homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » The dependency argument in abortion (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The dependency argument in abortion
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The specific "right" being asserted by the anti-abortion faction is that the fœtus possesses rights not available to any other person, making it a sort of superior being. Specifically, that an embryo or fœtus has a positive and legally enforceable right to use another person's organs for its own benefit. This is not a "right" granted to anyone else.

Not entirely. The claim is that the right to the use of the mother's womb belongs to everyone, but only at a specific stage in their life. Just like the right to an old age pension, or the right to be cared and nurtured without having to work for it, belong to everyone, but only at a specific stage of their life.
quote:
An adult who filed suit to get access to someone else's kidney or lung wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but for some reason a lot of folks seem to regard the uterus as a form of common property.
Yes, as I said above I am on balance pro-choice, but I generally find this line of argument unconvincing because it depends on making pregnancy analogous to something else, when ISTM pregnancy isn't analogous to anything other than itself.

(Pro-choice: pregnancy is analogous to X therefore Y; pro-life: ha, but it's also analagous to Alpha therefore Beta.)

To my mind the comparison to compulsory organ donation fails because generally speaking you have more of a moral responsibility for a situation you have created than for a situation you have not created, even if the end result is the same. And except in the case of rape, the mother has created the situation whereby there is a dependent foetus in her womb, whereas I'm not obviously responsible for someone else's kidney failure.

(My other objection to the analogy is that although I don't think it lacks merit, in my experience people have to be persuaded to see the comparison, even if they are already pro-choice by inclination - which suggests it isn't a very natural analogy. Which is admittedly subjective, but ultimately a lot of ethics comes down to gut instinct in the final analysis.)

[ 22. December 2017, 08:24: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rather it's that the foetus has the right to be born, and that incidentally requires the temporary use of the mother's womb. It's not the womb use that's primary, but the being born.

That's what they say, anyway. If you press them, or rather some of them, different things come out. I remember a politician saying "but then women wouldn't be punished for premarital sex" -- for him, at least, that was the reason for prohibiting abortion. But that's another thread.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Lois McMaster Bujold has 18 uterine replicators containing the children of raped prisoners of war delivered to the rapists as part of a peace deal at the end of a short, stupid war.

Sci-fi of course, but very good sci-fi.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Rather it's that the foetus has the right to be born, and that incidentally requires the temporary use of the mother's womb. It's not the womb use that's primary, but the being born.

That's what they say, anyway. If you press them, or rather some of them, different things come out. I remember a politician saying "but then women wouldn't be punished for premarital sex" -- for him, at least, that was the reason for prohibiting abortion. But that's another thread.

My favorite is conservative politicians and commentators who say things like "The Democrats have cursed this country with high taxes, abortion, and business-killing environmental legislation."

In other words, they apparently think that murder can be listed as on par with taxes and draconian anti-drilling laws.

That said, I have heard one or two "pro-lifers" say that their commitment is such that they would vote for left-wing political parties, if those parties also made protection of the fetus from conception part of their platform. I suspect that they say this, however, knowing it's a pretty safe bet that in the current political scene, no left-wing party is going to do that.

If any American conservstives ever criticized Margaret Thatcher for her pro-choice politics, I completely missed it.

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Looking at the history of abortion, it seems that in every period, whenever there have been unplanned pregnancies, there has always been abortion.

The church by tradition, has condemned abortion historically, but until recently, I understand that it was not universal teaching that the unborn fetus was equal to an alive human being. Critics have stated that abortion was condemned because it was associated with sexual immorality, not necessarily out of a belief that the fetus was an equal human being.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Looking at the history of abortion, it seems that in every period, whenever there have been unplanned pregnancies, there has always been abortion.

Or exposure, or smothering (a Russian Orthodox favorite).

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Unless you're prepared to compensate the mother to not have an abortion, what have you got to say?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The specific "right" being asserted by the anti-abortion faction is that the fœtus possesses rights not available to any other person, making it a sort of superior being. Specifically, that an embryo or fœtus has a positive and legally enforceable right to use another person's organs for its own benefit. This is not a "right" granted to anyone else. An adult who filed suit to get access to someone else's kidney or lung wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but for some reason a lot of folks seem to regard the uterus as a form of common property.

I don't think anyone is claiming that woman's wombs are common property such that any foetus has a claim on any womb.
That seems to be the argument being advanced, at least from those proceeding from the premise that a fœtus is entitled to a full set of human rights. In context it necessarily contains the idea that all humans have a general right to the use of someone else's gestational organs. And there are others like sharkshooter who maintain that a woman's medical decisions should be under the control of any man who impregnates her.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If through some accident I end up with someone reliant on one of my organs for nine months through no fault of theirs I think there would be a strong moral case that I should [be forced to] remain attached.

I've altered your statement to accurately reflect actual anti-abortion arguments.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Do you think children have no more rights than adults?

Regardless of what I think, the argument being advanced by opponents of legal abortion is that an embryo/fœtus has the same rights as a fully developed human being. We may conclude from the way they contort themselves to reach certain conclusions that they believe a mother is a lesser being than her child and preference should be given to the latter in all cases, but we can also see why, from a public relations point of view, they'd be reluctant to state so openly.

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I don’t think the comparison with organ donation works, for this reason: if one person does not wish to donate an organ, another person can be found who may be willing. OTOH, if a woman doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy to term, no one else can do it in her place.

Yet we know that in most cases the number of organs available for transplant falls short of the number of potential recipients. If you're going to argue that people have a legally-enforceable right to use other people's organs by argument of medical necessity, it would suggest that the state is empowered to exercise eminent domain over some people's bodies to make up the shortfall. Yet we don't ever see this argued except in the case of the uterus.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, as I said above I am on balance pro-choice, but I generally find this line of argument unconvincing because it depends on making pregnancy analogous to something else, when ISTM pregnancy isn't analogous to anything other than itself.

It's not so much an argument in favor of the pro-choice position as a refutation of the anti-abortion argument proceeding from the premise that an embryo or fœtus has a full set of human rights. Unwillingness to accept some of the obvious corollaries of this argument demonstrates its bad faith nature. The argument isn't as applicable to anti-abortion arguments proceeding from other premises.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To my mind the comparison to compulsory organ donation fails because generally speaking you have more of a moral responsibility for a situation you have created than for a situation you have not created, even if the end result is the same. And except in the case of rape, the mother has created the situation whereby there is a dependent foetus in her womb, whereas I'm not obviously responsible for someone else's kidney failure.

And yet we still don't harvest organs involuntarily even in situations where the need has been caused, wholly or partially, by specific individuals. If you manage to purposefully or accidentally skewer another person through both kidneys it may be argued that you have a moral obligation to donate one of your own to your victim, but very few would be willing to force you to do so involuntarily using the power of the state. It's very hard not to conclude that the position being argued is that involuntary pregnancy is viewed as a punishment for women who have disapproved-of sex.

It's also amazing how quickly the supposed human rights of a fœtus evaporate if it was created via rape, another indication of the insincerity of the anti-abortion argument from human rights.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Rather it's that the foetus has the right to be born, and that incidentally requires the temporary use of the mother's womb. It's not the womb use that's primary, but the being born.

That's what they say, anyway.

"They" say a lot stuff, mostly anything that will reach the desired conclusion. This proposed "right to be born" has some interesting problems when considering excess embryos created during IVF treatment, which I referenced earlier.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This proposed "right to be born" has some interesting problems when considering excess embryos created during IVF treatment, which I referenced earlier.

I believe most anti-abortion people who have actually given it any thought are also opposed to the production of extra embryos in IVF. 'cause it's not actually necessary to create extras during IVF. It's efficient to do it that way, but it's not compulsory.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I believe most anti-abortion people who have actually given it any thought are also opposed to the production of extra embryos in IVF.

I'd like to see evidence of this. When I've brought it up or watched other people bring it up, the anti-abortion activist looks stunned and stands for a bit in apparent lack of thought. You never see protestors outside fertility clinics. You never hear TV evangelists screaming about the evils of fertility treatment. I'd like to see evidence of your "most".

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They still en't given it much thought. All the spare, excess embryos - 14 optimally - that are never used, that are disposed of or, 'worse', used in research.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To my mind the comparison to compulsory organ donation fails because generally speaking you have more of a moral responsibility for a situation you have created than for a situation you have not created, even if the end result is the same. And except in the case of rape, the mother has created the situation whereby there is a dependent foetus in her womb, whereas I'm not obviously responsible for someone else's kidney failure.

And yet we still don't harvest organs involuntarily even in situations where the need has been caused, wholly or partially, by specific individuals. If you manage to purposefully or accidentally skewer another person through both kidneys it may be argued that you have a moral obligation to donate one of your own to your victim, but very few would be willing to force you to do so involuntarily using the power of the state.
I dunno, I think if you proposed a law saying that I should have to donate a kidney in that circumstance, quite a few people would be in favour in the abstract - admittedly mostly hang-'em-and-flog-'em Daily Mail types, but these are also the people who are most likely to want to criminalise abortion. Bearing in mind that nearly half the population here want to bring back the death penalty, I suspect resistance to this kind of bodily mutilation would be less than you imagine - rather, practical difficulties, not to mention our ECHR membership, would prevent this sort of proposal from being seriously contemplated.

quote:

It's also amazing how quickly the supposed human rights of a fœtus evaporate if it was created via rape, another indication of the insincerity of the anti-abortion argument from human rights.

I think that would fall under the 'except in the case of rape' in the part of my post you quoted?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I believe most anti-abortion people who have actually given it any thought are also opposed to the production of extra embryos in IVF.

I'd like to see evidence of this. When I've brought it up or watched other people bring it up, the anti-abortion activist looks stunned and stands for a bit in apparent lack of thought. You never see protestors outside fertility clinics. You never hear TV evangelists screaming about the evils of fertility treatment. I'd like to see evidence of your "most".
AIUI the RCC opposes IVF for this reason (among others).

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is a story pro-life people get all tied up with.

Suppose you are working in a human embryo lab. A fire breaks out, you have to evacuate. As you are leaving the room, you spy a five-year-old boy cowering in the corner. Nearby is a container containing a thousand frozen embryos. You have enough time to save the one but not the other. Do you save the boy or do you choose the embryos?

Nine times out of ten, the pro-lifers will choose to save the boy because he is proven to be alive.

They will also try to weasel out of the story by questioning the idea of working in a lab that has frozen embryos. But no one has said they would chose the container of embryo.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have a friend who has been implanted with a donated embryo. She and her husband have struggled with infertility and IVF for years. They have accepted this embryo, which is not genetically related to either parent, in token of their pro-life stance. Also, it is part-Asian, like the parents, and so the new one will look like part of the family.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But no one has said they would chose the container of embryo.

Also, no one will take the unstated third option of saving only yourself. As Fred Clark pointed out this isn't so much an argument as it is a gut-check.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI the RCC opposes IVF for this reason (among others).

The RCC was against abortion before it was cool, so to speak. The RCC's opposition to abortion is not political. I can't vouch for that for any other abortion foe.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Argument in favor of choice is that the fetus's value is dependent on the will of its mother, as in if it's mother wants it, then the fetus has value.

To criminalize abortion is to usurp the rights of the mother, in favor of the abstract rights of an unborn fetus.

To me this is the strongest argument from the prochoice perspective

But the response given is that if we made the argument based on the fact that a fetus's value is only dependent on its mother, then you can make the same argument that people with disabilities or mental or physical challenges that are dependent on another person namely its caregiver, thus could conceivably lose its right to life, if said caregiver decides so.

My response is that the fetus' dependency on its mother is qualitatively different than a disabled person's dependency on its caregiver.

Any thoughts?

The problem with this scenario is that it assumes that the person with the most power gets to determine who lives and who dies.

Sometimes people with more power have to make life and death decisions about other people. However just because they have that power, doesn't make their decisions morally good.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Argument in favor of choice is that the fetus's value is dependent on the will of its mother, as in if it's mother wants it, then the fetus has value.

To criminalize abortion is to usurp the rights of the mother, in favor of the abstract rights of an unborn fetus.

To me this is the strongest argument from the prochoice perspective

But the response given is that if we made the argument based on the fact that a fetus's value is only dependent on its mother, then you can make the same argument that people with disabilities or mental or physical challenges that are dependent on another person namely its caregiver, thus could conceivably lose its right to life, if said caregiver decides so.

My response is that the fetus' dependency on its mother is qualitatively different than a disabled person's dependency on its caregiver.

Any thoughts?

The problem with this scenario is that it assumes that the person with the most power gets to determine who lives and who dies.

Sometimes people with more power have to make life and death decisions about other people. However just because they have that power, doesn't make their decisions morally good.

I'm not sure that's a "problem" that's soluble by the criminalization of abortion. After all, that's simply handing off life and death decisions from those most intimately affected to the metaphorical hands of the state. Why is a legislature the best body to make the decision about whether or not to proceed with a risky pregnancy?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Life and death decisions are delegated to others every day, sometimes to crashingly unqualified persons. (I speak as an American with a president who has his thumb on the nuclear button.) Since it is the woman carrying the baby, I do not see that the legislature has the right to stick its nose in.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools