Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like allowing 15 million children to starve to death every year?

We already do that.

Well not exactly. Firstly, allowing 15 million children causes a lot of suffering to the victims and many are older than new born. Allowing starvation and famine would go against the parents of the foetus or infant.

martoman

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you figure that one out?

"if we look closely we can see that the status of a foetus is not fundamentally different from a newborn infant. It’s possible, for example, for a viable foetus to be more psychological complex than a premature infant. Seeing that birth is sometimes delayed for more than nine months and that premature births occur regularly, there’s now a time of approximately four months during which time a being could either be a foetus or an infant. Based on the logic of the pro-choice position, the former has more right to life than the latter. But why should we defend the life of a being on something as arbitrary as location, but discard its other qualities?"

Dades

martoman wrote: »

Basically I'm arguing that abortion can be justified, but not in the way most abortion defenders suggest. I also argue that there is no intrinsic difference between a foetus and a newborn baby; so if we can say it's defensible to justify abortion, we can also justify infanticide.

I suspect the purpose of the justification in this conclusion is to plant a Trojan horse in the pro-choice camp.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

I suspect the purpose of the justification in this conclusion is to plant a Trojan horse in the pro-choice camp.

Plant a horse?

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

They are sound when they contrast that common experience with the silence on the topic in public discourse. A plausible explanation for that silence, and the absence of real political pressure, is that travel to the UK is quite easy. Hence, trying to make a case for abortion on the grounds that travel is hard is not going to take us anywhere - it involves inventing an obstacle where none exists.

Oh dear, oh dear. I can't do the to and fro bullsh1t with you any more, it's getting embarrassing that you are SO far removed from seeing just how tough the decision to have an abortion through to accessing one and living with the silence about it at home really is. And that's when it all goes according to plan. I'm requoting Morag below because I applaud her understanding of the situation. I give up on you though.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you could actually come up with "travel to the UK is quite easy" as the "plausible" explanation for the silence around abortion. It genuinely beggars belief that someone intelligent could be so blind to the stigma and the difficulties women face in these circumstances.

Morag wrote: »

Easy?

Really you think suddenly being able to get a hold of aprox 800 to 1,000 euros to travel and get time off work, if you are working and organize child care if you have kids and lie about why you are leaving the country is easy?

I know of several women who do not have the money or who could not make the arrangements and resorted to taking other people's prescription medication, herbal teas or who have ordered abortion pills of the internet.

Easy, christ on a bike.

x 2 Well said, but unfortunately falling on deaf ears I think.

doctoremma

Martoman, I read (well, skimmed) your essay and I found it interesting. It has some very good points and analysis.

But while it analyses specific points in isolation, it doesn't appear to do much in terms of combining arguments. While this may be intellectually messy, I suspect it is a combination of your points that informs people's opinion on abortion.

So while I sanction, without exception or conscience, abortion pre-brain development, on the basis that I can see no moral harm being done, the moral harm argument doesn't apply to a newborn, where the pain/suffering argument will supercede it.

I think the application of viability thresholds to inform abortion limits is not as arbitrary as it seems, although I don't believe it is guided by any ethical principles. Your last post - applying certain rights to a premature baby that wouldn't be applied to an older fetus still in the womb - gets to the reason for this threshold i.e. to avoid such conflict.

martoman

Dades wrote: »

I suspect the purpose of the justification in this conclusion is to plant a Trojan horse in the pro-choice camp.

Pro-lifers should welcome articles arguing that there is no real difference between the foetus and the newborn. Their trouble, in fact, is that many of them don’t know how to argue against someone who agrees with them that the foetus and newborn infant have the same moral status, but subsequently denies that merely existing as newborn gives a one a right to life.

Morag

Over my 22 years of pro choice activism I have never meet a single person who was in favour of very late term abortions were the woman and the fetus were both healthy.
To try and say that is what pro choice people want is an utter red herring.

martoman

doctoremma wrote: »

So while I sanction, without exception or conscience, abortion pre-brain development, on the basis that I can see no moral harm being done, the moral harm argument doesn't apply to a newborn, where the pain/suffering argument will supercede it.

Thank you!

A foetus and newborn have a right to avoid pain and suffering, but they do not have a right to life. Moreover, if you object to the killing of a late foetus and newborn, do you also object to the killing of an adult pig or cow? If not, why has the infant or late foetus more moral status than the pig or cow? Sanctity of human life?

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

Thank you!

A foetus and newborn have a right to avoid pain and suffering, but they do not have a right to life.

Since when doesn't a new born have a right to life? 'Born' being the operative word.

You are deliberately conflating the un-born and the born and acting as if it is the same thing. It is not.

Do you think a person who is clinically 'brain dead' is 'alive'?

martoman

Morag wrote: »

Over my 22 years of pro choice activism I have never meet a single person who was in favour of very late term abortions were the woman and the fetus were both healthy.
To try and say that is what pro choice people want is an utter red herring.

Morag, my aim was to look at the issue as impartially as possible, not to put forward social polemic.

Would you not support abortion in cases where the women really didn't want to got through the pregnancy (even if she and the baby were fully healthy) because of other unforeseen environmental factors? If you object to late term abortions and infanticide, would you also object to the killing of mature non-human animals?

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since when doesn't a new born have a right to life? 'Born' being the operative word.

You are deliberately conflating the un-born and the born and acting as if it is the same thing. It is not.

What makes birth so morally important? Seeing that birth is sometimes delayed for more than nine months and that premature births occur regularly, there’s a time of four months during which time a being could either be a foetus or an infant. Why should we defend the life of a being on something as arbitrary as location, but abandons its other qualities?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you think a person who is clinically 'brain dead' is 'alive'?

A being that is brain dead is alive, but they are not a person.

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

What makes birth so morally important? Seeing that birth is sometimes delayed for more than nine months and that premature births occur regularly, there’s a time of four months during which time a being could either be a foetus or an infant. Why should we defend the life of a being on something as arbitrary as location, but abandons its other qualities?



A being that is brain dead is alive, but they are not a person.

Birth is delayed for 9 months - what a strange way to put it.

Because as been already stated no one here is advocating for late term abortions so that four months of which you speak are not part of any argument being made here.

What is the difference between someone who is brain dead and a fetus whose brain is not yet functioning?

Delirium

Has the English language changed since I was in school? I thought person and being were synonyms, i.e. they mean the same thing?

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Birth is delayed for 9 months - what a strange way to put it.

Because as been already stated no one here is advocating for late term abortions so that four months of which you speak are not part of any argument being made here.

What is the difference between someone who is brain dead and a fetus whose brain is not yet functioning?

I didn’t know of the general consensus on the board that only support early abortions that you speak on behalf of. I’m not sure if all pro-choice advocates hold this position – some support late term abortions too.

So you would not support late-term abortion in cases where a woman really didn't want to go through the pregnancy because of other unforeseen environmental factors?

If you object to late term abortions and infanticide, would you also object to the killing of mature non-human animals?

Obliq

Morag wrote: »

Over my 22 years of pro choice activism I have never meet a single person who was in favour of very late term abortions were the woman and the fetus were both healthy.
To try and say that is what pro choice people want is an utter red herring.

In favour no. But we can, and do moralise for them occasionally.

martoman wrote: »

A foetus and newborn have a right to avoid pain and suffering, but they do not have a right to life. Moreover, if you object to the killing of a late foetus and newborn, do you also object to the killing of an adult pig or cow? If not, why has the infant or late foetus more moral status than the pig or cow? Sanctity of human life?

Interesting. I argued this in a similar fashion on t'other forum last year sometime. Doctor Emma may remember, as she managed to see the wood for the trees where others wouldn't/couldn't bring themselves to look! Must go read this essay when I've an hour later.

It is emotionally much more difficult to imagine killing a late term fetus (or newborn - worse again) than it is to imagine killing a cow or a pig. (Notice I say "imagine" because most people won't comprehend how much you have to disassociate yourself from actually taking a life. Most don't even imagine the life of the pig/cow/lamb/horse(!) when digging into their dinner, never mind ever think about it's death.) Why is it more difficult to think of killing a tiny human? Well, we're human. We can imagine all the potential, we can imagine the experiences of emotions and physical feelings. But does that give us any more right to life than an animal?

Personally, I don't think human life is sacred. We care about it, because we relate to it. Some people think it is god given and more important than other life but even they need abortions sometimes if circumstances dictate, and manage to rationalise it and square it with themselves in most cases. Possibly the same people who the previous week went off chicken because they only just then discovered how it had to live.

I don't think I can rationalise killing a late term fetus/newborn unless it is/will be in agony and sure to die anyway. Then, I consider it a mercy killing.

A chicken is difficult but "needs must" and financial stability is more important to me than letting the latest batch of cockerels live. We humans are interesting creatures eh?

martoman

koth wrote: »

Has the English language changed since I was in school? I thought person and being were synonyms, i.e. they mean the same thing?

They don't qualify for personhood in the sense they don't possess self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the past and future, the capacity to relate to others, the ability to communicate or a sense of curiosity.

The is a separate distinction from being alive or being a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since when doesn't a new born have a right to life? 'Born' being the operative word.

I see where martoman is coming from actually. Who gives us the right to life? Well, we do. Who gives a baby a chance at life? It's mother. Who decides if that's not an option? Also it's mother.

But the right to life for humans is entirely arbitrary and also taken for granted these days, more so than ever before, yes? It is entirely dependent on where you are born. Can the parents of a child that dies of starvation sue their government for abuse of rights? No.

You are deliberately conflating the un-born and the born and acting as if it is the same thing. It is not.

To give the benefit of doubt here, yes I'd say martoman is acting as if the born and unborn are the same for a reason (I haven't read the essay) - but I agree with you. It's not the same. A born child is outside the womb. It may be able to survive without being connected to a woman/machine or it may not.

Delirium

martoman wrote: »

They don't qualify for personhood in the sense they don't possess self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the past and future, the capacity to relate to others, the ability to communicate or a sense of curiosity.

The is a separate distinction from being alive or being a member of the species Homo sapiens.

I appreciate that but I was to understand the distinction between a person a human being. Personally they're the same thing.

The body still performing it's duties like breathing or maintaining a heart beat doesn't mean that a human being/person exists within the brain. That's why you're phrasing has me confused.

eviltwin

martoman wrote: »

I didn’t know of the general consensus on the board that only support early abortions that you speak on behalf of. I’m not sure if all pro-choice advocates hold this position – some support late term abortions too.

So you would not support late-term abortion in cases where a woman really didn't want to go through the pregnancy because of other unforeseen environmental factors?

If you object to late term abortions and infanticide, would you also object to the killing of mature non-human animals?

Definately in the minority. Its no different to saying you have pro life people who think contraception is akin to abortion. Those people exist but are by far and away a small cohort.

If you look back over the thread you will clearly see those of us in the pro choice camp for the most part have no wish to see late term abortions.

martoman

eviltwin wrote: »

Definately in the minority. Its no different to saying you have pro life people who think contraception is akin to abortion. Those people exist but are by far and away a small cohort.

If you look back over the thread you will clearly see those of us in the pro choice camp for the most part have no wish to see late term abortions.

Is there support for vegetarianism or veganism in the same way as well?

Obliq

eviltwin wrote: »

Definately in the minority. Its no different to saying you have pro life people who think contraception is akin to abortion. Those people exist but are by far and away a small cohort.

If you look back over the thread you will clearly see those of us in the pro choice camp for the most part have no wish to see late term abortions.

martoman wrote: »

Is there support for vegetarianism or veganism in the same way as well?

It doesn't equate that someone who values human life because they relate to it emotionally will relate to the same degree with animal life.

I actually explained the thought process I have behind human life not being "sacred" to my 14 yr old, and we discussed the reasons why people are more comfortable with abortions that happen before sentience could occur than after. He said, and I quote, "but sure, life becomes more precious as you grow", which I thought was interesting.

Morag

martoman wrote: »

would you also object to the killing of mature non-human animals?

Anyone else find themselves thinking about veal parmesan after reading that?

martoman

Obliq wrote: »

I see where martoman is coming from actually. Who gives us the right to life? Well, we do. Who gives a baby a chance at life? It's mother. Who decides if that's not an option? Also it's mother.

But the right to life for humans is entirely arbitrary and also taken for granted these days, more so than ever before, yes? It is entirely dependent on where you are born. Can the parents of a child that dies of starvation sue their government for abuse of rights? No.

To give the benefit of doubt here, yes I'd say martoman is acting as if the born and unborn are the same for a reason (I haven't read the essay) - but I agree with you. It's not the same. A born child is outside the womb. It may be able to survive without being connected to a woman/machine or it may not.

I see what you're saying Obliq, but that is not exactly why I'm trying to say. What you are saying is true, but that another discussion.

More so, I'm asking what characteristics ought a being to possess in order to have moral rights. Perhaps we can say consciousness, birth, viability, or simply being a member of the human race. But what’s so morally relevant about any of these factors. I argue that the capacity for awareness, self-control, a sense of the past and future, the capacity to relate to others, the capacity to communication and curiosity are better characteristics to bestow moral rights than the other ones stated; birth or merely existing as a human being is a lot more arbitrary and abstract in comparison – especially if we regard the avoidance of pain and suffering as desirable.

This is an important distinction, and accepting it may alter our understanding of abortion. In this sense, there could be members of the human species who are not persons (those who are not self-conscious or who cannot look forward or anticipate their own future), and there could be persons who are not humans (mature primates, for example).

Obliq

martoman wrote: »

More so, I'm asking what characteristics ought a being to possess in order to have moral rights. Perhaps we can say consciousness, birth, viability, or simply being a member of the human race. But what’s so morally relevant about any of these factors. I argue that the capacity for awareness, self-control, a sense of the past and future, the capacity to relate to others, the capacity to communication and curiosity are better characteristics to bestow moral rights than the other ones stated; birth or merely existing as a human being is a lot more arbitrary and abstract in comparison – especially if we regard the avoidance of pain and suffering as desirable.

Yeah, I'm not at all sure that can be determined. After all, morality here is VERY different to morality in a country under Sharia law, for example. Our collective understanding of what is moral seems to change with every generation (there are cleverer people up here who can talk about morality with logical reasoning - I'm not one of them). I don't know that you can determine a moral absolute by deciding which attribute of being human everyone agrees qualifies you for a right to life. I'm thinking that's why "being born" is the most defined attribute that we have so far?

Birth (which presupposes existing) is not an abstract position, is it? Potential for survival, and our quality of life are arbitrary and abstract suppositions.

This is an important distinction, and accepting it may alter our understanding of abortion. In this sense, there could be members of the human species who are not persons (those who are not self-conscious or who cannot look forward or anticipate their own future), and there could be persons who are not humans (mature primates, for example).

I'm not going down the road of debating the meaning of "person" or "personhood" because if we can't explain what we mean so anyone can understand (like me!) then the theory isn't worth much in my book. All I'll say is that some people believe that "the capacity for awareness, self-control, a sense of the past and future, the capacity to relate to others, the capacity to communication and curiosity" are characteristics that are clearly present in a lot of animals and that perhaps dogs/cats have more capacity to relate to humans than other humans!

martoman

Obliq wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not at all sure that can be determined. After all, morality here is VERY different to morality in a country under Sharia law, for example. Our collective understanding of what is moral seems to change with every generation (there are cleverer people up here who can talk about morality with logical reasoning - I'm not one of them). I don't know that you can determine a moral absolute by deciding which attribute of being human everyone agrees qualifies you for a right to life. I'm thinking that's why "being born" is the most defined attribute that we have so far?

I make too assumptions: (1) that moral topics can be understood and clarified using reason; (2) that the permissibility of an issue or act ought to be determined as a result of their consequences. Even if you don't fully agree with this, surely it's important to have some moral objective basis. If not, and it all depends on cultural norms and its all relative, they it seems there cannot be a rational basis to argue against those who oppose abortion or even outright fundamentalism. Simply discussing abortion, where there is difference, would be a pointless exercise.

Obliq wrote: »

Birth (which presupposes existing) is not an abstract position, is it? Potential for survival, and our quality of life are arbitrary and abstract suppositions.

Does birth presupposes existence? So foetuses don't exist? Okay birth is not an abstract position, but, apart from convenience, what's so morally important about it? In other words, what difference does a being have the moments after she is born than the moments just before she is born? Surely her characteristics don't change that much over this short period.

Btw, I agree with your son in some way: the moral status of a being increases the longer time it exists.

martoman

Here is a recent essay I wrote on the ethics of abortion: http://martoman.blogspot.ie/2013/03/...?view=magazine

Summary: I have shown that many of the general pro-choice arguments in favour of abortion can be plausibly refuted. If we use the criteria of personhood, instead of mere species membership, though, we can explain how the status of a foetus is not the moral equivalent of an adult human being, an older child, or even various adult non-human animals. For this reason, I claim, abortion can be morally justified. However, I also maintain that there is no real difference of moral status between the foetus and the newborn infant (as many pro-lifer opponents of abortion have been arguing for several years). Unlike the trajectory of the pro-life argument though, I state that simply existing as an human being is not enough to give a being a right to life; and if it’s reasonable to justify abortion (as I have argued for), then it seems reasonable to challenge the moral status we ascribe to newborn infants, and to propose possible conditions where infanticide can be permissible.

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

Here is a recent essay I wrote on the ethics of abortion: http://martoman.blogspot.ie/2013/03/...?view=magazine

Summary: I have shown that many of the general pro-choice arguments in favour of abortion can be plausibly refuted. If we use the criteria of personhood, instead of mere species membership, though, we can explain how the status of a foetus is not the moral equivalent of an adult human being, an older child, or even various adult non-human animals. For this reason, I claim, abortion can be morally justified. However, I also maintain that there is no real difference of moral status between the foetus and the newborn infant (as many pro-lifer opponents of abortion have been arguing for several years). Unlike the trajectory of the pro-life argument though, I state that simply existing as an human being is not enough to give a being a right to life; and if it’s reasonable to justify abortion (as I have argued for), then it seems reasonable to challenge the moral status we ascribe to newborn infants, and to propose possible conditions where infanticide can be permissible.

Is this not already being discussed in the Abortion thread?

Obliq

martoman wrote: »

Does birth presupposes existence? So foetuses don't exist? Okay birth is not an abstract position, but, apart from convenience, what's so morally important about it? In other words, what difference does a being have the moments after she is born than the moments just before she is born? Surely her characteristics don't change that much over this short period.

Btw, I agree with your son in some way: the moral status of a being increases the longer time it exists.

Answering this bit first! Well, IMO the difference is that you can see her, hold her, hear her, smell her.....and she can experience the world as her own independent being outside of her mother. In the lead up to birth, the baby exists inside you but your emotional attachment is more than likely based on the notion of nurturing this unseen little being AND your imagination of what your baby might look like, etc.

You seem to be ruling out the power of emotions from our capacity for moral reasoning, and that's not really how we humans work, is it?!

Obliq

martoman wrote: »

I make too assumptions: (1) that moral topics can be understood and clarified using reason; (2) that the permissibility of an issue or act ought to be determined as a result of their consequences. Even if you don't fully agree with this, surely it's important to have some moral objective basis. If not, and it all depends on cultural norms and its all relative, they it seems there cannot be a rational basis to argue against those who oppose abortion or even outright fundamentalism. Simply discussing abortion, where there is difference, would be a pointless exercise.

Hmmm. Yes, I'm more of the opinion that all is pretty relative. There IS rationality, but the state of having good sense and sound judgment very much depends on what your fellow man makes of it eh? I quite like Stoic thoughts on the subject, but the Christians didn't think too much of that line of thinking at all. Fundamentalists think that they're being very rational, don't forget. Discussing women's lib with many varieties of fundamentalists would also be a pointless exercise, as would discussing male supremacy with feminists.

I agree with your two assumptions, but I don't think that the clarification of a moral topic will necessarily result in a truth. You can only go as far as people are willing to go in finding some kind of "objective moral standard" - I don't think our population are willing to see human life as being no better than animal life, never mind sanction human death on that basis! Although I see what you mean! Kind of.....I'm no scholar!