Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[ENIGMA]

ENIGMA: For happiness and choice, I would contend that nobody can deprive me, you, or anyone else that which they do not have. Likewise the fetus has neither happiness nor choice, and thus cannot be deprived of either.

So, you have to HAVE happiness to be deprived of happiness? You have to HAVE choice to have to be deprived of choice? That doesn't make any sense.

Do you have to HAVE beer to be deprived of beer? That's easy. Just take away your beer... and you're no longer being deprived of it, because you don't have it. The same can be said for anything in place of beer.

You can only say that happiness and choice are not being deprived if those things are not readily available. The fetus surely has potential to have these things - maybe not immediately, but that's just the point: they will have those things if direct action is not taken to prevent such things from coming about.

Ok, perhaps a clarification is in order.

If I decide not to give you 5 dollars, have I deprived you of 5 dollars?

No. It was never your 5 dollars to begin with, even if preventing 5 dollars from going from my bank account to yours requires direct action on my part.

Likewise the mother can decide to not give the fetus the potential for choice and happiness.

ENIGMA: Close, but incorrect. All such slippery slope arguments are in fact fallacies. The thing is, however, not all fallacious arguments yield a false conclusion. i.e.:

a) All Penguins are Black
b) All Crows are Black
therefore:
c) All Penguins and Crows are Birds

...Which is a true conclusion but completely and utterly fails to follow from the premises.

Saying that something derived from a fallacious argument is necessarily false is a fallacy (Known, conveniently enough, as the Fallacy Fallacy). What is in fact the case is that the fallacious argument makes no determination of the truth claim of the conclusion.

Your example here is not an example of slippery slope.

Of course not, I was simply giving an example of a fallacious argument which had a conclusion that was true. (As indicated by the bolded text and the little i.e. that followed it).

ENIGMA:Do you have any intentions of becoming a Doctor? How about a musician? Or a programmer perhaps? How about getting a heart transplant? (Hopefully you're not planning on that..). How about living indefinately in a foriegn country?

Does your lack of motivation to do these things and (hopefully) your belief that everyone should have a right to try to do/become those things/professions, mean that you are a hypocrite?

Having motivation for becoming a doctor or musician or programmer in this discussion does not go where you want it to go. Thinking that nobody should be able to murder a baby because I don't want to is not the same thing as thinking that nobody should become a doctor because I don't want to.

Why not? They are of the same logical format, and thus any argument based on a similar form such that:

Any person who says "I think everyone should be able to X, but I will never choose to X" is a hypocrite.

is not the case since it clearly does not hold for all X. Hence your entire little bit about how that is such the case does not logically follow.

I think you can see that the situations are quite different. One is wrong and the other is not. In one scenario, you are taking away a life. In the other scenario, you are choosing how to live your life. Do you see the difference? Or should I expand on this?

In other words, you're left with the idea that "If Abortion is Wrong, then Abortion is Wrong".

I honestly could have told you that 20+ pages ago...

[ENIGMA]

I saw a documentary once that indicated that Margaret Sangar's (founder of Planned Parenthood) ideas about promoting a better culture by getting rid of the lowest classes of people, was inspirational to Uncle Adolph.

My first post to this forum was one in which I detailed a large number of writings/speeches/etc. which showed that Christianity was inspirational to "Uncle Adolph".

That post killed that thread for a few months.

I would much rather that door not be opened for this discussion, but am willing to oblige if you insist.

[Tigerlilly]

Who gets to determine that point? Why do those people get to determine that point?

Trained physicians and scientists. THey have the most information regarding viability, IQ, brain status. They are also objectively trained. I think the process should be as technocratic as possible.

Okay. This is a start. You'll have to go further, though, in your explanation. Why can't a mother kill their fully born, yet undeveloped child?

Once it is born, it's kinda pointless to abort it. It's such a waste of time and effort to carry teh baby for 9 monthes and then all of teh sudden decide to drop it. The mother ought have done it earlier to save herself trouble.

As at birth, we know 100% that the baby can feel pain/pleasure, and after birth, it's central nervous system is functioning, which is an important component in the mental faculties of the baby.

The baby, after birth, is also no longer surviving inside of the mother on pseudo-life support, draining the life and energy of the mother, not contributing. Once out, the pair of parents can take care of the child, and the mother's body is no longer under hostile takeover.

There is autonomy after birth, where there isn't prior.

You're not "hurting" it under the limited definition that it cannot feel pain. "Hurt" is by no means limited to the nervous system's ability to feel pain. Otherwise, we could use drugs to sedate anybody so that they can't "feel" - then is it okay to murder them?

Well. Pain and pleasure are hedonistic elements of Utilitarianism. According to the basic system, that which is moral makes the most pleasure/happiness. Immoral things have net unhappiness/pain. If the person cannot feel pain/suffereing, that eliminates that criterion. It's not the sole reason, no. THere are other forms of Utilitarianism. Preference, for example. I like to try to combine them. Avoid pain and suffereing, but fulfill max preferences.

We cannot sedate them in order to torture or murder them, because that violates their autonomy and bodily rights, unnecessarily. That alone would lead to negative consequences if, as a Rule, people were allowed to sedate others without their conscent.

Of course you're hurting it. You're killing it. That is hurting it, even if it can't feel pain.

I separate hurt from kill. When you kill a patient during Euthanasia, you aren't hurting them. You re doing in out of mercy and giving them a good death (the origin of Euthanasia is the greek word gooddeath).

Under negative utilitarianism, to avoid pain, you should kill them. This becomes a bit extreme, however.

Are you in favor of killing people that are not fully functional simply because their dysfunctionality causes them to not know what you're doing?

Do you mean severely mentally disabled people who are wards of the staet? I don't think the state should have to pay for them to sit around in an asylum or institution. They are very troublesome. In order to keep them from breeding, many cruel things are done to them, in addition to being costly.

As I see it, the lower your IQ goes and the less rationality one has, the less right to life a person has. If it gets so bad, what separates a Homo Sapien from a Chimpanzee which is 98% genetically the same?

But the development process is underway, and that fetus will become a child.

It's not 100% guaranteed. THe fetus doesn't even set in motion the process untill I think a few days after conception. After that, there is a great chance of miscarriage untill later in the pregnancy.

One can also compare the Fetus to an Acorn. An Acorn has th epotential, and will become a tree, but no one says an Acorn is a tree or has the same worth as a tree.

t takes the active process of murdering that life in order to stop the process of that fetus becoming a child. This isn't the case of the sperm or the egg. If we leave them alone... they will never develop into a child.

It is alive, yes. That's not my concern, however. My defining characteristics are IQ, Rationality, and Autonomy. (unless there are hugely overriding social welfare arguments to abort).

Many things are alive, but being alive alone doesn't give something the right to life. It's an artificial construct that has certain prerequisites.

And it's not about the mother. It's about the life inside the mother. The overall effects of pregnancy is positive

If the mother doesn't want to, she shouldn't have to let something grow inside of her. Even if it's for slighly less than a year, it does a pretty big toll on the mother's hell and mental state. Pregnancy isn't small, and afterward, the mother has the duty to raise the child.

She shoud have the right to refusal while the child is still in her body, non-rational and non-autonomous.

I think it's both about the mother and the fetus inside of the mother. ON one had, we are discussing and comparing the autonomy of mother vs child and the mother's right over her own body vs that of the needs of a growing fetus.

Yes. Overall, pregnancies do contribute to the survival of the human race, but we have more than enough population growth so as not to have to worry about abortions killing us all off. In the event that that would happen, then abortion woudl be wrong due to an overriding social welfare argument. Then I would agree that the mother's autonomy must be limited.

A child does not have full access to his/her rights. But they both have the right to LIFE.

The mother has it, while the FEtus has to potential to have it once it becomes autnomous,rational. That's my difference.

A fetus, being a person in its very nature, has the right to LIFE also. Just because it does not have all the same rights as a mother doesn't mean it shouldn't have any rights.

Just by being Human, I don't consider it having anything, because a FEtus for a human is under that of other already born animals. Every other animal should have the same rights as a Fetus then.

Even if we assume that the FEtus has rights, which I don't agree with, it doesn't mean that the Fetus has a greater right to life and property than doe sthe mother, who is older and autonomous.

But the consequences of a mother's decision must be factored in. When she is pregnant, she is no longer solely responsible for herself. In a similar way that a bus driver is responsible for himself and the children he drives. She took on the job of being a mom or being pregnant. A bus drive takes on the job of being responsible for the children he/she drives.

I would totally agree as it pertains to already born children.

I also agree that the mother, if she decides not to have an abortion, should not engage in activities which will knowingly harm the fetus and thus later the baby. IE Alcoholism or smoking.

I think it's wrong because it's not just affecting the fetus, it will 100% chance effect teh baby once it's born, and it's irresponsible to keep the baby if one is goign to do that. There are too many risks of deformities, retardation etc. In that case, I think abortions would be positive for parents, although the real problem is the drug abuse during pregnancy.

There has to be some fix, given that people will do it anyway. I am also all for that argument that mothers can have anti-rape and health-related abortion.

The only type of abortion I am not for is late-term abortion, when the baby is born in all but name. It's such a waste, both for the baby and the mother, unless there is some realistic reason why one would have to engage in such an abortion. At that point, the baby is fully viable, and the mother has already gone through nearly all the sacrifice and pain of childbirth. I don't see the logic in terminating it that late.

[bernee51]

And what about murder? That is wrong for me. According to you, that doesn't have to be wrong with my neighbor either. Now, if you're going to argue the value of human life or the infringement upon another's happiness or choice - then the same can be applied to abortion. You're eliminating any happiness, choice, and life for the baby that is murdered
.

Murder, theft, and so on are different to abortion in that they are illegal abortion, is not.

Murder and theft also have wider social impacts...if i murder or steal I am effecting society outside myself...the victim of the murder, the relatives of the victim, law enforcement, judicial ey all.

Abortion affects the woman and the foetus. The foetus is the woman's responsibility, (and to a certain extent the father's), not society's. No one outside herself is (generally) affected.

Not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies.

By definition they are - otherwise they are not 'slippery slopes'.

If you're not against abortion, you're for it.

Excellent - another fallacy - this time a false dichotomy (or is it the excluded middle)

I repeat - I see no hypocrisy in not supporting abortion personally and recognising the fact that for some people it is the only choice they feel they can make.

[Tigerlilly]

By definition they are - otherwise they are not 'slippery slopes'.

1. This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.


A slippery slope is only a fallacy when it has no proof behind it.

When is the threat of a sequence of increasingly bad events not a slippery slope fallacy? It is not a slippery slope fallacy when action A really does cause event B to occur, and event B really does cause event C to occur, and so on. A direct, causal connection must be established between each and every event in the sequence in order for the argument to be valid. For example, if I point a loaded handgun at your heart and fire it, then I will blow a gaping hole through your heart. If I blow a gaping hole through your heart, you will suffer massive internal hemorrhaging and total heart failure. If you suffer massive internal hemorrhaging and total heart failure, your blood will stop pumping through your arteries. If your blood stops pumping through your arteries, then the supply of nutrients and oxygen to your body's cells will stop. If the supply of nutrients and oxygen to your body's cells stops, then you will die. Therefore, I shouldn't shoot you through the heart. That argument is not a slippery slope fallacy because each event in the sequence directly causes the next event. There are no assumed intermediate causal connections. Every single intermediate causal connection can be verified with controlled experimentation if necessary.



ONce you actually show that point A causes the other points, then it's not a fallacy. Slippery Slope pertains to things that aren't connected causally. Many ethicists use the slipperly slope, and they aren't using the fallacy version. They still use the name, however, to describe bad links which actually have credible proof.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

[mrmufin]

mrmuffin: think everyone should have the right to occupy a woman's body against her will and inject her with hormones and be wholly dependent upon her resources for survival, though I will never occupy a woman's body against her will.

Point and fact: If you're not against the occupation of a woman's body against her will, you're for it. Don't you ever wonder what the mosquito's spin on malaria is?

By "occupy a woman's body against her will" - it sounds like you mean rape. But since we're talking about abortion, I'll assume you mean a baby, and you're trying to expand that to adults. I presume you're trying to make the point that children do not and should not have all the same rights as adults. Well, I agree with you.

A fetus is occupying a woman's body without her consent and against her will. The fetus is entirely dependent upon the woman for its sustenance and support; that dependency is not transferable.

However, the children are growing inside a woman's body. I do think that children that are growing inside a woman's body should have the right to occupy it. The circumstances of another person are quite different. But that's interesting. I've never heard that said before.

Actually, I'm not talking about children, GreenLight311. I'm talking about a wholly dependent fetus which occupies a woman against her will. Children are born, fetuses are not. Why should the fetus enjoy greater protections than the woman it occupies?

You're expanding the right of a child that is being grown inside a woman beyond reasonable circumstances. We're talking about the right to live, here.

No, we're talking about a woman's right to bodily integrity. We're talking about a woman's right to not have her body occupied against her will. We're talking about a woman's right to her body chemistry and the right to return her body to its normal state.

As for your point and fact: I am for the right for a child to occupy a woman's body against her will... when it comes down to a matter of that child's right to live and so long as her life is not in danger.

So if you're for the right of a fetus to occupy a woman's body against her will, why would you opposed to anyone else occupying her body against her will?

Regards,
mrmufin

[Amadeus]

I don't know how many pictures of aborted CHILDREN you have seen, MrMufin, but they are not merely fetus's. The pictures I have seen are around the 8 week mark, when the child already has everything it will ever have. The child is just a miniature version. Though I am not ine to shove pictures in people's faces to prove a point, you should check it out, just for scientific knowledge. I mean, hey, it's not a dead kid, right .

[mrmufin]

I don't know how many pictures of aborted CHILDREN you have seen, MrMufin, but they are not merely fetus's. The pictures I have seen are around the 8 week mark, when the child already has everything it will ever have.

Apparently the fetus does not have everything it will ever have, for it does not have the ability to sustain itself --or be sustained-- outside of the woman. While a newborn is still highly dependent on others, the dependency of the newborn is transferable. Whether you call the fetus a child doesn't change the fact that it may be occupying a woman's body against her will and it is wholly dependent upon her for its sustenance.

The child is just a miniature version.

Then why should the "miniature version" be granted rights unavailable to those who are born, such as the right to occupy and alter a woman's body against her will? Other than an unwanted pregnancy, can you name any other examples where a person (regardless of their size) has the legal right to occupy a woman's body and alter her body chemistry against her will? Why should the woman's rights be secondary to those of the fetus that occupies her?

Though I am not ine to shove pictures in people's faces to prove a point, you should check it out, just for scientific knowledge. I mean, hey, it's not a dead kid, right .

Right.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Cliff]

One poster suggested that the government should define what a person is. I disagree. Just as we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, we are also endowed with personhood. And so, the best government can do is agree with what God has already done.

[Amadeus]

Amen, Cliff!

MrMufin:

Apparently the fetus does not have everything it will ever have, for it does not have the ability to sustain itself --or be sustained-- outside of the woman. While a newborn is still highly dependent on others, the dependency of the newborn is transferable. Whether you call the fetus a child doesn't change the fact that it may be occupying a woman's body against her will and it is wholly dependent upon her for its sustenance.

A baby and young child outside of it's mother cannot sustain itself either. It still needs someone to take care of it and get food for it. This, however, has not stopped people from giving rights to children, has it?

Then why should the "miniature version" be granted rights unavailable to those who are born, such as the right to occupy and alter a woman's body against her will? Other than an unwanted pregnancy, can you name any other examples where a person (regardless of their size) has the legal right to occupy a woman's body and alter her body chemistry against her will? Why should the woman's rights be secondary to those of the fetus that occupies her?

The mother had sex, did she not? It is like playing with fire, and then suing it because you were burned.
This is not a question of a mother's rights being second to anything. Just because it is wrong for a killer to murder someone does not mean that their rights are not being considered. It just means that they don't have that right in the first place.