Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply

With which statement do you agree?

I want it to be illegal for a very poor teenager who was impregnated from being raped by an immediate family member to get an abortion even in the first week of pregnancy even if the doctors can and did detect the baby has severe genetic disorders and that the pregnancy if taken to term would have complications greatly risking the life of both the mother and would-be baby.
7
9%
I want it to be legal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date (of birth) to get an abortion even though doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily otherwise and even though many safe, healthy, loving families are willing to adopt the would-be newborn immediately and even pay the woman significantly for that.
14
18%
I do not agree fully with either one of the above statements.
59
74%
 
Total votes: 80

User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Rombomb,
Rombomb (in his first post in topic) wrote:Abortion is good!

Aborting a fetus is not murder, since a fetus is not a person.
Rombomb (in his most recent post in topic wrote:
Scott wrote:So you are opposed to aborting a fetus in the third trimester?
Yes.
Ah, see, like almost everyone, you oppose abortion sometimes and allow it other times.

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.
Rombomb wrote:What do you mean by "reason"? Here's what I mean by it.
I have responded to your comments in the linked topic.


***
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 [...]
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?
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.


***

FreeSpeech,
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?)
Posting "more reasonable" middle-points would defeat the purpose of my argument.

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,
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.
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.


***

Newme,
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 [...]
Okay, but I don't think you answered the question in the OP. Which option do you choose? A, B or C?


***

Thinking critical,
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.
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.


***

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?
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
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."

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.


***

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.
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.

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).
Londoner wrote:The poll could simply have appealed to common feelings. 'Don't you feel sad for that baby?'
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.


***

Wilson,
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.
I think you are correct about some misreading it.

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.
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.
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.

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,
Bligh wrote:It seems that trying to discuss two extremes is not very interesting. What is your real question? B
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.


***

Greta,
Greta wrote:Both options are inhumane.
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.)?


***

Leonodas,
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.
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?

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,
Lucylu wrote:I cant quite see the benefit of taking two extremes, and only those extremes, as a point of debate.
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:The real question is where to draw the line within the middle ground.
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.

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.
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.
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.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Misty »

SCOTT,

Maybe I missed it, but it seems my post/opinion is the only one you have not addressed. :?
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Misty wrote:SCOTT,

Maybe I missed it, but it seems my post/opinion is the only one you have not addressed. :?
Sorry, that was unintentional. I must have missed it. :oops:
Misty wrote:Society needs better education for all in the areas of sexuality, reproduction and responsibility. Sexuality and reproduction are personal. Being a victim of a sexual crime is also personal and should be handled that way. Privately.
I agree about the value of education to solve many of these problems. What do you mean when you say sexual crime should be handled privately? Would you not have rapists put on public criminal trials and upon conviction have soceity acting collectively, not the victim acting discreetly, incarcerate the rapist?
Misty wrote:While I do believe life is conception to death (possibility of normal life span) I do not think government has the right to make such personal agonizing decisions for the individual who has to experience the decision.
The beauty of this position is that someone can disagree on the qualifer and still agree with final sentiment which I do. In other words, someone can say, "While I do believe life is X to Y...", and then still say and agree with the rest.
Misty wrote:My own dream is to get to the point of building a society where these decisions are moot because mankind has evolved beyond humans perpetrating crimes on fellow humans. I know, I know, it is a dream!
In the words of Lennon, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. However, I object to your usage of word crime. Crime is not the problem, but rather aggressive violence and coercion, which is often done within and even at the requirement of man-made laws. Let's not forget Martin Luther King was a criminal, a repeat offender, and the S.S. were law-abiding citizens who following the democratically-elected Hitler.
Misty wrote:While I do think abortion is ending the life of a person in it's earliest development, I think the life of children or women who are found pregnant in any situation that has been forced upon them, should be that person's decision whether to abort or not.
To the topic at hand, the point is that that is one qualifier that can used to draw the line between the two extremes with which we almost all disagree. We won't agree fully on the practical issue of exactly where to draw that line, but the fallacy is in taking that relatively small, mostly non-philosophical disagreement and mistaking as being philosophically and diametrically divided on abortion.

For some, whether or not the woman was raped helps determine the tolerability of abortion. For others, the consensuality of the pregnancy may not be the main factor, but rather the length of the pregnancy. Yet for others it is the likelihood and degree to which the pregnancy will risk or harm the health of the woman. For others it is the availability of adoption and not being financially burdened by giving birth. For others it is the likelihood the would-be baby will be healthy and not suffer from genetic disorders or dangerous predispositions. For many it one of countless various algorithmic combinations of some or all of those and other factors. There are infinite different positions one could take on where to draw the line between the two sides illustrated in the poll, but yet we all are actually pretty close in agreement in the big picture. We are all pro-life and pro-choice, all in general agreement philosophically about the legal philosophy of the issue, and just get mixed up in the various practical grey areas created by the many different factors that pin the mother's health and freedom against the would-be baby.

The point of this topic is that the point is not which of those factors is the biggest or main factor. That could be argued ad nauseam and would likely not lead to much resolution. While it could be a productive exercise to try to sort those issues out (which we can do here in a different topic in this forum), I think it is more important and helpful to that other discussion to first agree on the agreeable general philosophical fundamentals of this topic. Namely, that is that we all agree that we support the legality abortion in some instances and oppose it in others, and the thus acknowledge all we have to argue over is where in practice to (presumably arbitrarily) draw the line between what we will allow or not, much like how we arbitrarily draw age-of-consent laws to define statutory rape.

I look forward to your response.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Misty »

Scott wrote:
Misty wrote:Society needs better education for all in the areas of sexuality, reproduction and responsibility. Sexuality and reproduction are personal. Being a victim of a sexual crime is also personal and should be handled that way. Privately.
Scott wrote:I agree about the value of education to solve many of these problems. What do you mean when you say sexual crime should be handled privately? Would you not have rapists put on public criminal trials and upon conviction have soceity acting collectively, not the victim acting discreetly, incarcerate the rapist?
(Nested quote removed.)


A person who has been raped has had their personal rights of privacy and decision making taken from them by this act of violence. Laws should be in place that will not take away further privacy and decision making for that person. The rapist, of course, by his/her very act of rape has put their own privacy and decision making at the mercy of public scrutiny. When a woman/girl becomes pregnant by this act of violence, sometimes life altering violence, I think the law should reflect that it is always the freedom rights of the victim that preside. Her identity should be protected. This would allow her to make her own decision about this unfortunate pregnancy without public scrutiny. A personal freedom for all is the basic right to determine who one has sex with, and who one chooses to have a child with.


(Nested quote removed.)

The beauty of this position is that someone can disagree on the qualifer and still agree with final sentiment which I do. In other words, someone can say, "While I do believe life is X to Y...", and then still say and agree with the rest.


(Nested quote removed.)

quote=
(Nested quote removed.)
Where abortion is concerned, (I hate the necessity of abortion) I think the fine line may have to be drawn that a woman/girl being the host of pregnancy, her rights of personal freedom trumps the right to be a dependent of that host, otherwise there is no such thing as personal freedom for a female. I know this will be an unpopular position, it is even hard for me to grasp.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Misty, that's where you think the fine line may be drawn. Some others may agree, and presumably many others would disagree.

My point in this topic is not to answer where to draw that fine, debatable line between the two extremes. Rather, my point is that--despite all the endless and often overly passionate arguing about where to draw that fine line between the two extremes--we actually all are in rough, general agreement about the abortion issue in that we all agree that neither extreme is acceptable and the fine line, wherever it shall be, is somewhere in the middle. In other words, we all agree that in some circumstances the would-be baby's right to life trumps the mother's right to her body and in other circumstances the would-be baby's right to life trumps the mother's right to her body.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Misty »

Misty wrote: A person who has been raped has had their personal rights of privacy and decision making taken from them by this act of violence. Laws should be in place that will not take away further privacy and decision making for that person. The rapist, of course, by his/her very act of rape has put their own privacy and decision making at the mercy of public scrutiny. When a woman/girl becomes pregnant by this act of violence, sometimes life altering violence, I think the law should reflect that it is always the freedom rights of the victim that preside. Her identity should be protected. This would allow her to make her own decision about this unfortunate pregnancy without public scrutiny. A personal freedom for all is the basic right to determine who one has sex with, and who one chooses to have a child with.

Where abortion is concerned, (I hate the necessity of abortion) I think the fine line may have to be drawn that a woman/girl being the host of pregnancy, her rights of personal freedom trumps the right of a dependent to her body, otherwise there is no such thing as personal freedom for a female. I know this will be an unpopular position, it is even hard for me to grasp.
]
Scott wrote:Misty, that's where you think the fine line may be drawn. Some others may agree, and presumably many others would disagree. My point in this topic is not to answer where to draw that fine, debatable line between the two extremes. Rather, my point is that--despite all the endless and often overly passionate arguing about where to draw that fine line between the two extremes--we actually all are in rough, general agreement about the abortion issue in that we all agree that neither extreme is acceptable and the fine line, wherever it shall be, is somewhere in the middle. In other words, we all agree that in some circumstances the would-be baby's right to life trumps the mother's right to her body and in other circumstances the would-be baby's right to life trumps the mother's right to her body.
We both made mistakes of clarity in our posts, I corrected mine and hope my first paragraph was read now that it is out of the box.

Until there are zero sexual crimes that cause pregnancies, and there is perfect relationships between men and women that make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past, there will be abortions. Then there are the medical reasons for abortion that will always exist. My point was not about a fine line, Scott, the emphasis is on personal freedom. I don't think personal freedom, especially for the female, is honored like that of a man, in that a man can walk away from an unwanted pregnancy under any circumstance and be 'scot' free of any ramifications of his behavior and his body and mind is not destroyed in any way. The question is, what does personal freedom mean for both the male and female for it to be equally honored? Why should any person have the right to dictate to a female that her personal rights over her own body and life are taken away when she unwillingly becomes a host to another potential human? Another problem is that it is not always clear cut why spontaneous abortions happen and can become confused with intentional abortion, so it is hard to really be able to convict a woman of intentional abortion if she miscarries. The truth is that no human, born or unborn, is guaranteed how long their life will be, as life is fraught with intentional and non intentional reasons a life ends. Personally, I hate abortion, but my point is in equality of personal freedom between male and female.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Misty,

I also support equality of men and women especially in the sense of each having freedom. I agree abortion would likely not be such a major issue in practice if we did not live in a patriarchy in which culturally men have collectively become accustomed to bossing around women, a society in which historically a woman often could not so much as choose to euthanize the family pet let alone get an abortion. We aren't talking distant history here either; only about 100 years ago it was still legal in America for a husband to rape his wife. Surely there are many elderly women alive today who remember those times first-hand, and it would be not only false but quite a disgusting insult to them to brush off such gross sexism as something of the past.

In the above point, I suppose you have helped us stumble on yet another reason that the abortion issue is not as diametrically divisive as often thought, but rather falsely appears so. We can imagine there are many other times when the gray areas of freedom in practice can lead to endless debate about the details of the application of such ideals in practice such as when men go out and buy shoes made from a child-enslaving sweatshop, or when mostly male politicians violently tax the people proclaiming the need the money to do public good but then let children starve to death. Even that so many would jump quicker on the anti-abortion bandwagon than become vegetarians or at least support some form of animal rights may indicate that the abortion issue is in large part simply about a sexist society's discomfort with women choosing anything.

Good points, Misty.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by LuckyR »

From a philosophical standpoint, there is data to show that the histrionics typically ssociated with abortion conversations are more based on power struggles than concern for the "sanctitity of life". The attempt of men to have power over women, of clerics to exert power over not only their parishioners but the population in general, not to mention politicians stirring the pot to curry favor with their electorate, are all well understood.

Why for example, is there little to no controversy about parents choosing to "sacrifice" one conjoined (Siamese) twin in order to save the other? Why no funerals with pomp and circumstance for miscarriages? Why can ferilized embryos be sold without the moniker of Human Trafficking? No, society has reconciled the fact that an embryo is fundamentally different than a person, status-wise, it's just that those with an (likely power-based) axe to grind, pretend it hasn't.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Misty »

LuckyR wrote:From a philosophical standpoint, there is data to show that the histrionics typically ssociated with abortion conversations are more based on power struggles than concern for the "sanctitity of life". The attempt of men to have power over women, of clerics to exert power over not only their parishioners but the population in general, not to mention politicians stirring the pot to curry favor with their electorate, are all well understood.

Why for example, is there little to no controversy about parents choosing to "sacrifice" one conjoined (Siamese) twin in order to save the other? Why no funerals with pomp and circumstance for miscarriages? Why can ferilized embryos be sold without the moniker of Human Trafficking? No, society has reconciled the fact that an embryo is fundamentally different than a person, status-wise, it's just that those with an (likely power-based) axe to grind, pretend it hasn't.
Good points LuckyR, and I will add: Why does the life of a fetus become unequal to the female host/mother and easily terminated to save the life of the host/mother? The fetus supposedly has an equal right to life until it is a threat to the host/mother? Why not let nature decide if their right to life is equal?

-- Updated Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:47 am to add the following --
Scott wrote:Misty,

I also support equality of men and women especially in the sense of each having freedom. I agree abortion would likely not be such a major issue in practice if we did not live in a patriarchy in which culturally men have collectively become accustomed to bossing around women, a society in which historically a woman often could not so much as choose to euthanize the family pet let alone get an abortion. We aren't talking distant history here either; only about 100 years ago it was still legal in America for a husband to rape his wife. Surely there are many elderly women alive today who remember those times first-hand, and it would be not only false but quite a disgusting insult to them to brush off such gross sexism as something of the past.

In the above point, I suppose you have helped us stumble on yet another reason that the abortion issue is not as diametrically divisive as often thought, but rather falsely appears so. We can imagine there are many other times when the gray areas of freedom in practice can lead to endless debate about the details of the application of such ideals in practice such as when men go out and buy shoes made from a child-enslaving sweatshop, or when mostly male politicians violently tax the people proclaiming the need the money to do public good but then let children starve to death. Even that so many would jump quicker on the anti-abortion bandwagon than become vegetarians or at least support some form of animal rights may indicate that the abortion issue is in large part simply about a sexist society's discomfort with women choosing anything.

Good points, Misty.
Thank you Scott.

It has always puzzled me that if a female became pregnant without the benefit of marriage it is deemed by society as a shameful thing, sending the girl away to have her child and the child put up for adoption, or a secret abortion performed against her will. If the unborn were really deemed a person with the right to life, society would embrace the pregnancy and honor that life, and the mother would not be deemed immoral and treated differently, as in worse, than a pregnant animal. The male who is equally responsible for the pregnancy goes unscathed.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
Lambert
Posts: 1061
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 11:55 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Lambert »

My vote was # 1 to defend the right of life itself as independent of what we think it should be like. I also understand that these are extremes are presented to make this point known and therefore my vote was 1.

It is from here that abortion should never be a legal right, and that also makes it not against the law. It is a decision that is not mine to make and if other people think it is their right to take they would have to live with that, and this is where the opposites as presented here will have a diminishing affect on them.

I have no more to say on that, but now will add that social norms have an influence on us, in which "abortion free for all" is also a denial of the sanctity of life itself and soon may not be ours to have, and that may be just why the live 'live embryo market' is a solution the problems that we have today.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

#1: I want it to be illegal for a very poor teenager who was impregnated from being raped by an immediate family member to get an abortion even in the first week of pregnancy even if the doctors can and did detect the baby has severe genetic disorders and that the pregnancy if taken to term would have complications greatly risking the life of both the mother and would-be baby.
Lambert wrote:My vote was # 1 to defend the right of life itself as independent of what we think it should be like. I also understand that these are extremes are presented to make this point known and therefore my vote was 1.
You really want it to be illegal for the poor rape victim in the example to defend her own life by aborting the embryo?

How is that a defense of life when forcing the rape victim to carry the embryo to term puts her own life in danger?

Sure, the would-be baby needs the rape victim to not get an abortion for the would-be baby to ultimately be born and be alive. But how does that mean we legally force the rape victim to do what needs to be done to save (or create) the life of the would-be baby? What if Joe needs a kidney to live, but for some reason only Jane has a kidney that can be dangerously taken from her and transplanted in Joe? Would you support a law that makes it illegal for Jane to not donate her kidney to Joe? If she doesn't he will die, but if she does they both might die anyway--with her death as a result of the forced donation.

What if there is a test-tube created embryo that is not already implanted? What if for some reason it cannot be sustained outside of a woman anymore.What if there are no woman volunteers to let us implant the embryo in them? Shall we force a woman--some woman--with the power of law to allow us to implant the embryo in her or shall we let it die?

Such utter disregard for giving people a right to their own body actually seems to be the more anti-life position.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Fooloso4 »

Scott:

Such utter disregard for giving people a right to their own body actually seems to be the more anti-life position.
If one holds to the pro-life belief that life is sacred and an unborn child should not be killed, then the only consistent pro-life position is that it does not matter under what circumstances a woman becomes pregnant. Those circumstances do not change whatever rights the unborn child has or the claim to the sanctity of life.

I am not saying that this is my position but that if one’s anti-abortion stance is based on these premises then there should be no exceptions except perhaps when the life of the mother is at clearly at risk. So, if one takes an anti-abortion stance but allows for exceptions then the defense of that position must be found on other grounds.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Fooloso4, if one believes the would-be baby's life trumps any and all freedom to use one's body without exception, then the same premise would apply to the other examples I gave in my previous post: Namely, I am thinking of that involving the needed kidney donation or the case of the unimplanted embryo in world where no woman is willing to volunteer to allow the embryo to be implanted. Of course, such example are countless. Others could be forcing someone to cut off their leg to feed the tribe when food is scarce.

Moreover if one life always trumps freedom without exception, that seems to suggest that two or more lives always trump one or less lives. In this case, would a 'pro-lifer' support murdering a single innocent person to harvest his organs to save the lives of a few other people in need of the donation? Do we propose people on a stranded island murder one of the tribe to feed the rest cannibalistically? These kind of examples are a dime a dozen in utilitarian thought experiments.

It's hard to consider such a murderous, aggressively violent principle to be pro life. That's not because it doesn't work mathematically, which it arguably does, but rather is because such endorsement of terrorism and slavery blatantly destroys the essence of life. We might as well put everyone into induced comas so they don't get into car accidents--and call that pro life. Some people say sleep is the cousin of death. I'd go a step further and say slavery in a society filled with state-sponsored murder is also the cousin of death.
Fooloso4 wrote:[...] there should be no exceptions except perhaps when the life of the mother is at clearly at risk.
Incidentally, in the given example, the mother's life is at risk.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Fooloso4 »

Scott:

Fooloso4, if one believes the would-be baby's life trumps any and all freedom to use one's body without exception, then the same premise would apply to the other examples I gave in my previous post
First, I want to reiterate that my post was with regard to the consistency of the right to life position. I do not support that position, merely pointing out what I see as an inconsistency when an exception is made for rape. I will, however, address your examples. There is a difference between doing something that will harm a human life and doing something to help. If one does not make that distinction then we are all guilty since we do not attempt to save as many lives as we possibly can. As you say, the examples are countless.
Moreover if one life always trumps freedom without exception, that seems to suggest that two or more lives always trump one or less lives.
On some ethical theories the solution is additive but not all. A pro-lifer might hold that each life is uniquely valuable and should not be taken in sacrifice for another.
It's hard to consider such a murderous, aggressively violent principle to be pro life.
And there are pro-life supporters who would agree. The principle is not part of the pro-life platform, it is what this position seemed to suggest to you. This was a situation that you proposed and that you are arguing against.

The premise of your topic is that there is going to be general agreement, but when someone takes a dissenting view you attempt to argue them into taking the position you want to demonstrate that almost everyone will take.
Incidentally, in the given example, the mother's life is at risk.
Yes, I am aware of that, and the life of the fetus too. Some take the position that the risk of losing life is not sufficient, it must be clear that one or the other or both will die. I have even encountered arguments that bringing life into the world is basic to life and so if it is one or the other the baby should live.

One more point, even if it were true that most people do not hold to an extreme position that does not mean that the issue is not diametrically divisive. The poles in the abortion debate are not defined by extremes. Even though there may be exceptions that allow or forbid an abortion, for any given case the poles are not to abort or allow the woman to choose, there is no way to bridge these options, they remain diametrically divisive. The debate continues without reasonable expectation of resolution.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Fooloso4 wrote:The premise of your topic is that there is going to be general agreement, but when someone takes a dissenting view you attempt to argue them into taking the position you want to demonstrate that almost everyone will take.
Yes, that is the premise. Both the extreme pro-life and the extreme pro-choice side are untenable.
Fooloso4 wrote:I have even encountered arguments that bringing life into the world is basic to life and so if it is one or the other the baby should live.
As we have addressed in less specific contexts, such a position raises significant questions exemplified by countless possible philosophical thought experiments. For instance, what of the scenario in which an un-implanted embryo must be implanted into some woman and no woman volunteers exist? What if the procedure is extremely risky to the life of the woman getting implanted with the embryo?

Similarly, if one supports using murderous aggressive violence and slavery to try to make sure a fertilized egg gets the support it needs to grow into a born baby, that causes the idea that a right to life starts at a certain point to become absurdly significant. Shall a sexually undesirable man not rape a woman to make sure his seed doesn't go to waste? Shall a woman rape a man to make sure her limited supply of eggs and window of fertility maximizes childbirth?

(I understand you may not be able to answer this questions since you are saying you may just be playing devil's advocate in a sense, which incidentally I believe is extremely helpful to conducting philosophy in this or any topic. However, on the same token, I can't accept the claim that some untold person has an unknown argument or unknown explanation of which maintains the allegedly untenable position and could answer those questions satisfactorily.)
Fooloso4 wrote:One more point, even if it were true that most people do not hold to an extreme position that does not mean that the issue is not diametrically divisive. The poles in the abortion debate are not defined by extremes. Even though there may be exceptions that allow or forbid an abortion, for any given case the poles are not to abort or allow the woman to choose, there is no way to bridge these options, they remain diametrically divisive. The debate continues without reasonable expectation of resolution.
I think the key phrase in the above paragraph is for any given case.

Thus, it is only over any one situation involving the details of a myriad of different cases that people must take one of two sides allow this woman to get an abortion or use the violence of law to stop her and force her to carry the baby. But then they are not arguing over abortion in general but rather the details of the case at hand. Thus abortion is not diametrically divisive, but that case is (e.g. does the rape victim have to get an abortion). This is nothing unique to abortion issues, as it comes up anytime there is a specific case on which a significant decision needs to be made. Look at the O.J. Simpson case, for example. That case doesn't mean people are diametrically opposed on the philosophical issue of murder, or even about things like racism, police corruption, and the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, they get split on the specifics of the case, with not only factual disagreements about different details but also with different varying weights given to the importance of each given detail. This creates a broad, fluid multidimensional spectrum of different opinions, not a polarized diametric opposition.

In short, people may indeed be polarized on a much more specific case (e.g. "shall this wealthy 30-year-old rape victim be allowed to get an abortion 2.5 weeks after conception" or "shall this poor 18-year-old who consented to sex be allowed to get an abortion 5 weeks after conception", etc.) because many if not all the details that sway a person into one pole are contained in that specific case and one must make a choice for that specific case. But it is that specific case that is polarized, i.e. diametrically divisive. It doesn't follow that the general issue of abortion is diametrically divisive.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021