants to abort her baby because she was raped.
Why have I done this? Because you've got now a quite broad array of possible cases: | Child-related | Environment-related |
| Can survive | b c d e | f(?) g h |
| Can't survive | a | f(?) |
If you're pro-abortion, you'd be in favour of aborting the baby in pretty much all those cases, I believe - it's up to the mother, after all. And, sure, ending a hopeless pregnancy where the baby has no brain and can't therefore survive after it leaves the womb doesn't really strike anyone as being cruel. But, are you really okay with cases such as "d" and "e"? Can abortions be carried out because of some whimsical caprice? I know you can only find those things out way past the time limit available in most countries, but just bear with me for a moment...
ps.: It's 4:30 AM here, and I'm still trying to get a few things done here. I'm going to leave this unfinished post here as it is and develop my argument after I get some sleep. I just wanted to thank you for your contribution, and give this food for thought... I'm not going to say anything about them just yet, but I will as soon as possible. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paradox Lost
1. That there is only only person involved, not two, and thus, no one's rights are being violated by abortion.
2. That personhood is ultimately insignificant, for in the case of pregnancy, the mother's rights over her body takes precedence over the rights of the unborn. |
Although I think you do a reasonably good job of drawing attention to the two basic issues at play here, I can't agree with your formulation of them, as it seems to assume that the fetus has a "right" that would be violated by an abortion if in fact it is a person.
No one and no thing--"person" or not--has a "right" to a life that can be sustained only by means of the enslavement of another.
In any case, I do not see how those opposed to abortion could prevail with respect to either issue. The former amounts to nothing more than making a classification that is at best arbitrary and declaring that this arbitrary classification is a basis for gravely curtailing the non-disputed rights of non-disputed "persons," and the latter amounts to crafting a bizarre entitlement that no one would apply outside the context of pregnancy and masquerading it as a "right," and then arbitrarily suggesting that it ought to trump another right.
No matter how you look at it, it's a house of cards overlaying the ugly truth: all the rhetoric about the "rights" or "life" of the fetus is nothing more than a convenient rationalization for a very different agenda. Nobody gives a about the 60-80% of embryos that simply fail to attach to the lining of the uterus and are naturally flushed out of the woman's body, and anyone who tries to tell you that they are genuinely concerned about protecting the lives of unborn "people" from marginally less "natural" dangers is either flat out lying or seriously deluding themselves. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Thanks, Astro, that's the bit I wanted to bring up.
The line drawn between murder and abortion is often the presence of either reason or consciousness (I've never seen a line being drawn anywhere else, but unless you happen to be pro-murder as well, this must be decided somewhere in the discussion).
My point is, mainly, that there's some arbitrariness regarding where one draws the line, and this particular choice is too biased a distinction. Firstly, I'm going to say why, and then I'm going to say what distinction may be fairer.
I'm really suspicious of this emphasis on reason, and here's why: Based on nothing but your gut feeling, think of the following scenarios.
- Amanda wants to abort her baby because the doctor said it's got no brain and, once it's out, there's no chance of survival;
- Beatrice wants to abort her baby because the exams show it's mentally impaired;
- Clara wants to abort her baby because the doctor said it's got just one arm;
- Deborah wants to abort her baby because the doctor said it's a girl;
- Ellen wants to abort her baby because an experimental geneticist, who understands the human genome quite well, predicted the child is going to have red hair;
- Francine wants to abort her baby because she doesn't have the money to raise the child.
- Georgia wants to abort her baby because she broke up with the father.
- Harriet wants to abort her baby because she was raped.
Why have I done this? Because you've got now a quite broad array of possible cases: | Child-related | Environment-related |
| Can survive | b c d e | f(?) g h |
| Can't survive | a | f(?) |
If you're pro-abortion, you'd be in favour of aborting the baby in pretty much all those cases, I believe - it's up to the mother, after all. And, sure, ending a hopeless pregnancy where the baby has no brain and can't therefore survive after it leaves the womb doesn't really strike anyone as being cruel. But, are you really okay with cases such as "d" and "e"? Can abortions be carried out because of some whimsical caprice? I know you can only find those things out way past the time limit available in most countries, but just bear with me for a moment...
ps.: It's 4:30 AM here, and I'm still trying to get a few things done here. I'm going to leave this unfinished post here as it is and develop my argument after I get some sleep. I just wanted to thank you for your contribution, and give this food for thought... I'm not going to say anything about them just yet, but I will as soon as possible. |
Thats like saying you are anti-guns because people can make a stupid choice with guns.
Women should have the right to do whatever with their body. Does it mean it will be a stupid choice sometimes? Yes. Humans are stupid. Better that we have less of them.
I think the idea of eugenics based on parental selection really should be considered as legitimate. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Thats like saying you are anti-guns because people can make a stupid choice with guns. |
Nou, I didn't even make my point, what are you talking about? :p |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Nou, I didn't even make my point, what are you talking about? :p |
This.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If you're pro-abortion, you'd be in favour of aborting the baby in pretty much all those cases, I believe - it's up to the mother, after all. |
|
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
This. |
Yes, and aren't you in favour of aborting the baby in those cases? :p
I was just stating, I'm not making any contribution just yet... and I'm off to bed now, I'll get back to that tomorrow. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Yes, and aren't you in favour of aborting the baby in those cases? :p
I was just stating, I'm not making any contribution just yet... and I'm off to bed now, I'll get back to that tomorrow. |
No, I am not in favor, but I am a guy. I have no say on what the women does in that case. I can suggest and argue my case why it could be done a better way but oh well, in the end it will never be my decision.
My mom got an abortion after she had myself and my brother. Her reasoning was that it was unfair at that point. She felt that replacing herself and my father was the limit of what she should do in terms of rearing children. She then got her tubes tied.
Do I agree with that reasoning. Not really. If you are married and have already had kids and are able to support them then I think that having another child is manageable.
Its her choice though and I respect that. Its probably one of the hardest choices she ever had to make. |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Although I think you do a reasonably good job of drawing attention to the two basic issues at play here, I can't agree with your formulation of them, as it seems to assume that the fetus has a "right" that would be violated by an abortion if in fact it is a person.
No one and no thing--"person" or not--has a "right" to a life that can be sustained only by means of the enslavement of another. |
Insofar as the first approach I outlined is concerned, I think the argument is intended to be more of an end unto itself. That is, if we're going to determine that this is not a person, then there certainly doesn't seem to be much of a need to get into a matter of rights (and I may have been able to present that better).
As for the second, I think the above mentioned description you provided is essentially where it leads (in one possible, but popular formulation of the position)- that a person does not have the right to be sustained by an individual who is unwilling to sustain them (which is also the central theme of Thompson's argument). |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paradox Lost
Insofar as the first approach I outlined is concerned, I think the argument is intended to be more of an end unto itself. That is, if we're going to determine that this is not a person, then there certainly doesn't seem to be much of a need to get into a matter of rights (and I may have been able to present that better).
As for the second, I think the above mentioned description you provided is essentially where it leads (in one possible, but popular formulation of the position)- that a person does not have the right to be sustained by an individual who is unwilling to sustain them (which is also the central theme of Thompson's argument). |
Yeah, I guess my objection was only a very small semantic point regarding the second issue: I don't like referring to the idea of a "right to be sustained" as a "right." Some would call it a "positive right" as opposed to the "negative right" to life about which there is little controversy (but which cannot be invoked in the abortion context, at least prior to viability). I prefer to refer to them as rights and entitlements respectively but in any case I think it's an important distinction, which was the only thing I felt was missing from your excellent summary of the issues.
Those who favor prohibitions on abortion must justify protecting the fetus not in terms of its right not to be killed, but in terms of its entitlement to force another human being to allow her body to be used by another against her will.
It is precisely because of this last point that I wrote in my first post in this thread that I was "vehemently" pro-choice. It is my view those who would force a woman to do that against her will are advocating what amounts to the enslavement and rape of women (all in the name of morality, no less!) Although I think that many of them have their hearts in the right place and are simply misguided, that is something which stirs a deep visceral hatred within my heart... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Well, are you anything other than a self-organising collection of cells yourself? As far as I remember, I'm given legal rights too. Do I need something else in order to obtain these rights?
Come on, pkc, I'm even helping you here! |
haha. i love the attempts of the anti-abortion gang to play pedant and try to get the pro-choice people to pick an imaginary line in the sand between foetus and person. not unlike the theseus' ship philosophical question you may or may not have come across.
in any case, you're given rights by the state. if the state doesn't afford you those rights, then for all intents and purposes, they don't exist. the state does not give rights to the foetus.
that's really all i care about. im not that into the philosophical discussion concerning the difference between human people and human embryos. all i care about is that there is a reasonably amount of time during gestation for a woman to abort her pregnancy. if a foetus was a person in the contexts of our discussion, it wouldn't be called a foetus. it has a special name because it is infact, different.
i would prefer if the distinction between person and foetus would be around the time where an embryo could actually feel harm being done to it during an abortion. but again, im easy and ill let the doctors decide on the exact timing of when an abortion is acceptable given the foetus' age.
you make me sad though lira :( I meant what i said!
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
If you disagree, you’re wrong, I hate you and I wish you’d been aborted. |
|
|
|
| trancechan |
| not for abortion really, but i'm pro-killing babies. |
|
|
|
|
