Rombomb (in his first post in topic) wrote:Abortion is good!
Aborting a fetus is not murder, since a fetus is not a person.
Ah, see, like almost everyone, you oppose abortion sometimes and allow it other times.Rombomb (in his most recent post in topic wrote:Yes.Scott wrote:So you are opposed to aborting a fetus in the third trimester?
When one jump in the debate with a simply slogan taking one two polar sides, either "abortion is good" or "abortion is bad", or either "abortion is murder" or "abortion is not murder", the real falsehood is in the presentation of a such a oversimplified generality when the person really chooses neither of the two diametrically opposed sides. Not picking on you, Rombomb, but just showing that even your position yet only further confirms what I argued in the OP.
I have responded to your comments in the linked topic.Rombomb wrote:What do you mean by "reason"? Here's what I mean by it.
***
Scott in the OP wrote:[...] almost everybody plainly disagrees with BOTH polar extremes and lay at various middle-points, thus disagreeing mostly on where to practically draw the line [...]
That's exactly my point, Leonodas. People disagree on 'where the line is' but actually agree that it is drawn between the polar extremes, with nobody actually supporting either of the polar extremes. The idea that abortion is a diametrically divisive issues is a fallacy. The common identification of oneself or one's opponents in an abortion debate as taking either of the two polar extreme sides is a fallacy.Leonodas wrote:Should it be legal to abort a baby in the first trimester? Should it be legal to abort a baby in the second? The third? What about as the baby is coming out? Why not kill it then? What difference would it make between the moment of conception and the cutting of the umbilical cord? After all, it is still a "parasite" of it's mother.
Why not kill the child after a few days? The parents don't want it anyway. Why not after two years? After all, can a child of that age effectively reason?
Where is the line?
[...]
Again, the line? Where is the line?
***
FreeSpeech,
Posting "more reasonable" middle-points would defeat the purpose of my argument.FreeSpeech wrote:Choose option A --> Hyper-conservative christian
Choose option B --> WTF
Choose option C --> I'm not alone! This wasn't idiocracy after all!
(What if you posted more reasonable choices rather than extreme A, extreme B and the middle point?)
The point is that instead of us being diametrically divided on the abortion issue, we actually almost all are opposed to both polar sides. The illusion of diametric opposition comes from the endless dispute over the complicated overly practical and much less philosophical exercise of trying--which may inherently need to be arbitrarily--to draw a line somewhere between the two sides with which we disagree. Creating yet one more debate of the various middle-grounds would only be not only another exercise in that seemingly fruitless endeavor, but also would further yet the illusion that abortion actually a diametrically divisive issue.
Leonodas explained my point as well:
Leonodas wrote:Anyway, you must have missed the point if you want less extreme options, at which point it would be become another run-of-the-mill sociopolitical debate thread (God knows we have enough of those on here). The extremes are there because few people except the ones with the most conviction would choose them; it's a way for us all to see that we have more middle ground and therefore more in-common on the abortion argument than we'd originally think (or not).
***
Mayanka,
That's an interesting case. It shows yet one more of countless specific examples that give people middle-grounds to argue over, even though despite common perception we are not diametrically opposed about abortion and can only argue over the various middle-grounds. However, that case above is not as related because the issue seems to more be euthanasia which is something that comes up with coma patients and the elderly as well.Mayanka wrote:In India the law prohibits abortion after a certain period of gestation has passed, about 20 weeks to be specific. The foetus then comes in possession of rights. Now there was a case some years ago where doctors found extreme mental and physical deformities in the foetus after the 20 weeks had passed. The woman called for an abortion stating that she did not want to give birth to a child who would only have difficulties to face in life, possibly a very short life, and moved the court for that. The case gathered quite a bit of publicity. Well, the woman ultimately suffered a miscarriage so the case faded out, but the issue remained in focus for quite some time. Some felt the baby should have been allowed to be born, since given the medical advancement there could still be a chance it would lead a normal life. The woman could give it up for adoption if she did not want it then. Some felt it better to end the woman and the child's misery.
***
Newme,
Okay, but I don't think you answered the question in the OP. Which option do you choose? A, B or C?Newme wrote:If a mother's life is at risk by continuing a pregnancy, then obviously abortion is logical, since if she dies, so does the baby [...]
***
Thinking critical,
Those are interesting suggestions. But they seem to also sort of miss the point. On the other hand they also seem to demonstrate the point in that they are one of many countless possible proposed middle-grounds that could be used as policy since even though we are all not diametrically opposed on abortion, the complicated issues at play make it so we cannot agree on the specific practical rule that can apply generally.Thinking critical wrote:First at Foremost Abortion should not be considered as a contraceptive, people who have sex know the potential consequences, due to the uncertainty factor of not knowing at exactly what age the foetus is able to feel pain, I know it's impossible for them to feel pain prior to 6 weeks, two things need to be considered. Abortion after 6 weeks should only be for extreme cases where severe medical complications are probable. For un-planned pregnancies the abortion must be carried out before 6 weeks and every single case MUST meet a strict criteria that considers every aspect of the parties considered before making a decision.
***
eyesofastranger,
Scott wrote:Why isn't the baby a person 1 minute earlier when it is inside it's mother but ready to be born safely? What is it that makes it person?
The problem with the statements at the end, even with their qualifications, is this: Most people who would then categorize as 'not pro-life' would actually only be 'not pro-life' after day 49. They might say, "Well I'm almost always pro-choice before day 49. After day 49? I'm on the edge."eyesofastranger wrote:Great Scott is asking the most difficult philosophical questions humans face. I don't have a vote. Pondered at length personally [...] I'm almost always pro life. Before day 49???? I'm on the edge
Unfortunately, it becomes very easy to take the following two:
A1 - I'm almost always pro-choice. Well that's before day 49. After day 49, I'm on the edge.
B1 - I'm almost always pro-life. Well that's after day 49. Before day 49, I'm on the edge.
And then just refer to them as:
A2 - "pro-choice" B2 - "pro-life"
...and treat them as polar opposed positions. Worse yet the particular qualification of 49 days can be replaced by any other number of possible (and presumably arbitrary) ways in which people who are not on either diametrically opposed side might try to draw a line. Believing the illusion that said line creates by seeming to divide people into "pro-choice" and "pro-life" is a fallacy.
***
I agree that one can think something is "morally wrong" whatever that means without wanting it to be illegal, or vice versa. However, I disagree that it would be preferable to discuss the morality of the issue rather than the legality.Londoner wrote:I think it is questionable to have framed the question around what should be legal/illegal.
We can hold a position that we think something is morally wrong, without claiming that we know this for an objective fact, such that we claim the right to impose our view over others.
It is unclear what someone means when they say, "X is immoral." I explain that in my following three articles:
In contrast, it is clear what someone is proposing when they say they want something to illegal. It means they are willing to use violence and coercion to stop that thing, namely the organized violence of the state (e.g. "don't do X or we will try to stop you from doing X with force and we will forcefully put you in prison against your will).
Indeed, it could have. But then it wouldn't have made the valid point that it makes which is that abortion is not as diametrically divisive as thought.Londoner wrote:The poll could simply have appealed to common feelings. 'Don't you feel sad for that baby?'
***
Wilson,
I think you are correct about some misreading it.Wilson wrote:I have to say that the wording of the poll was poor. For many, I'm sure, option B read initially as meaning four days after her period was due, rather than when she was ready to deliver a full-term baby.
Ironically, I think people misreading it and potentially voting for one of the absurd extreme positions only helps demonstrate how incredibly disagreeable both diametrically opposed positions are. They are so absurd people interpret them to something more reasonable, that they would expect to read.
I would agree if you changed "people who are not guided blindly by their religion" to "people who both (a) are not guided blindly by their religion AND (b) are animal-rights-supporting vegetarians". Otherwise, I very strongly doubt it.Wilson wrote:For me, and I suspect for most people who are not guided blindly by their religion, it comes down to whether we empathize with the fetus. In other words, do we feel that a one-month old fetus has human qualities? Not whether it is technically a human being, which it obviously is, but whether it is capable of even rudimentary thought or pain.
In either case, that and your later particular proposal of middle-ground on which to (presumably arbitrarily) draw a line between when to allow abortion or not also helps demonstrate that that is the only kind of solutions people can propose and that is what people disagree about: where exactly to arbitrarily draw the line to represent are philosophically shared position in practice using a general rule. It's very similar to the use of age of consent laws to define rape.
***
Bligh,
That point has already been addressed repeatedly in the topic. "The real question" is whether or not abortion is truly as diametrically divisive as often thought. The two "extremes" presented demonstrate that it is not. If you disagree, then please name with which of the two extremes you agree.Bligh wrote:It seems that trying to discuss two extremes is not very interesting. What is your real question? B
***
Greta,
Agreed. So then do we also agree that abortion is not as diametrically divisive as often thought? But rather instead the disagreements are between people who fundamentally agree philosophically debating where exactly to arbitrarily draw the line to create a general rule to use in practice to enforce their agreed philosophical position (e.g. 4 weeks vs 5 weeks, 1 month vs 7 months, etc.)?Greta wrote:Both options are inhumane.
***
Leonodas,
That seems like an unscientific interpretation of some unmentioned set of data. Namely that is because how could an abortion not be medically related? To illustrate the point, imagine hypothetically just for the sake of argument you had a lifeless ulcer of some special, new sort developing in your body. The doctors identify it and can perform a medical procedure to get it to come out almost immediately with a relatively low amount of pain and damage to your body. Or you can wait and in about 9 months it will grow to be watermelon sized, stretch out your skin, cause you to miss work due to disability, and then eventually it will painfully and slowly come out your butt which will presumably also require medical oversight and treatment. How could the choice to remove said would-be watermelon from your body not be a medically-related in nature?Leonodas wrote:I read a statistic somewhere that around 93% of abortions are not medically-related in nature. That is, it is purely the mother's choice and has nothing to do with risk of the mother or the child. Don't quote me on it though.
Note well: I purposely came up with an example that removes the would-be baby's alleged right to life from the equation just to demonstrate the one above point. In the paragraph above, I am NOT making an argument that the choice to abort when it is a fetus with an arguable "right to life' is justified on the same grounds that removing a wouldbe watermelon-sized lifeless growth is justified.
***
Lucylu,
I don't really understand your point in reiterating something that multiple people already said and was then which was then already answered repeatedly. Leonodas also explained my point succinctly in post #63.Lucylu wrote:I cant quite see the benefit of taking two extremes, and only those extremes, as a point of debate.
Indeed, but before we can debate over where to draw the line within the middle ground we have to have already agreed that both polar sides are disagreeable.Lucylu wrote:The real question is where to draw the line within the middle ground.
The irony is then that there can be so much debate between people who actually agree philosophically about where to draw the line in the middle-ground in practice that all that debate over such complicated topics makes it seem like abortion is a divisive issue, when philosophically it's really not. Rather, the debate in practice is generated by the complications in applying philosophy to practice NOT in some people being pro-choice and others being pro-life.
That's one possible place to (presumably arbitrary) draw the line. There are countless others. Any one can lead to a lot of debate. But then the debate is over the finer practical points of that particular instance not over abortion in general.Lucylu wrote:In this case, it would seem to fall a the point at which the baby is absolutely dependent on the mother or whether they could survive outside the womb, and also what pain the foetus may experience.