Are we talking past each other on abortion? What is your understanding of the issues?

Simply state what you think are the underlying arguments in the abortion debate.

Tags: abortion, abortion ad nauseum

Views: 280

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There is more parental investment in a child than in a fetus. That alone can be used as the determining factor if a choice must be made. Obviously, this is a continuum from conception to adolescence. Most people draw the line somewhere during pregnancy. Probably because they know that pregnancies are fairly iffy. They basically don't like to count their chickens before they've hatched, because they know that miscarriage is a strong possibility in any pregnancy.
Maybe you should tell that to parents who are shattered after having a miscarriage, or the couple devastated when their last frozen embryo was implanted in the wrong woman and she had an abortion.

Maybe they haven't lost so much afterall?
I've known people who were quite upset to have had miscarriages, but emotional attachment doesn't change the basic equation. A thing is more valuable to you the more you invest in it, pretty much by definition. This goes for offspring as well, whether we like to admit it or not. Abortion is OK as long as the pregnant woman decides that the benefit of the pregnancy isn't worth the investment. It's an economic decision first and foremost, a cost/benefit analysis. That doesn't mean it lacks emotional, legal, or moral consequences. Just that the basic math doesn't depend on those things. Quite the reverse.

Different people do the cost/benefit analysis differently, emphasizing different costs and benefits. On average, sometime around viability outside the womb is where society thinks the benefit of the pregnancy outweighs the costs, and that the investment has become too great to throw away. Obviously, that's an average. Some people draw the line at conception, but that's extreme in my view, given the total lack of parental investment. If you draw the line after viability outside the womb, then you're throwing away an investment needlessly. Somebody else might benefit greatly from it. It's analogous to burning a house you're no longer using.
Jason how much financial or material goods(?) you invest in something is ethically irrelevant. A right to life has nothing to do with it.
Nonsense. Parental investment has everything to do with it. How much one values a fetus or a baby is dependent precisely on how invested they are in that being (financially, materially, and in the sacrifice of time and health). And that is exactly what we are talking about here: The aggregate relative worth of fetuses, babies, and functioning adults to all parties concerned. It's got nothing to do with rights, personhood, humanity, etc, except insofar as those things add to or subtract from the net present value of the being in question. Abortion is an accounting problem. I know it sounds harsh, but it is.

Fundamentally, we are talking about the survival of genes. There are lots of different survival strategies and tactical approaches. It may be in the best interests of the mother's genes to lose the battle with a particular fetus or baby in order to win the war. Just as the SEC regulates corporate financial statements (when they bother to, but that's another story), society tends to set up rules about how to do the cost/benefit analysis inherent in abortion. Different factions argue for the supremacy of different costs or benefits, but they're all engaged in the same kind of calculations.
The difference between an infant, who must be cared for by *someone* and a fetus, who must be cared for by *the pregnant woman* (not "someone" but HER or ME) should be obvious. It is one thing to say "Children should be given good homes, education, etc." and quite another to say, "YOU there - you give this child a home, education, etc."
Yes one thing to be made to give support to a stranger but it seems to be a moral norm that you are expected to care for your children. The thing is you arbitrarily preference the post partom offspring which aren't persons but will ignore and kill your unwanted offspring.

& many will then deny some women the right to abort unwanted late term foetuses or unwanted prenates which by your own raesoning have no moral value, they aren't persons.

& pls don't bother with viability it changes nothing, as it doesn't address the moral value grounded in being a person. & since we aren't made to foster or pass on kittens that are also viable, the whole thing falls flat.

That is why even the majority of Liberal Pro-Choice philosophers won't have a bar of viability.
What is your understanding of the issues?

There are people like you who want to impose their pro-life beliefs on others and there's people like me who realize my beliefs should not be imposed on anyone.
Then don't tell those that believe infanticide isn't wrong what to do.
*buzzer*

Oh, sorry, but an infant is an independent being with its own blood supply and a developing mind and can be cared for by any adult. A fetus must parasitize its mother to survive, thus violating the mother's rights if she does not want to keep the fetus.

Therefore abortion does not equal infanticide. It is just the same as why killing in self-defense is not murder: one is justified and the other is not. As soon as you can have an abortion without killing the baby, and with no additional risk to the woman then the legal standing changes I would think.

Additionally, you seem to be arguing whether someone should have an abortion...but do you think they should have the choice to do so? I agree, I'd like to see no more abortions, but I would also like to see no more killing in self-defense. Does that mean we should make it illegal? Statistics tell us that won't work.
But the argument says to have existential rights you need to be a person and it isn’t a person.

Secondly if indeed the foetus could be argued to have moral rights one can easily argue that the mother made it dependent and therefore must pay compensation and the only relevant compensation is the right to continue to exist.

Only a choice for rape victims they had no causal reponsibility therefore no need to pay compensation and since we aren't in general required to donate blood to others a rape victim doesn't either.

We won't stop murder either should we change that law?
But the argument says to have existential rights you need to be a person and it isn’t a person.

Except I'm not using that argument. To me, all life has rights. As a Jain you should get that.

Secondly if indeed the foetus could be argued to have moral rights one can easily argue that the mother made it dependent and therefore must pay compensation and the only relevant compensation is the right to continue to exist.

Wrong. You are leaving out the mother's rights. She has the imminent right to her body. I don't have a right to her kidneys to save my life, even if my kidneys were stolen by her.

We won't stop murder either should we change that law?

Murder is illegal to protect other people. You throw a murderer in jail so they won't murder again. Seems to me you are trying to argue that "abortion is murder" which in that case it shouldn't matter if rape was involved or not. Nothing should matter, as a matter of fact. They just have to have the kid.

AGAIN, I'll ask you, are you arguing that abortion is wrong, or that it should be illegal or both. By the way, I get annoyed really fast when people just ignore my questions and argue something else.

RSS

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service