I hate this argument. I would think that a mother who thinks like that about her unborn baby is likely to think like that about baby/child and that will not be a good thing for either child or eventual adult. Perhaps one might one posit a radical change of heart. But in fact it amounts to occupying the opposition's ground and turning it against them. It high-lights how inappropriate it is to think of a foetus as a small person as opposed to a future person. — Ludwig V

I do agree it's a bit of a weird (and perhaps stark) legalistic fiction. But it does highlight an important consideration with bodily autonomy: We generally recognise that there is a hard border where no amount of "greater good", not even family ties, can overcome a person's wishes.

This point (while valid to a large degree) is fully though the point of view of someone already living in this world. It's one argument to say that more humans limit the quality of life of existing humans, and a whole other to say that because of this it's good to prevent new people being born. It's not that they have a say (as they don't), it's that we can still (obviously) measure the pros and cons of the unborn being aborted versus continuing normally.

Currently we have a lot of social and political issues limiting reform at this level, or just making them not worth it. That's why this argument in particular is more about the practical philosophy of limiting abortions and not a moral call to do so now.

Obviously I'm not calling for all abortions to be banned. I just think that in the future, we would do well to adhere to a policy of not aborting when not completely necessary (presuming a future that has improved upon the world today, which might be a stretch, but is also the only way I can see a future at all). — Igitur

If we're considering purely hypothetical scenarios, then a world where noone ever finds themselves in a situation where they consider abortion does seem preferable.

I merely wanted to point out that, even if you are opposed to abortion on moral grounds, it's hard to argue that banning abortion in the present improves the situation for anyone. It's hard to see how taking the decision away from those most involved - the parents - is an effective strategy.

We generally recognise that there is a hard border where no amount of "greater good", not even family ties, can overcome a person's wishes. — Echarmion

Yes. A qualification. Even in those cases, we can recommend to people that this or that course of action would be better prudentially or morally.

I merely wanted to point out that, even if you are opposed to abortion on moral grounds, it's hard to argue that banning abortion in the present improves the situation for anyone. It's hard to see how taking the decision away from those most involved - the parents - is an effective strategy. — Echarmion

Fair point. Banning abortion right now is definitely not the play. I do hope that it eventually becomes a thing of the past.

But we're not permitted to kill the unconscious, so that must not be the basis for deciding if someone is a person. — Hanover

If a child is brain dead and being kept alive on life support, the parents can decide to harvest the organs and remove life support. This society puts a lot of emphasis on the (supposed) personhood-brain connection.

But we're not permitted to kill the unconscious, so that must not be the basis for deciding if someone is a person.
— Hanover

If a child is brain dead and being kept alive on life support, the parents can decide to harvest the organs and remove life support. This society puts a lot of emphasis on the (supposed) personhood-brain connection. — RogueAI

I'm not sure of the distinction between brain dead and dead dead. But as to consciousness, you can be unconscious and have brain activity, like when you're asleep.

Abortion - Why are people pro life? — Samlw

As an American, my two bits: "pro life" folks, especially those who are also pro-guns, pro-death penalty, pro-voter suppression & anti-immigration / ethno-nationalist, seek to control (reverse) demographic trends by controlling women's bodies and use 'Bronze Age superstitions' (rather than modern science / medicine) to 'justify' their movement. :mask:

The difference is the probability. Killing one sperm isn’t really going to affect the chances of a successful pregnancy and birth. Killing a fetus is massively more likely to have prevented a life. — Igitur

Agree, but I have no idea what the import of that distinction is. The 'probability' for a single sperm could be, all else equal, the exact same as some other fetus (obviously, from a Sperm which had the same chances as the one im talking about). Point is taken, nonetheless. I would just suggest that what matters is that it is not 'actual' in either case (i take it arguments over 'actual' here are the real meat).

It's about the moral implications of the practical view of the potential of a fetus, specifically. — Igitur

This doesn't really give me anything. The 'moral implications' of a fetus are zero, as far as I'm concerned until viability (which means I have to take a bit of a pot-shot If I'm going to commit to a policy, but it would ensure probablity is taken account of ;) ). Could you perhaps elaborate on what you feel is presented here (in the concept of the 'practical view of the potential of a fetus' and why this wouldn't clear itself back to the Sperm without fault.

I'm coming late to this discussion. So, apologies if I'm going over old ground. But @180 Proof' s post caught my eye.

Abortion - Why are people pro life?
— Samlw
As an American, my two bits: "pro life" folks, especially those who are also pro-guns, pro-death penalty, pro-voter suppression & anti-immigration / ethno-nationalist, seek to control (reverse) demographic trends by controlling women's bodies and use 'Bronze Age superstitions' (rather than modern science / medicine) to 'justify' their movement. — 180 Proof

Absolutely spot on! And I'm not American.
I had similar thoughts when I read the shocking Guardian article re Capital punishment, yesterday.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935435
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/29/america-executions-death-penalty

Six days of horror: America’s thirst for executions returns with a vengeance
Five executions, five states: a glut of judicial killing not seen in 20 years took place last week – and there was nothing random about it.

The terms: 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', describe opposing sides of the abortion debate, are not helpful.
It's using loaded, extreme language for a specific and contentious issue. In general, people are FOR life and FOR choice. The trouble is that opponents are then deemed 'Anti life' and 'Anti choice'.
How ridiculous. Call it like it is. 'Pro-life' is 'Anti-Abortion'. Why muddy the waters? To persuade voters of the evils of Democrats?

If you are PRO life, then logically this should extend to opposition to guns, war and the death penalty.
It clearly doesn't and shows the toxic hypocrisy of the Republicans in America.

This is not about saving innocent life.

It is about power and control of women and their bodies.

The common argument here is that bodily autonomy is a defensive right - you have the right to refuse interference with your body, but you don't have a right to a specific treatment. And in case of a pregnancy, the fetus/baby is "using" the body of the mother, hence her bodily autonomy takes precedence. — Echarmion

I think this is a poor argument in some ways. If someone chooses to become pregnant, and/or sees their pregnancy through to a certain point, then changes their minds ... well, is the unborn child to blame for the mother's poor management of the situation.

Of course, I am looking at a specific scenario here and questioning exactly how far along a pregnancy is before the woman decides to abort. I do not see how the 'body autonomy' argument would hold up here because the woman made a prior choice and commitment and so should be held to account to some degree (varying on a case-to-case basis).

As a more concrete analogy if I commit to paying monthly installments for something over a period of time and willingly and knowingly sign up to this commitment, then simply having a change of mind/heart after I have only made 60% of the installments, and expecting everyone to be okay with this (if I have the fund available) is frankly a little ridiculous.

In some sense, I can see this kind of position being put forward to argue against abortions after a certain period of time. The obvious problem is then deciding on where to draw the line. I truly believe there is a line to be drawn and that, to some degree, it necessarily has to be arbitrary in-part but certainly not fully (ie. backed up by latest scientific understanding).

In the UK I believe it is 22 weeks. I am sure there are situations where abortions are allowed after this period depending on the circumstances.

I can a degree of sympathy with those who believe that life is sacred form the point of conception, but personally I just do not see things this way. Open dialogue is a good thing if people can respect/understand the authority of evidence others are working with.

I can a degree of sympathy with those who believe that life is sacred form the point of conception, but personally I just do not see things this way. Open dialogue is a good thing if people can respect/understand the authority of evidence others are working with. — I like sushi

The trouble is when religious 'pro-life' or 'anti-abortion' activists push their 'dialogue' outside abortion clinics. This adds danger to an already fraught situation. Protests and obstructing workers and patients.
Abuse and intimidation have required legislation to enable buffer or protection zones. These will extend to a 150-metre radius.

However, it may be the case that 'silent prayer' is allowed.

Bishop Sherrington, a spokesman for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said the buffer zone legislation discriminates against people of faith.

In a statement he said: "By legislating for and implementing so-called ‘safe access zones’, the UK government has taken an unnecessary and disproportionate step backwards in the protection of religious and civic freedoms.

"Religious freedom includes the right to manifest one’s private beliefs in public through witness, prayer and charitable outreach, including outside abortion facilities." — BBC News - Abortion Safe Zones

'Religious freedom'. Is this a fundamental human right? Where are the limits? When it encroaches on other freedoms or rights. Like those of women. A world-wide problem - wider than abortion.

'Religious freedom'. Is this a fundamental human right? Where are the limits? When it encroaches on other freedoms or rights. Like those of women. A world-wide problem - wider than abortion. — Amity

I think if you rephrase this as 'freedom to believe what you want' it sounds even more stupid in a way. We believe what we believe. You cannot expect people to stop believing something just because it seems ridiculous or abhorrent.

It is obviously difficult to cope with this in society. No one has the same mind. The best we can hope to encourage on others is open dialogue. It will be refused by some, but those that accept it may leads others in too.

I am still not sure about how tolerant anyone should be to anyone else. it is another matter of personal choice. What I may tolerate others may not. We have to live with this fact.

The common argument here is that bodily autonomy is a defensive right - you have the right to refuse interference with your body, but you don't have a right to a specific treatment. And in case of a pregnancy, the fetus/baby is "using" the body of the mother, hence her bodily autonomy takes precedence. — Echarmion

OK, so the highest priority is the right to refuse having your body interfered with, unless you're dependent on someone else's body?
It seems to me that this situation doesn't change after the fetus/baby is born. It takes quite a long time for babies and children to no longer be dependent on other people. So I think your criteria would make it permissible to abort children who have been born. If being being attached to the mother's body is a key aspect of "using" her body, then I don't see why this is morally relevant.
Does your criteria mean that, for example if a firefighter who is securely strapped onto something and who is preventing me from falling to my death by holding on to me, that it's morally permissible for him to let go, even though there's no danger to him?

Evidence seems to suggest humans become conscious, in the sense of being aware of themselves and their own awareness, only some time after birth — Echarmion

Which evidence are you referring to?

a new human being needs to acquire certain basic capabilities in order to become an individual, and being born and capable of surviving outside the womb is certainly a prerequisite. — Echarmion

But a baby won't survive on its own outside the womb. It's still dependent on society.

it's morally OK to abort a foetus because it isn't viable? — Hallucinogen


It is. — AmadeusD

OK, why do you think viability is what is morally relevant enough to make the difference between for it to be or not be permissible to abort/kill someone?

I am still not sure about how tolerant anyone should be to anyone else. it is another matter of personal choice. What I may tolerate others may not. We have to live with this fact. — I like sushi

Tolerance can be intolerable. The tolerant can be destroyed by the intolerant.
Interesting when it comes to 'open dialogue'. So often closed down by the dogmatic who only listen to their own narcissistic, egotistical desires. Even as they espouse religious beliefs or faith.

The 'personal choice' of those in positions of high political power - who would bully and kill world citizens - who control by hate, war and destruction - should never be acceptable. It is criminal.

If the 'freedom' wedge of vitriolic hate speech and promotion of violence are tolerated, then it becomes normalised. To all our detriment. Extremists in religion/politics manipulate words and images to cover their malignancies and justify acts of terror.

Dear God, if Trump wins he will grant himself the Nobel Peace Prize. Because, of course, there will be no war...he can make deals. He can make wishes come true. Peace to all. He has God delusions. It seems half of America believe him.

We can't stop people believing what they want or what they are told.
Education can help but, yes, not always accessible. And so on...

Apologies, I've gone off- topic. But the issue of abortion seems to be key as to how people will vote in America. Should this be such a determining factor, when there are so many others.
You can be anti- abortion but still vote Democrat, no? Or is it all so very black and white...

I don't know. But I am deeply and increasingly concerned as to the level of ignorance, arrogance and aggression leading to regression and destruction of human rights.

I thought it would be an interesting discussion especially as it is such a hot topic in America right now and I was wondering if someone on here would take me up on the offer to explain why they think banning abortion is the right thing to do. — Samlw

It has been a 'hot topic in America' forever and a day. However, I agree with you that, right now, beliefs about abortion will be a major factor in the American election. Interesting indeed.

:100:

"Pro-life" = pro-forced birth = pro-forced labor: unviable foetus (master) over pregnant woman (slave). :vomit:

Welcome to effin' "Gilead" (re: post-Roe v Wade America) aka Trumpistan.

Welcome to effin' "Gilead" — 180 Proof

I couldn't bring myself to read the novel or watch the film.
I do feel physically sick at such things, even in fiction.
But perhaps it's time. To get over myself. To get to know Atwood and the story.

The American Election - the most vile Republican rhetoric.
Too damned close for comfort. I'm not even there but it's everywhere.

Take care :flower:

:flower: I read The Handmaid's Tale about thirty years ago and haven't watched the tv adaptation. At the time someone had recommened to me M. Atwood and P.D. James' The Children of Men (I recommend both book & film) when we were discussing (iirc) The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula Le Guin.

As for the upcoming election, it's not really as close as "the media" reports and "the national polls" (since the US presidential election is not a national popular election but fifty state elections) suggest. IMO, Amity, it's more profitable to news organizations and social media platforms to sell the "down to the wire neck and neck horse race" story. My 'pessimistic' prediction since 2022 has been and still is that Trump will lose the 2024 by at least the margin he'd lost in 2020. :mask: :up:

The real (appalling) "fun" will begin furiously after the election in 35 days – I expect there will be blood!

OK, so the highest priority is the right to refuse having your body interfered with, unless you're dependent on someone else's body? — Hallucinogen

I didn't say it was the highest priority. It's one common argument.

It seems to me that this situation doesn't change after the fetus/baby is born. It takes quite a long time for babies and children to no longer be dependent on other people. So I think your criteria would make it permissible to abort children who have been born. If being being attached to the mother's body is a key aspect of "using" her body, then I don't see why this is morally relevant. Does your criteria mean that, for example if a firefighter who is securely strapped onto something and who is preventing me from falling to my death by holding on to me, that it's morally permissible for him to let go, even though there's no danger to him? — Hallucinogen

Bodily autonomy is specific to things that affect the physical substance of your body. Else every action would fall under bodily autonomy. The justification for the principle is that the integrity of your body is the basic requirement for your freedom as well as the most private sphere of your existence.

Which evidence are you referring to? — Hallucinogen

What we know from developmental psychology. Children only start to engage in social interactions after a few months. Before 3 months, infants do not respond to the behaviour of others, such as following another person's gaze. It can take up to two years for children to recognise themselves in a mirror.

This seems to suggest that children don't start out with full self awareness.

But a baby won't survive on its own outside the womb. It's still dependent on society. — Hallucinogen

Right, but so is most everyone. At least with birth, a child can be cared for by anyone regardless of biological relation. So, their dependency exits from the realm of biology and enters the realm of society.

I think this is a poor argument in some ways. If someone chooses to become pregnant, and/or sees their pregnancy through to a certain point, then changes their minds ... well, is the unborn child to blame for the mother's poor management of the situation. — I like sushi

I don't think bodily autonomy is about blame. Indeed what's special about bodily autonomy is that one can invoke it no matter how good the counterarguments. Even a perfectly innocent child is not entitled to a blood transfusion from you, even if that transfusion causes you only a bit of inconvenience while being a matter of life and death to the child.

Of course, I am looking at a specific scenario here and questioning exactly how far along a pregnancy is before the woman decides to abort. I do not see how the 'body autonomy' argument would hold up here because the woman made a prior choice and commitment and so should be held to account to some degree (varying on a case-to-case basis).

As a more concrete analogy if I commit to paying monthly installments for something over a period of time and willingly and knowingly sign up to this commitment, then simply having a change of mind/heart after I have only made 60% of the installments, and expecting everyone to be okay with this (if I have the fund available) is frankly a little ridiculous. — I like sushi

I can see where you're coming from, but my issue is that there's noone to make a commitment to. Pregnancy is not an agreement with the unborn child.

In some sense, I can see this kind of position being put forward to argue against abortions after a certain period of time. The obvious problem is then deciding on where to draw the line. I truly believe there is a line to be drawn and that, to some degree, it necessarily has to be arbitrary in-part but certainly not fully (ie. backed up by latest scientific understanding).

In the UK I believe it is 22 weeks. I am sure there are situations where abortions are allowed after this period depending on the circumstances. — I like sushi

I don't have strong feelings about selecting some cut off point (provided it still allows a reasonable window of time to actually make a decision).

In principle though I wonder why we should not trust the parents to make that decision themselves.

OK, why do you think viability is what is morally relevant enough to make the difference between for it to be or not be permissible to abort/kill someone? — Hallucinogen

Couldn't be sure, but I'm an emotivist so my position doesn't hinge on my being able to explicate it.

That said, I'll have a go:

Viability is where the 'potential' slips from 'potential to eventually be able to survive outside the womb' (which, consider, has infinite ways to not manifest) to "(apparent)actual ability to survive outside the womb" (which, consider, requires essentially 'morally relevant action' to extinguish in most cases).

These lines are too stark, and (i think I noted) I accept some level of overlap in terms of acceptable abortions, or refusal of abortions, on my account. Edge cases will have to just exist within the frame work, and some will be, on the facts probably wrong on my view, but fit hte framework and are an acceptable trade off. Viability seems to be the only worthwhile way to distinguish. Whether it matters is up to the person making hte moral statement.

Could you perhaps elaborate on what you feel is presented here (in the concept of the 'practical view of the potential of a fetus' and why this wouldn't clear itself back to the Sperm without fault. — AmadeusD

The chances of killing a sperm actually effecting someone (and it would also need to be negative as well, only deaths matter because the chance of a positive genetic change is the same as a negative one), is extremely slim. You might say that with my philosophy it would still be impermissible, and I would probably ask you why you are killing a sperm in the first place.

Maybe it is a requirement for this argument to make sense that killing a sperm would also be impermissible. Maybe it is.
But using this to say what I’ve said is a non-functional argument obviously has some flaws, as that means that any crime that has a probability of effecting something isn’t as impermissible with a lower probability. (Obviously adding a benefit of the crime that doesn’t chance or at least doesn’t change as much affects this, but this particular question works the opposite way.)

Furthermore, if the implications of this idea do in fact clear back to a sperm, then why doesn’t the crime of killing an infant clear back to the fetus back to the sperm?

What’s the point at which a fetus becomes valuable enough to be worth keeping (or morally significant enough to demand keeping)?

(If this doesn’t answer your question just rephrase and I’ll give it another go.)

From six years ago:

What pisses me off most about the choice debate is the insincerity of the antagonists.

The reason you want to ban abortion is nothing to do with fair ethical consideration. It's because the people who tell you what your invisible friend wants say abortion is naughty.

The same misogynist folk who fight against child care, public education, maternity leave, and most other things that will actually benefit people. The ones who think giving guns to children is a good idea, and are shit scared of anyone who is slightly different, sexually, ethnically, geographically, politically or spiritually.

The folk who will not mention, let alone consider, the role of the potential mother; utter bullshit. — Banno

And

Opposition to abortion is immoral.

It is immoral because it puts the "needs" of a cyst ahead of those of a human.

Pretending a cyst has rights in order to defend one's invisible friends is immoral.

My blood cells are human. They do not amount to a human being. A blastocyst is human. It is not a human being. Anti-abortion rhetoric relies on equivocating between human and human being. Cysts are not persons. Being a person involves sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, an appetite, and rationality. A woman is capable of all of these. A cyst, of none.

But a blastocyst can only achieve personhood by inflicting its demands on a woman. Opposing the morning after pill is immoral because it denies the dignity of the woman involved. The cyst has no moral standing.

Nor does a foetus start as a person.

Now some folk have trouble with this; they need a firm, hard line drawn. They find the fact of the slow development of the person from the embryo disconcerting. They try to force a firm break into a situation where one does not exist.

That's their problem. A proper study of philosophy of language might lead to an improvement in their understanding of what is going on when we categorise stuff, and may hopefully dispel their need for certainty.

It is also important to recognise the usual mode of argument of the anti-abortionist. They start with the belief, gleaned from their invisible friends, that abortion is wrong, and then proceed to find arguments for their case.

They are not involved in a real open discussion of the ethical issues involved. Their minds are already decided. — Banno

:100: :up:

"pro-life" folks ... who are also ... pro-death penalty... seek to control (reverse) demographic trends by controlling women's bodies ...
—180 Proof

Absolutely spot on! And I'm not American.
I had similar thoughts when I read the shocking Guardian article re Capital punishment, yesterday.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935435
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/29/america-executions-death-penalty — Amity

:fire:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/12/how-often-do-views-capital-punishment-abortion-align/

'mercans, of course. Elsewhere saner attitudes might prevail.

:clap: :cool:

In case there is some doubt as to correlation, here's a couple of interesting maps.

Which country is having trouble deciding and needed it's own special choropleth?



Meh. 'merca is a schizoid nation. I guess that's what makes it interesting.

It just appears that way because of the schism between the people and the legislature.

You might say that with my philosophy it would still be impermissible, and I would probably ask you why you are killing a sperm in the first place. — Igitur

That's consistent, to me. I reject it, but it's a consistent view if this negative view is open to you.

Furthermore, if the implications of this idea do in fact clear back to a sperm, then why doesn’t the crime of killing an infant clear back to the fetus back to the sperm? — Igitur

I think this was the 'corner' I was trying to push you into (politely, lol). You've responded very well imo.
For me, that viability argument, coupled with the acceptance of a meaningful, but acceptable, margin of error in probability claims of a given case, give me the line I need.

Thank you :)

It’s certainly an interesting dispute. Thank you for asking.

Let me give this a crack.

First and foremost, in order for this argument to work, we must agree (at least as a mere stipulation) that the end(s) does (do) not justify the means—viz., I cannot do a bad action for the sake of a good end (e.g., I cannot kill and harvest the organs of an innocent, healthy person to save a sick person’s life).

A person (i.e., a living being with a proper will—i.e., with a mind capable of rational deliberation—or, more generally, a part of a rational species) has certain basic rights; and they have rights, which are not mere privileges, because each person must respect, equally, each other person because they are a person. Two of these rights are the right to bodily autonomy and the right to life.

It is important to note that the right to life is NOT the right to anything required to live, and the right to bodily autonomy is the NOT the right to do anything required to preserve or enforce one’s own will about their own body (i.e., autonomy); exactly because the end does not justify the means. I cannot violate your right to bodily autonomy EVEN IF it would result in the upholding of my own (e.g., forcing you to be my slave and work on a plantation to produce goods that help me maintain my health) because I would be performing a bad action for the sake of something good—which is always wrong.

So here’s why I am pro-life: killing an innocent person is to violate their right to life, and so any action which incorporates killing an innocent person as a means towards a good end, such as upholding the bodily autonomy of a pregnant female, is always wrong. I cannot do something bad to do something good: I must find another way that is permissible, or abstain from interjecting (i.e., let something bad happen).

Does that help?

Does that help? — Bob Ross

No. A cyst is not a person.