Can we compromise on abortion?

[Alien826]

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?

I agree that's fallacy. It wasn't what I meant. I'm trying to describe something that I can't quite make clear in my own mind, which is, well, let's see what you think of this silly idea. If Preying Mantises were sentient, the males might decide that being eaten by the female after mating was not fair. Don't we have a right to life, they say. The females respond that it's always been done that way and it's how they get the extra nutrition they need to produce the eggs and so on. I guess some males could be allowed to opt out, but Mantises as a whole need to decide if they want their species to continue.

What I'm getting at has something of that flavor.

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.

CDC - Parasites - About Parasites

A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. Parasites can cause disease in humans.

www.cdc.gov

"A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. There are three main classes of parasites that can cause disease in humans: protozoa, helminths, and ectoparasites."

That's from the CDC, so it's definitely in the medical field. Parasites are bad. I think that when a creature lives in harmony with, or even benefits, the host it would be called a symbiote.

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.

OK.

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?

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.

I don't disagree in general, but I'm not trying to promote any abortion bans. I just don't see the whole thing as so black and white, cut and dried and so on as some people seem to. In short I can see both sides of the question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

That duty has limits, though. No parent is compelled to, say, be a bone marrow donor for their child against their will.

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?

A baby doesn't have the right to the organs or tissue of their parents at any age.

Does the right to bodily autonomy trump that right (or duty if you want to look at it from the parent's perspective)?

Yes.

And something important to recognize: this is unquestioned in every context where it's cis men's rights that are at issue. It's only when we're talking about women's rights or the rights of trans men (though let's be frank: anti-choice ideology often comes as a package deal with anti-trans ideology) that anyone suggests that bodily autonomy should be trumped by any other concern. There's deep inherent sexism in the anti-choice position.

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?

It isn't "one of those things" now. It would be a new, special right just for fetuses and embryos. Again: 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.

 

[SomeRandom]

I agree that's fallacy. It wasn't what I meant. I'm trying to describe something that I can't quite make clear in my own mind, which is, well, let's see what you think of this silly idea. If Preying Mantises were sentient, the males might decide that being eaten by the female after mating was not fair. Don't we have a right to life, they say. The females respond that it's always been done that way and it's how they get the extra nutrition they need to produce the eggs and so on. I guess some males could be allowed to opt out, but Mantises as a whole need to decide if they want their species to continue.

What I'm getting at has something of that flavor.

I suppose that’s true
Most species on earth might consider their “lot in life” to be unfair or cruel.
But they don’t interfere with the results like we do. Or at least not as much as we do.
I mean if they had the option to, maybe they would.

Plus they are subject to natural/selection selection on a much more intense scale than us.
It still dictates many of our outcomes, don’t get me wrong. But medical science largely interferes with the process. Again, we have that option.
So this speculation is merely philosophical in nature.
Cool to speculate about, no doubt. But outside of that, I don’t see why we should allow these speculations to interfere with our own choices

I agree that's fallacy. It wasn't what I meant. I'm trying to describe something that I can't quite make clear in my own mind, which is, well, let's see what you think of this silly idea. If Preying Mantises were sentient, the males might decide that being eaten by the female after mating was not fair. Don't we have a right to life, they say. The females respond that it's always been done that way and it's how they get the extra nutrition they need to produce the eggs and so on. I guess some males could be allowed to opt out, but Mantises as a whole need to decide if they want their species to continue.

What I'm getting at has something of that flavor.

CDC - Parasites - About Parasites

A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. Parasites can cause disease in humans.

www.cdc.gov

"A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. There are three main classes of parasites that can cause disease in humans: protozoa, helminths, and ectoparasites."

That's from the CDC, so it's definitely in the medical field. Parasites are bad. I think that when a creature lives in harmony with, or even benefits, the host it would be called a symbiote.

That term seems to be challenged frequently.
Interestingly mostly outside of the US. Or at least that’s what I could find.
Which is kind of interesting.

When I went to school it was taught that a fetus is defined as a parasite.
But when I went to school terms like psudomites was something used. Now I think the term used is pseudohermaphrodites instead.
Terminology does evolve, so it wouldn’t surprise me if this is just a case of the term being challenged over time and it changing
Or perhaps this is merely a case of educators simplifying definitions for a younger audience out of a seen necessity.

I don't disagree in general, but I'm not trying to promote any abortion bans. I just don't see the whole thing as so black and white, cut and dried and so on as some people seem to. In short I can see both sides of the question.

I can too. It’s just that I lean more heavily towards the side of giving the option to the person who has to deal with the physical realities of pregnancy.
Simply because abortion bans seem to cause more harm than good overall. And ironically it just seems to cause more death. Harm reduction is my goal.

It is a medical procedure at the end of the day and the government (ideally) shouldn’t be telling doctors how to do their job. Since that is not their area of expertise.
I understand giving some kind of limitations based on various factors. Don’t always personally agree, but I can accept that as a reality.

 

[fantome profane]

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. (and I think I raises that concept in response to an different poster, not you).

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.

The naturalistic fallacy in very simple terms is the idea that natural = good. That is it is good in the moral sense, or in the sense of healthy or any other sense.

And you asked about viability. Let me ask you a question.

Where you live, in your society, at what point in the pregnancy could a pregnant person go into a hospital and demand an induce labour or a c-section? Is that a service that is even offered?

For me that is the point at which abortion should no longer be an option.

 

[Friend of Mara]

A while back, I posted a similar thread to this on a Christian forum. What I got from the pro-life people there was an emphatic "no". Abortion is murder and we won't rest until it's stamped out totally.

I'd like to try again here, a more reasonable place, mostly.

Here's the question. Looking at the current situation in the USA, it seems to me that we can only come to some kind of peaceful agreement on abortion if both sides compromise. Pro-life people must allow some abortions and pro-choice people must accept some restrictions. Then, once the compromise is reached, most people have to accept it and abide by it.

I'm not proposing any particular solution, just saying that we can't go on like this forever.

What do you think?

I think we could come together and have a set time where after a team of highly trained and qualified medical professionals can give a seasoned and well thought out line in which we can no longer abort based on gestation time or trimester progression. That seems fair to me.

 

[metis]

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

Ditto, but I have decided over years to be pro-choice as I simply cannot bring myself to tell a woman what she must do with what's in her body, plus I don't believe the government should do that either. If they can, what's next: tell her when she must have surgery or take certain meds?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

A while back, I posted a similar thread to this on a Christian forum. What I got from the pro-life people there was an emphatic "no". Abortion is murder and we won't rest until it's stamped out totally.

I'd like to try again here, a more reasonable place, mostly.

Here's the question. Looking at the current situation in the USA, it seems to me that we can only come to some kind of peaceful agreement on abortion if both sides compromise. Pro-life people must allow some abortions and pro-choice people must accept some restrictions. Then, once the compromise is reached, most people have to accept it and abide by it.

I'm not proposing any particular solution, just saying that we can't go on like this forever.

What do you think?

I think this thread answers your question. Both sides are unwilling to listen to the other. Many on both sides lie about what the other side believes and stops the conversation before it starts. Like "pro life people hate women" or "pro choice people want to murder babies" etc. These are lies and are not constructive in any way.

In the end if the pro life side believes abortion kills a human life then I don't see how a compromise will work. How can you compromise on that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think this thread answers your question. Both sides are unwilling to listen to the other. Many on both sides lie about what the other side believes and stops the conversation before it starts. Like "pro life people hate women" or "pro choice people want to murder babies" etc. These are lies and are not constructive in any way.

I started by giving the benefit of the doubt that anti-choicers are being honest about their motives, but I can't reconcile their real-world actions and decisions with that assumption. Not even if I take as given all the premises they say they hold as true.

In the end if the pro life side believes abortion kills a human life then I don't see how a compromise will work. How can you compromise on that?

Refusing a kidney donation or a bone marrow transplant kills a human life and you managed to compromise on that, didn't you?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I started by giving the benefit of the doubt that anti-choicers are being honest about their motives, but I can't reconcile their real-world actions and decisions with that assumption. Not even if I take as given all the premises they say they hold as true.

Just like your "anti choicer" label. That is not helpful. I don't call prochoice people pro deathers. It is not helpful in the conversation.

Refusing a kidney donation or a bone marrow transplant kills a human life and you managed to compromise on that, didn't you?

I have answered this issue many times.

 

[Alien826]

That duty has limits, though. No parent is compelled to, say, be a bone marrow donor for their child against their will.




A baby doesn't have the right to the organs or tissue of their parents at any age.

Please compare like with like. What the child is entitled to is the use of the parents' bodily parts, like using legs to walk down to the store to buy food. And that's also what is happening in pregnancy. The fetus using the mother's body to grow etc. It doesn't involves any bits being cut off and donated or otherwise lost.

Yes.

So let's make this plain. You think that a pregnant woman is entitled to kill a baby one day from birth for any reason or none. Yes/no?

And something important to recognize: this is unquestioned in every context where it's cis men's rights that are at issue. It's only when we're talking about women's rights or the rights of trans men (though let's be frank: anti-choice ideology often comes as a package deal with anti-trans ideology) that anyone suggests that bodily autonomy should be trumped by any other concern. There's deep inherent sexism in the anti-choice position.

I agree that men should have the same right to an abortion as women. Sorry I couldn't resist that. Yes I agree there's a sexist element in all this.

It isn't "one of those things" now. It would be a new, special right just for fetuses and embryos. Again: 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.

No. It's an extension of the same right, that is the right to be cared for, if necessary using the parent's bodily parts to do so.

I don't think the fetus should have more rights than a new born baby, so I don't have to defend it. In both cases the right to have bodily parts chopped off does not exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just like your "anti choicer" label. That is not helpful. I don't call prochoice people pro deathers. It is not helpful in the conversation.

Can you give another label that would be accurate?

"Pro-life" doesn't work; they often oppose measures that support life generally.

"Anti-abortion" doesn't work; they often support measures that actually increase the number of abortions.

I suppose I could use a term like "pro-legal-prohibitions-on-abortion-care," but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

... but they do oppose allowing choice on the issue of abortion, so "anti-choice" is accurate.

I have answered this issue many times.

I don't recall you ever giving a straight answer to the question.

 

[Alien826]

I can too. It’s just that I lean more heavily towards the side of giving the option to the person who has to deal with the physical realities of pregnancy.
Simply because abortion bans seem to cause more harm than good overall. And ironically it just seems to cause more death. Harm reduction is my goal.

Yes, that's me too.

It is a medical procedure at the end of the day and the government (ideally) shouldn’t be telling doctors how to do their job. Since that is not their area of expertise.
I understand giving some kind of limitations based on various factors. Don’t always personally agree, but I can accept that as a reality.

That applies particularly if abortions are limited with exceptions. The doctor must not be influenced when deciding if the women's life or health is in danger in any way unconnected to the medical situation. Especially, he shouldn't fear being sued or disbarred if he makes the "wrong" decision.

 

[Alien826]

Where you live, in your society, at what point in the pregnancy could a pregnant person go into a hospital and demand an induce labour or a c-section? Is that a service that is even offered?

For me that is the point at which abortion should no longer be an option.

I live in the USA, though by birth I'm English. I'm not totally sure what the law is in this State, but I don't think a woman could demand that anywhere, as she has to get the doctor to do it, which doctors won't if they don't think it's medically advisable. Subject to that, it would probably vary based on individual circumstances, and involve a discussion between the doctor and patient.

 

[fantome profane]

I live in the USA, though by birth I'm English. I'm not totally sure what the law is in this State, but I don't think a woman could demand that anywhere, as she has to get the doctor to do it, which doctors won't if they don't think it's medically advisable. Subject to that, it would probably vary based on individual circumstances, and involve a discussion between the doctor and patient.

I think you could say exactly the same thing about abortion.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Can you give another label that would be accurate?

"Pro-life" doesn't work; they often oppose measures that support life generally.

"Anti-abortion" doesn't work; they often support measures that actually increase the number of abortions.

I suppose I could use a term like "pro-legal-prohibitions-on-abortion-care," but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

... but they do oppose allowing choice on the issue of abortion, so "anti-choice" is accurate.

Not the point. When a pro life person says they are prolife they are only talking about abortion. That is what the label means.
Your insistence on bringing other issues into the discussion is dishonest. Maybe next time ask them what they mean by prolife, then address that.

I don't recall you ever giving a straight answer to the question.

What question do you want me to answer specifically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not the point. When a pro life person says they are prolife they are only talking about abortion. That is what the label means.

It's inaccurate even just considering abortion. Even if we consider embryos and fetuses to be "lives," anti-choicers often support measures that tend to increase the number of abortions.

Your insistence on bringing other issues into the discussion is dishonest. Maybe next time ask them what they mean by prolife, then address that.

Why would I ask someone who demonstrates through their actions that they're a liar? It's not like what they say would be reliable.

What question do you want me to answer specifically.

Here you go again:

Refusing a kidney donation or a bone marrow transplant kills a human life and you managed to compromise on that, didn't you?

 

[Alien826]

I think this thread answers your question. Both sides are unwilling to listen to the other. Many on both sides lie about what the other side believes and stops the conversation before it starts. Like "pro life people hate women" or "pro choice people want to murder babies" etc. These are lies and are not constructive in any way.

In the end if the pro life side believes abortion kills a human life then I don't see how a compromise will work. How can you compromise on that?

Agreed, but what we have here is a sample of the extremes. However I do note some individual responses that seem to indicate a possibility of compromise. How is that reflected in the general population? No compromise includes everyone. If there are enough moderates ... ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Since it is impossible for me or for anyone else to know all of the relevant details I will allow the decision to be up to the mother. The only "restriction" that I might put on abortions is to limit abortions past reasonable viability would be to make non-medically justified abortions after 22 weeks to be ineligible for insurance claims. That would have almost no impact on the number of any sort of abortions. Most women, over 99% of them. Have abortions before the third trimester. Those that are that far along almost always want to have a baby. When they change their mind it tends to be due to need, not due to "I don't want to have a baby".

That is why I oppose any law banning late term abortions. Ones that are not medically necessary are so rare that it would make the hardships of getting a needed abortion worse than the very very few pregnancies that would be ended on a non-medical reason.

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2019

This report summarizes U.S. data on the number of legal induced abortions and abortion-related deaths in 2019.

www.cdc.gov

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please compare like with like. What the child is entitled to is the use of the parents' bodily parts, like using legs to walk down to the store to buy food. And that's also what is happening in pregnancy. The fetus using the mother's body to grow etc. It doesn't involves any bits being cut off and donated or otherwise lost.

Dishonest analogy, IMO.

For one thing, there's nothing about the responsibilities of parenthood that requires a parent to use a particular bofy part a particular way.

A fetus literally takes blood from the pregnant person, pulls oxygen and nutrients from it, and expels waste products into it. This goes well beyond "use."

... and while risk isn't necessary to the bodily autonomy argument, it's worth pointing out that this process comes with tremendous risks to the pregnant person. Pregnancy is still a leading cause of death for women.

It's disingenuous to say that someone excreting into your blood and potentially killing you is analogous to walking to the corner store.

So let's make this plain. You think that a pregnant woman is entitled to kill a baby one day from birth for any reason or none. Yes/no?

No. IMO, a pregnant person should be entitled to end the pregnancy at any point. Close to full term, this could be by inducing a live birth.

I agree that men should have the same right to an abortion as women. Sorry I couldn't resist that. Yes I agree there's a sexist element in all this.

So you're okay with denying people basic human rights along sexist lines?

No. It's an extension of the same right, that is the right to be cared for, if necessary using the parent's bodily parts to do so.

I don't think the fetus should have more rights than a new born baby, so I don't have to defend it. In both cases the right to have bodily parts chopped off does not exist.

You don't understand how bodily autonomy works. You are absolutely arguing for special rights for fetuses that people don't have.

The "right to be cared for" that you describe doesn't exist. Parental responsibility doesn't include the obligation for the parent to provide their body for their child. The child's need to be fed doesn't compel a parent to breastfeed, for example. The parent still retains bodily autonomy.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's inaccurate even just considering abortion. Even if we consider embryos and fetuses to be "lives," anti-choicers often support measures that tend to increase the number of abortions.

This is not the point. People get to label themselves and tell you what that label means. You don't get to use their label and then say you mean by that label all these other things. they do not believe or mean by that label. It is a deceptive tactic pro choice people use to try to win an argument the pro life person is not having.

Why would I ask someone who demonstrates through their actions that they're a liar? It's not like what they say would be reliable.

You call them a liar because you have expanded what they mean by pro life. They are not lying when they want to save the life of a potential human.

Here you go again:

Refusing a kidney donation or a bone marrow transplant kills a human life and you managed to compromise on that, didn't you?

I did not cause the person to need a kidney. I may wish to provide a kidney but I am not obligated to provide mine. If I have sex we all know the result could be a pregnancy. The human life did not ask to be created, the mother is obligated not to kill that human life because they took actions that resulted in creating that life. In the small number of cases where they did not make the decision to have sex then we can have exceptions.