Can we compromise on abortion?

[Alien826]

A compromise is when I give up something, and you give up something. We both hurt a little, so that we can go on forward together. That is not possible under the current circumstances between pro-life and pro-choice groups.

I tend to agree.

Murder is taking the life of someone who is innocent. That word 'Someone' is tied to the belief in the afterlife, the belief that each person is using the human body as a mere shell. Along with that belief goes the belief that if an innocent person is accidentally executed that they will be treated well in the afterlife, so the punishment is excused. Capital punishment is justice. The issue of abortion is about the afterlife, about the human spirit dwelling within a physical body. We as a nation believe that our dead children are in heaven, having left their bodies behind and that murder is when someone causes this to happen on purpose without justification. We also believe that there are consequences for doing so whether it is a fetus or not. How can a person who believes these things compromise on abortion? So there is no compromise to be made under these circumstances.

I'm replying here rather than to your response to me because you are being a little more plain in your argument.

I honestly don't see any connection between pro-life views and the afterlife other than that many religious people believe in both. Their argument is simple and has no reference to any kind of afterlife. Abortion is murder because it kills a human being. Murder is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong. Obviously the pro-choice side disagrees with the first premise, otherwise logic would force them to agree. I see no reference to the afterlife there or any need for one. In fact a belief in an afterlife might soften the pro-life position, as the "soul" is not being murdered and a dead fetus would get a free pass to heaven, unlike the rest of us. Maybe you can explain?

 

[Alien826]

Jerry Springer died, by the way. I wonder if he is in hell or not? Don't you?

I'm sure he is not, as I don't believe in any such place.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I tend to agree.

I'm replying here rather than to your response to me because you are being a little more plain in your argument.

I honestly don't see any connection between pro-life views and the afterlife other than that many religious people believe in both. Their argument is simple and has no reference to any kind of afterlife. Abortion is murder because it kills a human being. Murder is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong. Obviously the pro-choice side disagrees with the first premise, otherwise logic would force them to agree. I see no reference to the afterlife there or any need for one. In fact a belief in an afterlife might soften the pro-life position, as the "soul" is not being murdered and a dead fetus would get a free pass to heaven, unlike the rest of us. Maybe you can explain?

There is a technique which salespersons learn called 'overcoming hidden objections' where a potential buyer will not reveal or does not know how to express their true reservations about a purchase. The salesperson has to get past their false objections and empty arguments to determine what they really are concerned about. This is similar.

A large faction of pro lifers and the core of the movement have sold their souls to believe in an afterlife. Acceptance of abortion infringes that.

 

[Jimmy]

Not when 50% of the pro choice people personally believe abortion is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not when 50% of the pro choice people personally believe abortion is wrong.

They believe that it is the wrong choice for them. They do not appear to believe that it is the wrong choice for everyone.

 

[Alien826]

I think you will find that the notion of compromise is made impossible by virtue of the definitions and language that people are using.

I'd take it further and say it's that the positions themselves are too far apart and the strength with which they are held is too great to allow compromise. I suspect that there will be some de facto compromise reached, based on different laws in different States. But I don't see the two sides ever giving up trying to get what they want in full, at least in the short to medium term..

But first, full disclosure -- I don't like the notion of abortion, and especially later in the pregnancy. But I do not permit my likes and dislikes to make decisions for anyone else. I would dearly love more education of young people about sexual matters, but even with that, I know that the temptations are just too strong, and designed by nature to encourage rather than discourage sexual activity .-- and that therefore unwanted pregnancies are still going to occur.

I'm pro-choice, but it's a position I hold on a balance of opinion, because I do see their point of view, to some extent. If you leave a pregnancy alone, there will be a baby (by anyone's definition) emerging eventually. And we also have to consider that the whole process is how we as humans produce other humans, so it's difficult to find analogies in other areas of life. But to suggest that a single cell has the same rights as a fully grown woman seems ridiculous to me. Or a small bunch of cells, or ... where does it change? This may be one of, if not the, most difficult moral issues to resolve. That's why I, as a male, am content to leave the isssue to those most affected, pregnant women, and hope for a solution that avoids the problem, like contraception.

Now, as to the language and definitions use that make compromise impossible. First, is "baby." That's what pro-lifers mean from the moment of fertilization on, and when you make that your definition, then abortion is always about killing babies -- which is of course wrong. For others, until a foetus is viable outside of the womb, it cannot be considered a "baby." It is a foetus.

Yes, but given that those terms may be scientifically correct, but are used by both sides in an emotional way, how would you describe these "things"? Serious question.

My own position is this: so long as viability is not possible, then there is only one true "person" absolutely involved, and that is the woman. (She may be married, but that doesn't make her a slave.) After viability -- unless there is a danger to either mother or baby by allowing the pregnancy to come to term -- I really think the law may have something to say.

That's one compromise, certainly. It won't get far with the "at conception" crowd unfortunately.

In the case of rape, or young children, there's no question of forcing the woman or child to carry and bear and suffer from the result of a crime.

But the fetus/baby is innocent! This is just a special case of weighing the needs of the fetus against those of the woman, isn't it? One that I totally agree with, incidentally.

Did you read Brave New World? There, no women gave birth at all and all children were produced in artificial wombs. How about if we could transfer fetuses to artificial wombs, to be grown and later raised separately from the mother? Just a flight of fancy.

 

[Alien826]

There is a technique which salespersons learn called 'overcoming hidden objections' where a potential buyer will not reveal or does not know how to express their true reservations about a purchase. The salesperson has to get past their false objections and empty arguments to determine what they really are concerned about. This is similar.

A large faction of pro lifers and the core of the movement have sold their souls to believe in an afterlife. Acceptance of abortion infringes that.

An interesting idea. You think that there is some kind of "package deal" where people agree to oppose abortion in order to get to heaven? Possible in some cases I suppose but it doesn't explain non-religious people that oppose abortion. I do agree that believers are very influnced by what they hear from the pulpit, and by peer pressure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm pro-choice, but it's a position I hold on a balance of opinion, because I do see their point of view, to some extent. If you leave a pregnancy alone, there will be a baby (by anyone's definition) emerging eventually. And we also have to consider that the whole process is how we as humans produce other humans, so it's difficult to find analogies in other areas of life. But to suggest that a single cell has the same rights as a fully grown woman seems ridiculous to me. Or a small bunch of cells, or ... where does it change? This may be one of, if not the, most difficult moral issues to resolve. That's why I, as a male, am content to leave the isssue to those most affected, pregnant women, and hope for a solution that avoids the problem, like contraception.

It is not just giving a clump of cells the same rights as a human. The problem is that banning abortions is giving a fetus, embryo, or even earlier more rights than a human.

The hypocrisy of abortion laws is that one is giving rights to fetuses etc. that they would not give to their next door neighbor over them.

 

[Jimmy]

They believe that it is the wrong choice for them. They do not appear to believe that it is the wrong choice for everyone.

Hence the lack of compromise. So now we have 3 groups with different opinions.

 

[Alien826]

It is not just giving a clump of cells the same rights as a human. The problem is that banning abortions is giving a fetus, embryo, or even earlier more rights than a human.

The hypocrisy of abortion laws is that one is giving rights to fetuses etc. that they would not give to their next door neighbor over them.

I'm familiar with that argument. The guy that gets connected to another person to save his life, right?

The problem to me is that it's not a parallel example. Pregnancy is something that a female body does, as a part of the natural order of things. The example suggests that the embryo is like some kind of parasite that fastens on to someone, who has every right to get rid of it, or alternatively a part of the body that the person has the right to have cut off. I'm finding it difficult to express this clearly, but to me there's more to pregnancy than there is in those examples.

Nevertheless, I don't want women to be subject to men's or even other women's religious or other views on what they can do with their own bodies.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm familiar with that argument. The guy that gets connected to another person to save his life, right?

The problem to me is that it's not a parallel example. Pregnancy is something that a female body does, as a part of the natural order of things. The example suggests that the embryo is like some kind of parasite that fastens on to someone, who has every right to get rid of it, or alternatively a part of the body that the person has the right to have cut off. I'm finding it difficult to express this clearly, but to me there's more to pregnancy than there is in those examples.

Nevertheless, I don't want women to be subject to men's or even other women's religious or other views on what they can do with their own bodies.

I hope you are suggesting there is validity in the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm familiar with that argument. The guy that gets connected to another person to save his life, right?

The problem to me is that it's not a parallel example. Pregnancy is something that a female body does, as a part of the natural order of things. The example suggests that the embryo is like some kind of parasite that fastens on to someone, who has every right to get rid of it, or alternatively a part of the body that the person has the right to have cut off. I'm finding it difficult to express this clearly, but to me there's more to pregnancy than there is in those examples.

Nevertheless, I don't want women to be subject to men's or even other women's religious or other views on what they can do with their own bodies.

I mean to be fair, science does actually categorise the fetus specifically as a parasite. Since on a biological level it does fit the criteria.

Is there more going on in a pregnancy?
I guess.
But it’s really up to the woman and those around her to attach emotional responses to said parasite.
Still. Theres a reason why a doctor is trained to prioritise the mother in an emergency. Simply put, as harsh as it sounds, the fetus is ultimately seen as disposable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm familiar with that argument. The guy that gets connected to another person to save his life, right?

The problem to me is that it's not a parallel example. Pregnancy is something that a female body does, as a part of the natural order of things. The example suggests that the embryo is like some kind of parasite that fastens on to someone, who has every right to get rid of it, or alternatively a part of the body that the person has the right to have cut off. I'm finding it difficult to express this clearly, but to me there's more to pregnancy than there is in those examples.

Nevertheless, I don't want women to be subject to men's or even other women's religious or other views on what they can do with their own bodies.

The "it's natural" excuse just does not fly. There are all sorts of aspects of our bodies that are natural that we regularly fix. I am nearsighted. it is natural is not an excuse to deny me eyeglasses.

 

[Alien826]

The "it's natural" excuse just does not fly. There are all sorts of aspects of our bodies that are natural that we regularly fix. I am nearsighted. it is natural is not an excuse to deny me eyeglasses.

I hope you are suggesting there is validity in the naturalistic fallacy.

Is there more going on in a pregnancy?
I guess.
But it’s really up to the woman and those around her to attach emotional responses to said parasite.
Still. Theres a reason why a doctor is trained to prioritise the mother in an emergency. Simply put, as harsh as it sounds, the fetus is ultimately seen as disposable.

Hah! I was expecting these responses. I'm not sure what the "naturalistic fallacy" is, please set it out if my answer doesn't cover it.

What I'm trying to say is that pregnancy is different in some ways from these other examples, and that's why I don't have a black and white moral position on it. If the fetus is a parasite, then it's a parasite that is welcomed by most women that get pregnant, and lack of success in attaining it causes many to spend huge sums on medical treatment. OK, some don't want it.

Before I go on I'll repeat that I am pro-choice and oppose the intervention of men and religious bodies (whose business it clearly isn't) in a decision that belongs to the woman alone. I'll also emphasize that this refers to a moral position, not a legal one. Perhaps if I set out how I arrived at my own view on it it may be clearer (and sometimes it isn't clear to me).

Pregnancy is part of a process that results in a real, living human being that has full rights given to it. I hope nobody disagrees with that. So, to take one time related stage in the process and use that only in our judgment is leaving out something. So where in the process is abortion OK? It seems to me that somewhere along the way the fetus somehow acquires the right to live. Is it as a fertilized egg? Most people would say no. One day before birth at full term? Certainly yes.

So now I ask you all to tell me where, given the starting and finishing points that are clearly defined, where would you say abortion is wrong, and support it. Is it at viability? Where is that, medical science is getting better and better at keeping preemies alive? And if so, why is the fate of the fetus dependent on current medical science, particularly as in any other case where simply leaving something alone would be the best option, that would be considered? The fetus didn't change because doctors got better at keeping it alive.

Do you see why I consider this to be one of the most difficult things to decide (morally)?

And to add, fixing your eyesight is not the same thing. Your eye does not become a separate being if you don't have glasses.

And we're not talking about emergency situations where the mother's life is in danger. That's a well defined choice and, yes, the fetus has to go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Their argument is simple and has no reference to any kind of afterlife. Abortion is murder because it kills a human being. Murder is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong. Obviously the pro-choice side disagrees with the first premise, otherwise logic would force them to agree.

A few issues here:

- the "pro-life" side doesn't necessarily consider an embryo or fetus to be a human being, as evidenced by the fact that they generally don't treat a fetus as a human being for anything other than the issue of abortion.

- the "pro-life" side also doesn't necessarily consider the taking of human life to be murder, as evidenced by how often that position overlaps with "anti-life" positions on issues like war, capital punishment, and "defensive" gun use.

- the bodily autonomy argument for the pro-choice position is still entirely valid even if the embryo or fetus were a human being.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pregnancy is part of a process that results in a real, living human being that has full rights given to it. I hope nobody disagrees with that. So, to take one time related stage in the process and use that only in our judgment is leaving out something. So where in the process is abortion OK? It seems to me that somewhere along the way the fetus somehow acquires the right to live. Is it as a fertilized egg? Most people would say no. One day before birth at full term? Certainly yes.

I would say that a fetus one day before full term is not entitled to any rights not enjoyed by a baby one day after being born.

A baby one day after being born does not have the right to use organs or tissues of their parent without the consent of the parent.

 

[Alien826]

A few issues here:

- the "pro-life" side doesn't necessarily consider an embryo or fetus to be a human being, as evidenced by the fact that they generally don't treat a fetus as a human being for anything other than the issue of abortion.

I can't speak for anyone other then myself here. Maybe someone can jump in.

- the "pro-life" side also doesn't necessarily consider the taking of human life to be murder, as evidenced by how often that position overlaps with "anti-life" positions on issues like war, capital punishment, and "defensive" gun use.

That doesn't apply only to pro-life people. Those are separate issues.

- the bodily autonomy argument for the pro-choice position is still entirely valid even if the embryo or fetus were a human being.

I would say that a fetus one day before full term is not entitled to any rights not enjoyed by a baby one day after being born.

A baby one day after being born does not have the right to use organs or tissues of their parent without the consent of the parent.

I hope you are not saying that it's perfectly OK for a woman to abort a baby one day before birth if that led to the baby's death. Your position is as extreme as the "life at conception" crowd if so. Otherwise, it would be called inducing the birth of a healthy child, not abortion. If you can get a doctor to do it, that is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't speak for anyone other then myself here. Maybe someone can jump in.

That doesn't apply only to pro-life people. Those are separate issues.

It ties into the argument you're using. If someone who believes that killing of a human life is not necessarily murder or wrong, then "an embryo is a human life" doesn't automatically imply "abortion is murder" or "abortion is wrong"; you'd need an intermediate step to establish that abortion is the sort of killing that is wrong.

I hope you are not saying that it's perfectly OK for a woman to abort a baby one day before birth if that led to the baby's death.

I think that every person's right to bodily autonomy should be protected at all times. For pregnant people, this includes the right to end their pregnancy. Whether a pregnancy is ended by abortion or by inducing a live birth is a medical decision.

I also support measures that would make late-term abortions rare (e.g. good availability of contraception and pharmaceutical abortion measures, as well as policies that make it easier for pregnant people to choose to have a child by addressing the main reasons people seek abortion).

Your position is as extreme as the "life at conception" crowd if so. Otherwise, it would be called inducing the birth of a healthy child, not abortion. If you can get a doctor to do it, that is.

Hey - you were the one arguing that a fetus near birth should have rights akin to those of a newborn baby. If you want to make an argument for why you think a fetus should have significantly more rights than a newborn baby, please go ahead.

If you aren't willing to do that, then your pearl-clutching is going to come across as pretty hollow.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hah! I was expecting these responses. I'm not sure what the "naturalistic fallacy" is, please set it out if my answer doesn't cover it.

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

As I understand it, the naturalistic fallacy says that it’s a fallacy to assume that things ought to happen just because they’re natural. As if that fact inherently justifies it’s existence. After all, every single disease to exist is technically natural.
Should we not treat cancer just because it’s a natural phenomenon?

Course I’m not overly familiar with fallacies in general. That’s just how it was explained to me lol

What I'm trying to say is that pregnancy is different in some ways from these other examples, and that's why I don't have a black and white moral position on it. If the fetus is a parasite, then it's a parasite that is welcomed by most women that get pregnant, and lack of success in attaining it causes many to spend huge sums on medical treatment. OK, some don't want it.

Truth be told, that’s pretty much my position as well.
See, you’re assuming that the term “parasite” is inherently something seen as bad. In the common vernacular that may be true. But in the medical field it merely describes a phenomenon. Just because scientists use the term doesn’t mean they are making a value judgement, necessarily. Science is just explicitly precise in its terminology.
So to our ears the language used may seem harsh (which is why doctors will purposefully use emotional language as part of their bedside manner.) But in reality science is purely descriptive.
We place value judgments based on whether or not something is beneficial or detrimental to us.
And sure vernacular may contribute to that perception as well, I suppose
Pregnancy is something that inherently taxes the body. So I would think folks are only happy when they get pregnant if it’s something they truly want in their lives. Otherwise it may be seen as something “not worth it” or something that should be delayed for the person’s overall benefit. Whether that be due to age, being single, wishing to focus on their career or any number of personal reasons.
So I don’t really consider it my place to interfere with that. Since I’m not going to be the one raising the child. So why should I get a say? You know?

So now I ask you all to tell me where, given the starting and finishing points that are clearly defined, where would you say abortion is wrong, and support it. Is it at viability? Where is that, medical science is getting better and better at keeping preemies alive? And if so, why is the fate of the fetus dependent on current medical science, particularly as in any other case where simply leaving something alone would be the best option, that would be considered? The fetus didn't change because doctors got better at keeping it alive.

In all honesty, to me it is not a matter of wrong or right. Merely an unfortunate reality that occurs sometimes.

Like most people I suppose the cut off date of 22 weeks (with exceptions to the life of the mother or as a treatment for admittedly very awful medical conditions) is something that I agree with.

Do you see why I consider this to be one of the most difficult things to decide (morally)?

And to add, fixing your eyesight is not the same thing. Your eye does not become a separate being if you don't have glasses.

And we're not talking about emergency situations where the mother's life is in danger. That's a well defined choice and, yes, the fetus has to go.

I guess in all honesty, if I had to think about all the implications. I don’t think I put the same value onto the fetus as I do the pregnant person at the end of the day.
Perhaps that comes with my (feeble) understanding of the medical realities of pregnancy coupled with growing up Hindu (reincarnation was taught to me at a young age.)
So I don’t really have the same, I guess, “Abrahamic inspired view” if that makes sense?

It’s a potential life, sure. But that potential isn’t a guarantee. Even without aborting the fetus, the body could simply “reject it” in a sense. Showing me that we have to go out of our way to accomodate it. But that too isn’t a guarantee it will even survive. Is that sad? I suppose, if it was planned or seen as a joyful prospect. Sure.
Though asking someone to go out of their way to accomodate another life is something our respective societies has decided is a complete violation of bodily autonomy. You are under no legal obligation to donate blood to another person.
You can’t go out of your way to kill them, but with the exception of emergencies (at least in Australia, cant speak for the US) you don’t have to do anything to accomodate another person. Even if it means they die as a direct result of your inaction.
So why should pregnancy make any difference?
I mean even many hardline pro life folks can agree that abortion to save the life of the mother is a necessity. Showing me that on some level they do value the life of the mother just a tiny bit more than the fetus.

Now I can accept that if someone else kills the fetus against the wishes of the mother (usually taken as a given at the third trimester, depending on local laws) that is seen as legal murder.
But that is only because it’s something against the will of the person carrying it. Presumably.
Otherwise, I don’t really consider it any of my business if someone gets an abortion by choice.

 

[Alien826]

Hey - you were the one arguing that a fetus near birth should have rights akin to those of a newborn baby. If you want to make an argument for why you think a fetus should have significantly more rights than a newborn baby, please go ahead.

I have to thank you, as this conversation has helped me to identify my unease with the idea of bodily autonomy in this context.

It's pretty simple really. In our society, parents have a duty to look after their children. A parent that neglects their child can have the child taken away from them and can even be subject to legal measures if the neglect is severe enough. So my question to you is, why does a baby (which the soon to be born child surely is) not have the right to be cared for that it surely has after birth? Does the right to bodily autonomy trump that right (or duty if you want to look at it from the parent's perspective)? Agreed the bodily autonomy right ends at birth, but a duty to care for the child then kicks in and the parents almost always have to make sacrifices to look after their children. Could it be that the right to bodily autonomy is one of those things that the parent is expected to give up that close to birth in order to fulfill the duty of child care?