Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

[PRmerger]

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

What about 3 month old babies?

Do you think we should kill them since they haven’t given their consent?

 

[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, 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.

Also, curious if you’d be ok with killing a 5 year old who says that he doesn’t want to live.

 

[ANV]

What about 3 month old babies?

Do you think we should kill them since they haven’t given their consent?

You are misusing my words.

 

[goout]

… right not to be born …

Can you help us by fleshing out your reasoning here?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You are misusing my words.

Hehe… get used to it.

 

[goout]

Hehe… get used to it.

Have you figured out what free will means yet?
the irony in your comment is breathtaking.

 

[PRmerger]

You are misusing my words.

I haven’t used *your *words at all. They are everyone’s words, and we are all free to use them.

I simply asked you a question, following up on your original position.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

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

Yep.

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.

In America, every doctor voluntarily participates in all procedures he/she performs. Whether a woman has access to a doctor that would be willing to induce at eight months depends upon her location and financial means, but as far as I am aware, it is perfectly legal for doctors to induce labor one month early. Attacking and killing an unborn child via a direct abortion for any reasons in the third trimester is legal in Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State.

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

law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

liveaction.org/news/there-is-no-federal-law-protecting-the-preborn-from-abortion-at-any-time/

Is this not a contradiction of what is said above?

I differentiate between direct and indirect abortions. Direct abortions are those which aim both to kill the child and remove the pregnancy from the mother’s body, often through brutal methods. Indirect abortions aim only to remove the pregnancy from the mother’s body, and do not involve attacking the child, but result in the child’s death, because the child is too young to survive outside the womb, despite the fact preserving the child’s life is desired. Removing the pregnancy without attacking the child after the baby is viable would simply constitute a standard delivery via induction or c-section, and caring for the child after birth, although I sometimes refer to this as indirect abortion as well.

I oppose all direct abortions as unethical. It seems to me indirect abortions are justified when the mother did not consent to her pregnancy or when removing the pregnancy is necessary to protect her body from serious health concerns.

I don’t understand this.

What I am saying is a person does not have more or less of a right to live because ze might be the next Einstein or the next Hitler. Every innocent person has an equal right to live, regardless of what an individual is capable of, simply because ze is a human being.

(Ze is a gender neutral form of he and she.)

 

[CrystalMayner66]

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?

Yes, I believe one would be responsible for keeping him attached in this analogy. Great analogy!

Now if one was forced to pull the lever or pulled the lever without knowing what could result or pulled the lever while one was under the influence of judgement impairing drugs, one would have the right to detach.

And if having the man attached caused you to develop serious health problems or put your life at risk, you would have the right to detach in self-defense.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Forget the 1 million dollars.

LOL!

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Even if his death is “foreseen but unintentional”?

I have already addressed this in post #179.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Reducing the mother to the level of “machinehood” is an injustice to the mother and the child.

I see pregnancy as being a life support machine, because the mother’s body is entirely supporting the child’s life and health.

It is precisely because being a life support machine without your consent or at risk to your health is unjust that I find indirect abortion a justified solution.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

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

If I was not Catholic, I would probably consider it ethical to kill embryos before they have heartbeats, and I would probably believe it was moral to have indirect abortions in cases of self-defense or lack of consent to pregnancy. These are things I consider immoral only because of Catholic doctrine–secular logic didn’t bring me there, at least not yet.

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

I differentiate between direct and indirect abortions. Direct abortions are those which aim both to kill the child and remove the pregnancy from the mother’s body, often through brutal methods. Indirect abortions aim only to remove the pregnancy from the mother’s body, and do not involve attacking the child, but result in the child’s death, because the child is too young to survive outside the womb, despite the fact preserving the child’s life is desired. Removing the pregnancy without attacking the child after the baby is viable would simply constitute a standard delivery via induction or c-section, and caring for the child after birth, although I sometimes refer to this as indirect abortion as well.

I oppose all direct abortions as unethical. It seems to me indirect abortions are justified when the mother did not consent to her pregnancy or when removing the pregnancy is necessary to protect her body from serious health concerns.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying.

You’re welcome!

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Okay, I am going to challenge myself for a moment here, because why not make it interesting?

It seems to me indirect abortions are justified when the mother did not consent to her pregnancy or when removing the pregnancy is necessary to protect her body from serious health concerns.

Can anyone think of any reasons why indirect abortions in these situations would be wrong? Are there any relevant differences between pregnancy and the lever analogy or the organ donation analogy?

One thing I’ve thought of is how the uterus is designed for the baby, while kidneys are not designed for the violinist. I’m not sure how relevant this is…I’m pondering it.

Another thing I re-discovered is this analogy from Francis Beckwith that Trent Horn presents: youtu.be/XuIYPKAfP5Q?t=1m41s Though I am inclined to say the father does not have to pay child support.

Thoughts?

 

[PRmerger]

Indirect abortions aim only to remove the pregnancy from the mother’s body, and do not involve attacking the child, but result in the child’s death, because the child is too young to survive outside the womb, despite the fact preserving the child’s life is desired.

So it sounds like the only situation IRL that this references is the removal of an ectopic pregnancy?

 

[PRmerger]

What I am saying is a person does not have more or less of a right to live because ze might be the next Einstein or the next Hitler. Every innocent person has an equal right to live, regardless of what an individual is capable of, simply because ze is a human being.

Yes!

Kind of reminds me of a pro-immigration meme of middle eastern woman saying something like, “Even if I’m not a doctor, I still have human rights”.

(This was in response to some pro-immigration posts about how immigrants have contributed to our society by being doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.)

 

[minkymurph]

Can anyone think of any reasons why indirect abortions in these situations would be wrong? Are there any relevant differences between pregnancy and the lever analogy or the organ donation analogy?

Have to play around with this one.

The unborn are human. The unborn are living. When and in what circumstances are we permitted to cause fatal harm to something living.

In my view the consent argument is a grasping at straws argument in terms of justification of abortion. There are lots of outcomes we don’t consent to yet we are held responsible. What is the justification for pregnancy being an exception?

One thing I’ve thought of is how the uterus is designed for the baby, while kidneys are not designed for the violinist. I’m not sure how relevant this is…I’m pondering it.

Another thing I re-discovered is this analogy from Francis Beckwith that Trent Horn presents: youtu.be/XuIYPKAfP5Q?t=1m41s Though I am inclined to say the father does not have to pay child support.

Thoughts?

The father should pay child support. Contraception is not just a woman’s responsibility.

If the father does not pay child support the financial burden is placed on the state.

If the father does not pay child support he has no rights, and the child is deprived of a father.

The compensation and damages argument -

In a war the side that emerges victorious must pay war damage compensation even where the war was justified. This may include compensation to relatives of civilians killed.

I also have a vague recollection of a documentary I saw about American soldiers who went to Prostitutes in the Philippines. If the woman had a child the army paid maintenance directly out of the the solider’s pay.

 

[PRmerger]

If I was not Catholic, I would probably consider it ethical to kill embryos before they have heartbeats, and I would probably believe it was moral to have indirect abortions in cases of self-defense or lack of consent to pregnancy. These are things I consider immoral only because of Catholic doctrine–secular logic didn’t bring me there, at least not yet.

Fair enough.

So if you weren’t Catholic, you’d still be against abortions because no one knows they’re pregnant before the embryo develops a heart beat, at 3 weeks.

 

[MPat]

MPat, I’m afraid you just don’t understand my argument.

Are you sure…?

Okay, I am going to challenge myself for a moment here, because why not make it interesting?

Can anyone think of any reasons why indirect abortions in these situations would be wrong?

How many do you want?

For example:

• It is costly, a waste of resources.
• It deprives state and society of taxpayers, workers, soldiers.
• It violates the right of relatives and neighbours to know the child.

And please note, each of them is as secular, as it gets (as you might see in en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_Russia&oldid=787920325, the second one caused Stalin himself to prohibit abortions).

But since you haven’t gotten anywhere close to them, I get an impression that when you say you want a “secular” reason, you mean that you want a “Libertarian-compatible” reason.

Would this my guess be right?