Abortion question

[a_priori]

Welcome to the circus!

The poster makes the assertion that a woman getting pregnant is akin to a man forcefully having another person grafted to them in order to provide vital life support.

By assertion, a woman should then not be forced to bodily support the life of another (like a fetus) against her will.

---

This is a horrible analogy for a few reasons:

1. The behavior (sex) that “attaches” the unborn to its mother is one where this subsequent attachment is a likely possibility. What other activity is there where the foreseeable outcome is having another person grafted to you for life support? (thus the example the author provides isn’t real, and should likely not even be considered).
2. Because pregnancy is a commonly foreseeable outcome of sex, the mother provides tacit consent to the reality of pregnancy by choosing to have sex. Ergo, she is not forced into pregnancy (unless, of course, she’s raped).
3. Pregnancy has a maximum duration. The generic example where an injured person is grafted on to a man is not.
4. Pregnancy is a natural function of the female body. The other is obviously not a natural function as it requires medical intervention in order to exist.
5. Pregnancy is required for the continued existence of our species. The grafting example provided is one fantastic anecdote, and thus it is not required for our continued existence.

The author continues to defend the analogy of “pregnant woman is the same as grafted-man”, despite the clear fact that they are not analogues.

Any argument to justify the killing of the quintessentially innocent, right? :doh2:

^^^ Exactly. Some things are, or should be, self-evident.

 

[Herculees]

In my argument a couple does NOT have the right to call forth the unborn child
(which they are doing when they have consensual sex) IF they have no intention
of allowing the child to come to term.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi. I’m coming in late here, but I would ask them whether they would oppose certain methods of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion.

In other words, the hosts’ argument cannot apply to something that directly kills the fetus.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Biologically, our female bodies do everything it can to care for a developing baby. Very few conditions (and these would be on the side of the baby, rather than the mother) interfere with the baby’s continued existence within the womb. Additionally, we create an entire organ (the placenta) to attach, nourish, and support that baby to term. When things go wrong, it is typically due to genetics on the baby’s side or rare conditions that interfere with the natural process. Even women in car accidents have carried babies to term. Their bodies protect and shield that baby. In fact, nothing short of direct violence or direct chemical attack will destroy a healthy baby in the womb.

Your scenario is a strawman tactic. The exceptional situations are, and should be kept, private between doctors and families. There are tragedies, both wanted and unwanted that occur sometimes when a baby in conceived. Such tragedies, whether physical or spiritual, should not be fodder for politicians.

The intricacies of certain situations come down to the individual’s conscience. The exceptional situation should never decide the morality of an issue. Either killing a baby is murder or it isn’t. Relativism is irrational. It can’t be murder if it’s your baby (“I could never have an abortion personally…”) but not if it’s someone else’s ("…but I would never say she couldn’t have one"). Not just irrational, but elitist (“my baby is far too valuable to abort, but those other women should abort their babies more often”).

Instead of focusing solely on legalities of abortion and imagined consequences (jailing a mother. Really?!) the focus should be on preventing the situations which cause women to resort to abortion. It is, after all, the law. How about improving maternity care, maternity leave, and child care in this country? We are the worst first world country when it comes to caring for pregnant women and their newborns. At every turn, politicians want to cut more funds from programs meant to help. When employers won’t give enough hours for benefits and child care cost more than you can make working, our system favors welfare over work. Fair wages and decent benefits would go a lot further to prevent abortions by women who find themselves desperate.

Now, as far as the women who abort for selfish reasons? Our politicians give them all kinds of flashy slogans and big talks about rights. It almost seems to be a patriotic thing to do these days. But those politicians are not there during the abortion. And they aren’t there in the haunting hours when a woman realizes what she has done. The strong association with post abortion depression and anxiety provoked European countries to have a waiting period. That seems more civilized. Time to reflect and consider. Time for your conscience. But our politicians howl about such "delays’. Teach young people about logic and philosophy. Let them form their consciences rather than make such important decisions based on the words of politicians.

 

[minkymurph]

Biologically, our female bodies do everything it can to care for a developing baby. Very few conditions (and these would be on the side of the baby, rather than the mother) interfere with the baby’s continued existence within the womb. Additionally, we create an entire organ (the placenta) to attach, nourish, and support that baby to term. When things go wrong, it is typically due to genetics on the baby’s side or rare conditions that interfere with the natural process. Even women in car accidents have carried babies to term. Their bodies protect and shield that baby.

And all this is happens without ‘the hospital’ doing anything. This is why I can’t consider the argument ‘hospitals cannot hook one person up to another in order for them to survive’ as a viable comparison. A synonymous comparison is transplanting the foetus into another womb against the woman’s wishes, or impregnating a woman against her wishes - which is of course unlawful.

In fact, nothing short of direct violence or direct chemical attack will destroy a healthy baby in the womb.

This brings another element to the discussion. The scenario used to illustrate the point is ‘hooking one person up to another’ in the absence of consent. Assuming this could actually happen, what if in detaching the person who did not give their consent from other involved not merely removing tubes or machinery that facilitated the ‘hooking up,’ but also required a direct physical act or chemical interference in order to end the life of one who needs ‘hooked up’ in total?

Now, as far as the women who abort for selfish reasons? Our politicians give them all kinds of flashy slogans and big talks about rights. It almost seems to be a patriotic thing to do these days. But those politicians are not there during the abortion. And they aren’t there in the haunting hours when a woman realizes what she has done. The strong association with post abortion depression and anxiety provoked European countries to have a waiting period. That seems more civilized. Time to reflect and consider. Time for your conscience. But our politicians howl about such "delays’. Teach young people about logic and philosophy. Let them form their consciences rather than make such important decisions based on the words of politicians.

Governments should not and in fact cannot bestow rights on citizens without full consideration of how those rights will be given effect. We cannot say, ‘this is right’ and then consider application and effect. There is a term for this but it escapes me at the moment. The description of the term is considering how a policy will be applied and work in practice after it has been introduced. The result is ‘dog’s dinner’ law.

 

[Russell_SA]

Hi. I’m coming in late here, but I would ask them whether they would oppose certain methods of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion.

They didn’t get into specifics on how to have an abortion, just whether if someone has a right to their own body over the right of someone’s right to life. That’s just what they focused on.

 

[Russell_SA]

1. The behavior (sex) that “attaches” the unborn to its mother is one where this subsequent attachment is a likely possibility. What other activity is there where the foreseeable outcome is having another person grafted to you for life support? (thus the example the author provides isn’t real, and should likely not even be considered).

This is where the conversation on the show did not get to as I remember it, to the point of consent by both parties. It requires both parties to consent to the use of their body if the people are both outside the womb, but if one person is not born, then the consent of the woman does not matter anymore. That’s a double standard.

The guy driving the car, consents to the risky behavior that he may actually crash the car. Does that mean he’s granting consent to have his body used to save the life of the people he hit? That he can be hooked up to them for 9 months till they recover? Currently as it stands, the people that are born do not get a right to use the body of the person that created the event. But the people that are not born, get to use the body of the person that created the event, but only the female, not the male. But if the victims of the guy are to die by his actions of crashing the car, then he can be held accountable for manslaughter. He is not legally required to use his body to save their lives though. It’s just a terrible accident that resulted in risky behavior.

So is the woman to be charged with manslaughter as the guy would driving the car and kills his passengers? Not every driver is charged with the death of the people in the car or on the side of the road. Ice on the road caused him to loose control, not his fault? Broken condom, not her fault?

1. Because pregnancy is a commonly foreseeable outcome of sex, the mother provides tacit consent to the reality of pregnancy by choosing to have sex. Ergo, she is not forced into pregnancy (unless, of course, she’s raped).

Driving a car in bad weather is a risky situation as well and foreseeable that an accident most likely will occur. Just as having unsafe sex is. Key word there, “unsafe”. But the guy driving the car in day light, no bad weather, etc. is the same as a couple using birth control properly.

1. Pregnancy has a maximum duration. The generic example where an injured person is grafted on to a man is not.

Duration of the someone else’s right to another person’s body is always 0 currently. No one has a right to use another person’s body for any reason without that person’s consent, regardless of the duration. Or do you see it differently?

1. Pregnancy is a natural function of the female body. The other is obviously not a natural function as it requires medical intervention in order to exist.

Having the ability to do something does not mean you always consent to that action. Or do you see that differently? I have the ability to skydive, but I’m never going to consent to that.

1. Pregnancy is required for the continued existence of our species. The grafting example provided is one fantastic anecdote, and thus it is not required for our continued existence.

Women need to give consent for the species to survive. The species can die out before we allow people access to her body without her consent. That’s where we all are, I hope.

The author continues to defend the analogy of “pregnant woman is the same as grafted-man”, despite the clear fact that they are not analogues.

Any argument to justify the killing of the quintessentially innocent, right? :doh2:

We are here discussing where two conflicting moral issues come in conflict. The right to someone’s bodily use to someone else’s right to life. As it stands now, once you are born, you do not have a right to use someone else’s body to save your own life for any reason. Such as, we do not harvest cadavers to save people’s lives that need organ donation. We do not force death row inmates to give up their body to save their victims, etc. But if you are preborn, then your right to live supersedes the right of the woman’s use of her body. That’s the argument presented and currently where things are being argued now. Or do you see this issue in the US being argued differently?

 

[Russell_SA]

The hospital does not ‘hook the foetus up’ to the mother. They play no role in the ‘hooking up.’ They did not impregnate her, create an umbilical chord and actively maintain the pregnancy against her wishes. They are doing nothing other than declining to perform a medical procedure. It is also the case if someone wanted another to use their body to survive the hospital can decline their request for legitimate reasons.

I was talking about the person doing the actual hooking up without a third party involved, such as a hospital performing the hooking up. Sorry if that was not clear.

 

[Russell_SA]

We have not defined what constitutes ‘use of the body.’ The hospital would not be ‘using his body,’ but rather would be the facilitator in terms of the person who has been struck using the drivers body.

Where we use hypothetical comparisons they must still be in some sense realistic. I cannot think of situation where it is possible to hook one individual up to another in order to save their life. The ‘hooking up’ of the foetus to the mother is a natural phenomenon and not facilitated by anyone else against their wishes. The hospital did not put the umbilical chord there.

If the woman desires the foetus to be ‘unhooked’ she needs agreement and cooperation from the hospital to give effect to her wishes concerning bodily autonomy. It is not her right to force someone else to comply with her wishes, and it is highly unlikely such a right would be enshrined in law. Hospitals are entitled to decline to comply with a patient’s desires in terms of what they wish to do to their own bodies and again for good reason.

As I am aware, there are medical practices where the hospitals are able to hook up people together for the use of one person’s body to benefit the other, such as blood filtering for dying kidneys and liver.

 

[Russell_SA]

Medical proxies are used to give effect to wishes of the person who cannot speak for themselves. Are you advocating a medical proxy for the foetus?

I am stating that we have legal resources available for people that are not able to grant consent due to their situation. So for children it would be the parents or a child protective servant of the state.

Blood donation is not ‘use of the body’ at law. Blood and body samples have been used to save others lives in the absence of consent and by deception.

That’s troublesome. As I understood the case, no one has a right to your body except the police to draw blood to check for drug use.

 

[Russell_SA]

I thought we were working on the assumption the fetus is human and has a right to life as stated by Hitchens. If the foetus is essentially a ‘squatter.’ squatter’s have rights. If a squatter needs to use someone else’s property to survive should they be allowed to do so?

We have legally defined a line between material usage for life support and bodily usage for life support. Numerous people need medical aide to stay alive, but they can’t squat in a hospital for that support. Even if someone is squatting in your home and can not leave due to medical issues, the police can come in and remove them to a cell with the medical support they would need. If there are other options available, then those can be implemented, but at this point there is no artificial womb to take the fetus and as a result the fetus dies. But because people may use this right distastefully, should it be removed completely?

 

[minkymurph]

As I am aware, there are medical practices where the hospitals are able to hook up people together for the use of one person’s body to benefit the other, such as blood filtering for dying kidneys and liver.

I personally have never heard of this actually happening. Perhaps in theory it is possible, but I would say in practice it would be fraught with difficulty and high risk even if there was consent.

You can take a lobe of liver from someone to save another - or of course a kidney.

I have heard of poor people in India who go into hospital for a minor op like an ingrown toenail and come out missing a kidney.

There was also a case in the US I recall from my student days where someone wanted to rent his kidney. It was not permitted and he was somewhat irate as it was his kidney and thus in his view he had the right to rent it. Eek again.

I concede however if your scenario was a reality consent would be needed. In the absence of consent you would need to use force, but also sustained force. The person could keep ripping the attachment of whatever form out if they were not willing. They could do lots of others things like go on hunger strike or something.

Don’t know how implied consent would work. Say where someone was brain dead but could be kept alive on a ventilator? My we are getting into the bizarre. :hypno:

 

[minkymurph]

That’s troublesome. As I understood the case, no one has a right to your body except the police to draw blood to check for drug use.

It is an incredibly complex area of law. I studied this area of law as a student. The module was called Contemporary issues in property and we looked at intellectual property, slavery, animal rights, cultural property and stuff. I loved this module and found it fascinating.

At law a human body is not property. You cannot own a human body - even your own. Hence, you cannot sell your body parts - or rent them as one guy wanted to do. But, where a body part or bodily fluids and stuff (very technical term there) is removed from the body it becomes property. That said, in circumstances the law has treated a human body as property. There was a case is where a dead body was stolen from a graveyard and the perpetrators prosecuted for theft.

In the UK the police cannot force you to give a sample, but you can be prosecuted if you refuse to produce one on the ground consent is implied - by driving on the road you consent to be tested. I did read there have been moves in the US to give police the power to take a sample without consent. I don’t know much about it other than that.

 

[minkymurph]

We have legally defined a line between material usage for life support and bodily usage for life support. Numerous people need medical aide to stay alive, but they can’t squat in a hospital for that support. Even if someone is squatting in your home and can not leave due to medical issues, the police can come in and remove them to a cell with the medical support they would need. If there are other options available, then those can be implemented, but at this point there is no artificial womb to take the fetus and as a result the fetus dies. But because people may use this right distastefully, should it be removed completely?

It certainly should be a limited right. As to what those limitations should be - highly emotive, highly sensitive, highly politicized topic.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is where the conversation on the show did not get to as I remember it, to the point of consent by both parties… He is not legally required to use his body to save their lives though. It’s just a terrible accident that resulted in risky behavior.

Your argument here would gain a jot of legitimacy if there was an actual example of this. The fact that people have to take anti-rejection medication after medically routine organ transplants whereas a pregnant woman does not further indicates the underlying fantasy of your position.

Driving a car in bad weather is a risky situation as well and foreseeable that an accident most likely will occur.

Using your example of unprotected sex 12x per month, if I had a similar probability of getting into a car crash in bad weather as I did making a child (approx 85%), I wouldn’t drive that night. And if I did, it would be with the knowledge that a crash was likely. Thus I would be culpable in any damages suffered by my passengers.

You’re trying your darnest to conflate two events with wildly different probabilities. This is more strong evidence for a weak argument.

Just as having unsafe sex is. Key word there, “unsafe”.

What makes unprotected sex “unsafe”? From a purely secular perspective, pregnancy is the evolutionarily desired outcome of sex. Is this something you’re trying to dispute?

Duration of the someone else’s right to another person’s body is always 0 currently. No one has a right to use another person’s body for any reason without that person’s consent, regardless of the duration. Or do you see it differently?

In the case of pregnancy, I do. I think the right for that child to live and self-determine trumps any embarrassment and short-term discomfort you may experience due to pregnancy. If you don’t want the baby, it can be easily arranged where birth is the last time a woman ever sees that child - at least in the west.

Having the ability to do something does not mean you always consent to that action. Or do you see that differently? I have the ability to skydive, but I’m never going to consent to that.

Then don’t put on the parachute and get in a plane that’s going up specifically to for that purpose.

Women need to give consent for the species to survive. The species can die out before we allow people access to her body without her consent. That’s where we all are, I hope.

Aaand that’s called a “red herring”.

If she is completely closed to the possibility of pregnancy and would abort any child that she produced, then for the sake of the would-be aborted she’s morally obligated to avoid activity that can produce children.

As it stands now, once you are born, you do not have a right to use someone else’s body to save your own life for any reason.

That’s not entirely true. If I have young children and don’t take care of them, the authorities will show up at my door sooner or later.
While they may not be biologically grafted to me, I have to use my efforts and time (ergo: my body) to provide for them. Otherwise social services gets a phone-call and you see my face on the nightly news under “neglectful father”.

---

You need to look in the mirror and tell yourself “I’m equating natural pregnancy with the Lovecraftian horror-fantasy of artificially grafting people together.”

Then allow the absurdity to wash over you.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Hi. I’m coming in late here, but I would ask them whether they would oppose certain methods of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion.

Sure. We can’t expect them to answer as they aren’t here … but you’re here.

Or pushing it a step further, one might say that their argument isn’t about abortion per se, but rather premature C-section.

 

[Russell_SA]

Biologically, our female bodies do everything it can to care for a developing baby. Very few conditions (and these would be on the side of the baby, rather than the mother) interfere with the baby’s continued existence within the womb. Additionally, we create an entire organ (the placenta) to attach, nourish, and support that baby to term. When things go wrong, it is typically due to genetics on the baby’s side or rare conditions that interfere with the natural process. Even women in car accidents have carried babies to term. Their bodies protect and shield that baby. In fact, nothing short of direct violence or direct chemical attack will destroy a healthy baby in the womb.

How the process of fetal development takes place or the purpose of the uterus is something I think is irrelevant to the discussion of consent of the mother over the right to life of the fetus. Or was this addressing something else?

Your scenario is a strawman tactic. The exceptional situations are, and should be kept, private between doctors and families. There are tragedies, both wanted and unwanted that occur sometimes when a baby in conceived. Such tragedies, whether physical or spiritual, should not be fodder for politicians.

Could you illustrate where it is a strawman tactic? I always get those confused with red herring. Also, we always use illustrations to explain a concept, so my examples may be just to illustrate a point. I am not here to sway anyone either way, just to iron out the discussion as to where the conversation on that show left off with. So that the next time this conversation comes up, I can understand where the point of contention is and where it still needs to resolve to.

The intricacies of certain situations come down to the individual’s conscience. The exceptional situation should never decide the morality of an issue. Either killing a baby is murder or it isn’t. Relativism is irrational. It can’t be murder if it’s your baby (“I could never have an abortion personally…”) but not if it’s someone else’s ("…but I would never say she couldn’t have one"). Not just irrational, but elitist (“my baby is far too valuable to abort, but those other women should abort their babies more often”).

The specifics of the case are always important because that is how we determine intent. Was this death an accident or on purpose? Was the death the result of someone exercising their rights of autonomy at the expense of someone else’s life, such as every person that does not choose to donate organs at the expense of the sick. They are not culpable to murder or morally required to give up any part of their body, even if they caused the accident where the victim needed the organ. Currently we require compensation for the individual to the victim, but not at the extent of that person’s body. Or do you see this differently?

Instead of focusing solely on legalities of abortion and imagined consequences (jailing a mother. Really?!) the focus should be on preventing the situations which cause women to resort to abortion. It is, after all, the law. How about improving maternity care, maternity leave, and child care in this country? We are the worst first world country when it comes to caring for pregnant women and their newborns. At every turn, politicians want to cut more funds from programs meant to help. When employers won’t give enough hours for benefits and child care cost more than you can make working, our system favors welfare over work. Fair wages and decent benefits would go a lot further to prevent abortions by women who find themselves desperate.

That’s an entirely new thread, so feel free to set that up and we’ll go there to discuss those points, but I set up this thread just to iron out the sticking point between the two issues here. Right to life vs right to bodily autonomy

Now, as far as the women who abort for selfish reasons? Our politicians give them all kinds of flashy slogans and big talks about rights. It almost seems to be a patriotic thing to do these days. But those politicians are not there during the abortion. And they aren’t there in the haunting hours when a woman realizes what she has done. The strong association with post abortion depression and anxiety provoked European countries to have a waiting period. That seems more civilized. Time to reflect and consider. Time for your conscience. But our politicians howl about such "delays’. Teach young people about logic and philosophy. Let them form their consciences rather than make such important decisions based on the words of politicians.

For me personally, when is an abortion selfish? Who wants to be raised in a family that can not support them emotionally and economically? As to adoption, there are over 30,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US, but people only want an infant. So these families are fine with leaving a child to stay in an unstable environment, to be rejected again and again their entire childhood from society, and then expect to be an emotionally healthy adult. Sorry, but that sounds more like people wanting a test tube baby through natural methods instead of actually wanting to save a child. Once there are no more need for orphanages, then they may have a leg to stand on.

 

[Peter_J]

How the process of fetal development takes place or the purpose of the uterus is something I think is irrelevant to the discussion of consent of the mother over the right to life of the fetus.

Arguments in the US for upholding abortion on demand often involve a campaign of dehumanizing the preborn. The people who referred to from Atheist Experience don’t seem to have any interest in doing that, but it does happen.

 

[Russell_SA]

Arguments in the US for upholding abortion on demand often involve a campaign of dehumanizing the preborn. The people who referred to from Atheist Experience don’t seem to have any interest in doing that, but it does happen.

I agree that people dehumanize the fetus as an argument. But the conversation didn’t take that direction. The hosts on the Atheist Experience removed the argument of person-hood by agreeing that the fetus is a person, but argued that the fetus has special rights that the born child looses. Special rights to one group is not the same as equal rights for everyone. The born child does not get to use their father’s organs to stay alive without the father’s consent but the fetus gets a right to use their mother’s womb to stay alive regardless of the mother’s consent. An interesting point they made was, “what do you call a termination of a late term pregnancy? A C-Section. Just that in this case where the woman’s choice to end the pregnancy ends with the fetus living.”

They made a distinction between a woman’s right to end a pregnancy is not the same as a woman choosing to end the life of the fetus. The fetus’ life ends as a result to ending the pregnancy but late term ending of a pregnancy is just a C-Section.

This is not the exact discussion of that I presented, since I can’t find it yet, but this is a good example of how it went.

youtube.com/watch?v=nYDdsgDmS-w

 

[minkymurph]

Special rights to one group is not the same as equal rights for everyone.

The unborn are not unique in this respect. There are special rights that exist at law for many groups. In the UK they are called ‘protected characteristics.’ To my knowledge the unborn in effect fall under the ‘protected characteristics’ category not specifically but in effect.

The born child does not get to use their father’s organs to stay alive without the father’s consent but the fetus gets a right to use their mother’s womb to stay alive regardless of the mother’s consent. An interesting point they made was, “what do you call a termination of a late term pregnancy? A C-Section. Just that in this case where the woman’s choice to end the pregnancy ends with the fetus living.”

I don’t think this is correct Russel. Where a pregnancy is terminated at a late stage labour is often induced, and the fetus is not intended to be born live. Where the pregnancy is terminated by choice and ends with a living fetus via a C section, it is as a result of medical advice where mother or child is deemed at risk.

In the scenario you use here I am assuming nothing else is done to the child other than detaching them from the father. Nothing is done to them chemically or physically. Where a termination is performed this is not the case. Something chemical or physical is done to the unborn as the the procedure that is performed is intended to ensure the unborn do not survive. Thus, to use your scenario as a comparison we are obliged to consider not just detaching the child from the father, but simultaneously carrying out a subsequent chemical of physical procedure to ensure they do not survive and not just let nature take it’s course.

They made a distinction between a woman’s right to end a pregnancy is not the same as a woman choosing to end the life of the fetus. The fetus’ life ends as a result to ending the pregnancy but late term ending of a pregnancy is just a C-Section.

Not if the fetus has been subjected to a chemical or physical procedure in advance of the C section to ensure it will be born dead. This can’t be called ‘just a C section.’