Some think a fetus is a stage in the life of a human being, so nobody should have the right to choose what to do with the fetus' body.
— Patterner
That's absurd. Parents (biological or other) not only have the right, but the duty to make decisions about their children's lives. Why should there not be a similar right and duty to make decisions about a foetus? After all, we allow people to make decisions for their relatives when they are ill and unable to make the decisions themselves. — Ludwig V

You're talking about the right and duty to make decisions about their children's lives that are in the best interest of their children. Even when we disagree on what is in their best interest (Raise them with religion? Home-school them? Allow them to drink soda?), we almost always let the parents make the decision. But we don't allow parents to make the decision to end their children's lives because they no longer want to raise them, can't afford to raise them, or regret having had them. Many believe a fetus should have the same consideration as a child.

Parents don't have the right and duty to end their child's life. — Hanover

True. So they must have the right and duty not to bring a child into the world. So they must have the right and duty to abstain or use contraception. But all contraceptive methods (including just say no) have a failure rate. So why do people think that they have the right and duty to prevent them using the last-ditch opportunity not to bring a child into the world - early stage abortion? (I'm not saying that abortion is OK, just that it is better than the alternative, which is positively cruel.)

Many believe a fetus should have the same consideration as a child. — Patterner

.... and many do not. Should not the parents have the right to their own conscience? It's not as if anybody seriously believes that abortion should not be controlled. I don't know if it is universal but many legal systems prohibit late stage abortions except in very exceptional circumstances.

I'm tempted by 's position as a negotiable middle ground.

I reduce the question of abortion to the question of personhood when we want precision in our laws and so forth: But mostly I don't think the law is well equipped for the contexts of life, and so should be permissive. In addition I believe in bodily autonomy: I don't like to phrase it as ownership, but in the legal frame I think every individual owns their body.

Further, most of the laws have been written by men -- I don't see our representative democracy as a palliative for the history of patriarchy that has dominated women's bodies so that men knew that their fucking made a kid.

Somewhere along the line the past women got treated like property, and that still echoes today. The way men look at children isn't the same as women look at children, and I bet the laws would be different if women were the ones with say on the laws (especially if the matriarchy won, but even if we simply restricted such discussions to thems who are more effected today I think)

AH! I seem to detect the voice of reason. Thank you.

Many believe a fetus should have the same consideration as a child.
— Patterner
.... and many do not. Should not the parents have the right to their own conscience? — Ludwig V

Many believe not.

But if we aren't talking about a child, I don't think "parents" is the right word. There is only a pregnant woman.

And, again, sneaking drugs into a pregnant woman's food so that she aborts, as long as it doesn't harm her, is no worse than breaking her window. Breaking her window is worse, in fact, because she had been sitting at it for years as it protected her from the cold and rain, looking at the beauty of nature, watching her husband pull into the driveway when he comes home from work.

But if we aren't talking about a child, I don't think "parents" is the right word. There is only a pregnant woman. — Patterner

Fair point. But the question whether there is a child or not. I'm trying to prompt "pro-lifers" to think about all this, so it seems best to talk of parents meaning, the individuals who have primary responsibility for the situation.

And, again, sneaking drugs into a pregnant woman's food so that she aborts, as long as it doesn't harm her, is no worse than breaking her window. — Patterner

I don't understand. It doesn't harm her if she want the abortion, so sneaking would not be necessary. But it sneaking is necessary, then it's likely that she does not want the abortion and in that case, it definitely does harm her.

Further, most of the laws have been written by men -- I don't see our representative democracy as a palliative for the history of patriarchy that has dominated women's bodies so that men knew that their fucking made a kid. — Moliere

Women have a right to vote. Approximately 30% of state legislators are women, although that varies a lot depending on the state. Many of the most prominent opponents of abortion are women. To claim that women are not responsible for the laws passed in the same manner that men are is patronizing and disrespectful.

Laws are not invented wholesale. Laws are based on an inheritance. Most of that inheritance comes from a time before the United States.

I don't understand. It doesn't harm her if she want the abortion, so sneaking would not be necessary. But it sneaking is necessary, then it's likely that she does not want the abortion and in that case, it definitely does harm her. — Ludwig V

What I meant is, if she wants to have the baby, and you sneak drugs into her food so it aborts, it's not murder. Men have been known to punch a woman in the stomach so they abory. Sad if she wanted to have a baby. But if it's not a child, and had no status on the eyes of the law, then the man is only guilty of assault & battery. The fetus is irrelevant, as far as criminal acts goes.

I don't know if that's how the law actually looks at the issue anywhere. But if abortion is legal somewhere, I have to assume that's how the man's (and I use that term extraordinarily loosely) defense attorney would approach it.

There's also the boldly autonomy argument to defend pro-choice.

In this it doesn't matter when a fetus 'becomes human' what matters is the bodily autonomy of the mother. In other words, no person is morally obligated to use their body to sustain another life against their will, even if that life is dependent on them. Just as one cannot be forced to donate organs to save another person, a woman cannot be compelled to use her body to support a fetus.

.

Here in Australia, abortion is still technically illegal in some states, but it's never enforced, and it's not nearly so much a matter of controversy as in the USA.

My view is that abortion is a matter of choice, but I can see why its use to avoid the consequences of casual sex is morally objectionable. Still, some of my relatives have had to have it, and I didn't (and wouldn't) speak out against it, as the circumstances demanded it, although I think it is a decision that has an ethical dimension.

(As it happens, my father was a renowned obstetrician and gynaecologist, and one of the generation of practitioners who introduced oral contraceptives to the world. He was very much involved in WHO efforts to promote contraception in developing nations in the 1960's, and was infuriated by the Catholic Church's opposition. We had many long dinner-table discussions about it. At the time, I was completely convinced by his opposition but I have since come to understand the philosophy behind the objection.)

:up: Very interesting.

What I meant is, if she wants to have the baby, and you sneak drugs into her food so it aborts, it's not murder. — Patterner

Oh, I see. Interesting.
So this is part of the argument that "becoming human" isn't a single moment, a single event, but a process. Is that what you were getting at?

In this it doesn't matter when a fetus 'becomes human' what matters is the bodily autonomy of the mother. In other words, no person is morally obligated to use their body to sustain another life against their will, even if that life is dependent on them. Just as one cannot be forced to donate organs to save another person, a woman cannot be compelled to use her body to support a fetus. — Tom Storm

I've seen this argument. I find it very persuasive. But I don't think that a "pro-lifer" would. The analogy with organ donation is not strong enough. And there's always the argument that the future mother has "signed up" when she consents to sex.

Here in Australia, abortion is still technically illegal in some states, but it's never enforced, and it's not nearly so much a matter of controversy as in the USA. — Wayfarer

Yes. On the face of it, it's a very unsatisfactory situation. But in practical terms, it's one way of coping with the difficulty of arriving at a consensus.
Abortion seems to be more of an issue in the USA than anywhere else in the world. It's very odd.

I've seen this argument. I find it very persuasive. But I don't think that a "pro-lifer" would. — Ludwig V

Fair point. A 'pro-lifer' is a member of a tribe, no matter how persuasive an argument might be, the matter is settled for them.

Fair point. A 'pro-lifer' is a member of a tribe, no matter how persuasive an argument might be, the matter is settled for them. — Tom Storm

I think that's true. They seem to take the immorality of abortion as a fixed point in the argument and adjust all the other concepts involved to fit in with that.
Rational argument on its own won't cut it.
But let's not stereotype. One expects that not all "pro-lifers" think in exactly the same way and it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that some of them may be able to see another point of view as possible. Conceding that is a big step forward, even if full change of mind (and heart) is beyond reach.
But it means that the argument is not just about rationality.

The last thing anyone should do is make a decision of this sort based on a philosophical theory — Ludwig V

Unless that philosophical theory is true. If deontology is correct and the moral permissibility of abortion is determined by rules and principles rather than by consequences then abortion may be morally impermissible even if the mother might suffer from not having an abortion.

Unless that philosophical theory is true. If deontology is correct and the moral permissibility of abortion is determined by rules and principles rather than by consequences then abortion may be morally impermissible even if the mother might suffer from not having an abortion. — Michael

You've left out a premiss. If deontology is true and the rules and principles are incompatible with abortion, then abortion will be impermissible. However, before we can assert that abortion is impermissible, we have to know 1) that deontology is true and 2) that the relevant rules and principles are incompatible with abortion. We don't know either of those things, so this doesn't help.

You've left out a premiss. If deontology is true and the rules and principles are incompatible with abortion, then abortion will be impermissible. — Ludwig V

That's why I said "abortion may be morally impermissible". The point I was making is that @Samlw was assuming consequentialism in his defence of abortion. His defence fails if consequentialism is false, so to prove that abortion is permissible he must prove that its moral permissibility is determined by the consequences.

That's why I said "abortion may be morally impermissible". The point I was making is that Samlw was assuming consequentialism in his defence of abortion. His defence fails if consequentialism is false, so to prove that abortion is permissible he must prove that its moral permissibility is determined by the consequences. — Michael

Can I ask on your personal stance on abortion?

I'm pro-choice.

His defence fails if consequentialism is false, so to prove that abortion is permissible he must prove that its moral permissibility is determined by the consequences. — Michael

What if there is no proof of consequentialism either way?
Can I assume that anyone who says that abortion is impermissible whatever the consequences is assuming that deontology is true and must prove that?
What if there is no proof of deontology either way?

There's an interesting question of the burden of proof here anyway. Do we have to prove that abortion is impermissible, in which case, lacking a proof, we can assume that abortion is permissible? Or do we have to prove that abortion is permissible, in which case, lacking a proof, we can assume that it is impermissible?

If we lack a proof both of the permissibility of abortion and of its impermissibility, can we just suspend judgement? I suppose we have to. In that case, there will be nothing to prevent people following their own consciences.

There is, at least at present, no conclusive argument available either way. In which case, there is no justification for a law either way and no ground to prevent people following their own consciences.

There are various tiers of belief in this discussion. A lot of people who are lumped into the term 'Pro life' often just think the point of termination should be changed.

The media is highly active in sensationalising an already sensitive issue sadly - especially in the US where major contention exists among more religiously inclined folk.

You should also consider that there are extremists on BOTH sides of the argument too. Some even argue for abortion right up to conception - Bodily Autonomy argument.

The media is highly active in sensationalising an already sensitive issue sadly - especially in the US where major contention exists among more religiously inclined folk. — I like sushi

I have enjoyed seeing an actual discussion on this issue, I have only recently joined here and its refreshing to have a debate here and not on X. It is crazy to see how much social media inflames this situation.

You should also consider that there are extremists on BOTH sides of the argument too. Some even argue for abortion right up to conception - Bodily Autonomy argument. — I like sushi

Completely agree.

There's an interesting question of the burden of proof here anyway. Do we have to prove that abortion is impermissible, in which case, lacking a proof, we can assume that abortion is permissible? Or do we have to prove that abortion is permissible, in which case, lacking a proof, we can assume that it is impermissible?

If we lack a proof both of the permissibility of abortion and of its impermissibility, can we just suspend judgement? I suppose we have to. In that case, there will be nothing to prevent people following their own consciences.

There is, at least at present, no conclusive argument available either way. In which case, there is no justification for a law either way and no ground to prevent people following their own consciences. — Ludwig V

Well, this is the issue I have with morality in general. I don't think any moral claims are either verifiable or falsifiable. Unlike science and maths there's just no way to prove or disprove one claim or another. We just either accept them or we don't, and then make our choices accordingly, and such choices include whether or not to pass a law to ban abortion.

I'm trying to prompt "pro-lifers" to think about all this, so it seems best to talk of parents meaning, the individuals who have primary responsibility for the situation. — Ludwig V

That can only work if folks are honest with themselves about their motivation. Are pro-lifers actually full of love for infants and children, and in particular other people's infants and children? Do they surround themselves with them, support measures to improve child-care, education, etc? If they do, then arguments about the merits of this or that rule can be persuasive.

But my experience has been that most pro-lifers are not great lovers of other people's children, but misogynists and seekers of power over others. If the aim is to support patriarchal power relations, and the right to life and sanctity of life arguments are mere cover, then they will not be convinced by any counter-argument, that points out - for example the horror of a pregnant woman bleeding out and losing her baby in the hospital car park because doctors are too afraid of prosecution to treat her.

God is well known in matters of power to favour the big battalions, and particularly those with big guns. So whenever you see a pro-life stance allied to a pro gun stance, you might want to draw some psychological inferences about what is important to such.

So this is part of the argument that "becoming human" isn't a single moment, a single event, but a process. Is that what you were getting at? — Ludwig V

I think we should be consistent. If it's murder then so is abortion. If abortion is not murder, then neither is this.

I think we should be consistent. If it's murder then so is abortion. If abortion is not murder, then neither is this. — Patterner

Why?

I think consistency is important.