Comments on EvidenceOfGod/Haven head-to-head debate

[otseng]

This thread is for comments on the head-to-head debate between EvidenceOfGod and Haven.

Does a woman's right to bodily autonomy justify abortion?

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 27 by Divine Insight]

Its awfully hard to imagine how even the most stubbornly committed apologist could see any of the arguments presented by EvidenceofGod in this debate as implying the existence of (any) God/gods... This appears to be yet another case where EvidenceofGod expects us to just fill in whatever missing premises are required to get from their stated argument to the conclusion. But that's not really how it works.

Neither Haven nor EvidenceOfGod were debating the existence of God.

And at no point in the debate did EvidenceOfGod even remotely assert arguments which relied on God's existence

Just for clarification would the debaters care to answer a question for me.

how is referring to the right of the unborn to life anymore essentialist or inherently religious than the right to bodily autonomy?

Someone asked this already and I am curious. Is there a case for the right to bodily autonomy that cannot be used equally well for the right to life of a fetus(or anything really).

Yes, I would like to see this addressed further too.

[Haven]

Just for clarification would the debaters care to answer a question for me.

how is referring to the right of the unborn to life anymore essentialist or inherently religious than the right to bodily autonomy?

Someone asked this already and I am curious. Is there a case for the right to bodily autonomy that cannot be used equally well for the right to life of a fetus(or anything really).

Rights are social constructions, not parts of objective reality. The right to bodily autonomy exists because we as a society have decided it should. This doesn't suggest essentialism at all and in fact is completely compatible with nominalism.

Also, fetuses are not conscious and so (by common social standards) should not be considered to have rights, especially when the competing claim of the pregnant person to her/his/their own body exists.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Neither Haven nor EvidenceOfGod were debating the existence of God.

Indeed; an astute observation. I was referring, of course, to this-

1) My arguments are not inherently religious, though I do think their truth shows undeniably that God exists.

Which is a complete headscratcher, as obviously EoG is not arguing anything explicitly theistic, nor is there anything about any of the arguments which imply God's existence in any discernible way.

[WinePusher]

I thought this was a really good debate. The arguments made by both Haven and EvidenceOfGod were extremely compelling and well written.

The only thing that disturbed me about the debate, this thread, and the whole abortion debate in general is the complacent and self righteous attitude that both participants seemed to have, as well as many users in this thread.

Haven. Can you really not admit that pro life people have many legitimate points? You don't find anything disturbing about the gruesome and disgusting methods that abortion doctors use to kill these babies, like crushing their skills or slicing their bodies up? You don't find anything sick about the way doctors at planned parenthood were casually discussing the selling of body parts of the babies they killed?

EvidenceOfGod. Can you really not admit that pro choice people have many legitimate points? You don't find anything disturbing about forcing a woman to give birth to a baby that was the result of a rape? Can't you understand that you aren't a woman and that you have no right to dictate what other women do with their own bodies? Can you really not admit that there is a significant difference between a zygote and a fully developed 2 month old baby?
________________________________________

Throughout my time in college I've spent a lot of time with insufferable pro life and pro choice people who thought that they were 100% right and that the other side was completely wrong. Luckily, I came to the realization that there is no right or wrong answer to abortion. It's a tragic situation and both pro life and pro choice people have good points to support their case. If a pro life or pro choice person is absolutely certain that their position is the right position, and if they cannot acknowledge the complexities of abortion or concede any points to the other side then they probably haven't given the issue any thoughtful, sincere or genuine consideration.

[Divine Insight]

I thought this was a really good debate. The arguments made by both Haven and EvidenceOfGod were extremely compelling and well written.

The only thing that disturbed me about the debate, this thread, and the whole abortion debate in general is the complacent and self righteous attitude that both participants seemed to have, as well as many users in this thread.

Haven. Can you really not admit that pro life people have many legitimate points? You don't find anything disturbing about the gruesome and disgusting methods that abortion doctors use to kill these babies, like crushing their skills or slicing their bodies up? You don't find anything sick about the way doctors at planned parenthood were casually discussing the selling of body parts of the babies they killed?

EvidenceOfGod. Can you really not admit that pro choice people have many legitimate points? You don't find anything disturbing about forcing a woman to give birth to a baby that was the result of a rape? Can't you understand that you aren't a woman and that you have no right to dictate what other women do with their own bodies? Can you really not admit that there is a significant difference between a zygote and a fully developed 2 month old baby?

I think this is a very common problem on all social issues of contention. Everyone is afraid to give an inch in fear of losing a mile.

This is why I wouldn't even enter a debate on "Abortion" that has been restricted to about nothing but "Morality".

That is already "staking the deck".

I have already stated, that I would concede that any and all abortions can be considered to be "immoral" from the philosophical perspective of an ideology of "Perfect Morality". Trying to argue against that is futile. Moreover, it totally misses the main points of why abortion is a "necessary evil" in the real world. (if you want to think of it that way)

Also, I would never argue that every single abortion is "moral". But that's irrelevant to the real issue of abortion in the USA. The real issue is a question of legality. Should the government step in and force every pregnant person to take their pregnancy to term? And should "morality" by the sole consideration here?

These issues are not cut-and-dry. They are extremely complex issues.

When it comes to abortions there are abortions that I would personally give my support to as being "sound moral choices". And I would be the first to confess that this is a personal subjective opinion, because that's how I view morality in the first place.

However, there are clearly other abortions that I would personally deem to be totally irresponsible and therefore, in my opinion, "immoral". However even in those cases I would argue that it's not the government's place to force everyone to be "moral". That's simply not the purpose of a government in any case. So even though I would view many abortions as being "immoral" I would stop short of voting that they should be made illegal by law.

So the question of morality is not a deciding factor on the Abortion Issue in the USA in any case. At least not as far as I am concerned.

~~~~

But yes, there are most certainly abortions that I do not approve of. In fact, I already disapprove of women getting pregnant in the first place who don't want to get pregnant. They is already quite a bit of irresponsibility going on at that point.

~~~~

There are far more issues to this as well, when we get into the topic of "preventing" unwanted pregnancies.

For example, we can't condemn birth control methods or the use of condemns, whilst at the same time condemning abortions. If we truly want to reduce abortions we should be focusing on helping people who don't want to become pregnant to not get pregnant in the first place. And that topic sparks tons of controversy and debates right here. But we need to settle those disagreements before even tackle the abortion issue.

This debate tried to focus entirely on whether or not abortion should be considered immoral whilst purposefully avoiding the more practical real-life issues of how forcing people to take all pregnancies to term would itself be extremely immoral. There's a morality issue there too that is being totally ignored.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I thought this was a really good debate. The arguments made by both Haven and EvidenceOfGod were extremely compelling and well written.

The only thing that disturbed me about the debate, this thread, and the whole abortion debate in general is the complacent and self righteous attitude that both participants seemed to have, as well as many users in this thread.

Its a debate concerning deeply held moral values, I think we would be far more surprised if the discussion lacked such attitudes.

Haven. Can you really not admit that pro life people have many legitimate points? You don't find anything disturbing about the gruesome and disgusting methods that abortion doctors use to kill these babies, like crushing their skills or slicing their bodies up? You don't find anything sick about the way doctors at planned parenthood were casually discussing the selling of body parts of the babies they killed?

The problem is none of these questions are relevant to the thread topic; the answer to all of these is almost assuredly a "yes", and yet in no way has the implication been made that the debate topic should therefore be answered in the negative. This is a debate pertaining to moral justification, so we're looking for a principled and rational basis to answer the question, i.e. to decide whether bodily autonomy meets whatever criteria we deem relevant to justify abortion. But this sort of appeal to emotion is the exact opposite- it is not principled and it is arational. To rely on such considerations is tantamount to conceding there is no principled basis to regard bodily autonomy as failing to justify abortion. I'm glad EvidenceofGod didn't go this route, and avoided the error made by some pro-lifers- the debate would've been far less interesting.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 34 by WinePusher]

Haven. Can you really not admit that pro life people have many legitimate points? You don't find anything disturbing about the gruesome and disgusting methods that abortion doctors use to kill these babies, like crushing their skills or slicing their bodies up? You don't find anything sick about the way doctors at planned parenthood were casually discussing the selling of body parts of the babies they killed?

Enviousintheeverafter made most of the points that come to my mind, along the lines of 'emotional appeal'. The subject of ending a fetal life is ugly and brutal to anyone with a modicum of emotion and a soft spot for babies.

Until we can achieve 'no unwanted pregnancies', the necessity of means to end unwanted pregnancies is an ugly reality. Pro-life adherents are often Christian as well, and bring into the issue all manner of sexual taboos and restrictions, the most obvious of which manifests in reluctance to adequately educate our horny teenagers or provide them with adequate birth control. The deliberately deceptive ruckus around Planned Parenthood profiting from the sale of fetal tissue (accompanied by pictures of surgical pans brimming with little tiny arms, legs and heads) will, if successful, further decrease access to that which prevents unwanted pregnancies.

One could say that the on-the-ground effects of enculturated Christian sexual taboos is to create conditions in which MORE unwanted pregnancies occur, which drives the need for abortion services.

EvidenceOfGod. Can you really not admit that pro choice people have many legitimate points? You don't find anything disturbing about forcing a woman to give birth to a baby that was the result of a rape? Can't you understand that you aren't a woman and that you have no right to dictate what other women do with their own bodies? Can you really not admit that there is a significant difference between a zygote and a fully developed 2 month old baby?

There can't be any exceptions when it comes to dogma, it must be adhered to regardless of reality. The Christian position on this issue is permanently futile, and by self definition cannot grant a woman's bodily autonomy to her. Not and remain adherents to Christian dogma, anyway.

Some individual Christians can and do disregard certain dogmas in favor of humanist ethics. But those who won't can't hope to actually prevent the need for abortion services. I find the latter group prone to focusing entirely upon the grisly mechanics of abortion or some other version of the 'emotional appeal'.

[WinePusher]

Its a debate concerning deeply held moral values, I think we would be far more surprised if the discussion lacked such attitudes.

Think about what the subject matter for the debate is. On one side we have somebody arguing that the life of the baby trumps the choice of the mother, and on the other side we have somebody arguing that the choice of the mother trumps the life of the baby. Perhaps a debate on such a sensitive topic calls for more self reflection and humbleness, rather than complacency.

Haven. Can you really not admit that pro life people have many legitimate points? You don't find anything disturbing about the gruesome and disgusting methods that abortion doctors use to kill these babies, like crushing their skills or slicing their bodies up? You don't find anything sick about the way doctors at planned parenthood were casually discussing the selling of body parts of the babies they killed?

The problem is none of these questions are relevant to the thread topic; the answer to all of these is almost assuredly a "yes", and yet in no way has the implication been made that the debate topic should therefore be answered in the negative.

If you did answer 'yes' to those questions then I would assume that you oppose partial birth abortion (as many people do). Thus, a woman's right to bodily autonomy does justify abortion, but only in the early stages of her pregnancy.

This is a debate pertaining to moral justification, so we're looking for a principled and rational basis to answer the question, i.e. to decide whether bodily autonomy meets whatever criteria we deem relevant to justify abortion. But this sort of appeal to emotion is the exact opposite- it is not principled and it is arational.

Right, and you think that there is some principled and rational method to determine when a baby must die or when a mother must give up her rights? Like I said, abortion is a tragic situation with no right or wrong answer. And the overall point of my post, which you seemed to have missed, is that if a pro life or pro choice person is absolutely certain that their position is the right position, and if they cannot acknowledge the complexities of abortion or concede any points to the other side then they probably haven't given the issue any thoughtful, sincere or genuine consideration.

Admittedly, I have no position on abortion precisely because of it's tragic, disturbing and complex nature. How can somebody be so complacent and self assured about an issue that deals with the life of unborn babies and the bodily autonomy of women? How can somebody think that they have all the answers when it comes to such a sensitive and tragic issue like this?

[enviousintheeverafter]

If you did answer 'yes' to those questions then I would assume that you oppose partial birth abortion (as many people do).

Not necessarily; being disturbed doesn't mean being (morally) opposed, much less favoring legal prohibition. The point is that what is "sick" or "disturbing" is a subjective and personal matter, not especially relevant in this context.

Right, and you think that there is some principled and rational method to determine when a baby must die or when a mother must give up her rights?

Personally, I don't really accept that sort of meta-ethical view (that there can be such a thing as principled and consistent moral judgment/justification) but many do, and I could be wrong, and in any case there's no reason a debate can't proceed on the assumption that there can be.

Like I said, abortion is a tragic situation with no right or wrong answer. And the overall point of my post, which you seemed to have missed, is that if a pro life or pro choice person is absolutely certain that their position is the right position, and if they cannot acknowledge the complexities of abortion or concede any points to the other side then they probably haven't given the issue any thoughtful, sincere or genuine consideration.

Conviction doesn't preclude awareness of the complexity of the issue, nor does a failure to concede relevant points to the other side necessarily reflect a lack of serious reflection.

Admittedly, I have no position on abortion precisely because of it's tragic, disturbing and complex nature. How can somebody be so complacent and self assured about an issue that deals with the life of unborn babies and the bodily autonomy of women? How can somebody think that they have all the answers when it comes to such a sensitive and tragic issue like this?

Because having "all the answers" is more a matter of a strong commitment to a particular value (like the absolute sanctity of all human life) than a genuine case of knowing an answer (the way one may know an answer to math problem, for instance).

[WinePusher]

Not necessarily; being disturbed doesn't mean being (morally) opposed, much less favoring legal prohibition. The point is that what is "sick" or "disturbing" is a subjective and personal matter, not especially relevant in this context.

Well no. The point I've been trying to make is that if somebody provides a definitive and absolute answer to the debate question then they would be better served to give the issue more careful thought.

Does a woman's right to bodily autonomy justify abortion? A dogmatic pro lifer would say no, a dogmatic pro choicer would say yes. On the other hand, somebody who recognizes the complex, severe and tragic nature of abortion would say that it depends. There is no clear cut answer to this question, and a moderate position that incorporates both the pro life and pro choice position is that best position to adopt.

Conviction doesn't preclude awareness of the complexity of the issue, nor does a failure to concede relevant points to the other side necessarily reflect a lack of serious reflection.

That's a fair point, but in a sense it does. An absolute, dogmatic conviction in something precludes close-mindedness. Somebody who is absolutely certain that their position is the right position is by definition close minded. When dealing with an issue as sensitive as abortion, it is far more preferable to have an open mind.