A practical solution I've seen implemented is to have three restrooms -- male, female, neutral. So those who wish to adhere to traditional roles can do so, and those who do not can also do so.

It was a nice touch, I thought.

Of course, this was in a semi-private establishment (bar) which chose to do such, which changes things from when you're talking about policy and law.

I have no idea what controversy you're talking about, though. To be honest, I've only heard this kind of moral haranguing from conservative politicians wanting to beat out their opponent on the conserv-o-meter and show their constituents they bleed red-white-blue and believe in traditional values.

But, I accept that my experiences are conditioned by what is a rather conservative state.

It might be better for me to just say what I took away from the passage, I think, considering that I wouldn't be able to do justice to MP by any stretch of the imagination.

As I see it, there's a problem in trying to understand the relationship between philosophy and what we (ought?) do in our lives, and vice-versa. How can, if philosophy explores questions about being, etc., this possibly influence our lives, and if philosophy is concerned with such questionings then how can our lives possibly influence philosophy? For my part I don't really find myself feeling skeptical that these things aren't related, so the question of how rings more prominent.

What I took away from the passage, then, was that these are in a sense different from one another but related by way of how living our lives after they have been reflected upon differs from simply living a life which we have not reflected upon. So reflection is a kind of action, but it is the sort of action which -- as long as it is not taken as an end unto itself (we must return to other actions) -- affects our other actions qualitatively. After having reflected we can't go back to a state of "ignorance", though we probably also will not, in living our daily lives, also not keep a host of principles and arguments at hand to tackle the daily.

So we might use Hume, for example, when he asks what the point of all of his arguments were if they were to conclude something so obscure that it would be impossible for him to apply his conclusions to daily life. But surely, at least I can attest, the way I would think about drawing conclusions differed after reading Hume than before even if I wasn't following along with his notions of necessary connection and so forth.


I think the quote just struck home with me because it elucidates clearly where the proper place for each -- philosophical reflection and practical action -- lies.

Those are definitely strong echoes of one another! And I agree with you when you say "sometimes you just have to get off the bike" -- actually, kind of an interesting (accident?) when considering Wittgenstein's analogy that (perhaps, in his mind, bad) philosophy disengages the gears of language.

And I would say, just to further what I took away from the quote at least, that in getting off the bike, when you get back on you gain a deeper appreciation for what you may have been able to continue doing without stopping, but without that added layer of understanding.

I stopped using Facebook when they forced me to put my real name up. In a weird way it was actually a benefit, because I didn't realize just how much of a time suck it was, nor how much anxiety I felt because of the site.

I still have a twitter account open, but it functions more like an RSS feed for news when I want to see what's going on in the world. So it's not so bad.

I don't foresee returning to the site. I much prefer staying in contact with the telephone.

Ok, let's say that you've convinced me that my position allows the "murder" of unborn babies. Is that going to miraculously make your position justified? — Sapientia

No.

Though I'm just wondering what your response is. I don't expect to persuade you in either direction. I don't believe you'd actively advocate for the murder of babies. But it's certainly the case that many people believe that the laws, as they are written now, allow for the murder of babies.

To them do you say, more or less, as you have said to me? That viability is the measure which is good enough for now, because it's good enough for you and seems practical?

I expect more of the same from her administration -- neoliberalism is preferable to fascism, but it's not something to get excited about.

I was bummed, too.

Even expecting the outcome I was bummed.

I am happy that Bernie gave Hillary some good, solid competition. But I doubt her campaign promises.


There are still local elections to look at.

That is to ignore the implications. If I were to place the line at 6 months after birth, and say that I care just as much (in the sense of empathy and compassion, as opposed to enthusiasm with regards to politics), are you going to genuinely tell me that there would be no other implications? The difference between our positions isn't as severe as that, but it's there. — Sapientia

These implications only exist if everyone believed as you believe.

So, yes -- I would genuinely say so. It's not an issue of care as much as it is an issue of belief.

Your new tactic seems to ignore important things that I've said, and acts like that isn't going to be problematic, when it is. It's a wider issue than the difference between a zygote and a child, but I've already pointed out some of the differences, and yet you choose to focus on the most trivial, while ignoring the others. So, why should the burden be on me to repeat myself rather than on you to structure your attacks in a manner that better reflects my position? I even helped you by pointing out important aspects of which I'd previously spoke. These factor in to the justification.

And no, I'm not dehumanising in the sense that I previously expressed. I have no problem acknowledging that the zygote is a human zygote, but it's not treated in the same way as either a child or a newborn baby or a yet-to-be-born baby for reasons that I'm sure you already understand. — Sapientia

The only thing you've stated in this regard is viability. Your response to my critique of viability was, more or less, "It's good enough for me for now"

Is that how you'd respond to someone who is claiming that your view allows the murder of unborn babies?

I assure you that the view I'm adopting here is far from unpopular.

I couldn't tell you why because I didn't inquire further.

Private firms, however, have schedules just like anyone. If I had to hazard a guess it would be because of the supply side of the equation. While 3rd trimester abortions, relative to all abortions, are rare, the raw number of appointments relative to the raw number of demand is small.

But, as I said, this is just a guess.

I believe that you either don't care enough; or that you do, but the position that you advocate conflicts with what makes sense, given your feelings. — Sapientia

Then I would say that this is an erroneous belief. If anything my error is to care too much when it comes to politics.

I would say again that our difference is merely where we place the line, and why we place the line there, and nothing more.

How is it strange? Is your agenda not to exclude unborn babies from the legal protection that they're currently granted? — Sapientia

Negative. My agenda, in this thread, is to defend my view from the charges made against it, and to understand the why behind what you state you believe.

If you want to get technical with terminology, as your objection to my referring to a foetus as an unborn baby suggests, then you can't - for sake of consistency - keep calling murder that which is not murder.

Just because I pointed out that a foetus is human in that it's a member of the human species, and that it's alive, that doesn't mean that I think that that's the be-all and end-all. The level of development also matters, as I've consistently said from the start, and I suspect that you'd agree to an extent. Just as you don't think that a gall bladder should be treated like a newborn, I don't think that a zygote should be treated like a 38-week-old foetus. Our reasons might not be exactly the same, but they're close enough for you to understand why I think as I do. I also spoke of viability, priority of values, and how the costs weigh up in comparison to the benefits. I don't believe that the mother should have no rights, as the position that you describe would entail if it is to be consistent.

My position, unlike yours, is consistent in terms of ethics in relation to law. I consider child destruction unjust, so I advocate laws against it. You have similarly said something along the lines that you consider it unjust, in terms of morality, but you advocate permitting it nevertheless, and for any reason whatsoever provided it comes from the mother.

So, to be clear, my objection is that your questions are loaded and don't accurately reflect my position. — Sapientia

This is a dodge. Respond to my assertions like you would someone who is advocating for the abolition of the law. This is the purpose of my changing tactics -- I don't think we're getting terribly far by just restating what we already believe.

What's the difference between a zygote and a child? Eyebrows? Are you not dehumanizing what is clearly human? It's alive, it has its own set of chromosomes separate from the mothers, it belongs to the human species. How do you, then, justify allowing its intentional termination?

I have eyebrows, and so does a foetus at the relevant stage of development. To be frank, I don't much care about your abstractions and philosophical interpretation. I care about the human life that's at stake. — Sapientia

What's strange to me is that you seem to believe I don't care about the human life at stake. That coupled with the strange allusions to "my agenda" makes it hard to take this very seriously. I propose we play this game from a different angle. Perhaps it would be more illuminating as to what you're really getting at.



Abortion should never be allowed because the the zygote is a human zygote. It has a full set of chromosomes. It will become a human being left unfettered. There are natural causes which can prevent a zygote from becoming a human, but this is different from intentional causes -- so miscarriages or if the separate human cells don't implant in the uturus are not even manslaughter, but intentional human action to destroy human life is at a minimum manslaughter, and at a maximum murder.

We can't make exceptions just for the sake of convenience. A human being is a human being, without qualification, and clearly there is a unique set of chromosomes when the zygote is formed. So, scientifically at least, there is no basis for not including the zygote as part of the species, and for not saying it is alive.

How, then, do you say that the Abortion Act of 1967 is a just law, if it permits the murder of human beings?

How do you justify allowing unjust abortions from taking place?

But you can't credibly deny that a foetus at that stage has those features that I mentioned. How else would you word it? — Sapientia

It's not the wording which I have an issue with as much as how you are conceptualizing the situation. Ownership over property, rights, and the rest all come with designating something in the world as a who.

"The bread has cheese on it" differs from "I have eyebrows" in the sense that I own myself.

So have I. I don't need to give an exact answer. Even if the line isn't drawn in the best possible place, a line within the right range is better than no line at all. (I'm talking about prior to birth, obviously). The Abortion Act 1967 seems to be working, given that there is evidence that late-term abortions are rare. But even if it isn't working as well as we might like, that's no good reason to remove the safety net. — Sapientia

No good reason? Maybe not for yourself, considering how pregnancy will never affect you or me in the same way it affects roughly half the population.

But I would say the good reason is at the social level more than at some personal level. In a broad sense I think that the allowance of action is the default, and it is the prohibition of action which has the burden to prove why something ought to be prohibited. Call this the "Soft Libertarian Principle" -- soft only because I could see harder stances, but this is the sort of libertarianism that I think is broadly agreed upon by most.

So the good reason that you ask for, from my perspective, is on the prohibiter to produce. Implicitly I'd say this is what we have all agreed to: since it is usually understood that the prevention of murder is in the interest of the state the state must enforce the laws against murder. Where we have disagreed is what counts as protected by the law -- or, at least, what should count.

And, furthermore, we even agree on the notion of "safely prior to being a person" it seems. I agree with you there, I only disagree on what that means in terms of when.

It should be clear to you that a foetus at the stage we've discussed is very similar to a newborn, and more so than any organ in the human body. — Sapientia

Not only is it clear to me, but I have already acknowledged the similarity.

Wisdom. Wisdom leads to the right conclusions. It has lead most of the U.S. to the right conclusion. Any fool can use philosophy and end up with his head up his arse. Or perhaps they were in that situation to begin with and are merely using philosophy as a means to justify their arse-headedness. It's a bit like shaving. Some people are better at it than others. Some people end up with cuts all over their face. — Sapientia

:D

Come on, now. That's a bit silly.

Wisdom leads to the right conclusions -- which are obviously mine! I can't help it that you are foolish, Sapientia.

That's good for a laugh, at least.

I find your prioritisation of convention and understandability over actual human life sickening. You aren't giving them the proper respect they're due, and it certainly isn't safe for the unborn baby that ends up getting killed, is it? — Sapientia

The difference between yourself and myself should be clear in this question. You believe the fetus is a baby. You believe the fetus is a person. So it is sickening for someone to kill a fetus specifically because said action, from your perspective, is no different than killing a newborn.

I do not believe this. And given that babies at least need an environment before they can be a being I'd still say I'm very safe in my conclusion. As such it seems to me that you are just personifying what is not a person -- like someone protecting a mole or a gall bladder as if it had a personality all of its own.

But it's alright, because it isn't a person. Just like how a Jew isn't a person. First you dehumanise, then you allow to be killed. I'd rather be a Catholic than a Nazi.

Me too. Especially since I said I can respect the Catholic position. It's good to see we are on the same page.

And in anticipation of your denial, you are dehumanising.

Dude. This only follows if you are correct. I am dehumanising if the fetus is a human. I don't deny that. But I would say that you are personifying if the fetus is not a human.

This description of my action only follows if we presuppose your answer to the question.

You're purposefully overlooking or playing down human qualities, and you purposefully exclude from the human category altogether. Unborn babies are appropriately treated as human, as opposed to an organ or body part, in many ways. For example, at the later stage of development, they can hear. People talk to it. It has a gender. People refer to it as "him" or "her". It sometimes has a name which is used in reference to it. People evidently care about it in a significant way, and not in quite the same way as they do a gall bladder.

I'd put it to you that this is only sometimes the case, and not always the case. For an intended pregnancy in a family environment people talk, gender, name, and care for a fetus. But it could be otherwise. In addition I would note that people talk, gender, name, and care about a great many things -- cars, motorcycles, boats, weapons -- but that doesn't afford them rights, per se.

Honestly Moliere, I don't know why you keep mentioning Catholics with me except as some kind of odd attempt to tar me with religious beliefs I don't have. I only came into this debate to argue about super-late-term abortions. Hanover and Sapientia aren't Catholic either to my knowledge nor are the vast majority of people who oppose your views — Baden

For myself, at least, your position is hard to distinguish from the Catholic position -- not in its effects, but in its justification. That's why I mention it. It's not a tar. As I noted before I can at least respect the Catholic position because it has a justification -- one which I do not agree with in the slightest, but it is consistent and I believe they hold such beliefs in good faith.

But your latter posts seem to strike out into a new territory that I had not been picking up on.

I want to make this clear again. I don't think "killing a fetus is murder" necessarily. My objection specifically was to the killing of an about-to-be-born fetus on the grounds that it is human and should be granted some protection and that the harm done to the mother to carry the birth through is unlikely to outweigh the harm done to it except in very exceptional circumstances. Earlier abortions should be considered based on the balance of harm and the less developed the fetus the less harm that can be said to be being done to it. — Baden

I'm not sure how much I enjoy it. I find it disturbing sometimes. But I accept your olive branch and will try to keep my vociferous disagreement with your view on this issue polite for the sake of the debate.

I could sum up my view like this: A world where people are free to treat babies as they do animals and where abortions could be carried out at any time for any reason would be a much less humane and a much less compassionate world than this one is, and this one isn't exactly winning many awards for humanity and compassion as it is. — Baden

I would ask two things here -- the empirical question and then also what your justification might be.

It seems to me that late term abortions are rarely sought out as it is. So I would wonder if, even granting that late term abortions are not compassionate, the world would actually be less compassionate if it were legal in all cases.

I don't think that a fetus is the same as animals. But I'm wondering what sorts of rights you would assign to a fetus, and why they would have rights too? What makes them special enough to prohibit abortion, for instance?

You're taking things out of context. You said that your position depends on your being "correct in considering the fetus an organ". That is what I claimed is in conflict with scientific literature. As is the denial that the foetus has organs or "anything at all". — Sapientia

Ownership is not settled by scientific literature, and I made clear that I introduced the notion of an organ as an analogy. Or, at least -- if I did not, then take this as a sign that I mean this in analogy. I don't think I'm moving the goal post there, but if I am then let's just say I am and pointing to where it is now.

That isn't true. The other two can correct me if I'm wrong, but all three of us (four of us, if you include Hanover in addition to Baden, Bitter Crank and myself) have - and have expressed - the belief that a foetus has (or effectively has) rights at some point between it's initial formation and birth, and I have appealed to the Abortion Act 1967 as a guide. — Sapientia

Where I'm unclear, though, is where you place the line, and why you place the line where you place it. I have given an answer to both questions.

It seems a very unlikely scenario that a woman would need more than 27 weeks to find an abortion clinic after being raped, but I'll answer anyway. First of all, whether I think the abortion would be justified in a case like this would depend on a variety of variables. If the woman concerned was just a week or two before giving birth, most of her suffering would probably have already occurred and be unpreventable, so I would think on balance the greater harm would be to abort the fetus. If she was a month or two before birth and was suffering greatly (even if not suicidal) it might not be. I'm not sure how you would draft a law that would cover the complexities here and if my only choice was to oppose or to not oppose one that would force a mother to go through with a pregnancy after the third trimester in all cases barring a threat to the life of the mother (i.e. including a rape that didn't make the mother suicidal), I would find it very difficult to make a call. I'd just have to think more about it. One very important reason I oppose some abortions, above and beyond the harm to the fetus, is that usually the mother has some responsibility in causing the pregnancy. In the case of rape, there is not only no responsibility, there is a greatly increased risk of psychological suffering being caused by the pregnancy. That obviously carries a lot of weight. — Baden

There are two things I wanted to note here.

One, you may be surprised how long someone can go without knowing they are pregnant. I know a person who only gained 5 pounds throughout her pregnancy. It simply did not occur to her that she should check. It wasn't until late in her 2nd trimester that she did, and then you have to actually schedule the abortion -- which can take a long time. It's not like you can just go in and get it done. At that point, it was a third trimester abortion, if not as late as we are discussing here.

This requires some unpacking. You have provided some additional details about this view, but I can't find it. (Spending too much time on philosophy often results in badly scorched gruel.) — Bitter Crank

What would you recommend, other than philosophy, we discuss said topic with? What is better suited, in your view?

If embodiment (having a cellular structure, brain, senses, blood, guts -- all the gory details) doesn't define one's personhood, I am not clear about where you think personhood resides, if it resides anywhere. Granted, legal systems define personhood in various ways; dead people leave estates with their name attached to it (but executors carry out the will of the deceased); memory and the written and printed word, recordings, photographs, etc. give an after-death existence to people, and as long as the texts are in circulation (sometimes for millennia) a 'personhood' can continue to exist. Christians officially think that Jesus still exists, in heaven, quite a-corporeally. Or maybe not. Haven't been there to check it out. Billions of people think they will survive death a-corporeally in heaven.

But... not everybody looks at it that way.

So, where is the person and how is the person constituted?

I think you have to at least have an environment, both physical and social, in which you can develop the capacity to experience a world separate from yourself. I don't think you have to have a fully formed identity, but, at least as a human being, you do have to be accepted into a social network and raised, taken care of, form beliefs from, learn language from, and so forth.

You have to have a history of some kind, social relationships, beliefs in the permanency of objects, and so forth. It is constituted over time, and there is no one point where everyone actually obtains personhood. It's more likely a gestalt phenomena that varies from person to person.

However, because I think you have to have the capacity to experience, an environment which allows you to form beliefs about yourself being separate from it, a history, a social world being taught to you -- well, it's not just unlikely, but downright impossible for the unborn to be persons. I like the idea of putting the line in the impossible region, however, so birth -- both as a conventionally understood moment of significance, and easily understood -- works for satisfying the proper respect which persons are due while simultaneously remaining conservative and safe.

Since, at least to my view, persons are the sorts of beings which have rights (in our society).

I'm replying to Hanover here because I had an answer immediately. I'm still digesting the others.



I'd say because the appropriate way of handling its special-ness, with specific reference to whether or not a woman may obtain an abortion, is not and cannot be done by the state -- fines or jail for, in the more humane scenario, the doctor.

Otherwise, I'd be open to hearing what you had in mind. I can see lines being drawn with respect to what may be done with a fetus. I can even see a moral appeal to something different than my proposed line of birth for the law. But I don't think that moral appeal is strong enough to warrant prohibition.

(EDIT: Did some quick edits to make my sentences less ambiguous)

Now, to be fair, I can understand why you are passionate in your disagreement. If you are right I am basically condoning murder of innocent children for the sake of convenience. Catholics feel the same way. So the conversation is clearly balanced in my favor in terms of remaining light, since I don't believe that this is the result of my conclusion, where you do believe that.

But I would at least encourage you to look into the foundations and history of your beliefs (the whole "killing a fetus is murder" is, historically speaking, very recent -- it has always been serious, but it has rarely been equated to murder until recently). And, of course, I will defend mine if called into question -- especially on a philosophy forum of all places.

But I wanted to extend an olive branch. I do actually enjoy these conversations. Like I said, it's one of my favorite topics in philosophy for the very reason that people really do care about it.

Can't you see the circularity here?

"I see no reason...not to consider the fetus as part of the mother [because] there is a continuation between the two" (i.e. the fetus is part of the mother). Whether or not there is a continuation is the issue under debate. There is a connection obviously through the umbilical cord and across the placental barrier. I've just demonstrated why this is not a bodily continuation because an organism that does not contain your DNA and has a full set of organs of its own and is (in the case of late fetuses) viable on its own is not your body. On your side you have no argument at all. All you are saying is it's part of her body because it's in her body. — Baden

Why is it not your body? Mayhaps because a body, in your view, is defined by cellular characteristics?

You consider these things relevant. I can see that. But I don't. And, besides, if you were consistent than you would move your line back from the third trimester -- considering that the zygote also has a unique set of DNA from the mother, would therefore be alien and, in your view, separate from the mother.

Moliere didn't know it as far as I can see. — Baden

I did? It just isn't even relevant. It does not matter that the fetus has DNA that differs. It does not matter that the immunological perspective treats the fetus as an alien. Because these things don't define what has rights.

Which seems to be a theme here among you three --

You reject my answer to the question, "When does a fetus have rights?". I ask for one from you, but get none. Sometime later one of you pipes in about how what I'm saying doesn't make sense, but your critique only follows if you implicitly answer the question, "When does a fetus have rights?" -- which is no better than begging the question, in this context.

Of course if we assume that I'm wrong then I'll be wrong. And if we assume that you are right then you will be right. But, thus far at least, all the reductio's have implicitly believed some kind of answer without proposing one.

Can't we just agree to disagree, rather than presuming that science is on our side, that our beliefs are obviously right, and that those who disagree are obviously without compassion, absurd, strange, outside the norms of morality, etc. etc.?

I don't require you to agree with me. It seems rather strange that you require me to agree with you when you don't even propose a reason for your objections, but rather just assume that it's obvious and normative and moral, and continue to express your strong disagreement with my assertions based on that assumption.

All this only follows if we follow your assertion that our cells make us something which has or owns. You may believe that people are defined by having a unique sequence of DNA, or that having something is constituted by the "immunological point of view", but I don't.

I don't think an organism's unique biological makeup gives them rights, experiences, etc. And I see no reason, then, to not consider the fetus as a part of the mother -- considering that that there is a continuation between the two, and there is no organism placed within a physical and social environment for it to develop in and have experiences.

There are rules which regulate gall bladders as well. No? I wouldn't know, but I would be surprised if organs had no laws which regulate them.

I don't think they are on par, myself. I would hold a fetus as more special than a gall bladder. But I would also not count a third trimester abortion as some kind of moral wrong, either.

The removal of a gall bladder is a decision made between a patient and a doctor. Abortions, in that sense, should be the same. This doesn't mean that the removal of a gall bladder should carry the same ethical weight as an abortion -- but, likewise, it doesn't mean that an abortion is a moral wrong which the state has an interest in stopping.

I agree with notions of respect towards fetal tissue, by the way. I just don't think the power of law should be involved in the decision to have an abortion prior to birth.

I don't believe so. We have wills, for instance, and methods for distributing property properly after someone dies.

Yes, they do seek abortions. And I endorse the legitimacy of people aborting fetuses before the third trimester. Our difference seems to be limited to abortion during the last trimester, and the difference the third trimester makes in this decision. — Bitter Crank

People seek out abortions in the third trimester, though. So, even then, if the actions of those unversed in the finer points of philosophy are justifiers for our beliefs, then my belief is as justified as yours. Both positions are acceptable according to the metric you are proposing.

At the other end of a life, the loss of a functioning brain (brain death or profound irreversible coma) is the end of personhood. — Bitter Crank

Just to make clear, I wouldn't say this. Someone who has lived a life has a separate body, a history, and many relationships, rights, and so forth, even after death. Or if someone is in a coma, for instance, or has brain damage. Since it isn't the state of the brain or cellular structure which defines personhood, under my theory, neither does the deterioration of the brain deny a person their rights, property, and so forth.

How do ordinary people not versed in the fine points of philosophy actually treat their own (and others') fetuses? — Bitter Crank

I think it would depend on how you define "ordinary people". Not only do they do what you are saying, they also seek out abortions. Yes? And said process is never easy, whether they go through with the birth or the abortion.

The finer points of philosophy -- whatever those might be -- merely allow us to grapple with our own beliefs and question them, if we are so inclined, and justify our beliefs or some other belief if we find our beliefs are unjustifiable. The finer points of philosophy may attempt to answer why it is acceptable to do such and such -- but these ordinary people you speak of, whom I presume are not versed in philosophy, don't just play the role you're setting out for them. They also seek out and obtain abortions.

If the actions of ordinary people justify our beliefs, then it would seem to me that both your belief and my belief are justifiable.

Your reasoning is in conflict with scientific literature. — Sapientia

Which scientific literature tells us when something ought to be treated as a bearer of rights?

Last I looked, eyebrows and lashes were not the indicators of whether or not someone has rights. If you shave those off, and you are human, you'd still have rights, yes?

But if you are not human then you are not a "you", and therefore it becomes mighty difficult to possess anything.

From your perspective I'm dehumanizing what is human. From my perspective, though, you are personifying what is not human in the sense that it is a separate organism or person with rights and so forth. All that happens much after birth.

Not by my reasoning. The fetus doesn't have anything at all. There is no separation between the fetus and the mother. So it is strange to treat the fetus as if it is a human just waiting inside the mother.

The fetus is more like an organ than a human. I did say that this is an analogy when I introduced the comparison. They are obviously not identical.

That's like, your opinion, man. — Sapientia

At this point, considering that you haven't been able to defend your position and have pleaded ignorance and a desire to take your time in coming to a decision, I think it apt to point out that you are just talking about your opinion -- your unjustified belief.

Special pleading? Why do you draw the line at birth. Odd. — Sapientia

Probably for similar reasons that you seem to want to draw the line further back -- because you have to draw the line somewhere, and birth is safely before we are dealing with a human in the sense you mean the word, and it is directly after a significant event.

Not enough of one to invoke the law, at least. Of course there are differences -- but the fetus is not a person with rights, and shouldn't be considered one if I am correct in considering the fetus an organ.

Fair.

Though, to be clear, I don't think debate should be restricted -- even in the event that there were some way that women were the official policy makers, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I thought men shouldn't speak on the matter. I believe in free speech.

All terrible reasons to have an abortion. They don't have to keep the baby after giving birth. There are these things that you might have heard of called social services and adoption. If the parent or parents are unfit, the state has the power to intervene. — Sapientia

Perhaps in your opinion. But I think all of these are reasonable because I don't think a fetus is a human, but will become a human.

If you have a gall bladder removed, is it a moral crime? Even if you just removed it because it is convenient?

A fetus is not human, but is a human fetus. A liver is not human, but is a human liver. I'd say you are using "human" more or less in the same way that the philosophical literature uses "personhood" here:

It is a human, and I believe that it deserves certain rights which should not be violated by the mother or anyone else, and fortunately it has those rights in English law, at least effectively, given that child destruction is a statutory offence. — Sapientia

I have no problem saying a fetus is human in the biological sense. But to say that a fetus deserves certain rights is basically to accord personhood to a fetus, which I think is still in error -- whether that be called "human", "sufficiently advanced", or so forth.

It's a bit of a digression at the fault of my own mention, I think. In the world we actually live in, I agree with you -- that is the position I'm advocating. I was mentioning off-handedly how, if there were some way to do so, women should set policy for issues which effect them more on the basis of the principle that I think any issue which only effects a part of the population (or majorly effects a part of the population -- obviously you can always some kind of effect/affect) should be decided by that part of the population rather than by everybody.

A side issue, because I don't know how you would pragmatically implement such a thing -- and so the policy I favor is one where the individual woman decides up until birth.

Yup. Hence why I said that, pragmatically speaking, I opt for the subjective route. In the world we actually live in I don't know how you'd implement such a policy.

@jamalrob beat me to the punch, but I'd like to link another paper -- I couldn't find the one I wanted, and jamal's actually covers what I was looking for, but these are interesting too --

Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions
Reasons Why U.S. Women Have Induced Abortions


The example I like to use is from The Godfather, part II. In it Kate has an abortion. I can't remember all the details, but the main reason is because the father of her child is a gangster and she doesn't want the child to grow up in that environment. It's also something of an assertion of power over her husband, a breaking away. An extraordinary circumstance? I don't believe it's quite as extraordinary as the movie might portray -- looking at the second link you'll see that "having relationship problems/don't want to be single" is the fourth most frequent of the most important reasons given. The top three are -- "Not ready for a(nother) child", "Can't afford a baby now", and "Have completed my childbearing"

Any of those reasons, as far as I am concerned, are adequate for the legal right to obtain an abortion -- and I wouldn't look at it as unjust, either.



I'd liken the fetus more to an organ than to a citizen. We transplant livers. They have different cells in the transplant and before they find their home within someone else. A fetus has different stages of development, one of which actually separates the fetus from their mother. It is an organ whose job is to become a human being who will, scientifically at least, contribute to species fecundity.

I don't know about others, but I know about myself -- I don't think a fetus has rights. There's nothing "sufficiently advanced", or "most sophisticated" about it, factually speaking. I don't think scientific description works in these terms. I think that there's an additional layer of meaning your imputing to scientific facts. I am doing the same, but I'm also not claiming some kind of scientific priority or knowledge about what fetus' experience as much as I am making a decision on the basis that at least, after birth, a fetus has its own body. Prior to that I find it difficult to to say the fetus has any kind of rights, or a good justification for being imputed rights, or for being considered like some sort of citizen. Well after, perhaps -- and yes, animals do have rights. By all means, I think that that discussion is most relevant here.

But keep in mind that we also kill animals. Not just in some absent minded manner, either -- but we have whole industries set up to maximize the production of animals for the purpose of meat consumption.

No worries. I don't mean to be a drain. I only wished to defend my position -- I certainly didn't expect to persuade, as I mentioned.

Because it's unfair and discriminatory. Perhaps you're ok with that, but I'm not. — Sapientia

I disagree that this would be unfair and discriminatory.

Suppose you have 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner democratically. They eat different things. They would be effected by said decision differently. It doesn't make sense to apply a rule universally if people are effected differently by said rule.

If that's a problem, then we might benefit from more women in such roles, so that it's more gender-balanced. But your position is more extreme. You want to tip the scales to one end, or rather, break off the other end - which is the problem that we already face. You aren't for equality of genders, you're for superiority of one gender over the other - which is not a good point of view with regards to the sorts of issues that we've been discussing, and is far from ideal. It represents unfairness and discrimination. — Sapientia

It's not superiority, it's acknowledging that people are effected differently -- and assigning say on that basis.

Ideally, of course. In real life, where practical concerns are of importance, I don't know how you'd implement such a rule.

But not enough to legally protect them from being unjustly killed. — Sapientia

That's not true. 1) I don't think killing a fetus is unjust tout court. I think it's something which people have to weigh within their own circumstances, pragmatically. I'd be hesitant to call such an action, prior to birth, unjust without some argument.

That's where you run into performative contradiction, I suspect. If you think that it's wrong, then you should endorse safeguards — Sapientia

I don't think that it's wrong. It's not black and white. And, I disagree with your later point emphatically. It's not the role of the law to make people good.

We're worse off, as a society, without those barriers. It's a worthwhile sacrifice of liberty if it prevents those who take advantage of that liberty to unjustly kill other members of the human species. On what grounds, besides those already covered by law, do you think that anyone would be justified in killing a 37-week-old foetus? — Sapientia

Numerous. In the end, I don't think the fetus counts as a person with rights. It is a clump of cells. Cells which have value, but nowhere near the same value as an actual person -- which the mother clearly is. Your proposal sacrifices the actual rights of citizens for what? The supposed inference that killing a fetus at such and such a time is unjust. But that's what you'd have to back up, I think. I recognize that you wish to take your time -- but then, I don't know if you can also say that an action is unjust when you simply don't know your position.

The "my body, my decision" to unjustly kill it simply doesn't cut the mustard. It's a selfish, narrow-minded, ill-considered, and damaging view. Nor do these attempts to dehumanise.

Your last sentence is right out of the Catholic playbook :D. "Calling a baby a fetus is dehumanizing"

I don't think that my position is selfish, narrow-minded, ill-considered, nor damaging. Which would include allowing women to choose to terminate a pregnancy at 37 weeks for any reason they deem necessary.

I just trust women to make the right decision on such moments, pragmatically, and would rather they make the decision in the circumstances that they know rather than bureaucrats (who are mostly male) making said decision in board rooms far away from said circumstances.

I mean what I said. I don't know why you find it confusing. If you think that there ought to be women-only authorities over issues which effect mostly women, but also men, then presumably you apply the same reasoning if you swap the gender roles. Do you or don't you? I find your position objectionable either way, but I was focusing on a particular criticism about your presumed feminist values, and whether you apply your reasoning in a fair and consistent manner. — Sapientia

Sure, why not? On the surface I don't see anything wrong with that.

It's worth noting historical context, etc., and even in today's world of supposed equality that men hold more positions which write policy, though.

The value of an unborn human. It's a human in that it is a member of the human species, and you are discriminating against it based on the mere fact that he or she is unborn. At 37 weeks of age, it has developed certain qualities that distinguish it from a zygote, and render it similar - more similar, I'd say - to those of a newborn.

I don't know how well I can support these values. It largely depends on your own values and emotions, and I don't know how subject to change they are. — Sapientia

I agree that the unborn have value. I don't think many believe otherwise. My position is largely in regards to the power of the state, and what it should cover by law. There's a big gulf, in my view, between what ought to be legal, and what ought to be in the moral sense.

Hence why I say that it's not a decision to make lightly -- but it is still a decision that should be available without legal barriers.

Actually, scratch that. Let's assume fetuses feel pain. Would you have no problem with an abortion of an 8.5 month old fetus being aborted if it were given anesthesia?

How do we know fetus' feel pain?

I think this sounds confused.

What do you mean?



Could you outline those values, then? And support them?

Doesn't that implicitly assume your belief about when a fetus gets rights and is a person, though? Shouldn't you have to justify that, as both Catholics and I have done?