Abortion

[Serenity]

The rights of the mother have been examined, although that may not be thoroughly apparent in recent pages. You are right to remind us that they should not be omitted from conversation during large sections of the debate. What seems to have become the general consensus of the anti-choicers is that no effect the pregnancy has on the mother would justify an abortion, although this conclusion has been made mostly by people who will never themselves be pregnant. Your last couple of lines seem to be compatible with Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous 'violinist' thought experiment. Are you familiar with it and its objections?

Well I'd never heard the argument and I just went of to read Thomson and the arguments against her. I don't really agree much with anything she says other than the part where she mentions the duress on the female body but I can see why my argument was evocative of hers. I don't believe a morula or blastocyst is a human from the moment of inception or the initial divides, so most of her arguments and their refutations were lost on me. The posts I've been reading here discussing a human life being anything with human genetics are kinda ridiculous - that would preserve the rights of biopsies not to be tested on, outlaw amputation and disallow the destruction of E.Coli DNA libraries. My personal definition of the time when a life becomes a true life is the moment it can exist on its own - so about when the earliest premature babies can survive which is apparently 24 weeks, or around the 6 month mark. The 1st trimester rule regarding the limitations on abortions therefore sits quite well with me.

Kind regards,
~Serenity~

[pantheophany]

There are 25+ pages of responses in this thread, which seems pretty normal for threads on this topic. I had hoped in this kind of forum, filled with rational people, to see some kind of convergence, but perhaps it really is intractable. That is likely because we really must be absolutists eventually. It's fine to say you're a consequentialist, but deciding which consequences are preferred, and by how much, is eventually an absolutist position. I think it worth the time for folks to think through what absolutist (axiomatic) positions they have rather than believing that everyone else's logic is broken. The fact a position may be similar to a religious position does not make it false or even religious.

Myself, as a practical atheist (my pantheism is of Einstein's form to use Dawkins' words), I believe that harming sentient creatures is wrong in proportion to their sentience, other humans should act to stop it, and that fetuses become sentient at some point substantially prior to their birth but substantially after their conception (I look for human-style brainwaves, but given evidence for the validity of another measure, I'd be happy to use it). The fact that it is difficult to nail down this moment to perfect precision only points out that there is gray areas in all ethics, and that there are times when abortion is fully ethical, times when it is fully unethical, and times in between, just like most ethical rules. This belief in the importance of sentient life over less sentient life is one of my absolutist positions. If you disagree with it, then I would like to understand your position and how it impacts your belief of the morality of animal medical testing, using animals for food, and the large-scale destruction of small creatures as a side-effect of our daily life (our regular destroying of creatures from microbes to insects). You cannot just say "all life is equal" (as Dawkins implies) and then ignore the impact on other ethical issues.

I also believe that a human has the right to protect its life, and so if bringing a baby to term would jeopardize the life or substantially and unusually jeopardize the health of the mother, then I would favor the mother's life in cases where both cannot be saved. I believe this whether the child is pre- or post-natal. I do not believe a mother should have to give up her life for her infant or her fetus. But normal pregnancy and childbirth, while of course impacting on women, are how our species functions. The normal effects of these do not create this kind of special circumstance. Again, my belief that a human has the right to protect its life is absolutist. If you believe that a woman should have to unusually risk or give her life in childbirth, then do you also believe she continues to have this moral obligation after birth. For example, should she be required to donate her heart to save her teenage child? Why or why not?

For those of you who claim that this is a personal issue that we should not implement them in law, how do you apply this ethic to infanticide or other murder? Should an individual be free to decide that they may kill their child for as long as that child is dependent on them, and should the law stay out of this "personal matter?" Protecting individuals from each other is exactly what government is for. This is not possible if we do not decide what is and is not a protected individual.

For those who consider this exclusively a woman's issue, do you apply this also to nineteenth century slave holders in the US? You will never be in their difficult economic situation that required slaves to maintain their livelihood. Are you able to pass judgment on how they treated other humans? Or modern genocides? Do we have a right to step in when we have never known and could never know the situation the aggressors are in? If a mother drowns her infant, is this also a woman's issue that men should stay out of because men cannot understand what a mother goes through? If a father has no place in this discussion, is raising children also a woman's issue? Do we logically remove the duty of child support?

For those who call a fetus a "parasite" that a woman should be free to dispose of, how does this ethic apply after birth? If I find paying for my children's upkeep to be too costly, driving the entire family into poverty, is it ethical for me to toss some of them out to fend for themselves? Even a one-day-old? If not, how is it fully ethical to kill that individual just two days earlier? The discontinuity in rights seems completely out of proportion with the gradual nature of our development.

In this thread I have not seen any good explanation of why birth is a significant turning point. Why not puberty (say first menstruation or ejaculation)? Why should a human have substantially different rights moments apart, when very little has changed in the human? Conversely, the claim that 8 dividing cells constitutes a human, while at least tied to a significant point in time, seems a very special-case ethic. It does not help us understand how to deal with higher primates, non-human hominids (if we were to encounter them as Dawkins suggest), brain dead humans, or any other case. An ethic, like a hypothesis, that applies only to one specific case is likely of little utility. That doesn't make it wrong, but it should strongly encourage us to find a more general rule.

Basically I'm disappointed that in so much discussion, there has been so little actual ethical philosophy. Instead, like the religious, we seem to have staked out our final positions and worked backwards. The above is my attempt to work forward from first principles (which are necessarily absolutist). If I find one of my first principles to be wrong, or my logic flawed, then I will change my position. Is there agreement that this is how moral atheists should behave?

[besleybean]

I'm honestly not deliberately being petty.
But aren't the 2 real absolutist positions here: no abortion ever, or on demand?

[BigBrother]

I'm honestly not deliberately being petty.
But aren't the 2 real absolutist positions here: no abortion ever, or on demand?

Yes. Murder on demand, if you're talking physiologically.

[born-again-atheist]

and lo, he did give a superlative example of an absolutist position, and it was bunk.

[besleybean]

Well obviously we all have the right to our opinions. I am unsure I see abortion the same as murdering an independent being who wishes to live.

[pantheophany]

Well obviously we all have the right to our opinions. I am unsure I see abortion the same as murdering an independent being who wishes to live.

This is an interesting statement, and one I see a lot. When you say "we all have a right to our opinions," what do you really mean by that? If one ethnic group is of the opinion that killing another ethnic group is permissible, do they also have a right to that opinion? Do they have a right to act upon that opinion? And do others any obligation to stop it if they do?

Now ask the same questions if it is my opinion that I can kill my young son. Does anyone have the right or the obligation to stop me or punish me?

Now ask the same questions if it is my opinion that I can kill my fetus.

It is not possible to leave this issue at simply a "matter of opinion." It is an opinion that leads to action. And we need ways to understand the differences between the above cases (if there are differences). This issue points to a broad class of ethical issues, and ones that we will soon have to deal with in ever more complex ways. Whatever your thoughts on abortion, ask yourself how you would apply those same criteria to the killing of a clone. Or a genetically engineered hominid who is self-aware, but not technically human. Or a genetically engineered human who is not self-aware. We don't need highly specific rules for specific situations we're facing today. We need general rules that can be applied to the difficult ethical questions we will face over the next century.

[Skylarking]

Well obviously we all have the right to our opinions. I am unsure I see abortion the same as murdering an independent being who wishes to live.

This is an interesting statement, and one I see a lot. When you say "we all have a right to our opinions," what do you really mean by that? If one ethnic group is of the opinion that killing another ethnic group is permissible, do they also have a right to that opinion? Do they have a right to act upon that opinion? And do others any obligation to stop it if they do?

Now ask the same questions if it is my opinion that I can kill my young son. Does anyone have the right or the obligation to stop me or punish me?

Now ask the same questions if it is my opinion that I can kill my fetus.

It is not possible to leave this issue at simply a "matter of opinion." It is an opinion that leads to action. And we need ways to understand the differences between the above cases (if there are differences). This issue points to a broad class of ethical issues, and ones that we will soon have to deal with in ever more complex ways. Whatever your thoughts on abortion, ask yourself how you would apply those same criteria to the killing of a clone. Or a genetically engineered hominid who is self-aware, but not technically human. Or a genetically engineered human who is not self-aware. We don't need highly specific rules for specific situations we're facing today. We need general rules that can be applied to the difficult ethical questions we will face over the next century.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, as long as that is what it is and only so. As soon as you start trying to enforce your opinion onto someone then it is no longer just your opinion. This becomes an aggressive form of insecurity; wherein lies the premise of a thought or series of thoughts become an action or a series of actions. As soon as you act on your opinions, they no longer stay as so and the premise of "that is my opinion" has been divorced from the initial concept and become explicitly active. To try and revert back to one's opinion after acting on it, (by means of saying something along the lines of "but that is just their opinion/that is my opinion) one is now implementing the means of bastardizing the protection of having that opinion.

[besleybean]

But opinion is all any of us have and we are either lucky/unlucky that the law agrees/disagrees with us.

[pantheophany]

Everyone has a right to their opinion, as long as that is what it is and only so. As soon as you start trying to enforce your opinion onto someone then it is no longer just your opinion. This becomes an aggressive form of insecurity; wherein lies the premise of a thought or series of thoughts become an action or a series of actions.

OK, then can you address any of the questions I raised? If whether a particular individual does or does not warrant direct protection is simply a matter of opinion, then are you proposing the removal of all laws providing protection? Should murder be legal if it is my opinion that the victim is not fully human? Which of the two opinions allows action? Should the mother be prohibited from exercising her opinion that her fetus is not human, or should others be prohibited from exercising their opinion that it is?

If the correct answer is "no action" in cases where opinions conflict, then the only sensible result is to never have abortion. It is in its nature the enacting of an opinion. But I don't think this is what you mean, nor is it what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting we use reason to look for the deeper principles from which we can derive an answer to this and other similar questions rather than treating this as a special case. I am suggesting sentience (recognizing the current fuzziness of that term, and seeking better ones) as a key piece of determining when killing/destroying something purely for its inconvenience is ethical.

[Skylarking]

Everyone has a right to their opinion, as long as that is what it is and only so. As soon as you start trying to enforce your opinion onto someone then it is no longer just your opinion. This becomes an aggressive form of insecurity; wherein lies the premise of a thought or series of thoughts become an action or a series of actions.

OK, then can you address any of the questions I raised? If whether a particular individual does or does not warrant direct protection is simply a matter of opinion, then are you proposing the removal of all laws providing protection? Should murder be legal if it is my opinion that the victim is not fully human? Which of the two opinions allows action? Should the mother be prohibited from exercising her opinion that her fetus is not human, or should others be prohibited from exercising their opinion that it is?

If the correct answer is "no action" in cases where opinions conflict, then the only sensible result is to never have abortion. It is in its nature the enacting of an opinion. But I don't think this is what you mean, nor is it what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting we use reason to look for the deeper principles from which we can derive an answer to this and other similar questions rather than treating this as a special case. I am suggesting sentience (recognizing the current fuzziness of that term, and seeking better ones) as a key piece of determining when killing/destroying something purely for its inconvenience is ethical.

I was just sharing some thoughts that came to be when I was reading your post. You're lucky to get that, you demanding little shit.

[BigBrother]

But opinion is all any of us have and we are either lucky/unlucky that the law agrees/disagrees with us.

.... or advances in physiology/genetics agrees/disagrees with us.

[pantheophany]

But opinion is all any of us have and we are either lucky/unlucky that the law agrees/disagrees with us.

.... or advances in physiology/genetics agrees/disagrees with us.

How so? Are you talking about changes to our actual physiology, or our understanding of our physiology? If our understanding, then advancing that won't change anything unless we have some first principles for finding our ethics. If the only rule of our ethic is the special-case "a human zygote may not be destroyed" or "a woman may choose to have anyone destroy and remove a fetus in her at any time" then advances in scientific understanding will have no impact. Only if we look for deeper principles can we be influenced by changing knowledge of the facts. We have to be more explicit in our assumptions (our Absolutist basis) if we're ever going to be able to change our minds or anyone else's.

What general principles have you used to come to your position on this special case? How do they apply to other cases?

[besleybean]

However advanced science gets, it's not going to alter the fact that a child in the womb is NOT the same as one walking around talking.
Now people can still think the one in the womb has equal rights, THAT is an opinion.

[Skylarking]

However advanced science gets, it's not going to alter the fact that a child in the womb is NOT the same as one walking around talking.
Now people can still think the one in the womb has equal rights, THAT is an opinion.

Agreed

[born-again-atheist]

It stands thusly, you must declare, quite succinctly, at what point does "legal contraception" become "denying the 'right to life'"?

What about the morning after pill? What about the natural menstrual cycle which regularly washes out fertilised eggs?

[pantheophany]

However advanced science gets, it's not going to alter the fact that a child in the womb is NOT the same as one walking around talking.
Now people can still think the one in the womb has equal rights, THAT is an opinion.

A just-born child is also not the same as one walking around talking. And however advanced science gets, it also will not alter the fact that a human with two X chromosomes is not the same as one with one X and one Y. Yet we do not treat the application of equal rights between those highly distinct groups as mere opinion that each person can ascribe to or reject.

What principles do you use to determine what rights one should have versus the other? I have heard your final conclusion, and assertions of various facts, but I still am trying to understand the principles we can use to derive the conclusion from the facts. What principle do you use to conclude that an entity's ethical status radically changes at the moment of its birth?

Religious people state their final position and then present facts to support it. Rationalists, as I hope this group is, should be working in the opposite direction.

[born-again-atheist]

No, "religious people" don't state facts, they make statements called "premises" following their conclusions, when they then assume to be true without actually testing them.

[pantheophany]

It stands thusly, you must declare, quite succinctly, at what point does "legal contraception" become "denying the 'right to life'"?

What about the morning after pill? What about the natural menstrual cycle which regularly washes out fertilised eggs?

I'm not certain which thread you were referring to, but I'll present my premise for deciding. If sentience is our test, and protection is proportional to sentience, then a zygote has no sentience and could be disposed of for any reason in any manner. That does not imply through some slippery slope, that a baby/fetus, moments from birth, is no different than a zygote. Early- and late-term abortions would be quite different things under my ethical proposition. This gradual transition of rights seems in keeping with our gradual natal development.

This does not mean that that a fetus has fundamentally more rights than its mother. If the only way to save an infant's life were to kill the mother, I believe it ethical to let the infant die. The same should be true for a fetus who threatens the life of the mother. Abortion in this case is tragic, but ethical.

[born-again-atheist]

The question of "ethics" doesn't even come in to it, it's a question of rights.

The two are not synonymous, either, because 'ethics' implies a single objective standard by which all act can be judged and weighed. Rights is the function by which one person is allowed to express themselves, and the truth of that fact is they should be allowed to express themselves, carry themselves, in as far reaching manner as possible so long as it does not deprive another individual of his rights.

This kid keeps arguing that "life" is a right.

No, it's not, it's a "privilege", or to be more precise, it's an accident. What gave this kid more right to live than any of the other possible combinations of genetic code which would have produced a seperate individual? Why right did the sperm have to fertilise the egg in the first place? Biology happens, shit happens, broken condoms, failed contraception, rape, drunken sex, heat of the moment, poor education. Whether you agree with abortion is irrelevant to the fact that it is not your right to determine what a woman must do with her body, you are infringing on so many of one invididual's rights, including the right to her own life, by forcing her to come to term with a child.

He espouses the view that life is greater than liberty, which only highlights the absurdity of his view, the ignorance of his position, and it is an ignorant position. If liberty is so lowly valued, then surely we must embrace the right of fundamentalist religions to order our nations and our private lives, or turn to North Korea as a fine example of how to govern our nation. Liberty is over-rated it seems, so let's not deprive these children of their rights to life, or tape worms, or flesh eating disease, because we must treasure each and every life that survives only by feeding of our bodies, how dare we hold the right to decide what does and does not attach itself to us, threaten our lives by its very existence.

[pantheophany]

The question of "ethics" doesn't even come in to it, it's a question of rights.

The two are not synonymous, either, because 'ethics' implies a single objective standard by which all act can be judged and weighed. Rights is the function by which one person is allowed to express themselves, and the truth of that fact is they should be allowed to express themselves, carry themselves, in as far reaching manner as possible so long as it does not deprive another individual of his rights.

I don't think this is a great explanation of ethics, but you are certainly correct that rights and ethics are different. Ethics do not require a single objective standard, and rights are generally derived from ethics. Ethics have to do with proper behavior within a society (versus morals which are independent of society, which is why I generally discuss ethics rather than morals). Rights are entitlements which society will use its power (which is violence) to enforce.

But let's talk about rights.

This kid keeps arguing that "life" is a right.

Not sure who the kid was here, but if me, then no, I've never said life is a right. I discussed whether taking life was ethical in certain cases. And if not ethical, whether society should create a right to protect it in those cases. But if we're talking rights, then OK, we can talk about the right not to be murdered for instance. I mean murder here in the traditional sense, when you're "walking and talking." If someone is inconvenient to my liberty, do I have the right to kill them? What criteria do I use to determine when it is my right?

No, it's not, it's a "privilege", or to be more precise, it's an accident. What gave this kid more right to live than any of the other possible combinations of genetic code which would have produced a seperate individual? Why right did the sperm have to fertilise the egg in the first place? Biology happens, shit happens, broken condoms, failed contraception, rape, drunken sex, heat of the moment, poor education. Whether you agree with abortion is irrelevant to the fact that it is not your right to determine what a woman must do with her body, you are infringing on so many of one invididual's rights, including the right to her own life, by forcing her to come to term with a child.

He espouses the view that life is greater than liberty, which only highlights the absurdity of his view, the ignorance of his position, and it is an ignorant position. If liberty is so lowly valued, then surely we must embrace the right of fundamentalist religions to order our nations and our private lives, or turn to North Korea as a fine example of how to govern our nation. Liberty is over-rated it seems, so let's not deprive these children of their rights to life, or tape worms, or flesh eating disease, because we must treasure each and every life that survives only by feeding of our bodies, how dare we hold the right to decide what does and does not attach itself to us, threaten our lives by its very existence.

So out of this we can derive a first principle (which is what I'm seeking in this forum). You seem to suggest that personal liberty is a principle of higher importance than the life of another. By that principle, should I take it that it is ethical for me to abandon my sons who regularly interrupt my liberty? My abandonment of them would possibly not even lead to their deaths. They might do fine in the long term. Do I have a stronger obligation to them now than I did the moment before they were born? Is society acting improperly if they force me to support these leaches once they are born? Is there a fundamental difference the moment before?

[born-again-atheist]

If your actions threaten their lives, we can draw no conclusion from such a simplistic turn of phrase. In what way? What are the circumstances? That's the point, lives are threatened, many we see as perhaps tragic but inevitable, some immoral, some accidental, some horrific, some empathetic. There is only one standard for the impingement of freedoms, despite public opinion any variation on the phraseology is on the misunderstanding of what a freedom is. When you are deprived of your freedom, you are deprived of your right to live your life, so what worth is your breath if you can perform nothing of your own accord?

[BigBrother]

However advanced science gets, it's not going to alter the fact that a child in the womb is NOT the same as one walking around talking.
Now people can still think the one in the womb has equal rights, THAT is an opinion.

How are they different? Leaving the womb brings with it no physiological difference.

[BigBrother]

This kid keeps arguing that "life" is a right.

No, it's not, it's a "privilege", or to be more precise, it's an accident.

Haha take it up with the Constitution. Because legally, life is a right.

[born-again-atheist]

It's a right is it? Really? Truly? according to your own interpretation of the constitution? You're a kid, you don't do professional constitutional law, stop speaking from authority.