Current Events > Politics Today: Abortion

(+) Yeah! (+)

Love it. It should happen more often, frankly, and they should be harvested for stem cells (the research of which should be funded). The thing isn't a human by any reasonable metric in the first trimester, so "life begins at conception" is obviously ridiculous.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Abortion is one of those topics that will be debated FOREVER and both sides will never be able to agree on it. The reason is because a life is on the line.

And no, the fetus is not a bunch of cells. If people are going to put it that way, everyone is just a bunch of cells. I had the privilege of witnessing pregnancy and saw every side of the argument. A baby is no joke and neither is pregnancy.

A woman goes through a lot. They lose sleep, develop stretch marks, develop hemorrhoids, get fat and go through tons of pain during labor. Imagine sharp pains every 1.5 minutes for 10 hours and it gets more and more intense. Most people will bitch out after 1 hour of mild contractions. It's not as simple as giving birth, it's a brutal process.

At the same time, a baby's life is precious, not something you can throw away. At 3 months, it looks like a human being. He's got a heartbeat and he moves around in his sleep like people do. And when he's born, it's the most amazing thing in the world. There is no difference if it's inside or outside, it's a living and breathing being.

I only support support abortion in the first 12 weeks and that's pushing it. After that, abortion should be banned, unless it's under extraordinary circumstances like rape, incest, or birth defects. 99% of abortions can be avoided if people just develop a bit of responsibility.

I'm surprised that you're actually pro-choice :o

Why would it surprise anyone? I'm not religious and I consider myself a Classical Liberal.

I'm only pro-choice to an extent. I'm pro personal responsibility.
---

JohnLennon6 posted...

Samurontai posted...

JohnLennon6 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

If you get pregnant and don't want to have a baby, get an abortion.

Fund Planned Parenthood and a standardized sex education across the country. This will result in safer sex, less unwanted pregnancies, and less abortions.

This is a very dishonest post.

It's extremely honest actually

The 'less abortions' talking point is almost entirely false.

Nah. Programs like Planned Parenthood and comprehensive sex ed have been shown to be a force of good. Do you think it is a coincidence that defunding PP in Texas leads to more abortions? Or that uneducated states like Missisisippi have the highest teen pregnancy rates? You can also see on a global range. Look how developing nations in Africa have so many children despite being dirt poor. Look at their STD rates.

Conservative social values consistently backfire.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

JohnLennon6 posted...

Samurontai posted...

JohnLennon6 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

If you get pregnant and don't want to have a baby, get an abortion.

Fund Planned Parenthood and a standardized sex education across the country. This will result in safer sex, less unwanted pregnancies, and less abortions.

This is a very dishonest post.

It's extremely honest actually

The 'less abortions' talking point is almost entirely false.

Nah. Programs like Planned Parenthood and comprehensive sex ed have been shown to be a force of good. Do you think it is a coincidence that defunding PP in Texas leads to more abortions? Or that uneducated states like Missisisippi have the highest teen pregnancy rates? You can also see on a global range. Look how developing nations in Africa have so many children despite being dirt poor. Look at their STD rates.

Conservative social values consistently backfire.

"nuh uh!"

edit: just wanted to beat him to it.
---

cjsdowg posted...

I will keep my feelings about abortions to myself, however defunding places like PP makes abortions go up and making the illegal takes them to the back allies.

I'm good with that
---

Endofall posted...

You're still on a different page than me. Ok, forget about "bodily autonomy" since it seems we've been grouping together separate concepts as one. People have the right not to have their insides, their organs, blood, and tissues messed with and that can't be overridden. The autonomy of the body, their actions can be controlled though. It's the difference between giving a prisoner a bracelet to identify them versus branding them.

Again, how is a right to not have certain actions performed on you functionally different from a restriction on how other people can act? I recognise the distinction you're making, but saying "you have a right not to have your organs messed with" is the same thing as saying "nobody can mess with your organs", so statements about bodily autonomy (or organs, to be more specific) can be translated into restrictions on what other people can do to you, without a loss in meaning.

Ok, I guess I'll just give it to you quick. That is just your personal morality, and while that is admirable that's not how reality or the legal system works.

Cop out. Doesn't matter how the legal system works. We're arguing how it ought to work, based on moral principles.

Having privacy and full control of your own insides is more important than any potential of death.

What are you basing that on? The right to life is more fundamental than a right to privacy or autonomy. You can't have privacy/autonomy without life. Are you saying it's better to die than to have your privacy/autonomy infringed at all?

Here is something you may not have thought about. A fetus has the right to life, but it must bear the consequences of having to support itself. That's how nature works.

"That's how nature works" is not an argument, but an observation.

If our only intention is to remove the fetus, that isn't murder. Them dying is only a side effect of removing them.

This is some pretty remarkable mental gymnastics you're doing. Hitler didn't mean to kill the Jews, that was just a side effect of filling the room with poisonous gas. Harold Shipman didn't mean to kill his patients, that was just a side effect of pumping them with drugs. Stalin didn't mean to kill the Ukrainians, the Holodomor was just a side effect of removing all their food. If your action causes a death, you are responsible for it. It's not like the death of the foetus is an accident; there's a reason why we aspirate, or chop up the limbs of the foetus, or pump saline into the womb: to kill the foetus.
---

This is why you can evict crippled disabled people even if them becoming homeless will inevitably kill them.

Evicting people doesn't kill them. If you know that evicting someone will kill them, perhaps because you're kicking them out into a horrendous blizzard, then that's obviously wrong. That such evictions happen in practice doesn't excuse them.

As with the case of life support, honestly I believe that if a homeless person with no money and insurance must have many expensive procedures done to save their life, hospitals just won't do some of the procedures or lay off on doing it even if it'll cost them their life. That's also how resource priority works.

You are horribly confusing moral arguments with legal/medical arguments. A hospital or the law might, in practice, fail to save people, but that doesn't mean their actions are right or justified.

Many people need organs, but some people won't be given them because they don't have the money even if organs are in supply because other people are higher priority (due to paying for them). Pretty sure homeless people who are terminally ill will get eventually taken off life support too.

Yes, and those are moral wrongs.

Again, that's a false equivalency. A homeless person has the right not to die, but you still can't be forced to give up your blood, food, money etc to them. Even with actions, you have the right not to die but if someone considers you a threat they can still legally shoot/kill you. The fetus can be viewed as a threat to the woman's well being.

The foetus is, in the vast majority of cases, when appropriate medical care is provided, not a threat to the woman's health. Abortion is a permanent threat to the foetus' health. Why would you privilege the mother's health over the health of the foetus?

There are many ways where the right not to be die/be killed is overridden too.

Give some examples where autonomy takes precedence over life. Evicting someone with disabilities is not an example, because that is morally wrong.
---

Endofall posted...

Ok, just blood then. Though keep in mind you're also not obligated to give organs even after your death where your organs will literally be put to waste.

Good point, though many people would agree with mandatory organ donation after death, including me.

Yes, this goes into what I was saying earlier. We can and do try to stop actions, the act of suicide. We can't rummage through their bodies without their consent to save them though. Actions of the body and the body itself are two different things.

"Rummaging through your body" is not a right. "Bodily autonomy" is a right. And as I've said, a right about your body is the same thing as a restriction on what other people can do to your body.

Samurontai posted...

boxington posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Leave it up to the woman to decide. Should be legal, but we should focus on educating people and prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

AKA fund Planned Parenthood

Topic should've ended here. There's no argument against it

There are plenty of arguments, the main one being that abortion involves killing an innocent human being.
---

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/30/planned-parenthood-annual-report-shows-abortions-taxpayer-funding-profits-up/

Uh-oh. We are literally giving more and more taxpayer money to them and they are profiting off of abortions.

Kinda destroys the whole 'Planned Parenthood reduces abortions!' narrative.
---

The Eternal Flame posted...

Love it. It should happen more often, frankly, and they should be harvested for stem cells (the research of which should be funded). The thing isn't a human by any reasonable metric in the first trimester, so "life begins at conception" is obviously ridiculous.

It has human DNA. It's not a goat or a dog, is it? All the information explaining what kind of human it is like is there from conception. A zygote is self-directing.





hockeybub89 posted...

Nah. Programs like Planned Parenthood and comprehensive sex ed have been shown to be a force of good. Do you think it is a coincidence that defunding PP in Texas leads to more abortions? Or that uneducated states like Missisisippi have the highest teen pregnancy rates? You can also see on a global range. Look how developing nations in Africa have so many children despite being dirt poor. Look at their STD rates.

Conservative social values consistently backfire.

If you look at the two western, developed countries with serious abortion prohibitions (Ireland and Poland), they have the lowest incidences of abortion. The only comparable countries either have A) a large pro-life movement, meaning people in those countries recognise abortions as wrong (Germany, Croatia, Switzerland) or B) have extremely high levels of human development, meaning the only people who should be emulating them are equally prosperous and developed countries, which is almost none (Switzerland, Austria).
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Leave it up to the woman to decide. Should be legal, but we should focus on educating people and prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

AKA fund Planned Parenthood

Second post best post

Sinroth posted...

But there's no distinction between the two. A right of X to autonomy is a restriction on every other Y to not take that autonomy away. A right of X to life is a restriction on every other Y to not take that life away. You can't violate that principle but for exceptional circumstances: for example, euthanasia. I don't really see how pregnancy can be justified as an exceptional circumstance for violating the restriction to not kill other people. It's not, say, slavery, which is a permanent loss of bodily autonomy. It is a temporarily loss, and when appropriate healthcare and support is supplied, the mother will make a full recovery. Compare that with the permanent loss of life of the foetus.

Sinroth posted...

Right, but this is kind of exceptional reasoning is exactly what I'm doing, and if you apply the rights of both agents equally, there is a conflict between the right they possess and the person acting in contradiction to that right; you're saying that a mother has a right to bodily autonomy, so a foetus should not draw nutrients from it. I'm saying that a foetus has a right to life, so a mother should not kill it. This is a conflict of rights, and the right to life is more fundamental and primary than the right to bodily autonomy. The only way you could deny this seems to be to either apply rights inconsistently, or to deny that life is more fundamental than autonomy.

I think the fundamental difference between our way of thinking is not the issue of right to life vs right to bodily autonomy, but the way we perceive the choices being made in this situation. The choice of the mother, though clearly resulting in the death of the fetus, is not explicitly to kill the fetus (or, at the very least, I don't believe that's how it should be presented). Rather, the choice of the mother is to withdraw consent. She chooses not to consent to having material taken from her body and given to another's. That is what it means to exercise the right to bodily autonomy. She's not choosing to kill the fetus, and therefore not taking explicit action against that fetus's right to life. Rather, the death of the fetus is simply the natural result of it being separated from the mother. It may be the case that, in the future, technology will progress to a point where abortion stops necessitating the death of the fetus.

This goes back to my analogy of giving one's organs to someone who needs them to live. All people have the right to refuse that, regardless of how it may or may not impact their own health, and despite the fact that the person in question will die without them. They are not choosing the death of the person who needs the organs. Rather, they are choosing to exercise their right to bodily autonomy, even though the final result of that choice is the death of another.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I think the fundamental difference between our way of thinking is not the issue of right to life vs right to bodily autonomy, but the way we perceive the choices being made in this situation. The choice of the mother, though clearly resulting in the death of the fetus, is not explicitly to kill the fetus (or, at the very least, I don't believe that's how it should be presented). Rather, the choice of the mother is to withdraw consent. She chooses not to consent to having material taken from her body and given to another's. That is what it means to exercise the right to bodily autonomy. She's not choosing to kill the fetus, and therefore not taking explicit action against that fetus's right to life. Rather, the death of the fetus is simply the natural result of it being separated from the mother. It may be the case that, in the future, technology will progress to a point where abortion stops necessitating the death of the fetus.

In what sense can you possibly say that abortion is not about killing the foetus? Foetuses get aborted because the mother's life is in danger, or because the foetus is unwanted. That is a fact. The action is killing, and we are responsible for the actions we consciously make.

This goes back to my analogy of giving one's organs to someone who needs them to live. All people have the right to refuse that, regardless of how it may or may not impact their own health, and despite the fact that the person in question will die without them. They are not choosing the death of the person who needs the organs. Rather, they are choosing to exercise their right to bodily autonomy, even though the final result of that choice is the death of another.

You cannot exercise a right if it conflicts with another person's more fundamental right. I don't know why you're so strong about promoting the rights of the mother, yet ignore the rights of the foetus. It doesn't matter what positive consequences result (bodily autonomy) when the negative consequences outweigh them (killing a human being).

There is a clear difference between not donating organs and killing a foetus. The latter is an action that you take in order to kill someone. The former is inaction, and we clearly give more weight to action.
---

Sinroth posted...

You cannot exercise a right if it conflicts with another person's more fundamental right.

This right here proves why these conversations are fruitless. If you don't view a fetus as a person, then you don't think it has fundamental rights. Even if the fetus did have rights, I disagree that their right trumps the mother's right. Neither a fetus nor a fully formed person have any right to use someone else's body in my eyes. Even if the party originally consented. Even if it will kill the dependent. You say a fetus is a person but you want them to have different rights than other people. You want them to have a right to using another body that no other person has. Do you believe that people, living or dead, should be compelled to donate organs or others functions of their body to save others? Corpses have more bodily autonomy than you are arguing pregnant women should have.

I agree with Dragonblade saying death is a side effect. If a fetus is removed from a woman and cannot live on its own, then that is just unfortunate.
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Leave it up to the woman to decide. Should be legal, but we should focus on educating people and prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

AKA fund Planned Parenthood

Second post wins again.
---

Sinroth posted...

In what sense can you possibly say that abortion is not about killing the foetus? Foetuses get aborted because the mother's life is in danger, or because the foetus is unwanted. That is a fact. The action is killing, and we are responsible for the actions we consciously make.

In the very meaningful sense that the mother is choosing not to offer her body to the fetus. That is the justification for abortion on the grounds of bodily autonomy, and I think it's a valid one. This is regardless of whether the fetus is unwanted or presents danger to the mother, as all of those may simply be extra motivation to permit abortion (and many which even pro-life supporters make exceptions for). However, the fundamental right we give to people that no other thing can take from their bodies without permission is demonstrably upheld regardless of another's right to life. And so, under that reasoning alone, bodily autonomy makes abortion morally permissible in and of itself.

Sinroth posted...

You cannot exercise a right if it conflicts with another person's more fundamental right. I don't know why you're so strong about promoting the rights of the mother, yet ignore the rights of the foetus. It doesn't matter what positive consequences result (bodily autonomy) when the negative consequences outweigh them (killing a human being).

There is a clear difference between not donating organs and killing a foetus. The latter is an action that you take in order to kill someone. The former is inaction, and we clearly give more weight to action.

Again, working under the assumption that both the mother and fetus be given equal personhood, I don't ignore the fetus' right to life, just as I think it would be disingenuous to claim that you ignore the right to bodily autonomy. Likewise, the fundamental issue of bodily autonomy remains the same in both cases. Regardless of motivation, it remains the case that one life cannot take from the body of another life without the owner's permission, regardless of mortality concerns. The moment you introduce motivation, you enter into ever unstable grounds regarding prescribed ideal morality. At that point, you could describe a situation where someone is withholding an organ or blood transfusion explicitly because they would rather the other person die. Should that person be forced to give to the other party what they need simply because the established motive is not deemed "acceptable"? Because I do not believe that rights should be decided on the back of situational motivation.
---

Sinroth posted...

Again, how is a right to not have certain actions performed on you functionally different from a restriction on how other people can act? I recognise the distinction you're making, but saying "you have a right not to have your organs messed with" is the same thing as saying "nobody can mess with your organs", so statements about bodily autonomy (or organs, to be more specific) can be translated into restrictions on what other people can do to you, without a loss in meaning.

I'm not fully sure what you're trying to say but yes, "nobody can mess with your organs with consent" (in medical fields consent is the default if you haven't explicitly said otherwise)
Sinroth posted...

Cop out. Doesn't matter how the legal system works. We're arguing how it ought to work, based on moral principles.

No we don't because it's not practical and it crosses the line into draconian. To be honest, being an "asshole" is technically immoral but should we make being an asshole illegal? You yourself said that we shouldn't be forced to donate our organs even though moral principles should dictate we should if people's lives are at stake. There are a lot of other ways that goes. How about forced to house refugees because not doing so is "immoral"? Forced to house the homeless?
The legal system is a balance of practicality and moral principles.

Sinroth posted...

What are you basing that on? The right to life is more fundamental than a right to privacy or autonomy. You can't have privacy/autonomy without life. Are you saying it's better to die than to have your privacy/autonomy infringed at all?

The right to life only stands when you don't infringe on other people's privacy. That's why you can shoot to kill people who intrude on your property and it also doesn't mean we're forced to give our bodies and resources to them. That's why parents who don't want children can put them up for adoption or have them taken away by child services. You can't force a mother to nurse their child after it's born either.

Sinroth posted...

This is some pretty remarkable mental gymnastics you're doing. Hitler didn't mean to kill the Jews, that was just a side effect of filling the room with poisonous gas. Harold Shipman didn't mean to kill his patients, that was just a side effect of pumping them with drugs. Stalin didn't mean to kill the Ukrainians, the Holodomor was just a side effect of removing all their food. If your action causes a death, you are responsible for it. It's not like the death of the foetus is an accident; there's a reason why we aspirate, or chop up the limbs of the foetus, or pump saline into the womb: to kill the foetus.

This is some pretty remarkable mental gymnastics on YOUR part. Hitler's intent was to clearly kill Jews, Shipman patients, Stalin Ukrainians etc. That's entirely different from the intent being to remove the fetus. So I'm guessing for you to see the concept better, it would be better for the fetus to be removed intact and just die on its own? That is much less practical but if that's the visual it takes for people like you to get that it's not in the spirit of true murder then I'm fine with that.

Sinroth posted...

Evicting people doesn't kill them. If you know that evicting someone will kill them, perhaps because you're kicking them out into a horrendous blizzard, then that's obviously wrong. That such evictions happen in practice doesn't excuse them.

Yes, and you're still allowed to do that, just like you're allowed to refuse to allow them in the first place. Is that being a douchebag/immoral? Yes. Is that illegal? No. Even if you ask if it SHOULD be illegal, that would still be very controversial since that opens up a can of worms and you could possibly wiggle out of that by saying "you feared for your life".
Sinroth posted...

You are horribly confusing moral arguments with legal/medical arguments. A hospital or the law might, in practice, fail to save people, but that doesn't mean their actions are right or justified.

I was under the impression we were talking about legality since that's basically the whole point when abortion is brought up.

However, I'll just make it clear then. Yes, it would be immoral to remove a person who needs to live from your stomach from your stomach because you don't want them there. BUT, it shouldn't be illegal because legally people are entitled to their bodies (not the actions, the bodies) and a right to life doesn't exist. So if the fetus is to be viewed as a person, yes it is wrong, but it is a necessary wrong, like picking who to give organs to for the law to function.
So I will concede. It is immoral and wrong but it shouldn't be illegal.
However, that's only if the fetus is to be viewed the same as a born human being, which is something many people... the majority, don't believe, including me. That, however is a separate issue.
So I will agree, the bottom line is that evicting someone who would die from being evicted is immoral but it shouldn't be illegal as an individual can't be forced to house others by the government.

Dragonblade01 posted...

In the very meaningful sense that the mother is choosing not to offer her body to the fetus. That is the justification for abortion on the grounds of bodily autonomy, and I think it's a valid one.

Right, but aborting still involves the killing of a foetus. Why are the rights of the foetus not being considered? Why do the rights of the mother take precedence? Especially when a more fundamental right (life) is being violated permanently (death).

This is regardless of whether the fetus is unwanted or presents danger to the mother, as all of those may simply be extra motivation to permit abortion (and many which even pro-life supporters make exceptions for). However, the fundamental right we give to people that no other thing can take from their bodies without permission is demonstrably upheld regardless of another's right to life. And so, under that reasoning alone, bodily autonomy makes abortion morally permissible in and of itself.

The right to life is more fundamental than the right to bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy cannot be exercised without life. Life entails a minimum level of bodily autonomy. To assert otherwise is, as far as I'm concerned, lunacy.

Again, working under the assumption that both the mother and fetus be given equal personhood, I don't ignore the fetus' right to life, just as I think it would be disingenuous to claim that you ignore the right to bodily autonomy.

Then why are you privileging the rights of the mother over the rights of the foetus? You've still offered no explanation, except to say that the mother is asserting her right to bodily autonomy, despite that violating the foetus' right to life.

Likewise, the fundamental issue of bodily autonomy remains the same in both cases. Regardless of motivation, it remains the case that one life cannot take from the body of another life without the owner's permission, regardless of mortality concerns. The moment you introduce motivation, you enter into ever unstable grounds regarding prescribed ideal morality. At that point, you could describe a situation where someone is withholding an organ or blood transfusion explicitly because they would rather the other person die. Should that person be forced to give to the other party what they need simply because the established motive is not deemed "acceptable"? Because I do not believe that rights should be decided on the back of situational motivation.

Motivation is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that life is a more fundamental right than bodily autonomy, and when considering which of two conflicting rights to assert, we assert the more fundamental or the one which causes the least harm (see: Mills' harm principle). The rights of the foetus being violated are both more serious (life being the most fundamental right which precedes every other right or guarantee), and more harmful (the permanent cessation of life).
---

Endofall posted...

I'm not fully sure what you're trying to say but yes, "nobody can mess with your organs with consent" (in medical fields consent is the default if you haven't explicitly said otherwise)

You keep saying that my mistake is that I'm thinking about restrictions on actions, rather than guarantees about individuals. What I'm saying is that the two are equivalent.

A) You have a right to bodily autonomy.
B) Nobody can act in a way which violates your bodily autonomy.

A and B are the same thing. So even though I'm talking about what we can and cannot do to living beings, that is still in accordance your conception of rights as A.


Endofall posted...

The legal system is a balance of practicality and moral principles.

Indeed, but it has no authority in a moral argument. "Because you can (legally) do it" or "Because it's legal" doesn't make something right.


Endofall posted...

The right to life only stands when you don't infringe on other people's privacy. That's why you can shoot to kill people who intrude on your property and it also doesn't mean we're forced to give our bodies and resources to them. That's why parents who don't want children can put them up for adoption or have them taken away by child services. You can't force a mother to nurse their child after it's born either.

You can't willy-nilly shoot people that intrude on your property. Do you think it OK to kill anyone who sets a single foot on your property, even if they're just passing by, or lost, or whatever? You can only retaliate in situations of self-defence, that is, when your right to life is under threat.

A bizarre example you'd chose in adoption, since adoption basically affirms my argument. The purpose of adoption is to give a child up in extraordinary circumstances, such as when the parents not fit, or unable to provide for the child. If you simply decide " can't be bothered", you would be rightfully condemned, even though you can legally get rid of the child. Adoption also quite clearly illustrates that even though the child is infringing on your economic, and sometimes bodily, autonomy, you can't simply kill it because its right to life more important than your right to economic security, or bodily autonomy, etc.
---

Endofall posted...

This is some pretty remarkable mental gymnastics on YOUR part. Hitler's intent was to clearly kill Jews, Shipman patients, Stalin Ukrainians etc. That's entirely different from the intent being to remove the fetus. So I'm guessing for you to see the concept better, it would be better for the fetus to be removed intact and just die on its own? That is much less practical but if that's the visual it takes for people like you to get that it's not in the spirit of true murder then I'm fine with that.

Two things.

First of all, abortions are done to kill the foetus. The limbs of a foetus are snipped apart, or it is sucked up in a vacuum, or its pieces are scraped away with a curette, or swallowed in a deathly saline for the very clear purpose of killing. You cannot be undertaking any of these options and justly claim that you aren't trying to kill it. It's almost irrelevant what long term goals are brought about by the killing. Hitler only wanted an ethnically pure land for his people. At various times in its early years, the Nazi party flirted with the idea of exporting all Jews to some place far, far away. Does the existence of a higher goal, an ethnically pure nation-state, excuse what killings were required to bring it about?

Second of all, why would it be preferable to remove a foetus and keep it in one piece? It's no longer infringing on a woman's bodily autonomous, but it's still the exact same thing, with all the same rights including life. So again, why does bodily autonomy take precedence over life? Life is the more fundamental right, without which none of the others can possibly be exercised. Death is more permanent than pregnancy.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

This right here proves why these conversations are fruitless. If you don't view a fetus as a person, then you don't think it has fundamental rights.

In both of the conversations I'm having, we're presuming foetal personhood. So a foetus does have all the rights that come with personhood.

Even if the fetus did have rights, I disagree that their right trumps the mother's right. Neither a fetus nor a fully formed person have any right to use someone else's body in my eyes. Even if the party originally consented. Even if it will kill the dependent.

Right, but if a foetus is a person, it is a moral agent, and therefore has all the rights of other people, including the right to life, which is an injunctinon that other people should not kill it.

You say a fetus is a person but you want them to have different rights than other people. You want them to have a right to using another body that no other person has. Do you believe that people, living or dead, should be compelled to donate organs or others functions of their body to save others? Corpses have more bodily autonomy than you are arguing pregnant women should have.

A foetus has the same rights, life among them, as other people. It has no more rights than any other person. In deciding whether to assert one right over another, we give weight to the more fundamental of the two rights, and to the severity of the violations. The violation of a mother's autonomy lasts nine months and the vast majority of the negative effects are, the vast majority of the time, reversible. The violation of the foetus' life lasts forever and is not reversible.

If you want to ask why we never get into a situation where our bodies are used against our will to keep someone else alive --- well, that is like asking what makes abortion a different situation from murder, or execution, or self-defence. These are all distinct situations, none entirely like the other. All we can do is illustrate the general principles by which we affirm rights and apply them consistently.

I've already explained why abortion is different to not donating organs. Abortion is an action taken with the consequence that a foetus is killed. Not donating organs is an inaction, and we give much stronger weight to actions rather than inactions, which is why we distinguish between, say, intentional killing and killing out of negligence. The impacts of organ donation are permanent. The impacts of pregnancy are temporary.

I agree with Dragonblade saying death is a side effect. If a fetus is removed from a woman and cannot live on its own, then that is just unfortunate.

If we have to kill Jews to make an ethnically homogeneous state, that is just unfortunate.

If we have to starve Ukrainians to feed the rest of the country, that is just unfortunate.

Do you not see what a ridiculous claim this is? If you take an action, and you know it will have consequences such as the death of innocents, then you are 100% responsible for the world you bring about.
---

boxington posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Leave it up to the woman to decide. Should be legal, but we should focus on educating people and prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

AKA fund Planned Parenthood

---

Sinroth posted...

You keep saying that my mistake is that I'm thinking about restrictions on actions, rather than guarantees about individuals. What I'm saying is that the two are equivalent.

A) You have a right to bodily autonomy.
B) Nobody can act in a way which violates your bodily autonomy.

A and B are the same thing. So even though I'm talking about what we can and cannot do to living beings, that is still in accordance your conception of rights as A.

Well, no, your body's actions (what YOU do) AREN'T bodily autonomy. The purpose of government and the law is to forcefully restrict your actions. You don't have a right to do what you want. While human rights have dictated that government and the law can't force their way with your body itself. You do have a right not have anyone mess with your body itself. It's the difference between giving someone a bracelet to note their ID number compared to branding/tattooing them with their ID
Equating the two is profoundly stupid and is so mind-boggling that I'm starting to think you're not being honest so I suggest you please stop pursuing that ridiculous line of thought.
Sinroth posted...

Indeed, but it has no authority in a moral argument. "Because you can (legally) do it" or "Because it's legal" doesn't make something right.

Sure, but that's just too broad. Simply being an asshole and being rude to everyone you meet is immoral. Everyone has done immoral things in their lifetime, including you.

Sinroth posted...

You can't willy-nilly shoot people that intrude on your property. Do you think it OK to kill anyone who sets a single foot on your property, even if they're just passing by, or lost, or whatever? You can only retaliate in situations of self-defence, that is, when your right to life is under threat.

A bizarre example you'd chose in adoption, since adoption basically affirms my argument. The purpose of adoption is to give a child up in extraordinary circumstances, such as when the parents not fit, or unable to provide for the child. If you simply decide " can't be bothered", you would be rightfully condemned, even though you can legally get rid of the child. Adoption also quite clearly illustrates that even though the child is infringing on your economic, and sometimes bodily, autonomy, you can't simply kill it because its right to life more important than your right to economic security, or bodily autonomy, etc.

After multiple warnings and giving them time to get away, yes. Some people might have sufficient reasoning for their paranoia. Plus, paranoia itself tends to free people from their responsibilities somewhat.
How does adoption affirm your argument? If a parent doesn't want their child after they're born they can give them up for adoption. "can't be bothered, messes with my career etc" is a valid reasoning and a good choice too since people with that mindset are inherently not fit to be parents to begin with.
Also, the point is that you can refuse and remove anyone from using resources/being housed. The pure intent is to remove. You don't have to kill a child to remove and it's just unfortunate the same can't be done with a fetus.

Sinroth posted...

Two things.

First of all, abortions are done to kill the foetus. The limbs of a foetus are snipped apart, or it is sucked up in a vacuum, or its pieces are scraped away with a curette, or swallowed in a deathly saline for the very clear purpose of killing. You cannot be undertaking any of these options and justly claim that you aren't trying to kill it. It's almost irrelevant what long term goals are brought about by the killing. Hitler only wanted an ethnically pure land for his people. At various times in its early years, the Nazi party flirted with the idea of exporting all Jews to some place far, far away. Does the existence of a higher goal, an ethnically pure nation-state, excuse what killings were required to bring it about?

Second of all, why would it be preferable to remove a foetus and keep it in one piece? It's no longer infringing on a woman's bodily autonomous, but it's still the exact same thing, with all the same rights including life. So again, why does bodily autonomy take precedence over life? Life is the more fundamental right, without which none of the others can possibly be exercised. Death is more permanent than pregnancy.

Sinroth posted...

Two things.

First of all, abortions are done to kill the foetus. The limbs of a foetus are snipped apart, or it is sucked up in a vacuum, or its pieces are scraped away with a curette, or swallowed in a deathly saline for the very clear purpose of killing. You cannot be undertaking any of these options and justly claim that you aren't trying to kill it. It's almost irrelevant what long term goals are brought about by the killing. Hitler only wanted an ethnically pure land for his people. At various times in its early years, the Nazi party flirted with the idea of exporting all Jews to some place far, far away. Does the existence of a higher goal, an ethnically pure nation-state, excuse what killings were required to bring it about?

Second of all, why would it be preferable to remove a foetus and keep it in one piece? It's no longer infringing on a woman's bodily autonomous, but it's still the exact same thing, with all the same rights including life. So again, why does bodily autonomy take precedence over life? Life is the more fundamental right, without which none of the others can possibly be exercised. Death is more permanent than pregnancy.

The immediate intent is to remove from the body. The method is killing it. Intent and methods are separate things. You seem to like equating two similar but ultimately different things as the same thing which is very disingenuous. As I've already said, if it makes it any better, we could just remove them from the mother and have it die on its own if that quells your morality concerns more even though that's much less practical. If Hitler had mass deported Jews, while will still be seen as wrong, he would be nowhere NEAR seen as bad. I mean, there are some "developed" countries that do that in this day. Out of all the available options he chose killing so his intent was undeniably to kill. This is another false equivalency (literally invoking godwin's law) you've made. The intent of abortion isn't to kill, it's to remove, and if there's a way to keep the fetus alive after removal, we would but unfortunately, like someone who needs a transplant but can't afford one, they're just going to have to die.
... Of course, all of this is with the mindset that the fetus is a person and something equal to born humans, which is a separate controversial subject.

Endofall posted...

Well, no, your body's actions (what YOU do) AREN'T bodily autonomy. The purpose of government and the law is to forcefully restrict your actions. You don't have a right to do what you want. While human rights have dictated that government and the law can't force their way with your body itself. You do have a right not have anyone mess with your body itself. It's the difference between giving someone a bracelet to note their ID number compared to branding/tattooing them with their ID

I know they aren't, which is why I'm not saying it. So let me say it again. Your bodily autonomy is a restriction on other people acting on your body. They are the same thing. You are guaranteed bodily autonomy = other people cannot act in a way which violates your bodily autonomy. The two are absolutely equivalent. I'm not saying that guaranteeing YOUR bodily autonomy is a restriction on YOUR actions. Guaranteeing YOUR bodily autonomy is a restriction on OTHER PEOPLE'S actions, and vice versa.

Sure, but that's just too broad. Simply being an asshole and being rude to everyone you meet is immoral. Everyone has done immoral things in their lifetime, including you.

Well, yeah. And we shouldn't have.

After multiple warnings and giving them time to get away, yes. Some people might have sufficient reasoning for their paranoia. Plus, paranoia itself tends to free people from their responsibilities somewhat.

So basically, when you reasonable cause to assume your life is in danger, you can violate another persons right to life. That is affirming that you are justified in killing a person in self-defence, which is when they are violating your right to life. That is not the same as killing them for violating a mere property right (trespassing). This example is consistent with my claim that life is the most fundamental right.

How does adoption affirm your argument? If a parent doesn't want their child after they're born they can give them up for adoption.

But they can't kill them, because that would be a violation of a more important right (life).

"can't be bothered, messes with my career etc" is a valid reasoning and a good choice too since people with that mindset are inherently not fit to be parents to begin with

You seem to be implicitly agreeing with what I've said. I'm condemning their action, and you're condemning the reasoning for their action (saying their mindset is unfit). It's clear these people are acting immorally. Being able to legally get rid of their baby doesn't excuse that.

Also, the point is that you can refuse and remove anyone from using resources/being housed. The pure intent is to remove. You don't have to kill a child to remove and it's just unfortunate the same can't be done with a fetus.

You also don't have to kill a foetus. You can provide appropriate support to the mother and let her carry it to term. After nine months, you put the child up for adoption and everyone leaves with their lives and bodies intact.
---

Sinroth posted...

I know they aren't, which is why I'm not saying it. So let me say it again. Your bodily autonomy is a restriction on other people acting on your body. They are the same thing. You are guaranteed bodily autonomy = other people cannot act in a way which violates your bodily autonomy. The two are absolutely equivalent. I'm not saying that guaranteeing YOUR bodily autonomy is a restriction on YOUR actions. Guaranteeing YOUR bodily autonomy is a restriction on OTHER PEOPLE'S actions, and vice versa.

Then what I've said from the start applies. Bodily Autonomy takes many forms and the specific one I'm talking about is the right to your body itself, a human right that not even the government and the law can touch. Being restrained is not a part of that since restraints don't DO anything to your body, just prevents you from doing anything with your body.
There is no other way where bodily autonomy has been overridden other than restraint.
Sinroth posted...

So basically, when you reasonable cause to assume your life is in danger, you can violate another persons right to life. That is affirming that you are justified in killing a person in self-defence, which is when they are violating your right to life. That is not the same as killing them for violating a mere property right (trespassing). This example is consistent with my claim that life is the most fundamental right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Trespassing by itself is usually seen as a potential threat to one's person, though I guess that depends on the culture.
Sinroth posted...

But they can't kill them, because that would be a violation of a more important right (life).

Because there's no need to.
Sinroth posted...

You seem to be implicitly agreeing with what I've said. I'm condemning their action, and you're condemning the reasoning for their action (saying their mindset is unfit). It's clear these people are acting immorally. Being able to legally get rid of their baby doesn't excuse that.

Well, if your reasoning is that being irresponsible is immoral I guess. Then yes, I would agree, refusing to house others is immoral. But it's still a right one has regardless.

Sinroth posted...

You also don't have to kill a foetus. You can provide appropriate support to the mother and let her carry it to term. After nine months, you put the child up for adoption and everyone leaves with their lives and bodies intact.

That's putting up with the intrusion, which mothers who want to abort already don't want to do. I mean, I guess you can already say that's immoral but it's not to the level of murder. Extreme comparison but it's like saying someone who's being raped should just put up with it once they're done and shouldn't use physical or deadly force to get them off. Because your bodily autonomy doesn't override their right to life.


Sinroth posted...

You cannot simply ignore the consequences of an action by pointing to their intent. Why wouldn't we condemn an action that knowingly brings about a death? Why wouldn't we condemn Hitler who accidentally had to kill a few Jews to bring about a prosperous nation-state? You seem to be saying that all that matters is intent.

Again, I've already said that Hitler was completely intending to kill. Genocide was part of the intent. He wanted them killed, not just removed from his country.
Sinroth posted...

But his long-term intent was clearly good: a prosperous nation-state for his people. It's just a shame that realising it meant a few Jews had to die, right?

A prosperous nation-state can be achieved without Jews dying. The fact that he chose it means killing is the intention.
This is common sense.

Sinroth posted...

Why is it a false equivalency? If intent is what matters, and can be used to justify killing people, why do abortionists get a free pass while Hitler doesn't? If it's a false equivalency then explain what morally relevant factors different between an abortion that intends to bring about bodily autonomy and an ethnic cleansing that intends to bring about a peaceful society.

Who cares if I used Hitler as an example? It's to illustrate a ridiculous outcome entailed by your position to argue against it; a reductio ad absurdum.

It's a false equivalency because Hitler's intent IS to kill while under the mindset that a fetus is a person, the intent is to remove and not kill (so simply removing it intact) but the fetus dying as a result isn't murder. For example, unplugging someone's life support, not to kill them, but to use on themselves. It's manslaughter at best. You were the one who brought up the different degrees of homicide.
You DO have to keep in mind that we're not talking about actual abortion doctors (because they don't consider the fetus a person) but hypothetical abortion doctors who remove the fetus without killing them.
Sinroth posted...

And between carrying the foetus to term and killing it, we choose killing. What's the difference?

Because the former is not an option. Like I said, it's like getting raped while you have a gun. Should you just let him finish raping you and then leave so that all lives are intact or should you shoot him to get him off?

Sinroth posted...

But in the mean time, we employ all manners of abortion techniques which we know will kill the foetuses. Who cares if there's some hypothetical, desirable future where nobody has to die? In the here and now, we are performing abortions knowing full well a foetus will be killed and destroyed.

That's just unfortunate, like not giving an organ transplant to someone who can't afford it or shooting a rapist but a necessity because there aren't better ways.

Sinroth posted...

Right, but aborting still involves the killing of a foetus. Why are the rights of the foetus not being considered? Why do the rights of the mother take precedence? Especially when a more fundamental right (life) is being violated permanently (death).

They are being considered. And the fetus does not have a right to the mother's body. Right to life is irrelevant to that question.

Sinroth posted...

The right to life is more fundamental than the right to bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy cannot be exercised without life. Life entails a minimum level of bodily autonomy. To assert otherwise is, as far as I'm concerned, lunacy.

That's great, but still irrelevant. As I mentioned quite a while ago, this is not about right to life vs right to bodily autonomy. This is about the exercise of the latter, not the denial of the former.

Sinroth posted...

Then why are you privileging the rights of the mother over the rights of the foetus? You've still offered no explanation, except to say that the mother is asserting her right to bodily autonomy, despite that violating the foetus' right to life.

I've said precisely why. Numerous times. I am not privileging the rights of the mother in this discussion. The fetus does not have the right to do a thing, and therefore it cannot be forced upon the mother. Right to life is irrelevant.

Sinroth posted...

Motivation is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that life is a more fundamental right than bodily autonomy, and when considering which of two conflicting rights to assert, we assert the more fundamental or the one which causes the least harm (see: Mills' harm principle). The rights of the foetus being violated are both more serious (life being the most fundamental right which precedes every other right or guarantee), and more harmful (the permanent cessation of life).

The right to life is not a factor in abortion. There is no conflict, because the right to life does not enter into the picture. Abortion or not, the fetus retains the right to life. It's simply the case that it cannot survive outside of the womb. But since it doesn't have a right to the mother's body, the mother should not be forced to keep it in her womb.
---

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/30/planned-parenthood-annual-report-shows-abortions-taxpayer-funding-profits-up/

Uh-oh. We are literally giving more and more taxpayer money to them and they are profiting off of abortions.

Kinda destroys the whole 'Planned Parenthood reduces abortions!' narrative.
---

lmfao Sinroth got warned for comparing abortion to the holocaust.

JohnLennon6 posted...

http://www.breitbart.com

Plus you're just a gimmick account anyway.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

lmfao Sinroth got warned for comparing abortion to the holocaust.

Typical anti choice person.
---

LightningAce11 posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

lmfao Sinroth got warned for comparing abortion to the holocaust.

Typical anti choice person.

Very true. Sad part is that he probably genuinely believes that.
---

well I see this topic devolved into a typical CE shitfest. Glad I bounced a couple days ago
---