Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

[CrystalMayner66]

I don’t think this is morally sound.

It’s like saying that only Catholic men shouldn’t beat their wives because they are bound by God’s law to see their wives as having inherent dignity.

But Jewish men, Muslim men, atheist men, they’re not bound by Catholic rules, so beating their wives is perfectly fine?

I believe in the separation of Church and state in America. This means I do not believe it is just for the American government to make federal bans without sound secular reasons to do so. For the American government to make federal bans based purely on religious doctrines, and enforce those bans on those who disagree with the religious doctrines in question, would be an injustice, a violation of the right to freedom of religion.

As Catholics, we hold religious dogmas against all abortions, save those protecting the mother’s life, and possibly her health, I’m not sure. But unless secular reasoning dictates all of the unborn have a right to remain in utero until viability, the American government cannot justly outlaw all indirect abortion. This thread is all about whether such secular justification exists.

I do believe the government has the obligation to outlaw the direct attack of other people, which is why I believe rape, domestic violence and direction abortion should all be illegal.

Again, there is no comparison between domestic violence and indirect abortion.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

At law you cannot have an abortion on the ground the fetus is feeding off you and you did not consent to this feeding.

In America, you can.

Where a law of this nature is advocated, you are talking abortion on demand. I don’t want this fetus to feed off my bloodstream and I am 8 months pregnant. Would you advocate an abortion in these circumstances purely for this reason?

At eight months, a woman does have the right to induce labor for any reason. Happily at this stage, the child can live, and would have a right to be properly cared for after birth. It would be wrong for the mother to attack or kill her child at any age, in any location, so of course the mother would not have the right to harm that child before or after his birth, via direct abortion or otherwise.

Let’s say a parasite could provide a cure for cancer. A human has this parasite in their body. What should they do?

Persons do not gain or lose basic rights based on their potential.

 

[minkymurph]

In America, you can.

Are you saying it is lawful in America to terminate a pregnancy purely on the ground the fetus is feeding off you?

At eight months, a woman does have the right to induce labor for any reason.

I can’t comment on US law, but in the UK a woman cannot demand to be induced at eight months purely on the ground it is her right. There is no does not statutory right to induced labour. If a woman desired to be induced at eight months doctors would need to agree. They are entitled to refuse.

Concerning this point and the above, can you send me a link to a US statute that states a woman has these rights?

Happily at this stage, the child can live, and would have a right to be properly cared for after birth. It would be wrong for the mother to attack or kill her child at any age, in any location, so of course the mother would not have the right to harm that child before or after his birth, via direct abortion or otherwise.

Is this not a contradiction of what is said above?

Persons do not gain or lose basic rights based on their potential.

I don’t understand this.

 

[PRmerger]

Only direct abortion constitutes directly killing a child. Direct abortion should never be legal.

Fair enough.

 

[PRmerger]

Please rephrase the question, I don’t understand what you are asking.

Ok. Let’s just start with this thought experiment (borrowing from Trent Horn):

Let’s say you engage in a game where you pull a lever and you can win 1 million dollars, but you also understand that if you pull a lever, you may create a grown man who is attached to you. He looks like this:

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.7MudoadCszkl7TNlaG-JrwEsDI&w=230&h=170&rs=1&pcl=dddddd&pid=1.1

And he will die if you don’t keep him attached to you.

You choose to engage in this game.

Unfortunately, what happens is that you got the man attached to you. Not the 1 million dollars.

Do you not feel that you are responsible for keeping him attached to you and alive since you engaged in an activity knowing that it was possible that he would be created?

(And just to add to this thought experiment. Let’s say you were told: if you wear rubber boots when you pull the lever, it really decreases the chance that you’ll get the bad out come–a man attached to you–but it’s not 100% guaranteed. You still run the risk, EVEN with the rubber boots, that you’re going to create a man who’s dependent on you. You choose to pull the lever anyway…)

 

[minkymurph]

Ok. Let’s just start with this thought experiment (borrowing from Trent Horn):

Let’s say you engage in a game where you pull a lever and you can win 1 million dollars, but you also understand that if you pull a lever, you may create a grown man who is attached to you. He looks like this:

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.7MudoadCszkl7TNlaG-JrwEsDI&w=230&h=170&rs=1&pcl=dddddd&pid=1.1

Forget the 1 million dollars.

 

[PRmerger]

Forget the 1 million dollars.

 

[minkymurph]

Ok. Let’s just start with this thought experiment (borrowing from Trent Horn):

Let’s say you engage in a game where you pull a lever and you can win 1 million dollars, but you also understand that if you pull a lever, you may create a grown man who is attached to you. He looks like this:

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.7MudoadCszkl7TNlaG-JrwEsDI&w=230&h=170&rs=1&pcl=dddddd&pid=1.1

And he will die if you don’t keep him attached to you.

You choose to engage in this game.

Unfortunately, what happens is that you got the man attached to you. Not the 1 million dollars.

Do you not feel that you are responsible for keeping him attached to you and alive since you engaged in an activity knowing that it was possible that he would be created?

Being serious -

You might get to like each other and want to remain attached. One of you may want to remain attached and the other not. Or after a lot of months both of you may not be able to stand the sight of each other.

I don’t think it’s so much a case people would feel responsible - rather gambled and lost. If we gamble and loose we have to accept it.

I don’t think anyone would detach him, but I think they would look for ways to separate themselves from him that would not result in his death.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe having sex constitutes consent to a resulting pregnancy, so if the child is conceived “as a result of her actions”, then I agree she has waived her right to refuse, unless health complications arise which would merit ending the pregnancy in self-defense.

I find the genetic relationship of the person feeding to the person being fed off of irrelevant.

Fair enough. It is an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual one.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think anyone would detach him,

Right. Because we all understand that doing so would be grossly immoral. He’s there, attached to you, for no other reason but that you engaged in an activity that caused his attachment to you.

but I think they would look for ways to separate themselves from him that would not result in his death.

I’d be all for that.

 

[PRmerger]

No right of the mother allows her to leave a 4 month old baby unattended in the bathtub to smoke.

Even if his death is “foreseen but unintentional”?

 

[PRmerger]

In post #161, I agreed to the following statements:

When I agreed to these statements I was not saying “a mother has the right to refuse to breastfeed her child”. Those statements say no such thing.

This is my position on the question of whether a woman may refuse to breastfeed a child entirely dependent on her, as I stated in post #159:

Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ok. Let’s just start with this thought experiment (borrowing from Trent Horn):

Let’s say you engage in a game where you pull a lever and you can win 1 million dollars, but you also understand that if you pull a lever, you may create a grown man who is attached to you. He looks like this:

As usual, the thought experiment is flawed. In real life, pulling that lever does not create a “fully grown human”, only a cell, which MAY or MAY NOT grow into a human. You are not even aware that this cell was created, and even if it is, in 95% of the time, it will simply disappear. Using a proper procedure, you can prevent the cell from getting attached to you (morning after pill), and even when the attachment happens - unlucky and unwanted outcome, you can use a simple procedure to get rid of it (abortion).

Talking about a fully grown adult is just another red herring. Pitiful, really.

Even if his death is “foreseen but unintentional”?

Oh, my. The phrase “foreseen but unintended” is an excellent example of hypocrisy. If you foresee something and do it, it does not matter if you intended or not.

 

[goout]

The argument I am presenting is that every person has a right to refuse to become a life support machine, and pregnant women who did not give consent for the child to feed off their bloodstream have the right to remove the child from their body without directly harming the child, unless it can otherwise be established how the child has the right to remain without her consent.
…

Where your problem falls apart is your view of what a human being is.
You said above:

…every person has a right to refuse to become a life support machine

A human being is just that, a human being, objectively speaking. A human being is never subject to any other thing or person other than God.
Your question assumes reduction of the mother to the status of a machine. Human beings are not machines, we are body and soul who have rights and responsibilities toward one another.

Inconvenience can never negate such serious responsibilities as the upholding of another’s right to live. Reducing the mother to the level of “machinehood” is an injustice to the mother and the child.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe in the separation of Church and state in America. This means I do not believe it is just for the American government to make federal bans without sound secular reasons to do so.

I agree.

For the American government to make federal bans based purely on religious doctrines, and enforce those bans on those who disagree with the religious doctrines in question, would be an injustice, a violation of the right to freedom of religion.

Correct

As Catholics, we hold religious dogmas against all abortions, save those protecting the mother’s life, and possibly her health, I’m not sure.

I think this is where your thinking is erroneous. Our view against abortion is no more religious dogma than is our view against infanticide.

I don’t recall a single time I’ve ever argued against abortion by appealing to religious arguments.

But unless secular reasoning dictates all of the unborn have a right to remain in utero until viability, the American government cannot justly outlaw all indirect abortion. This thread is all about whether such secular justification exists.

That’s why we in the prolife movement are trying to change the laws, and trying to change the hearts and minds of society.

I do believe the government has the obligation to outlaw the direct attack of other people, which is why I believe rape, domestic violence and direction abortion should all be illegal

.

Again, there is no comparison between domestic violence and indirect abortion.

Can you clarify what you mean by an “indirect” abortion?

 

[goout]

I agree.

Correct

I think this is where your thinking is erroneous. Our view against abortion is no more religious dogma than is our view against infanticide.

I don’t recall a single time I’ve ever argued against abortion by appealing to religious arguments.

That’s why we in the prolife movement are trying to change the laws, and trying to change the hearts and minds of society.

.


Can you clarify what you mean by an “indirect” abortion?

Correct. The argument for the dignity of life is not a merely religious argument.
It is an observation of what/who a human being is, what rights we have as human beings, where the rights come from (or at least, where rights do -not- come from). Rights do not exist in a vacuum. We look at our rights to choose and act in light of others. God is the ultimate “other”, and human beings obviously are also others. Our rights -and responsibilities- are always in that context.

So, my right to have a job does not trump the rights of the guy above me on the ladder to live.

Revelation supports what can also be observed with reason in nature, and vice versa.
But these are not “religious” arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Correct. The argument for the dignity of life is not a merely religious argument.
It is an observation of what/who a human being is, what rights we have as human beings, where the rights come from (or at least, where rights do -not- come from). Rights do not exist in a vacuum. We look at our rights to choose and act in light of others. God is the ultimate “other”, and human beings obviously are also others. Our rights -and responsibilities- are always in that context.

So, my right to have a job does not trump the rights of the guy above me on the ladder to live.

Revelation supports what can also be observed with reason in nature, and vice versa.
But these are not “religious” arguments.

Indeed.

It would be a very peculiar read to see a Catholic argue: “Catholics can say that infanticide is morally wrong for Catholic parents, but it’s not permissible for us to say that atheists or Jews or Bahais can’t kill their infants. They are not bound by Catholic dogma.”

 

[ANV]

As a moral advocate of abortion and not pro choice, I’m in favor of the child’s right not to be born without his consent and brought to life to suffer then die, such a long last crime should not be committed on an innocent soul, better for them to not be born and if that happened, to be aborted, preferably at the time where the unborn is not fully formed, conscientious and sentimental.

 

[PRmerger]

As a moral advocate of abortion and not pro choice, I’m in favor of the child’s right not to be born without his consent and brought to life to suffer then die.

How do you propose asking for his consent?

 

[ANV]

How do you propose asking for his consent?

This never happens, so it’s always an imposition, for that reason I always disagree with it.