What Does Abortion Have To Do With Pro-Choice?

reply to post by Wertwog

Let's look at this from another angle. If I decided tomorrow that men's balls contained millions of potential babies and therefore wanted to outlaw the anything that 'wasted seed' (so to speak...umm, the big "M") I'm sure men would be the first to complain "get your laws off my body" and the porn industry would panic.

I am not talking about potential persons, potential is not important for me. Nor do I advocate a ban on all abortions, only late-term ones.

Originally posted by Maslo

With twins, one is not created inside of and dependent on the other for its life, growth, nourishment, and entry into this world. The twins are clearly two equal individuals with some biological functions they share. They are equals.

One twin can be biologically dependent on the other. They are not necessarily equals in this, just like a mother and a foetus. What is the difference, then? I dont see any.

In my quote above, there are other criteria besides biological dependence. Read carefully: With twins, one is not created inside of and dependent on the other for its life, growth, nourishment, and entry into this world.. It's not ONLY biological dependence that matters.

Are you now moving the goalposts and bringing up a scenario where the "twins" consist of basically one person and a growth that has no chance of being a 'person'? As in this story?

Source

The bottom line for me is, I am autonomous. I govern my body. I OWN it. If I own NOTHING else in this life, this body is MINE and mine alone, If something is growing in me, whether it be cancer or a potential person, I have the right to have it removed from my body. I govern MY body. By the same token, I extend and honor the right of other people to do the same.

Question for you: If something was growing inside you for whatever reason, would you want the right to choose if it should continue to grow or do you want the government to choose? It's really that simple.

I would never want to have to make the decisions about conjoined twins. But if I was put into the situation where I had conjoined twins, one of whom was completely biologically dependent on the other (clearly not equal in terms of biology), I would make that decision. If one twin was completely dependent on the other one, who could function fine on his own, I would probably decide to have the 'inert' twin removed, so the independent one could have a more normal life. Some other mother may decide that they both should live conjoined. That would be her decision and I would support it.

Life is not always pretty or cut and dried. And no one person or governing body should have the right to dictate certain personal practices for everyone else. There are some things best left to the individual's choice. And reproduction is one of them, IMO.

And I will not attack the opinion (hypocritical as it may seem) that early term abortion is fine, but late term abortion should be banned. There are people who think all abortion should be banned, except in the case of rape and incest. Another seemingly hypocritical stance. This just proves that each person has their own opinion and should have the choice for themselves. But NO ONE should make the choice for everyone else.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Are you now moving the goalposts and bringing up a scenario where the "twins" consist of basically one person and a growth that has no chance of being a 'person'? As in this story? Source

No, two persons complete with brains, just one of them dependent on the other.

But if I was put into the situation where I had conjoined twins, one of whom was completely biologically dependent on the other (clearly not equal in terms of biology), I would make that decision. If one twin was completely dependent on the other one, who could function fine on his own, I would probably decide to have the 'inert' twin removed, so the independent one could have a more normal life. Some other mother may decide that they both should live conjoined. That would be her decision and I would support it.

"Inert twin" in this case meaning a born person with normally developed brain, just dependent on the other twin for survival. If you are pro-choice even in that case, your ideology is not inconsistent. But werent you saying the opposite before?

Question for you: If something was growing inside you for whatever reason, would you want the right to choose if it should continue to grow or do you want the government to choose? It's really that simple.

Depends on the situation. From a purely self-interest position, I would want to choose everything, nobody likes government dictating anything to him. But that cant always be so, can it? I consider human body to be a very important private asset, but ultimately similar to a house or a money in the bank. Government should generally keep out of it, but there may be situations when interference is justified. Some situations arising during reproduction are a prime example.

Question for you: If you were growing inside someone for whatever reason, would you want the right to choose if you should continue to grow or do you want the host to choose? It's really that simple.

Another question for you: Do you agree with ban on late-term abortions after the point of external viability, when abortion is not necessary to terminate the pregnancy?

reply to post by Maslo

If you were growing inside someone for whatever reason, would you want the right to choose if you should continue to grow or do you want the host to choose? It's really that simple.

I'm sorry to join in late but do you not think this is entirely disingenuous? You are intimating that there is a consciousness involved with this fetus. You are even implying that it has some degree of self-awareness. You said you are not against potential for life, so do you consider a fetus to be truly 'alive'? Do you think it is capable of suffering?

Would you give those same rights to a malignant tumour?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

 

Tyranny is certainly OK sometimes, when the alternative is worse, or would lead to greater breaching of basic human rights. Yes, removing human rights to protect life or health of another human being can be OK. Yes, defensive wars are OK. Violence is simply a tool. Tool itself is not evil, only how you use it can be evil.

Tyranny is not ok, is never ok, just as slavery is not ok, is never ok, and your argument is a "lesser of two evils" position. Just because one might be considered "less evil" than another does not make it ok/good, and it is up for debate as to whether removing a person's basic human rights in favor of a fetus who is not a person is a huge "evil" on par or exceeding it's destruction.

My point was ALL war is for "self defense", on both sides. Think about it. War is not a 'neutral' tool that can be used for good or evil. War is inherently evil, IMO, and if you had ever been in one you would recognize that. In fact, if you think war is ok, then you also think killing is ok when it is in "self-defense" which history shows all killers claim way or the other. How hypocritical of you to then be all "baby killer" on women who "kill their babies". Babies die in war too, usually as 'collateral damage' but you're "ok" with that right since you are ok with war. I don't think you can have it both ways.

You are implying baby in the third trimester is not a person. This is not a question of rights. Rights depend on our definition of a person, not the other way around.

No, baby certainly does not belong to parents. Baby is individual person with rights, such as right to live, to be taken care of etc.. Baby belongs to noone. Otherwise child abuse would be legal. So what about childrens rights?

Parents do not have a right to do everything with their children. And yes, it is a duty of the state to protect individual rights, such as childrens rights.

It is not a person at all until it is born at which point is is accorded rights of person-hood. I am more than implying, I am outright saying a person is not a person until they are born. Rights are not accorded to 'non-persons'.

Nor ability to act (free agency), nor continuous consciousness should define person IMHO. In the first case, it would allow to kill human beings which are exactly like you and me, only cannot influence the world for some case (illness, isolation). In the second case, early newborns or sleeping persons could be killed (they also momentarily lack free agency and ability to influence the external world, so they are also excluded by the first criterion).

Nonsensical. I see no connection to the argument.

This is my definition of a person, being:

It refers to a life form that has properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").

Presence of mind is what should define personhood, and that is a question of neurology. According to brain scans, mind (ordered brain waves) develops after 5th month of fetal development.
[...snip]

Whether something should have rights or not is thus a neurological question for me.

"Mind" is not a neurological concept, in neurological terms our brains are synaptic connections, chemicals, electricity and some yogurty kind of tissue. "Mind" is not simply "ordered brain waves" as many animals and relatively simple organisms have "ordered brain waves". Sentience is not a neurological concept. What you are referring to when you say "presence of mind" usually refers to the concept of a being that is conscious of itself, and that is not a neurological concept. When you get this straight get back to me.

If you really would grant rights and personhood based on pure neurology, as you say, at what point to you draw the line between simple and complex. Chimps, dolphins and elephants have highly complex neocortexes, your argument on this basis alone would accord them the same rights as you and me.

What about a plant? Is it a person? No. Why not....?

It is not a person, there is no sentience (mind), not even neural system, only automated life functions. You seem to misunderstood my post. The quoted part refers to part of definition I would keep, not what I would cut out. I would cut out the agency thingy.

Yes, I think you would cut out agency as having anything to do with person-hood because it is not convenient to your argument. If person-hood includes agency then obviously fetuses are not persons.

....there is no difference between pregnant mother and siamese twins.

Siamese twins do not conceive, gestate and birth one another. If one is wholly dependent on the other it would not be considered a "person". Good grief, what a ridiculous statement to make. Are you seriously pursuing this line of reasoning? Are you trying to convince anyone that is is really true?

Two sentient beings (persons) in one body. One of them should not have a right to kill the other one.

I recall saying that it is generally considered illegal for one person to harm or kill another , but the point is moot in this unlikely scenario since sharing one body neither would have the agency to harm or kill the other!

Originally posted by Maslo
If you are pro-choice even in that case, your ideology is not inconsistent. But werent you saying the opposite before?

I have done my very best to openly and honestly answer your questions, the purpose of which seems to be to find some flaw in my character by pointing out some imagined contradiction in my opinions. Yet, you continue to ask for clarification that I have already given... I'm not sure of your intention, but I really have done my best. At this point, if you wish to think that my character is flawed, feel free to do so. If you wish to make that claim here on ATS, again, feel free. But I really don't know how to satisfy your curiosity about my opinions on abortion.

It's not an easy subject. It's NOT cut and dried, as you seem to want to make it. Not in my eyes, anyway.

I consider human body to be a very important private asset, but ultimately similar to a house or a money in the bank. Government should generally keep out of it, but there may be situations when interference is justified.

Oh, and there seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I do not consider the human body a private asset like a house or a bank account. I could NEVER, EVER justify government interference into a person's body. There is NEVER a time when I would turn over my autonomy to a government or expect anyone to do so. ALL decisions about my body are mine.

Question for you: If you were growing inside someone for whatever reason, would you want the right to choose if you should continue to grow or do you want the host to choose? It's really that simple.

In this very unrealistic and impossible hypothetical situation, my opinion is that the host would have the right to choose. They are the ones that have to house me and suffer for me, growing me and bringing me into the world. If THEY chose to do that, it's fine. But no, I wouldn't expect to have the right to force them to carry and bear me. I thought that was clear from my position as stated. (I am not a hypocrite, regardless how much you wish to paint me as one. )

Another question for you: Do you agree with ban on late-term abortions after the point of external viability, when abortion is not necessary to terminate the pregnancy?

No. There is no specific date after which viability is assured. It's not cut and dried. The vast majority of abortions in the US are performed during the first trimester (87%). A ban on something that doesn't often happen is just another useless law... and one that violates a person's privacy.

Chart

reply to post by yes4141

You are intimating that there is a consciousness involved with this fetus. You are even implying that it has some degree of self-awareness.

Yes, with late-term foetuses there is consciousness. No self-awareness, but born babies lack self-awareness, too.

You said you are not against potential for life, so do you consider a fetus to be truly 'alive'? Do you think it is capable of suffering?

For late-term foetuses, the answer is yes to both questions.

Would you give those same rights to a malignant tumour?

No, it lacks consciousness and sentience.

reply to post by Wertwog

Tyranny is not ok, is never ok, just as slavery is not ok, is never ok, and your argument is a "lesser of two evils" position. Just because one might be considered "less evil" than another does not make it ok/good, and it is up for debate as to whether removing a person's basic human rights in favor of a fetus who is not a person is a huge "evil" on par or exceeding it's destruction. My point was ALL war is for "self defense", on both sides. Think about it. War is not a 'neutral' tool that can be used for good or evil. War is inherently evil, IMO, and if you had ever been in one you would recognize that. In fact, if you think war is ok, then you also think killing is ok when it is in "self-defense" which history shows all killers claim way or the other. How hypocritical of you to then be all "baby killer" on women who "kill their babies". Babies die in war too, usually as 'collateral damage' but you're "ok" with that right since you are ok with war. I don't think you can have it both ways.

All right, make it lesser of two evils, then, I agree.

It is not a person at all until it is born at which point is is accorded rights of person-hood. I am more than implying, I am outright saying a person is not a person until they are born. Rights are not accorded to 'non-persons'.

Thats just your opinion, one that I dont share. And yes, non-persons can have rights. What about foetal or animal rights?

As for your definition of a person, I fail to see why a biological connection to another being somehow should strip the personhood from the connected party.

"Mind" is not a neurological concept, in neurological terms our brains are synaptic connections, chemicals, electricity and some yogurty kind of tissue. "Mind" is not simply "ordered brain waves" as many animals and relatively simple organisms have "ordered brain waves". Sentience is not a neurological concept. What you are referring to when you say "presence of mind" usually refers to the concept of a being that is conscious of itself, and that is not a neurological concept. When you get this straight get back to me.

Of course mind is a neurological concept, neurology studies the brain, which is what gives rise to our minds. Mind is not ordered brain waves, but ordered brain waves in the neocortex are good evidence that mind can be present according to current science, and thus important for abortion limit legislation. No, consciousness of itself is not required for presence of mind. Self-awareness is a relatively high level mental ability.

If you really would grant rights and personhood based on pure neurology, as you say, at what point to you draw the line between simple and complex. Chimps, dolphins and elephants have highly complex neocortexes, your argument on this basis alone would accord them the same rights as you and me.

Yes, I would grant them the same rights, if it would be practically possible. The only reason why we see humans above animals despite our minds (the source of any rights) often being developed less (think babies vs. an adult animal) is because our society is deeply racist (specieist).

Yes, I think you would cut out agency as having anything to do with person-hood because it is not convenient to your argument. If person-hood includes agency then obviously fetuses are not persons.

No, I just disagree with agency being of any importance. And what is that "agency", anyway? It is an empty word. Does it mean that when I restrain someone so that he can not act in any way, he ceases to be a person?

Siamese twins do not conceive, gestate and birth one another.

And that is relevant for right to life how?

If one is wholly dependent on the other it would not be considered a "person". Good grief, what a ridiculous statement to make. Are you seriously pursuing this line of reasoning? Are you trying to convince anyone that is is really true?

So, if one siamese twin is wholly dependent on the other, it is not a person? Thats what I want to know. And I dont see what is so strange to ask this question, it is extremely relevant for abortion debate.

I recall saying that it is generally considered illegal for one person to harm or kill another , but the point is moot in this unlikely scenario since sharing one body neither would have the agency to harm or kill the other!

Then why is it allowed during late-term abortions? And yes, we can imagine a situation when only one siamese twin is dependent on the other, but not the other way around. What then, still pro-choice?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Ashes of the wake
I always wonder how many of these hardcore pro lifers are adopting unwanted children. My guess is not many.

This should answer your question.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by marg6043
I ask him if he will be willing to adopt.

We are seriously thinking about it.

That's awesome man
You could maybe get the joy you are looking for and help a kid/baby out as well

Me and my wife were also wanting to adopt as we saw an ad on the newspaper for a specific little girl
but then she got taken and we called too late

She was vegetarian, we are also vegetarian, so naturally we would want a vegetarian as well.

See, he would have adopted that one but it was taken. Now he only wants another one that fits his mold. Too bad for all those unwanted kids that eat meat. Screw them.

If I can't star this post (why not?) then I'll have to quote it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I have done my very best to openly and honestly answer your questions, the purpose of which seems to be to find some flaw in my character by pointing out some imagined contradiction in my opinions. Yet, you continue to ask for clarification that I have already given... I'm not sure of your intention, but I really have done my best. At this point, if you wish to think that my character is flawed, feel free to do so. If you wish to make that claim here on ATS, again, feel free. But I really don't know how to satisfy your curiosity about my opinions on abortion. It's not an easy subject. It's NOT cut and dried, as you seem to want to make it. Not in my eyes, anyway.

My intention is to investigate the double standard you seem to hold when it comes to treating siamese twins and mother-child biologically connected entities differently for no apparent reason. Tough now I am not sure there is a double standard.

Oh, and there seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I do not consider the human body a private asset like a house or a bank account. I could NEVER, EVER justify government interference into a person's body. There is NEVER a time when I would turn over my autonomy to a government or expect anyone to do so. ALL decisions about my body are mine.

No government interference, even if your choice about your body kills another person (already born, with brain and everything), such as a siamese twin connected to you? If your answer is yes, then your opinion is consistent and there is no double standard.

In this very unrealistic and impossible hypothetical situation, my opinion is that the host would have the right to choose. They are the ones that have to house me and suffer for me, growing me and bringing me into the world. If THEY chose to do that, it's fine. But no, I wouldn't expect to have the right to force them to carry and bear me. I thought that was clear from my position as stated. (I am not a hypocrite, regardless how much you wish to paint me as one. )

OK, that is what I wanted to hear. And no, you are not a hypocrite

No. There is no specific date after which viability is assured. It's not cut and dried. The vast majority of abortions in the US are performed during the first trimester (87%). A ban on something that doesn't often happen is just another useless law... and one that violates a person's privacy.

That is a case of a continuum fallacy. There is no specific date, but we can safely say that third trimester foetus is viable, because it survives in vast majority of cases. Our laws are chock-full of similar fuzzy limits made exact. Nor does a viability need to be assured, as you wrote.

Ban on something that does not happen, but can happen is perfectly reasonable. There is nothing wrong with such useless laws, in fact, all laws should be similarly useless in an ideal case. And I am not convinced late-term abortions do not happen in the US.

As for a persons privacy, what do you mean? It is not like they are going to broadcast it on TV.

Originally posted by Maslo
My intention is to investigate the double standard you seem to hold when it comes to treating siamese twins and mother-child biologically connected entities differently for no apparent reason.

I have an apparent reason and have illustrated it to you several times now.

As for a persons privacy, what do you mean? It is not like they are going to broadcast it on TV.

My body is my private vessel. No one else (like the government) has a right to it or to make the choice about what I do with it or to even know that I am pregnant. That's confidential between my doctor and myself. It's private information.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by yes4141

 

I argue that the potential for life is indeed more important than life itself in every which way.

Potential is always greater than current because it's derivative based, not a single digit.

I'd save anyone irregardless to whom they are, but the objective truth of the matter is that the choices people make make themselves less valuable or more valuable beyond that basic humanity. That basic humanity is what gives us all the same rights. And the potential to get there is the justifies for it.

Take that one more step using your rationale and every time you jerk off you're murdering 300 million or so.

reply to post by RogerT


Cells with no potential to become anything at all.

I'd actually have to use energy to make them have potential. There's the key. What you use energy to do. Use energy to end a life, or to make it possible. Murder is an act. Acts require energy. And when dealing with matters of life, life requires energy to be created. If I do not take an action that uses energy in creating life, I am not blamed for murder. That's why I can use a condom or something, because the action is preventing life, not ending one that has already begun its potential.

The question is simply what you are using your energy to do. End a potential adult? Prevent a potential adult? Or create a potential adult? If I were to do such a thing as you say, I am in no way using energy to end a potential adult, as the circumstances in question deem that no adult is potentially possible.

reply to post by Gorman91


Edit: I misread your post.
On second reading...
are you saying you expend no energy when you put the condom on?


The first bit of your post about sperm having no potential is a bit weird. Are you saying that a seed has no potential to become a tree unless and until it is planted in fertile soil?

reply to post by Gorman91

Acts require energy. If I do not take an action that uses energy in creating life, I am not blamed for murder. That's why I can use a condom or something, because the action is preventing life, not ending one that has already begun its potential.

I would say using a condom or any contraception is an action, it requires more energy than simply not using it. It is an action which kills potential, which would otherwise continue if no such action was taken. There is no qualitative difference between using a condom and aborting a fetus in this. Both are active actions that terminate potential which would otherwise continue and have a chance to be fulfilled. Refusing sex may be only completely passive act to stop this potential (and sometimes even that requires action )

Of course that is all assuming level of action/inaction or energy requirement is even relevant for morality of a choice. I dont think so. Only consequences are. If you are able to easily save someone and refuse to do so, it is the same wrong as actively murdering him, even if its completely passive.

When two actions result in exactly the same consequences (causing potential not to continue), they cannot have different moral value.

reply to post by RogerT

reply to post by Maslo



The seed of a plant is fertilized, assuming it will start growing in the dirt. Bit of a linguistic contradiction to what "seed" is in human terms.

You are using energy to prevent life. Which is not murder. Otherwise every second you are not having sex you are committing murder. (though how bad that is is your own opinion )

The action that leads to the potential human adult is not the same action of stopping that potential once begun. The start of potential is a fixed point in time and space. Actions done to prevent it are not murder for the potential doesn't exist. Sperm has only two purposes to its evolutionary niche: fertilize, or die. If you do not use energy for one, you are simply making it do its other evolutionary purpose. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, nothing can do better than an organism in its environment. Its purposes have been specifically selected by the selfish gene, whose only interest is to breed. If it does not breed, it dies. It has no other role in its existence. No other function. Now for life, life is something wholly different. The selfish gene has accomplished its goal. It has generated a new template to compete and become a generator for more genes, and memes, and theoretically temes as well.

When two actions result in exactly the same consequences (causing potential not to continue), they cannot have different moral value.

Then I can kill a child without moral fear.

reply to post by Gorman91

The start of potential is a fixed point in time and space. Actions done to prevent it are not murder for the potential doesn't exist.

Why? And what point of time and space exactly? There is a potential leading for another human being until an active action to use contraception is made, even before the fertilisation. It may require more time and steps, but still its a potential of the same thing.

Potential leading to a potential of x is also a potential of x. Thats why potential should not be our criterion for protection, only actuality. Potential is an ill defined and arbitrary concept.

Then I can kill a child without moral fear.

In the first case you stop only the potential, in the second case you kill already existing child (an actuality).

You cannot stop already existing protected actuality without it being morally wrong, but you can stop potential leading to this protected actuality (in any stage up until actual actuality appearing) without it being morally wrong.

reply to post by Maslo


no, it isn't. Because people have free will. Adults can make choices. To say the potential exists before conception is to say the will of the consenting adults is not important, in which case, if their opinion of the matter is not important, than the fact they are adults is irrelevant, and the right to life does not exist anywhere.

Potential for that potential to occur is a completely different set of circumstances, dealing with different cells, different potentials, and different niches in evolution.

In the first case you stop only the potential, in the second case you kill already existing child (an actuality).

Not an adult. Not something that is as intelligent, sophisticated, emotional, and mature as me. No different than an ape really. No real right to anything all on its own. It cannot get its own food, it cannot think without the opinion of another. It has no existence other than to reach adulthood. "Childhood" evolved to increase the probability to reach adulthood. Nothing more, nothing less. The genes cannot replicate beyond the bounds of the vessel, the memes can not truly be imagined until late childhood, and temes are outright impossible in the younger ages.

reply to post by Gorman91

no, it isn't. Because people have free will. Adults can make choices. To say the potential exists before conception is to say the will of the consenting adults is not important, in which case, if their opinion of the matter is not important, than the fact they are adults is irrelevant, and the right to life does not exist anywhere.

People have free will. Adults can make choices. To say the potential exists after conception is to say the will of the consenting adults (mother) is not important, in which case, if their opinion of the matter is not important, than the fact they are adults is irrelevant, and the right to life does not exist anywhere.

Not an adult. Not something that is as intelligent, sophisticated, emotional, and mature as me.

Thats not relevant if we decide to define protected actuality as not needing to necessarily have those things.

And of course to say this potential of a child to become adult exists is to say the will of the consenting adults taking care of the child is not important, in which case, if their opinion of the matter is not important, than the fact they are adults is irrelevant, and the right to life does not exist anywhere.
Should then the parents have a right to kill their child and terminate the potential if they chose to as they can do in case of contraception? They should if they will is important and they can make choices.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


How about those of us who are "pro-privacy", "pro-mind your own business" and "anti-strangers telling us what to do"..?

Some people opine their (flock) morality is universal and strangers who don't want to hear it.. must conform. Those who do not obey have their personal business interrupted by zealot loons wielding rhetoric & propaganda on a stick... these folks are anti-privacy in my book.. to be ignored.

..meanwhile in hypocrisy doublethink land, perhaps a million souls have been retroactively aborted by GOP & DNC party leaders.. apparently supporting retro-active abortionists is moral & ok.. patriotic too..lol

..yawn.. some things are right for some, wrong for others.. this never ending debacle of a debate foments division.. huuum, who does that benefit?