Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

Big difference. Foetus as a growth/tumor vs foetus as separate individual.
DNA analysis: Separate individuals.

Well it's okay. I think we're both in agreement that the argument (whatever it is) is basically stupid.

But it is cut and dry. The status of all foetuses (foeti? foetia?) is the same regardless of their origin.

Sure

You're conflating foetus with child, The abortion of an unwanted foetus could allow the woman and any future children to escape poverty and live productive contributing lives.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't conflate them?

We're not talking about humans. It's not our species that entitles us to claim moral consideration. We're talking about persons and the constellation of qualities that define personhood.
Person does not equate to human.

[/QUOTE]

It actually is our species that entitles us. I can leave my office right now and go a kill the first dog I see. The most I will get is a fine. But if I go and kill a man, any man, even if he is a most wanted criminal whose killed and raped hundreds - I will still be charged with murder.

So it is very much species thing - we simply don't take lightly to anyone of our species being killed. But it is our ability to term an unborn child a feotus and pretend that makes it something different that allows us to allow women to have them killed without consequence.

 

[Valjean]

Is there any reason why I shouldn't conflate them?

Yes. A child is a person, so has a claim to moral consideration. A foetus is not, so has no such claim.

It actually is our species that entitles us. I can leave my office right now and go a kill the first dog I see. The most I will get is a fine. But if I go and kill a man, any man, even if he is a most wanted criminal whose killed and raped hundreds - I will still be charged with murder.

Are we talking law or morality? Law, presumably, is based on morality. What qualities does a human have that entitle it to moral consideration, that are not shared with the dog?

So it is very much species thing - we simply don't take lightly to anyone of our species being killed. But it is our ability to term an unborn child a feotus and pretend that makes it something different that allows us to allow women to have them killed without consequence.

The speciesism is simplistic and self serving. It's a moral shortcut that falls apart on analysis. We might as well create separate moral categories for blacks and whites or Catholics and Jews.
We accord people moral consideration because of certain psychological or neurological qualities. To be morally consistant we must grant the same moral consideration to all persons that share these qualities -- regardless of species.
If Little green men landed in your backyard and asked to borrow a cup of sugar, would you grant them moral consideration? They are clearly not your species, nor even remotely related to you biologically, yet I think most people would grant them moral consideration by virtue of their personhood.

Moral consideration is based on personhood, not species.

 

[Thanda]

Yes. A child is a person, so has a claim to moral consideration. A foetus is not, so has no such claim.

Have animals no claim to moral consideration? The reactions to the death of Harambe seem to indicate otherwise. Many vegan's views seem to indicate otherwise also. In fact it could be argued that your claim that personhood is what gives rise to a claim for moral consideration is rather arbitrary.

Are we talking law or morality? Law, presumably, is based on morality. What qualities does a human have that entitle it to moral consideration, that are not shared with the dog?

Other than not being human? I don't know - perhaps the fact that they can't speak for themselves and argue their case makes it easier for us to dismiss their well-being.

The speciesism is simplistic and self serving. It's a moral shortcut that falls apart on analysis. We might as well create separate moral categories for blacks and whites or Catholics and Jews.
We accord people moral consideration because of certain psychological or neurological qualities. To be morally consistant we must grant the same moral consideration to all persons that share these qualities -- regardless of species.
If Little green men landed in your backyard and asked to borrow a cup of sugar, would you grant them moral consideration? They are clearly not your species, nor even remotely related to you biologically, yet I think most people would grant them moral consideration by virtue of their personhood.

We'd probably start by killing the green men before giving them any sugar - and they might do the same. The only thing that might make us hesitate is a belief that we are somehow related to them - we have some sort of connection with them.

You see when you speak of biological relations you speak of being genealogically related. But we might be biologically related to the green men in that they have noses like we do, they have mouths and use them to speak like we do, they take dumps like do. These are also biological relations even if they're not genealogical relations.
Consider for example that scientists once thought that homo sapiens evolved separately from different places in the earth. This would mean we were not genealogically related to each other. But they had no problem classifying all of us as the same species.

Moral consideration is based on personhood, not species.

You should rather say moral consideration should be based on personhood. Because as it is now most people consider morality through the lense of species. This is why those who are pro-abortion get so uptight when we speak of an unborn baby. They are trying to dehumanise it so they can feel better about advocating for its unceremonious murder whenever a women feels like it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You've basically repeated the bodily autonomy argument. I see no difference.

No, that's not the bodily autonomy argument.

You can call it whatever you wish, but it is a human in a certain stage of development - just as a 1 year-old is a human in a different stage of development than a 25 year-old.

I'm 39 and capable of clearly expressing that I want to live, but I don't have the right to force my mother into giving me use of her organs or tissues - not even a pint of blood or a hair off her head - even if I will surely die without them.

What is it about passing through the birth canal that strips away the rights you're claiming for fetuses?

 

[Thanda]

No, that's not the bodily autonomy argument.


I'm 39 and capable of clearly expressing that I want to live, but I don't have the right to force my mother into giving me use of her organs or tissues - not even a pint of blood or a hair off her head - even if I will surely die without them.

What is it about passing through the birth canal that strips away the rights you're claiming for fetuses?

Interestingly, until the age of 18, you had every right for your parents to do what all they could to provide you shelter and make sure you had sufficient food to eat. Had they refused to do this and chosen instead to terminate you in order to relieve themselves (and society) of the burden of looking after you they would have been arrested and charged with murder.

What is it about passing through the birth canal that suddenly gives all these rights to post birth fetuses?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interestingly, until the age of 18, you had every right for your parents to do what all they could to provide you shelter and make sure you had sufficient food to eat. Had they refused to do this and chosen instead to terminate you in order to relieve themselves (and society) of the burden of looking after you they would have been arrested and charged with murder.

Parents aren't required to give blood, tissue or organs (or use of any of them) even to minor children.

What is it about passing through the birth canal that suddenly gives all these rights to post birth fetuses?

Two big things:
- the fetus legally becomes a person.
- before birth, the bodily rights of the woman can be in conflict with the well-being of the fetus. After birth, the well-being of the baby can be addressed without infringing on the rights of the woman.

After birth, a baby isn't dependent on the mother except maybe for breast milk, and that can be replaced with formula (or the milk of another willing person).

 

[Thanda]

Parents aren't required to give blood, tissue or organs (or use of any of them) even to minor children.

That is a mere technicality - the fact of the matter is they are required to ensure the wellbeing of and to support the life of their child. The fact that they aren't required to give the child blood and other organs is largely a consequence of the fact that under normal circumstances a child doesn't need that in order to survive.
I'm quite certain if human existence had depended on people receiving organs and blood from their parents that that is something we would have expected and required of them.

Two big things:
- the fetus legally becomes a person.

Quite arbitrarily some might say - they could legally have become person earlier if society felt like it. Since this thread is about what society should be rather than how it currently is it is useless using this as an argument.

- before birth, the bodily rights of the woman can be in conflict with the well-being of the fetus. After birth, the well-being of the baby can be addressed without infringing on the rights of the woman.

After birth, a baby isn't dependent on the mother except maybe for breast milk, and that can be replaced with formula (or the milk of another willing person).

As explained above it is just a technicality. The financial rights of the mother and father of a 6 year-old are in conflict with the well being of the child. Yet we still don't allow them to terminate the child to remove this conflict of interest.

 

[Walter Russell]

I support access to legal abortion because it's a simple medical procedure that women should have the right to choose if they want it, like any other procedure. The fetus is not a legal person. Underlying your idea is that women should be forced to have a fetus transferred out of their body to an incubator or some kind. This would infringe her rights in two ways. It forces her to have a certain procedure that she may not agree to. It forces her genetic material to be used to develop a human being against her will. I think it's unnecessary, unworkable, and contrary to human rights.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

A corporation can fit the legal definition of a person. Does that mean causing a corporation to go out of business is equal to murder?

In response to original post. If a woman is choosing abortion, minus the rare health threat, it is likely due to her not wanting it, so the incubator would only produce an unwanted, uncared for child. Not a viable option in my opinion.

 

[Thanda]

A corporation can fit the legal definition of a person. Does that mean causing a corporation to go out of business is equal to murder?

In response to original post. If a woman is choosing abortion, minus the rare health threat, it is likely due to her not wanting it, so the incubator would only produce an unwanted, uncared for child. Not a viable option in my opinion.

Sure. But the question is, is a woman not wanting the baby sufficient reason for us to allow her to murder him/her?

 

[Walter Russell]

Sure. But the question is, is a woman not wanting the baby sufficient reason for us to allow her to murder him/her?

Not in my view. Most abortions are due to irresponsible behavior. I tend to side with a womans choice if its due to legitimate health threats, incest or rape but as an out for irresponsible behavior, I don't agree with that.
Choices have consequences.

 

[Valjean]

Sure. But the question is, is a woman not wanting the baby sufficient reason for us to allow her to murder him/her?

You presuppose that the foetus is a baby, and that the abortion is murder.

 

[leibowde84]

I've been thinking: if I understand correctly the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman. Basically the thought process is that a woman shouldn't be forced to house another human being in her body.

In line with this thinking is the belief that if a child relies on a woman's body to live then they are not actually fully human yet and she should be allowed to cease supporting the child's existence by having an abortion.
Now as technology develops it may become possible for fetuses to be transferred from the earliest stages (a few weeks) to some machine that can help the fetuses develop into a fully viable baby.

Should such a system become available would you, if you currently support abortions, cease to support them as the baby is now no longer solely dependent on the mother's body for survival but the baby now has an option to develop independently from the mother through science?

It would depend. My support for abortion rights (with certain limitations) is based on women's right to bodily autonomy. "Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead." (https://www.google.com/webhp?source...&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=bodily autonomy definition) But, if a fetus could be safely removed without undue burden and could develop outside the womb, then it would seem that would be required rather than ending that development outright. In other words, the fetus should have the right to develop as long as nothing is forced upon the would-be mother.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure. But the question is, is a woman not wanting the baby sufficient reason for us to allow her to murder him/her?

I think that a person has the right to deny the use of their body to any other person, fetus or baby. If the fetus can develop without the mother, then that is different, I would argue.

 

[columbus]

I don't have the right to force my mother into giving me use of her organs or tissues - not even a pint of blood or a hair off her head - even if I will surely die without them.

This is one of the big disagreements you and I have. I can imagine hypothetical circumstances under which I would chain my own screaming mother to a gurney and start prepping her for a kidney removal for you.
I don't believe that anyone has utter and complete autonomy.

The circumstances are two, both so nearly impossible that both together are effectively impossible concerning kidney failure. But if,
A) My mother chose something that caused you to have kidney failure.
B) My mother, and nobody else, could provide the kidney you need.
I would do it, no matter what she wanted.

In real life this never happens. I can't imagine how she might do that, much less be the only possible organ donor.
Pregnancy is different. In that case it is usually the choice of the parents that results in the baby being in the position of need. And only the mother can possibly provide the gestation. Since that is just a biological fact, I'm OK with sticking the father with child support. Leveling the responsibility playing field, as best we can.

The personal autonomy laws you are referring to are the result of our slaver past. It was a simple way to distinguish between contract labor and slavery. Bodily autonomy had nothing to do with anything like killing your progeny.
Tom

 

[Thanda]

You presuppose that the foetus is a baby, and that the abortion is murder.

Indeed I do.

 

[leibowde84]

This is one of the big disagreements you and I have. I can imagine hypothetical circumstances under which I would chain my own screaming mother to a gurney and start prepping her for a kidney removal for you.
I don't believe that anyone has utter and complete autonomy.

The circumstances are two, both so nearly impossible that both together are effectively impossible concerning kidney failure. But if,
A) My mother chose something that caused you to have kidney failure.
B) My mother, and nobody else, could provide the kidney you need.
I would do it, no matter what she wanted.

In real life this never happens. I can't imagine how she might do that, much less be the only possible organ donor.
Pregnancy is different. In that case it is usually the choice of the parents that results in the baby being in the position of need. And only the mother can possibly provide the gestation. Since that is just a biological fact, I'm OK with sticking the father with child support. Leveling the responsibility playing field, as best we can.

The personal autonomy laws you are referring to are the result of our slaver past. It was a simple way to distinguish between contract labor and slavery. Bodily autonomy had nothing to do with anything like killing your progeny.
Tom

Are you asking the moral question or the legal one? Iow, are you asking whether abortion should be legal in this circumstance or whether it should be seen as morally acceptable? They are two vastly different questions.

 

[gnomon]

I've been thinking: if I understand correctly the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman. Basically the thought process is that a woman shouldn't be forced to house another human being in her body.

In line with this thinking is the belief that if a child relies on a woman's body to live then they are not actually fully human yet and she should be allowed to cease supporting the child's existence by having an abortion.
Now as technology develops it may become possible for fetuses to be transferred from the earliest stages (a few weeks) to some machine that can help the fetuses develop into a fully viable baby.

Should such a system become available would you, if you currently support abortions, cease to support them as the baby is now no longer solely dependent on the mother's body for survival but the baby now has an option to develop independently from the mother through science?

I would maintain my position that a woman has the right to an abortion.

Because the mere fact that a possible scientific advance removes none of the underlying issues of the pregnancy.

Let's take the simple case of the accidental pregnancy. Simply removing the fetus for the sake of pain management doesn't remove the overall legal, financial and emotional obligations. The same argument will persist.

But let's take the case of the raped child.

Removed of the responsibility of carrying a child they never wanted because......they were raped.....but still imposing on them the legal obligations of the development of their reproductive organs forced upon them by a criminal........nope.........doesn't change my stance one bit.

Of course, there still remains, the overwhelming fact of natural abortions. Not miscarriages but the numerous fertilized eggs excreted through a natural process. But that argument always get's lost on most people. Go figure.

If technology advances enough to carry fertilized eggs outside of the womb as you suggest......and you control which individuals can offer the proper sperm to the proper egg....then you have a "Brave New World".

Ta da!