I've thought about this issue for a substantial amount of time. and I've been on both sides. At this moment I am genuinely not sure which side I come down on. But, I can tell you that, for me, I have narrowed down the one true factor that that the entire question hinges on. Self defense.
I'm pro-choice. Always have been. The only people I think should ever have any say in what happens in a situation where a woman is pregnant is that woman and the man who helped her get pregnant. People are like get government out of my life, and yet, they want to allow the government to decide what you as a couple can do with your body. IRONY.
I live in a state where currently there are no exceptions for rape/incest. How is it that we can legally prosecute against these CRIMES and yet, if a girl who is say 15 gets raped or her dad decides to have sex with her and she gets pregnant...according to the law, it's now her fault and she should be forced to have a child and have no autonomy over her own body. That is absolutely disgusting. Do not sit here and tell me you are an advocate for children and that pedophiles and rapists should be locked up if you're then okay with this logic!
If we were a country who actually cared about mothers, especially those that cannot afford to take care of children, those with addiction problems, those in situations that are not conducive to having children with proper care services, after care for mothers, funding for mothers, but instead, all people care about is the political aspect because no one is willing to spend a dime to take care of all the "unwanted" children. A good majority end up in horrible foster care systems which the majority are not equally screaming about to fund or change and the majority of these have the baby or else people, rarely if ever open their doors to adoption.
That is the biggest flaw in all of this. Pro-lifers are not thinking beyond the birth and what impact it will have on that child's life, or the life of the parents. They aren't dedicating any time/money/effort into what happens next, just what happens now. They wash their hands of the mother and child once these babies are born and many don't seem to care about age of the child---like what 13 year old can take care of a baby on their own?!? or if she was abused. Just have the baby. And don't even get me started on the numerous medical complications that can make childbirth extremely difficult for any woman. Easy to also wash your hands of this if you're a man who will never have to go through any of that or the ramifications because men still can just walk away and leave that mother on her own with a child.
Thank you for the response. I appreciate it.
I can see that you have a lot to say on this topic. as do I. And as I mentioned in my post, I acknowledge that there are strong arguments for both sides. And as of this moment I'm not sure which side I come down on. though, if you allow this conversation to explore every avenue I think you'll find I lean more towards pro choice at the moment for reasons I would love to get to if you're willing to have that conversation.
In the interest of maintaining a respectful dialogue I'm going to try not to argue with you. I'm going to try to only ask questions. If I feel I HAVE to make an argument or simply correct a point of fact I will. But overall I'm going to try not push you in any particular direction and simply let you decide for yourself where you fall after answering. If you choose to answer at all that is.
So I always like to build the conversation from other topics surrounding this entire issue. topics like murder in general, rights to life, rights to bodily autonomy, medical ethics, moral philosophy and such. and then relate those back to the central issue of abortion.
So to that end my first question is always, why can't i just kill people? why can't I just go up to somebody and shoot them in the head?
If this is your question (which by the way, my answer is people DO in fact shoot people in the head all the time) then I counter with, do you think a clump of cells at the stage where abortions are allowed, is capable of life at the moment when an abortion is being performed?
AH, I did not convey what I meant by my question properly. What I meant was, why would it be wrong for my to do that? Why shouldn't i be permitted to kill people?
As for life.
From dictionary. com. Any other dictionary will have a similar definition so pick whichever you like
Life
The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
Life is the condition that distinguishes living things, like animals, plants, and cells, from non-living things. It involves processes such as growth, reproduction, and response to the environment, with cells being the basic units of life.
If individual cells are alive, can it be the case, in any sense of the word, that a "clump" of them are not alive?
I would like you to think about this question. If I cut off a small piece of your skin, a clump of cells if you will, have I committed murder? Aggravated assault and battery perhaps sure. But what about murder? the cells are alive. or they were until i killed them. and they are even human. So does it actually matter if a thing is alive, or human, specifically on the issue of murder?
Or does something else have to be destroyed in order for a murder to have occurred?
I am not going to argue with you or anyone but simply express my opinion.
In the Western world and I am not talking about the 3rd. world or extremely remote areas of this planet, contraception is readily available to anyone. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a woman to get pregnant. This brings you to my point and to my views against abortion. End of this chapter.
Now, obviously there are cases where abortion should be allowed and that is when the health and life of the mother is in acute danger and cases of rape. End of chapter and also end of story.
As I stated, I am not going to argue with anyone on that topic.
I will likewise not argue with you. Only ask a question. Possibly a series of questions based on your answer. Under what circumstances can I kill somebody? As in what events need to happen before most people would agree that it's ok for me to kill someone?
Under no circumstance do you take justice in your hands. You let the authorities take care of that kind of business.
However, allow me one remark. You are not from the US as your bio suggests. It may be a custom in the country where you are actually from to kill people for revenge or because they harmed you or your family.
To answer your question no there is no such custom or acceptance of something like revenge killing where I am from.
To your point however, If someone where to point a gun at my head and tell me they will pull the trigger. for whatever reason you like. they want money, they're mad at me. whatever. Or say, they have already shot at me once. If I had a gun, would you say It's ok to shoot back in an attempt to kill them? or is there literally never a case where it is ok to kill someone?
A related question. If I should let the law handle it. would you say that they too, under no circumstances should be permitted to take a life? even if, say, they were trying to stop a school shooter or something to that effect?
not really a conversation but alright. Fare well.
I will respond anyway. If one is under direct, imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, they are, absolutely, permitted to use deadly force against the threat. that means, in no uncertain terms, that if someone points a gun at me I am within my rights to kill that person.
Going beyond even that, I, and you, and everyone for that matter, are permitted to defend the life of another who is in direct imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury with deadly force. So, if I come up on a guy holding you at gunpont I am absolutely within my rights to kill that person in order to save your life.
There is absolutely, unquestionably, not a requirement, in any jurisdiction in the united states, to try and negotiate with a deadly threat before deciding to act in self defense.
there are some nuances when it comes to states that do not have stand your ground laws which have what they call a "duty to retreat". Which only means that IF and ONLY IF it is possible to safely escape the situation you must try that first before resorting to deadly force.
In a situation like the one I described, there is no way to escape. the gun is at your head. if you don't kill them immediately your life will be taken from you in the next moment. there is no duty to retreat in such a case. which means for that situation there is not a single place in the USA where you would not be permitted to instantly blow that person away
Thank you for your time. Have a good one
self defense is a good selection from the factors.
it justified "driving throo red lights" to save lives by fire engines and ambulances.
it justifies the appropriate gun violence or hitting for self defense!
similarly if ma life in danger self defense for the exception should be legal but... not other abortions instead self defense the fetus! for them!
Is it true that Self defense applies when one is under direct imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury from another?
yes.
Abortion kills fetuses below a certain developmental threshold. Banning abortion kills girls and women.
Even if both groups were people, only one group is conscious, feels pain, and understands what's going on. A girl's or a woman's life should never be forcibly risked for the life of a fetus.
Let's take the hypothetical. E. G. Fetuses are people. And the determining factors you presented, Consciousness, Pain, and Awareness.
Suppose I come upon someone in a coma and I have a shotgun. Should it be legally permissible for me to point the shotgun at their head and pull the trigger?
They are not conscious, will not feel any pain, and will not be aware of what is happening. By your logic this shouldn't be a problem.
If it is a problem then why? what else is there that we should consider when deciding if killing a person is acceptable?
Sorry, by consciousness I meant they've never been conscious. But a person in a coma could still work if they've been in a coma their whole life I guess. Anyway that's only half the situation, so I'll finish it.
A person who's been in a coma their whole life is tied to a rope hanging off the edge of a cliff. Higher up the rope is a person who's awake and calling for help. The rope is fraying and will snap soon. Both their weight is too heavy for you to pull up, and you can't climb down because your added weight will make the rope snap immediately. You have a knife.
The awake person can try to pull up the person in a coma so that you can pull just their weight up first, and then just the awake persons weight will be light enough you can pull them up after. But there might not be time for that, the rope could snap before you get them both up. You can give the awake person the knife and they can choose to cut the rope below them, dropping the person in a coma so that you will be able to pull them up before the rope snaps. They don't have to do that, they could still choose to try to save the person in a coma at the risk of their own life, but if you don't give them the knife they will have no choice but to try and pull up the person in a coma and hope you can pull both that person and themself up before the rope snaps.
Should it be legally permissible to give the awake person the knife?
Obviously it's morally complicated and not a situation anybody wants to be in, but I would say yes it should be legally permissible to give the person who's actually at risk the choice.
I'll have to break this into 2 responses. It seems my reply is too long for this reply box.
Pt 1
Ah, so I think we need to be careful in the setup of our scenarios. this situation is essentially analogous to the pregnancy is now putting the life of the mother in danger and if nothing is done she is likely to die.
After all of the thought I have put into this topic I have never thought of a way around what essentially boils down to self defense. in principle, all people are allowed to defend themselves when their life is in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Even to the point of deadly force. In the case of pregnancy that's an abortion.
A couple of things about your analogy though. Giving the awake person the knife is analogous to giving the mother the tools to perform her own abortion. which I don't think anyone would ever argue for.
If you don't mind, I would like to offer my own analogy that I came up with a long time ago.
Consider Siamese twins. They are joined together in such a way that one twin is essentially living off the body and organs of the other twin. Suppose they go to a surgeon and ask to be separated. the surgeon explains that he could perform the operation but it would result in one twin dying while the other one gets to live.
We can stop the analogy here and ask, Is the surgeon permitted, morally OR legally to perform the operation, knowing full well that it will kill the other twin?
Pt 2
Suppose the surviving twin says "but my twin is basically living off of my body and my organs. I did not consent to having my organs used to support their life and I don't want to be responsible for them anymore. I will live and I want to be separated now"
Is any of that a good enough reason to perform a surgery that effectively murder the other twin?
Suppose we take the analogy further. Suppose this is a highly unusual case where, if the twin would simply wait for, let's say 9 months, their bodies will separate on their own and both have a very high chance of surviving. the doctor tells them this, and adds that we have very well developed modern medical techniques that will make the separation process as easy, safe, and painless as possible.
AND if they still want to live separate lives after that there are resources available to make that happen.
Imagine if all of this were the case. is it morally acceptable to still perform the operation anyway and kill the other twin?
The situation changes if the twin poses a direct threat to the other twin of course. if it turns out that remaining connected will result in them both dying, and separating them is the only way to save them, it is a horrific choice but I can't see condemning both twins to death when one could live
you could argue that the difference here is that both twins are conscious. I don't see this as an issue and I'll explain why.
As I stated, the case needs to be made that consciousness is a determining factor in deciding if it is ok to kill someone or not. Even if one has never before had consciousness the high likelihood of becoming conscious very soon should mitigate that issue. In your unconscious hanging person example, what if you knew that there was a very very high likelihood they would wake up in the next few moments?
Does that change anything about how you would act in the scenario or do you still need to save one of their lives regardless of the conscious state of either of them?
Your new analogy doesn't really work either because it's a real thing, and different from abortion. That actually happens and that's its own issue.
Pregnancy can kill you. Pregnancy complications can kill you. So it's not a bad analogy to say the rope might snap before the awake person can be pulled up. But okay, to make it more direct parallel, let's say it's not a death drop it's a drop into a lake. The fall will definitely injur the awake person, but it's not a high chance they will die (they still might though). The person in a coma will definitely die if they are dropped because obviously they can't swim.
As for giving the person a knife, that's just giving them the choice of getting an abortion. The drop is the abortion. It can't be a perfect parallel buts that's about as close as its gonna get. Certainly much closer than conjoined twins.
And the distinction that the person isn't conscious and never has been is very important, because that means they cannot make a choice, and there's no way to guess what choice they would have made. With the awake person even if they were temporarily in a coma, their legal representative may be able to guess based on what they knew about them whether they would want to risk their life for the person in a coma or not.
I don't know what you consider self defense, but in the case of abortion, every pregnancy carries the risk of death. For some people it's higher than others, and for some it's guaranteed (like ectopic pregnancies), but no pregnancy is without any serious risk.
Pt 1
I would consider self defense the same way the law does. the threat of death or bodily injury has to be imminent. as in, if you don't kill this person RIGHT NOW they will kill you or severely injure you. It is not necessary that the person "mean" to be a threat.
Consider a scenario where, you're standing on the edge of a tall cliff and above you is a steep hill. and some particularly large individual comes tumbling down right in your direction, and the only way to save yourself is put something in the way that then causes the fat guy to go over the cliff instead.
The falling guy isn't "trying" to kill you but he nevertheless poses a direct and imminent threat and by causing him to veer off the cliff instead you effectively killed him to save your own life, That would be permissible under self defense in most people's opinion I think.
I believe my siamese twin analogy works on multiple levels. the only real difference is the twin that would die can fight for itself. which makes the abortion situation even worse because we're talking about an entity that is not capable of defending itself. either physically or verbally.
We can modify the analogy to say that waiting the nine months to separate carries a bunch of risks but that point was made in my first rendition of the scenario that there are medical tools and techniques that mitigate "most" of the dangers associated with pregnancy.
And in the case there is severe risk to the supporting twin I believe I already made the case that it would be permissible, in order to save their life, to end the life of the other twin under the principle of self defense.
otherwise it is a direct analogy. swap out the supporting twin with mother and the dependent twin with fetus and the analogy is nearly identical to the reality of the situation. apart from only a few factors.
those being that the fetus can't defend itself. And is seemingly unconscious. which I would like to talk more about now.
Pt 2
I actually dispute the claim the fetus isn't conscious. to be clear, I mean at certain stages of development. this is where the entire "personhood" debate comes in. at some point i think we can all agree that there is a time that the fetus is not a person. and there is a time that it is. I'm more than happy to lay out the entire logical argument for why i think this if you want, but I say the point a "person" comes into existence is on a spectrum between two to nine weeks of pregnancy. after which it can no longer be denied that we are talking about an entity and not just a mere collection of organic matter.
the reason for this is that I equate "person" with "having a human mind". And according to the research I have done, all recognizable brain structures are in place by 2 months and there is brain activity.
I have said that being conscious doesn't matter and we can keep arguing about that if you like, but I would contend that at the point of neural activity with a complete set of brain structures, and clear evidence that the fetus can react to outside stimulus all clearly indicate that the fetus is at least to some degree, aware of what is happening to it.
You might argue that it isn't AS conscious as you or I but again, I fail to see how that matters. the degree to which a person is conscious has no bearing on what's called their "moral worth". Otherwise I could make the argument that people with lower IQ's than mine are not as worthy of my moral consideration as someone as smart or smarter than myself and so I can just kill them.
Okay I'll try to be clearer this time. Conjoined twins are already a thing. I am not going to use them as an analogy for abortion. They are their own completely different situation.
The reason consciousness matters is because of choice. A fetus can't choose. A pregnant person can. That's the whole deal: should the pregnant person be allowed to choose to have an abortion, or not.
Why does my analogy not work? I've adjusted it so that there's a low risk of death, and an average risk of bodily harm. The person in a coma is attached by rope to the awake person (like being inside their body), and their life depends on the awake person pulling them up (pregnancy). Once up (born) they can be untied. If separated before that (aborted) they will definitely die. You are trying to decide whether or not you should give the awake person the knife (the choice to get an abortion), or not. What's wrong with that analogy?
PT1
To me, it doesn't map onto the situation the way you think it does. and reworking it so that it does is very convoluted. But, I'll try to work with idea of your analogy. But I must say, the fact that my analogy has similarities with real world situations does not strike me as a good reason to not use it. actually it seems like the BEST reason to use it. But, for whatever reason it seems to make you uncomfortable so, here we go.
For your analogy we would need to set up a situation where, the comatose person poses some slight risk to the person they are tied to, though there is a small chance of death or serious bodily harm. this is your branch. our modern society has the technology and expertise to mitigate even those risks associated with the branch snapping. so this would be like, a crane or something that we can use to brace the branch and help keep it from snapping.
doctors perform abortions. not mothers. so the knife (means of abortion) would need to be attached to like, a pole that the crane operator has that he can reach out and cut the rope with.
so with those elements let's build your analogy. a person finds themself in a situation where they are tied to a rope dangling from a tree branch overlooking a small drop into some water. And to them is tied another individual who is unconscious. (pregnant woman and baby)
The tree branch is going to break in, let’s say nine minutes.(9 month pregnancy and birth) When it does there is a strong likelihood that they will both be fine (normal birth outcome.) but the is a chance the weight of the unconscious person will injure or potentially kill the one they are attached to by cutting off blood flow to their organs. It’s a medium risk but a real risk nonetheless. (the inherent risks of pregnancy)
Pt 2
Standing by the tree is a crane operator (the doctor) with a long pole and a knife attached at the end (means of abortion). The crane operator is also sitting inside a crane. And he can use the crane to support the branch and he can also call in a soft mattress to be placed under the dangling people in order to minimize the risk to both of them when the branch snaps. There is also a person standing by keeping an eye in the awake person to see if the weight of the unconscious person is getting to the point of imminent risk of death or severe injury to the awake person. (modern medical technology that can be used to facilitate birth and minimize risk to mother and child)
The crane operator can also use the pole and knife to cut the rope of the unconscious person which, because they are unconscious will kill them when they land in the water (abortion)
The awake person is asking the crane operator not to wait the nine minutes and just cut the rope.
THIS is a direct analogy. So let’s explore different scenarios.
First, we know that there is brain activity in the unconscious person and they will very soon be conscious. We also know that they are not “truly” unconscious as they can react and respond to people poking them. And they flinch and recoil when struck. Some bastard kids think they are a piñata or something.
Pt 3
In the case that the unconscious persons weight is beginning to crush the organs of the awake person and cut of their blood supply and they will die by the time the 9 minutes passes. the crane operator should cut the rope in order to at least save one of them
In the case that severe bodily injury is likely or assured, I think we could also say the crane operator should cut the rope/
However, what about a case where the awake person says, I want the crane operator to cut the rope because this is just a really uncomfortable situation to be in, or I have things to do and I don’t really want to wait the 9 minutes,. in this case they will both most likely be fine if they just wait, especially considering all the tools and equipment at the disposal of the crane operator, it would not be permissible to cut the rope when the risk of death or injury is so low.
Now, here’s the real controversial take. Suppose some dastardly bastard is the one who hung them up there in the first place. Suppose before all this we just had the awake person hanging out on a rope from their favorite tree branch And some asshole comes along and hangs this unconscious person from their waist before they can do anything to stop them. Well that person sure does suck for what they did. But what has that got to do with the question, do we cut the rope?
Okay I'm sorry I'm not sure we both understand how analogies work. Have you worked much with thought experiments before? Hypotheticals? Your age says 108 so I'm not sure how old you actually are and I don't want to assume you haven't done any sort of study on it. I learned about a lot of these in college and wrote papers on a few, I have a BA in philosophy. I didn't pursue higher education though. The kind of hypotheticals I'm used to dealing with just try to isolate the parts of the situation that are ethically in question, and reframe them in as simple a situation as possible. The goal is to strip it down to the bare essentials of the dilemma so that the question can be as clear as possible.
I'm not familiar with the kind of hypotheticals you're trying to make, where all the details need to be involved in some way and it seems to just be recontextualizing the situation without making it any simpler or making the ethical dilemma any more clear. What is the goal of that kind of analogy? Is it just meant to reframe the question? If so, I don't think that's really helpful in this case. I think it would be more helpful to focus on the basic parts of the situation, the ones that make it either good or bad, rather than trying to keep everything as similar as possible...
The fine details of the situation are vital to understanding the ethics of the situation. The only way that I see of analyzing the issue IS to recontextualize it into something less politically charged and apply our baseline moral framework to that situation and see what answers we can derive.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say. The crux of the issue revolves around several issues that each have to be understood fully before an analysis can be made properly.
When an analogy is over simplified to the point that it overlooks vital factors, which I believe yours did, it does not offer a fair comparison and needs to be reworked. Which is what I did.
To your point I have done a great deal of independent study. I read and listen to a wide variety of modern and not so modern philosophers and scientists from all over the world through all periods of time. we have a record for. And have written quite extensively about a multitude of philosophical and scientific topics myself.
I don't typically talk about my expertise because honestly that couldn't matter less. An argument stands on its own merits or it doesn't. the person making the argument is irrelevant to the truth of its claim.
Okay, so then let's make a list of the important factors, the ones that have a bearing on the morality of the situation. I'm kind of busy at the moment so you can make a list if you want, and I'll make one later or if yours has all the same stuff as mine already we can go ahead and make the hypothetical at that point. I don't think the person making the argument matters either, but the method. used to make the argument matters, and there's some methods I'm not familiar with because of my background. This seems like the only way we'll make an analogy we can both agree on though so I'd like to try it.
Pt 1
As far as I have been able to work it out these are the questions that need to be answered at the root of the issue. And I'll give a short answer for each one myself so you can see where I'm coming from. If you disagree with an answer please say so and why and what your answer would be,
1) What is murder?
The unjustifiable killing of a person
2) Why is murder wrong?
Because people have the highest moral worth of all organisms and it involves the destruction of a person when such action could have been avoided.
3) What is a person?
any entity that possesses a human mind
4) At what point in the development of the fetus does it gain personhood?
The moment it has a mind. which granted is not well defined. But all neurological structures and brain activity are present by roughly 2 months
5) under what circumstances CAN we kill a person?
When it is justified. Such as self defense.
6) What are the principles of self defense?
When the killing of a person is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury.
7) Are there cases where a fetus (if it IS a person) meets the criteria for killing it under the principles of self defense?
I think almost everyone would agree there are.
8) What are those cases?
When the development of the fetus has resulted in a situation where allowing the pregnancy to continue has reasonable certainty of ending the mothers life.
9) To what extent do we, as people, actually have bodily autonomy?
This is a much deeper issue that we haven't really explored yet. So I'm going to give a longer answer. Also because this is, at some point going to become the central focus of the conversation. That being what actual rights does a women have to do what she wants with her own body.
Pt 2
Less than you think. We are not free to do to our own bodies as we please. For example, If you come across someone on the street trying to saw off their arm or cut out pieces of flesh and eat it, I think you would agree there is a moral duty to stop them from doing that. Nor are we free to enter into a fight to the death, orr free to grant others the right to maim or dismember us.
There are a great multitude of things we are not only dissallowed from doing to our own bodies, but much more rerlated to the issue, what we are allowed to do to each others bodies. As I have said, Women do not perform their own abortions. doctors do. So the entire point women having the "right" to bodily autonomy is a red hearing. The real question is,
10) What rights do doctors have to do to us the things we ask of them?
A lot. but not anything. they can't, or shouldn't, be allowed to knowingly mutilate our bodies. remove organs when it isn't necessary. or kill other people we ask them to kill when it isn't justified.
Now. all of this WAS the primary reason I came to the conclusion that abortions, except in cases of self defense, should not be permissible. But as I said I read and listen to a lot of philosophers, scientists, lawyers and legal experts, and I came across a conversation about self defense that left me very unclear about this issue.
If we look back at self defense there's a glaring problem in my entire line of reasoning that I hadn't considered before. I had been focusing on the "threat of death" part without really thinking about the implications of the "Serious bodily injury" part.
Pt 3
The threat in fact does not have to be "permanent" serious injury like a maiming or something like that. just serious. The type of injury that's likely to land you in a hospital for a few days. well... That actually applies to most pregnancies.
So for example, Say someone had on some brass knuckles and they rear their fist back like they were going to punch me in the face. I don't know if you know this but brass knuckles are no joke. that's a serious threat and I could be very seriously hurt if i can't get away from them. under that threat I would be legally permitted to use lethal force. provided i had no other means of neutralizing the threat.
While survival of a birth has a pretty high likelihood and so there really isn't that big of a threat of death. at least not these days. the risk of injury IS pretty high. So I can definitely see a case being made that self defense applies to most pregnancies.
Sort of.
See this line of reasoning actually leads me to a really uncomfortable conclusion. And I honestly don't know what to do about that. If we follow the logic of self defense then it really only applies to late term abortions. the risk of either injury or death up until the final stages of pregnancy are pretty much none existent. Which means my OWN best argument in favor of legal abortion would really be an argument in favor of late term or even partial birth abortions. Which definitely does not sit right with me either.
But that's the conclusion if we apply the principles of self defense to pregnancy, which, as far as I can reason, are the only legitimate reasons to perform abortions in the first place.
And that's where I'm at currently with my thinking on this issue.
Okay. Sorry I should have been clearer. I want to know what you think the details of the situation of abortion are that effect its morality. Then, using those parts, we can create a hypothetical that isn't also full of so much stigma and bias on either side—but which still has the same morality. Then we should be able to see if our judgements of the morality of abortion match our judgements of the morality of the hypothetical. If they don't, then something is not clear, and maybe by clearing it up we can actually come to an agreement. If both our judgements stay the same, and we disagree about the morality of the hypothetical the same way we disagree about the morality of abortion, then at least we can begin to narrow down what specific detail we disagree on (by taking away parts one by one until we agree, and then we know that the part/s we removed are what we disagree on). And then finally we can discuss those specific parts and why we disagree on them, if you still want to. Does that sound like a good plan? Because I'm not great at juggling all these different topics at once, and I'd really like to do this with some sort of process guaranteed to make the conversation end up where we want it to go.
To start, here's my list of the details of abortion that I think effect it's morality (I won't include things like specific details of specific cases, like how the person got pregnant or why they want an abortion. I'd like to stay focused on abortion in general, and whether it should be allowed as a voluntary medical procedure).
1. There must be 2 primary people involved. (Since we're assuming the fetus is a person because it can't be proven one way or the other, and I don't think laws should be determined by philosophical, unprovable ideas. So I'll take the worse of the two options for the sake of argument).
2. One of the primary people (PA) must have the capacity to make a choice and communicate that choice, and the other primary person (PB) must not have the capacity to either make a choice or communicate a choice. (A person's capacity to choose gives them some autonomy. If nothing else it gives then responsibility. And the fetus should not be given any possible responsibility for either being in the situation of pregnancy or the outcome of it. The person pregnant, however, is capable of being responsible for both the situation and the outcome—even if in actuality they may not be. It must at be possible that they are.)
3. Both of the primary people must be in reasonable danger of bodily harm, and possible danger of death, directly because of the situation they are in together. (We've already discussed this.)
4. There must be 2 decisions: a primary decision and a secondary decision. Since the point of this is to decide whether abortion should be allowed or banned, that is the question that the primary question in the hypothetical should be analogous to (more on that in 5.) The decision to get an abortion or not get one should be analogous to the secondary question (more in 6).
5. There must be at least 1 secondary person. This person must not be in the situation with the primary 2, but they must be the one to make the primary decision—and this decision must (effectively) be whether or not to give PA the opportunity to make the secondary decision. (The secondary person/s represent us or anyone trying to decide whether abortion should be allowed or not. So they can't be involved in the situation that represents abortion, because our question is whether or not abortion should be allowed in general, not whether we ourselves should either undergo or preform an abortion.)
6. The secondary decision must be between only 2 alternatives, and these alternatives must be analogous to 1: getting an abortion, or 2: carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth. (Both alternatives must carry some risk, but 1 must carry very low risk for PA while guaranteeing death to PB, and 2 must carry the same risks for both that the situation started with.)
6. The situation PA and PB are in must be temporary, and must end at some point after the final decision is made, no matter which alternative is chosen. (Pregnancy always ends, even when it causes permanent injury/disability or death. After pregnancy is over for a while, those risks go away again. Since the risks are important to the morality of the situation, the fact they will eventually go away one way or another is also important.)
That's all I can think of right now. I'm wiped from work and I probably won't reply again until tomorrow morning, this stuff can be mentally exhausting.
First, I would like to know if this is a reasonable summary of your assessment?
1) Two main individuals are involved: one with the ability to make and communicate decisions, and one without this ability
2) Both individuals face potential harm or death due to their situation.
3) There should be two types of decisions: a primary decision about whether abortion should be allowed (made by a third party not directly involved in the pregnancy) and a secondary decision about proceeding with the pregnancy or having an abortion (made by the pregnant person).
4) The situation is temporary, and the risks associated with it will end once the situation is resolved.
I will give you what I think are the important factors in the morality of the question. And I will try to keep it simple
1) Two people (PA) and (PB) are in a situation that will naturally resolve itself over a period of time
2) The situation is such that PA has the responsibility of keeping PB alive until the situation resolves itself.
3) Ending the situation early requires the direct intentional killing of PB
4) PB cannot affect the decision to end the situation early or let it resolve naturally either way
5) PB cannot defend themselves in any way if the decision is made to end the situation early
6) If PA allows the situation to resolve itself naturally there is an option for PA to no longer be responsible for PB
7) Without intervention of any kind, the natural resolution carries risks including severe injury or death to PA.
8) Those risks are not particularly high but they are still present
9) With intervention those risks are greatly reduced or nearly eliminated
10) PA does not want to wait for the situation to resolve itself naturally, even with intervention from (4)
11) PA cannot end the situation early themselves and must rely on an outside party (PC) to do it for them
12) PC can and will end the situation early if they are allowed to do so and if PA asks them to
13) PA asks them to
14) A fourth party (PD or us) must decide if PC should be allowed to end the situation early for PB upon request
This is everything I could think of and any analogy that factors in these elements is fine by me
Opinion
1Opinion
Next time you get so excited and want a good debate and want us to show you what we got candy we not satisfying your need to debate whether to kill babies or not.
GaG really isn't an appropriate place to discuss something so sensitive an issue.
Well multiple people kind of ARE debating with me so I mean, you're kind of wrong. Annnnnnd as far as I can tell this IS the place to discuss hard or controversial topics since those seem to be pretty popular so... wrong again.
also, I can tell English isn't your first language so maybe I'm misinterpreting you here but, I'm pretty sure if you actually read what I have to say I think you would find we're on the same side. You should maybe take a look at what someone is actually saying before you come at them like they're an enemy
I'm more pro-life than pro-choice but there are many cases where abortion is necessary such as if the baby is a risk to the mother or the girl was raped or a teenager gets pregnant and not obviously ready for a baby or if the birth control didn't work and the parents are not able to take care of a baby at the moment.
So I voted it should be legal
Ahi I see your point. I did not formulate my Poll to better reflect the nuance of the choice. I should have said something more along the lines of Abortion should be illegal/legal in most cases. thank you for pointing that out
You're welcome!
I think it should be legal. Look at all the clowns in the world, do we really need more of their children running around most likely to grow up the same type of dumb asses as their parents? Yes people should defo be using contraceptives but we all know people are dumb as shit and be doing it raw all the time.
Appeal to Consequences (Argumentum ad Consequentiam)
Definition: A logical fallacy that occurs when an argument concludes a hypothesis is true or false based on whether the outcome is desirable or undesirable, rather than on evidence or logical reasoning.
Example: "We should enforce strict population control laws, because if we allow everyone to have children, we will end up with too many irresponsible people in society, leading to increased crime and poverty."
May I ask you a question? Why shouldn't I be allowed to walk up and kill a random stranger?
Because it's illegal and wrong. I hope you are not trying to say a fetus that isn't developed, is the same as a full grown human being. It isn't in actual existence if it can't survive out of the womb yet so to kill it doesn't matter, just like you kill animals to eat and you don't feel bad about that.
I'm not trying to say anything. Yet. I'm only establishing a baseline for a moral framework. we have to agree on basic moral principles in order to talk about anything. Or at the very least, we should understand what each others moral principles are even if we don't agree on them.
As I say with everyone with whom I enter into this conversation, I want to remain respectful as much as possible. So I'm going to try not to argue any points with you. I will do my best to only ask questions designed to make you think about your answers.
I'm also going to try and keep the conversation focused on one issue at a time as trying to tackle multiple lines of argumentation at once can get really really messy. and there's about 5 different points in your response that each warrant their own discussion. we'll get there. just not yet.
Let's start with illegal. Is the mere fact that something is illegal a good reason to believe it is wrong? If abortion is illegal In many states, as it is in some entire countries, does that therefore make it wrong?
Further, if the legality of an action is not enough to say if it is wrong or not, then is that a relevant factor in my initial question? Which was, Why shouldn't I be allowed to kill anyone I please?
Obviously the fact it is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong since many people do illegal things everyday. It just is deterrent to not do it so much.
Well not really. But it is wrong since its like do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So unless you would want someone to just kill you or your family just because they felt like it, don't do it to others.
Awesome response! let's go with that.
I shouldn't do to others what I wouldn't want them to do to me. I don't want to be killed so I shouldn't kill others.
Here's a thought experiment. Let's go up the chain of what's called our "moral neighbors". What if I wanted to kill a fly? or a mouse? Or a racoon? Or a cow? Or a pet?
I don't want to be killed so should i not kill any other living things?
Are some things ok to kill and others not? Why?
Is it at least not cool to kill say, a pet, but it is also at least not as bad as killing a human?
I personally don't kill anything because I can't, I don't feel right taking a life as for bugs I don't like them and will easily kill it.
Somethings are okay to kill, we have people kill animals everyday to eat, I personally can't but I enjoy eating them lol. It is the food chain just like animals kill other animals to eat.
Yes we kill animals for food, we kill pests because they are disgusting and can make us sick if they are in the home.
Can you kill a pet yes, do people do it? no because they have emotional attachment to it. But if it gets killed it's not gonna be seen as the same thing as a human.
Exactly! There is inherent moral worth in humans that we just don't extend to other lifeforms. we could have a whole other discussion about veganism and talk about how much sense that makes but that's a topic for another time.
For the purposes of this conversation I agree. Human lives matter. more than any other kind of life.
Why?
Why do other human live's matter? That I'm not sure, other then my own selfish need not to lose the ones around me I love. I also pity others and feel sad when they lose someone they care about. I guess it's just empathy to our own kind.
What do you think of the term "Personhood"?
Does being a person separate you from other lifeforms in terms of your moral worth?
Would you agree that, as bad as killing animals, even pets, might be, they aren't people and so we don't assign the same moral weight to their killing as we do other humans?
Never heard that term until now, what do I think of it not much. I don't think a person is a person until they are born, besides that the rest of it is just what people think is morally right I suppose.
Sure since we know more and are a very intelligent life form we should be shown moral worth by other people. That isn't to say other lifeforms don't have worth.
And yes that is true.
Ah ok. I'll define person hood for you. It is simply what makes you, well, YOU. instead of just being a big mass of cells. It's what makes killing you matter. It's what makes it wrong to kill anybody.
If being a person separates you morally from other life forms. in the sense that, being a person (having the status of personhood) means it's wrong to kill them. Then my next question would be, What makes a person, a person? How can you tell the difference between a person and a non-person?
I see were you are going with this. But I still don't see something that doesn't really remember or can't survive alone outside the womb as human. It is just a clump of cells, in your belly, that can live or die, it isn't yet a livable human. Is it wrong to kill it perhaps, but does it make a difference to anyone in the world no. Because it wasn't actually in the world and no one cared about it.
What is a human to you?
I suspect that when you say human, you mean the same thing I mean when I say person. There's a reason I don't use the word human.
Does every cell in your body have human DNA?
If every cell in your body has human, doesn't that mean they are all human?
Would you agree that simply having the nature of human DNA isn't the important thing?
If I cut off a piece of skin and kill those cells, have I murdered anybody? or have i indeed simply destroyed a clump of human cells?
If it's only cells, and the "person" is what's left behind, isn't it the person that matters and not the fact that the cells are human?
As for the ability to remember or survive.
If you couldn't remember anything or survive on your own without assistance, would that make it ok to kill you?
If not, why does that logic apply to a fetus? What's the difference?
A human is a human lol Not a weird parasite alien clump.
Sure it is human DNA but it doesn't mean it is a human it is just a part of your body.
Yes the human is the person, the clump of cells is just that a clump of cells from her and her partner, if she takes it out it makes no difference to the person.
Yes, why do you think if you can't survive people have the right to take you off life support, if you can't survive on your own, essentially you're just wasting resources.
There is no difference, plus if my mom aborted me, I wouldn't care and I would not have even known, because I wasn't fully developed.
Far right: Ban ALL abortions!
Far left: NO restrictions on abortions.
The majority/plurarlity: Abortions legal, but with restrictions
Also, men are more likey than women to identify as pro-life, and women are more likely than men to identify as pro-choice.
I'm definitely not in favor of having zero restrictions on abortion, nor am i in favor of making it absolutely illegal in all cases. So by that criteria alone I would be in the Majority camp. But the reasons why are the real, interesting part of this conversation I think.
I think the entire thing boils down to a few key questions.
What is murder?
Why is murder wrong?
What is a person?
At what point in a life does an fetus gain personhood?
under what circumstances CAN we kill a person?
Are there cases where a fetus (if it IS a person) meets the criteria for permitting killing it?
What are those cases?
The answers to these questions I think sheds a tremendous light on the whole issue. I've thought through these questions at length. And, FOR ME, I have concluded that while a fetus is, in fact, a person starting at around 2 weeks of development, there are still cases where it would be morally acceptable to kill it.
Self defense is a principle that pretty much everyone agrees with. if my life is in direct danger of being ended I am permitted to defend myself with lethal force. If there are cases where the mothers life is threatened by the fetus, under the principles of self defense she must be allowed to defend herself.
Self defense applies by proxy as well. If I see that someone else is in danger of being killed I am permitted to save them by killing the threat. this principle is what would actually give the doctor the right to perform the abortion.
the really tricky conundrum this leads to. or at least it leads me to. is that this inadvertently is an argument in favor of permitting people to go around punching pregnant women in the stomach. which I obviously disagree with.
But then I'm left at an impasse where I'm not sure how to resolve the problem.
Simple.
Not an argument and fallacy of equivocation. so... No?
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions