The Abortion Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

My pillows have a life of their own at this point.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

.. and you belong on one of your daddies old pillows, not in society.

 

[Dak]

The logic of this statement is that rights aren't inalienable, but rather are purely opportunistic. If that's the case, then why do we value the potential livelihood of unborn children? If we're talking about benefit, then it strikes me that the greater social benefit would be to terminate all unwanted pregnancies.

To my mind, it looks like most of you here are interested in forcing women to give birth to unwanted children as a form of punishment. That has little to do with the value of human life. I think the greater social benefit would be to terminate all unwanted pregnancies, since many of those children would likely end up being a bigger drain on the national economy than the abortions that terminate them,

Not purely opportunistic. Values aren't "opportunistic" (power is, arguably). You perceive a benefit in terminating unwanted pregnancies. There's a load of values behind that perception. There are more interesting questions to be answered than simply those of "punishment" of pregnant women who wish not to be, but you aren't asking any of those, and neither do any other abortion proponents.

I'm not saying abortion is never an optimal option, but as in other issues, policy usually shouldn't be made based on the margins.

 

[CiG]

Much like the Corbynites who think unused/underused property should be co-opted by the government and given to the needy, you don't get to do what you want with another's body just because they're not using it yet. Fetus and comatose alike.

You said a fetus's body is its property. We're talking about bodies. So why not an insect's body?

mmmmm no. I'm not saying anything about when a human acquires rights. All I'm saying is that you're making an arbitrary distinction about when to apply the value of property rights.

I don't have the vocabulary to properly flesh out my views, but I think of a fetus' property rights to its own body as similar to any other right that is only granted once a certain age is reached. A 9 year old may not have the right to vote yet, but if some kind of authoritarian government were to take over and remove the right of citizens to vote, that 9 year old's rights to vote as a democratic concept have been violated even if they couldn't exercise that right for another 9 years.

These rights fall into the category of rights applied to humans and there are no such rights, whether it be to vote, to own property and so on, that we give to any other species. We do not grant any of these rights to insects and so it is perfectly consistent not to extend the concept of the body as property to non-humans.

If in your worldview you see no difference between a human and an insect, or think that for some reason I should see them as equal lest I be a hypocrite, that's on you. No mainstream philosophical, legal or ethical concept conflates humans and any other animals when applying rights.

The arbitrary element in this argument to me is why you and zabu see the fetus as being so non-human (anti-scientific sentiment to say the least) that it can even be compared to insects on any level.

That's not what I mean. I'm saying you don't think anyone should feel guilty over squashing an insect but you think someone should be guilty for terminating a viable fetus.

Well, I wouldn't specify guilt. Just that regardless of feelings a human has rights. An insect does not, at least not in any commonly held and perpetually applied legal, ethical or philosophical system.

He wasn't dismissing you via dismissing religious people. In fact, he said that you were an outlier, i.e. you weren't part of that demographic. He's simply pointing out that if we attribute property rights to unborn, non-socialized fetuses, what's to stop us from attributing property rights to actively living, non-socialized insects? It seems like a fair question.

He was, he implied that my arguments weren't worth consideration and that I should be dismissed along with the (in his eyes) very dismissable religious arguments against abortion. It was lazy dogshit so typical of people with irrational biases.

And the only reason a fetus is non-socialized is because it's inside of a womb. If you remove a fetus at the second or third trimester it will be out in the world and will therefore be a socialized fetus. This is again another example of how arbitrary the worldview of you two is.

If you lock someone inside a room with no ability to socialize, by your logic they are ripe for termination. Utterly ridiculous, the entire point of opposing abortion at the stages of viability is because they can live outside of the womb if removed.

A fetus is a non-living, non-socialized organism. It's virtually no different than any other organism enjoying a symbiotic relationship with the human body. The only difference is that it's the same species as its host body.

If we're saying it's immoral (or whatever) to terminate a viable fetus, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be just as immoral to kill a bee buzzing around your head.

Idiocy. I addressed some of this in the response above.

To my mind, it looks like most of you here are interested in forcing women to give birth to unwanted children as a form of punishment.

This is what your brain looks like on feminism.

If we're talking about benefit, then it strikes me that the greater social benefit would be to terminate all unwanted pregnancies.

What? What is this based on? Was Stephen Hawking secretly an unwanted child that wasn't aborted? How would you even calculate something like that in order to make such a statement?

 

[Einherjar86]

Even if they have basically a guarantee they will wake up in a few months?

Yes, even if.

says the guy who typed out pages of posts and didnt know when life begins for an unborn baby. The same guy who typed up another wall of text to only prove that he doesn't even know what a fetus is. Get off that armchair, boay.

Says the guy who think a few sentences constitute a wall of text. Sorry to make you read so much, boay.

Not purely opportunistic. Values aren't "opportunistic" (power is, arguably). You perceive a benefit in terminating unwanted pregnancies. There's a load of values behind that perception. There are more interesting questions to be answered than simply those of "punishment" of pregnant women who wish not to be, but you aren't asking any of those, and neither do any other abortion proponents.

I'm not saying abortion is never an optimal option, but as in other issues, policy usually shouldn't be made based on the margins.

We're not talking about marginal cases. Judging by who tends to seek abortions, it would save society more money if we simply let those people get their abortions rather than assume the risk of permitting unwanted children.

How do you know what questions I'm asking? I'm not saying that women shouldn't have children--I'm saying it should be their choice. I'm not sure what other questions we should be asking.

Much like the Corbynites who think unused/underused property should be co-opted by the government and given to the needy, you don't get to do what you want with another's body just because they're not using it yet.

Then maybe you shouldn't get to do what you want with another's body just because they have used it. In fact, I'd argue that's more reason for non-intervention.

If in your worldview you see no difference between a human and an insect, or think that for some reason I should see them as equal lest I be a hypocrite, that's on you. No mainstream philosophical, legal or ethical concept conflates humans and any other animals when applying rights.

Legally, you might be right--but of course, "legal" doesn't mean "right" (or moral, ethical, etc.).

Philosophically, you're dead wrong:

First, it has been claimed that if human beings have rights, then animals will likewise have rights. For example, Joel Feinberg has argued that all is required in order for a being to have a right is that the being be capable of being represented as legitimately pursuing the furtherance of its interests (Feinberg, 1974). The claim that the being must be able to represent itself is too strong, thinks Feinberg, for such a requirement will exclude infants, the senile, and other marginal cases from the class of beings with rights. In other words, Feinberg invokes yet another instance of the Argument from Marginal Cases in order to support his position.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SSH2bi

The arbitrary element in this argument to me is why you and zabu see the fetus as being so non-human (anti-scientific sentiment to say the least) that it can even be compared to insects on any level.

Well, I wouldn't specify guilt. Just that regardless of feelings a human has rights. An insect does not, at least not in any commonly held and perpetually applied legal, ethical or philosophical system.

He was, he implied that my arguments weren't worth consideration and that I should be dismissed along with the (in his eyes) very dismissable religious arguments against abortion. It was lazy dogshit so typical of people with irrational biases.

And the only reason a fetus is non-socialized is because it's inside of a womb. If you remove a fetus at the second or third trimester it will be out in the world and will therefore be a socialized fetus. This is again another example of how arbitrary the worldview of you two is.

If you lock someone inside a room with no ability to socialize, by your logic they are ripe for termination. Utterly ridiculous, the entire point of opposing abortion at the stages of viability is because they can live outside of the womb if removed.

I can't respond to all this because I have an evening to get back to. Let me ask one question:

Why do you value the rights of the unborn child more than you value the rights of the pregnant woman?

Idiocy.

Solid.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

 

[Einherjar86]

What? What is this based on? Was Stephen Hawking secretly an unwanted child that wasn't aborted? How would you even calculate something like that in order to make such a statement?

So the argument is that women shouldn't have abortions because they might give birth to a Stephen Hawking...? Do you know what those odds are?

 

[CiG]

If we're saying it's immoral (or whatever) to terminate a viable fetus, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be just as immoral to kill a bee buzzing around your head.

Just to stab specifically at this bit, a "viable fetus" is a fetus that has a high chance of living if removed from the womb. With that understood, do you think it's okay to kill a baby that is outside of a womb, or does the womb itself change your views on the act?

If the former then why is it okay to kill a bee but not some random guy in the street, if the latter please explain to me how that isn't the very definition of an arbitrary distinction.

Yes, even if.

So it's fine to pull the plug on a guy that will wake up from his coma in a day? I mean, okay I asked and you answered but you'll have to forgive me if my chances of ever taking you seriously ever again on any moral or ethical question plummets.

Then maybe you shouldn't get to do what you want with another's body just because they have used it. In fact, I'd argue that's more reason for non-intervention.

I assume you're referring to the "my body my choice" feminist meme? I suppose you think it's okay for a landlord to murder their tenants too?

Philosophically, you're dead wrong:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SSH2bi

Have rights =/= the same rights.

I have sympathy with animal rights movements FYI. I don't know that any of them are arguing to give animals identical rights to humans though.

I can't respond to all this because I have an evening to get back to. Let me ask one question:

Why do you value the rights of the unborn child more than you value the rights of the pregnant woman?

I'd reverse it, why do you value a woman's right to terminate another living thing over a living thing's right to live?

Furthermore, why do you value a woman's right to terminate a female life over a female baby's right to live?

I'm not opposed to abortion within the first trimester as I've already stated.

So the argument is that women shouldn't have abortions because they might give birth to a Stephen Hawking...? Do you know what those odds are?

No I don't but I'm not claiming that aborting an unwanted fetus is a benefit to humanity. Speaking from experience, I would assume a large amount (if not an outright majority) of pregnancies started out as unwanted. Maybe even your own parents felt that way. Anyway it's a weird claim.

 

[Dak]

We're not talking about marginal cases. Judging by who tends to seek abortions, it would save society more money if we simply let those people get their abortions rather than assume the risk of permitting unwanted children.

Judging by what? What risks?

How do you know what questions I'm asking? I'm not saying that women shouldn't have children--I'm saying it should be their choice. I'm not sure what other questions we should be asking.

Shouldn't have children =/= should/shouldn't get a particular abortion. But it sounds like what you really just meant was that individual choice should be the basis of decisions. Does that extend only to abortions?

 

[CiG]

We're not talking about marginal cases. Judging by who tends to seek abortions, it would save society more money if we simply let those people get their abortions rather than assume the risk of permitting unwanted children.

Black people?

Whew lad.

 

[Einherjar86]

Just to stab specifically at this bit, a "viable fetus" is a fetus that has a high chance of living if removed from the womb. With that understood, do you think it's okay to kill a baby that is outside of a womb, or does the womb itself change your views on the act?

If the former then why is it okay to kill a bee but not some random guy in the street, if the latter please explain to me how that isn't the very definition of an arbitrary distinction.

My distinctions are arbitrary. I never said they weren't. Go back and find where I ever said I was somehow operating according to logical premises.

You do this all the time: you presume I'm arguing a position when in fact I'm criticizing yours. You operate under the delusion of logic--i.e. that your views on abortion are somehow logically airtight. I'm saying they're not; but I'm not saying that mine are logically airtight. This has been your misunderstanding for the entire conversation.

The only reason I'm pursuing this is that you specifically told Grant you think this is worth arguing about. If that's the case, then you need a compelling argument; and you don't have one.

That's really all I have to say. If you think you're being logical, then I'm sorry but you're lying to yourself.

But it sounds like what you really just meant was that individual choice should be the basis of decisions. Does that extend only to abortions?

I'm not "really" meaning anything. All I'm saying is that placing the emphasis on the unborn child is no less arbitrary than placing the emphasis on the pregnant woman. You, CIG, and others can't fathom that all I'm doing is pointing out the illogical that underlies your positions. It doesn't mean I think there's a logical pro-abortion argument--which is what I think Grant was saying.

If you guys think abortion is wrong, then fine. But stop acting like you've tapped into the secret truth of the universe.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

If you guys think abortion is wrong, then fine. But stop acting like you've tapped into the secret truth of the universe.

nothing "secret" about it.

 

[CiG]

My distinctions are arbitrary. I never said they weren't. Go back and find where I ever said I was somehow operating according to logical premises.

You do this all the time: you presume I'm arguing a position when in fact I'm criticizing yours. You operate under the delusion of logic--i.e. that your views on abortion are somehow logically airtight. I'm saying they're not; but I'm not saying that mine are logically airtight. This has been your misunderstanding for the entire conversation.

The only reason I'm pursuing this is that you specifically told Grant you think this is worth arguing about. If that's the case, then you need a compelling argument; and you don't have one.

That's really all I have to say. If you think you're being logical, then I'm sorry but you're lying to yourself.

They make logical sense to me, I don't know that I've ever claimed my views are logically airtight and if I have ever done so I would retract it, there's no way in hell I'm educated enough or cocky enough to ever consciously make that claim.

In fact, I would probably say most of my views fall under the category of instinctive and then if certain things back up my instinct, I use those things to build an argument around said instincts. This is partly why I believe in natural rights, which in part relates to my rural indigenous upbringing.

But I notice you say nothing about zabu's claim that "you can't reason with religion" which is as egregious as anything I've implied thus far about logic. Dat bias.

 

[Einherjar86]

They make logical sense to me, I don't know that I've ever claimed my views are logically airtight and if I have ever done so I would retract it, there's no way in hell I'm educated enough or cocky enough to ever consciously make that claim.

In fact, I would probably say most of my views fall under the category of instinctive and then if certain things back up my instinct, I use those things to build an argument around said instincts. This is partly why I believe in natural rights, which in part relates to my rural indigenous upbringing.

That's a fine response. My reading of Grant is that he was taking issue with the presumed intellectual rigor of your position. I think the best critiques of anti-abortion arguments are those that target where such arguments fail the test of reason/logic. But if you acknowledge that your position is primarily intuitive, then those critiques fall apart.

However, at that point you are basically in the realm of preference, as Grant said.

For what it's worth, I don't think I have intellectually rigorous positions on abortion either.

But I notice you say nothing about zabu's claim that "you can't reason with religion" which is as egregious as anything I've implied thus far about logic. Dat bias.

I think what he meant was that religious people are incapable of comprehending critiques of the "logic" of their position. According to your comments above, you admit that your position could be wrong; it's an intuition, not a metaphysical system. By contrast, religious people don't believe their position could be wrong because they believe it constitutes a universal system of right and wrong, not an intuitive sense of things.

nothing "secret" about it.

You're right, because it doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

religious people are almost as bad as armchair intellectuals.

 

[Einherjar86]

religious people are almost as bad as armchair intellectuals.

You seem you have no problem proselytizing from the internet forum.

 

[CiG]

think what he meant was that religious people are incapable of comprehending critiques of the "logic" of their position. According to your comments above, you admit that your position could be wrong; it's an intuition, not a metaphysical system. By contrast, religious people don't believe their position could be wrong because they believe it constitutes a universal system of right and wrong, not an intuitive sense of things.

It's fun watching you twist all the stupid shit he said intellectually to fit your skill level of expression. Why don't you do it for me so I can win the debate with zabu and others?

Anyway, implied in zabu's claim that you can't reason with religion on the subject of abortion is that zabu's position has the logic that should be required to reason with them, if only their minds were open to logic itself.

It's a claim of logical clarity, one might say airtight logic.

However, at that point you are basically in the realm of preference, as Grant said.

I didn't deny it, I simply added that while we may prefer to live in a society where we wouldn't be murdering each other for no reason, luckily its existence doesn't rely on my preferences but rather the development of systems which uphold certain standards and practices that, even if I prefer to do something which runs counter to those standards and practices, will still function and I will be dealt with accordingly.

"I prefer to kill people" will not save me from consequences of such an act, for example. It's not a subjective matter as zabu would argue, even if preferences themselves might be. You will be held to a standard that has objective consequences if not met, this is why I made sure to place my views in the context of science and legal systems, because... you know we're living in a society!

 

[Carpe Mortem]

I think the closest thing that could sway me to the anti-abortion side is how seldom during the month a woman can actually become pregnant. It's something like 3-4 out of 30 days, if you can't keep your legs closed for those days you're just playing with fire, it's almost like you must secretly want to get pregnant. But most women aren't educated about how their bodies actually work, or don't make the effort to understand their menstrual cycles. Knowledge would go a long way here.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

End of the day though, as a female, I have a huge problem with people thinking my partner's cum coinciding with an egg that usually ends up in my toilet every month has a right to life and I must gestate it. YOU gestate the fucking thing.

 

[CiG]

At the end of the day, as someone opposed to killing infants, I have a problem with people who use first trimester language ("clump of cells" "basically a parasite") to describe how they feel about abortion in general. Use a morning after pill if you receive a cream pie, stop being a piece of shit trying to justify killing a viable fetus by talking about it as if it's a booger you need to pick from your nostril.