Moral Permissibility of Abortion

[InkL0sed]

A fetus is dependent on the mother alone; a two year old can always have another care taker.

[CrazyAnglican]

Yet, regardless of getting another caretaker, a two-year-old's mother would be guilty of abuse and neglect for allowing him/ her to go hungry (if she had the power to prevent it). This merely shows that there is a moral obligation there. A mother who neglects her infant or her two-year-old is guilty of abuse; and is not fulfilling her moral obligation, if she allows her offspring to go without the essentials for life. It doesn't matter if someone else takes up the burden for the child. It's the mother who hasn't fulfilled her moral obligation.

If an infant or a two-year-old has the right to expect a place to made for them at the table, then why not a fetus (eventually)? The need is the same. Just because one doesn't have the ability to look to another for sustenance, while the others do, shouldn't lessen the moral obligation to provide for her. If anything it increases that obligation.

[InkL0sed]

Yet, regardless of getting another caretaker, a two-year-old's mother would be guilty of abuse and neglect for allowing him/ her to go hungry (if she had the power to prevent it). This merely showing that there is a moral obligation there. A mother who neglects her infant or her two-year-old is guilty of abuse; and is not fulfilling her moral obligation, if she allows her offspring to go without the essentials for life. It doesn't matter if someone else takes up the burden for the child. It's the mother who hasn't fulfilled her moral obligation.

But the point is that when a mother is pregnant, she is the only one who can provide life to the fetus, which as FI argues, is not necessarily by choice.

On the other hand, a mother with a two year old need not neglect the child to stop caring for him/her, but simply put the child up for adoption, for example.

The argument is that in neither case should the mother be forced to sacrifice her own life in favor of the child's.

[CrazyAnglican]

If there is an implication that the mother's life is being placed at risk by the pregnancy, I missed it, and that would certainly be a different scenario. Otherwise, though, if the mom is healthy then in a few months that fetus can be put up for adoption as well and will probably have a great opportunity for it.

[mpjh]

Returning to the OP's Thompson arguments by analogy, I love it. This is done all the time in court. When trying to explain a complex economic point, economist often refer to a "railroad" as an example. The underlying assumption is that everyone will think they understand the railroad example and thus be able to draw meaning for the economic problem. I always get a chuckle when this happens because everyone does think that they understand a railroad operation, despite never having been trained nor studied railroads.

Thompson's analogies have the same problem. Her example are no less complex than the original problem, and fraught with the same underlying principles of humanness and conscience. Nothing is really explained by her analogies.

The example of the person forcibly attached to the violinists explains nothing. It clearly violates the human dignity and individual human rights of one person to provide the violinist with a longer life. Which is the fetus? The blood donor or the violinist? Which is innocent? Clearly the blood donor is the innocent person and has a right to have her human dignity returned. How does that explain what rights a fetus has?

Is the fetus innocent? No. How can it have a right to human dignity when it is just a part of the woman's body without the ability to live separately. The analogy falls apart here. The blood donor analogy explains nothing.

The example of the burglar similarly falls apart. The open window is an invitation of sorts. In law it would make the difference between an illegal breaking and entering, and just a trespass. It is what the burglar does inside to which the owner does not consent that makes the crime.

There is no proper analogous case for agreeing to sex but not the pregnancy. After all, it is the sperm and the egg that are doing the thing to which the woman has not agreed. These are not human actors, just biological features of the two bodies involved. The whole idea that the woman did not give consent to her egg to join with a sperm is, well, ridiculous, and in no way analogous to the burglary illegal conduct in the home. The burglar is a person responsible for his actions, sperm are not persons.

Don't try these arguments in court.

[FabledIntegral]

3. It's not that he has given up his right not to be killed, it's that he doesn't have that right in that situation. The right to life does NOT imply the right to use the resources of another for one's own survival. And that is the point. You can only use the resources of another if given the consent by another to survive. Keep in mind we are under the premise that a fetus IS a person.

Perhaps we've already covered this (I've been away for a couple of days), but why exactly is it different for a fetus than for a two-year-old? Both are fully dependent on the consent for use of resources to survive. Perhaps the fetus might die sooner, but the end result would be the same for both. Yet if the two-year-old is denied those resources, he/she needs to survive, it is abuse (neglect) and murder if the child dies. Why should a two year old have more right to life in this regard than a fetus, given that we are acknowledging both as people?

Or if we go a little further does a neonate have the right to suckle? In this regard it is using Mom's body to survive (ie it's primary source of nutrition). Suppose that no other milk or formula is available. Doesn't Mom have a moral obligation to allow a newborn to use her body for it's own sustenance, in this case? I'd have a hard time acquitting a mother who allowed her infant to starve because she didn't see that she had a responsibility to allow her body to be used in that manner.

Yeah you missed it. It was already covered. As soon as you bring a newborn infant home, you consent to taking care of it until it no longer needs to be dependent on you. Just as if you get pregnant intentionally then decide you want an abortion, it wouldn't be morally permissible. Obviously this couldn't be regulated by the government (whether or not you got pregnant intentionally), rather we're merely discussing "what is morally permissible" not "how could it be enforced." You don't HAVE to take the infant home, instead you can put it up for adoption, etc.

[FabledIntegral]

Returning to the OP's Thompson arguments by analogy, I love it. This is done all the time in court. When trying to explain a complex economic point, economist often refer to a "railroad" as an example. The underlying assumption is that everyone will think they understand the railroad example and thus be able to draw meaning for the economic problem. I always get a chuckle when this happens because everyone does think that they understand a railroad operation, despite never having been trained nor studied railroads.

Thompson's analogies have the same problem. Her example are no less complex than the original problem, and fraught with the same underlying principles of humanness and conscience. Nothing is really explained by her analogies.

The example of the person forcibly attached to the violinists explains nothing. It clearly violates the human dignity and individual human rights of one person to provide the violinist with a longer life. Which is the fetus? The blood donor or the violinist? Which is innocent? Clearly the blood donor is the innocent person and has a right to have her human dignity returned. How does that explain what rights a fetus has?

Is the fetus innocent? No. How can it have a right to human dignity when it is just a part of the woman's body without the ability to live separately. The analogy falls apart here. The blood donor analogy explains nothing.

The example of the burglar similarly falls apart. The open window is an invitation of sorts. In law it would make the difference between an illegal breaking and entering, and just a trespass. It is what the burglar does inside to which the owner does not consent that makes the crime.

There is no proper analogous case for agreeing to sex but not the pregnancy. After all, it is the sperm and the egg that are doing the thing to which the woman has not agreed. These are not human actors, just biological features of the two bodies involved. The whole idea that the woman did not give consent to her egg to join with a sperm is, well, ridiculous, and in no way analogous to the burglary illegal conduct in the home. The burglar is a person responsible for his actions, sperm are not persons.

Don't try these arguments in court.

You obviously haven't read the continued explanations of this topic.

1. If you are unable to put the basic concepts together, you are, in essence retarded. The analogy gives a case of a dependent and an independent. One can gather which is the dependent and independent in the case of fetus and mother. Does it really need to be explained? I surely hope not. Everyone else followed.

2. You never explain how the fucking analogy falls apart of WHY it fails to explain anything. Whether faulty or not, once again, every other fucking person in this topic got the point of it.

3. Oh God please just read the entire topic before responding. I made the pivotal mistake of trying to summarize what she was saying. A lot of the stuff you mentioned isn't applicable with more information.

4. Christ I'm not looking to go into court. Courts are irrelevant, the government is completely irrelevant, no authority excepts "absolutes" have anything to do with this topic when discussing the permissibility of an action. The sperm and the egg are irrelevant because the variables aren't in the equation. What's in the equation is the general premise, NOT THE SPECIFICS, as to when the right to life is valid or not and under what circumstances. It's arguing that under ANY SITUATION, which merely encompasses that of BOTH the violinist and the fetus, what rights are applied under what situations. The analogy to the violinist is merely made so that it's able to be easier viewed, and the reader has to decide whether or not the analogy is relevant. However, it doesn't detract from the fact the entire issue being debated is NOT abortion itself, rather the right to life, which when figured out would allow us to come to the conclusion on whether or not abortion is morally permissible.

Ie. We want to know whether abortion is permissible. The general argument is that a fetus is indeed an innocent human being and thus has the same right of life as you and me. Thus if Thomson can conclude that not all innocent human beings have the right to life depending on their circumstance (aka staying alive off the use of another human's body). Once concluding that not all human's have a right to life, which is shown in the violinist case, it is used as analogous to the fetus case. Both the violinist and fetus fall into the same category of not having a right to life which would trump that of the independent person in the case. All factors you tried to disassemble the argument are irrelevant to the issue at hand concerning the right to life and thus can be dismissed.

[mpjh]

Pure sophistry. This kind of thinking will not get you through graduate school. Opps, take that back, it probably would get you through most graduate schools today. This is why we are becoming a third rate intellectual country.

[wrestler1ump]

The general argument is that a fetus is indeed an innocent human being and thus has the same right of life as you and me.

That might be the argument you are making, but how are you going to prove it to be correct? You can't just say abortion is wrong without defending your position. Whether you are pro or anti abortion, you've got to have some argument either way.

[FabledIntegral]

The general argument is that a fetus is indeed an innocent human being and thus has the same right of life as you and me.

That might be the argument you are making, but how are you going to prove it to be correct? You can't just say abortion is wrong without defending your position. Whether you are pro or anti abortion, you've got to have some argument either way.

Oh... my... god...

Thompson goes and, although she disagrees personally with the claim that a fetus is a person, decides to AGREE for the sake of her argument on the premise that a fetus IS a person. This part is crucial, as I've debated with god knows how many morons that don't understand the entire concept of "agreeing with a certain premise you might disagree with for the sake of an argument." Through agreeing on the premise that a fetus is a person, she argues that it still does NOT have a right to life because of its dependency on another.

This topic ended up being a clusterfuck of people who skipped over things...

[MeDeFe]

The problem might be that you put the question in relation to abortion and to some extent the world we live in, and now people can't get that out of their heads and just talk about it in general.

[Nobunaga]

... Certainly not worth a new thread, but, tell me, Why is this guy under arrest? The fetus was 13 weeks old?

... It's only human if somebody decides they want it?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 421D23.DTL

... Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

...

[MeDeFe]

arrested on suspicion of murder for the death of an unborn child

wtf?

[Frigidus]

... It's only human if somebody decides they want it?

I'd read a bit about what FabledIntegral had posted if you want an explanation.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

[Nobunaga]

I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

... I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies in the thinking. At 13 weeks you can still chop it up and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner type aparatus, by law.

... But then, in another instance, you can be charged with murder.

... Am I the only here who finds this troubling?

...

[Frigidus]

I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

... I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies in the thinking. At 13 weeks you can still chop it up and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner type aparatus, by law.

... But then, in another instance, you can be charged with murder.

... Am I the only here who finds this troubling?

...

I think that the idea is that it should be up to the potential mother. While I feel that up to a certain point it is not a human life, if the mother feels that the organism leeching off her is not something she wants she has the right to remove it. If she feels that it is something she does want she has the right to keep it. It is not up to someone else to make the decision. I'm not sure what crime the guy should be charged with, but it is definitely a crime.

[AlgyTaylor]

I think it's the woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

That's something often forgotten in these debates, I think.

[Nobunaga]

I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

... I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies in the thinking. At 13 weeks you can still chop it up and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner type aparatus, by law.

... But then, in another instance, you can be charged with murder.

... Am I the only here who finds this troubling?

...

I think that the idea is that it should be up to the potential mother. While I feel that up to a certain point it is not a human life, if the mother feels that the organism leeching off her is not something she wants she has the right to remove it. If she feels that it is something she does want she has the right to keep it. It is not up to someone else to make the decision. I'm not sure what crime the guy should be charged with, but it is definitely a crime.

... How about Destruction of Personal Property?

...

[Ray Rider]

I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

... I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies in the thinking. At 13 weeks you can still chop it up and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner type aparatus, by law.

... But then, in another instance, you can be charged with murder.

... Am I the only here who finds this troubling?

...

I think that the idea is that it should be up to the potential mother. While I feel that up to a certain point it is not a human life, if the mother feels that the organism leeching off her is not something she wants she has the right to remove it. If she feels that it is something she does want she has the right to keep it. It is not up to someone else to make the decision. I'm not sure what crime the guy should be charged with, but it is definitely a crime.

So the mother decides whether the unborn child in her womb is human or not?? If she wants it, then it's a human and a guy can be charged with murder for killing it. But if she doesn't want it, you can cut it up in pieces and suck it out because it's not human? I mean, you can get serious charges for destroying an eagle egg because it's recognized to be an unformed, immature eagle. But a fertilized human egg? "Oh no, it's not human yet. You can do whatever you want with it." Anyway, this is totally off of the original topic...although I guess most of the original people debating in this topic aren't around anymore, anyway.

[Frigidus]

I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

... I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies in the thinking. At 13 weeks you can still chop it up and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner type aparatus, by law.

... But then, in another instance, you can be charged with murder.

... Am I the only here who finds this troubling?

...

I think that the idea is that it should be up to the potential mother. While I feel that up to a certain point it is not a human life, if the mother feels that the organism leeching off her is not something she wants she has the right to remove it. If she feels that it is something she does want she has the right to keep it. It is not up to someone else to make the decision. I'm not sure what crime the guy should be charged with, but it is definitely a crime.

So the mother decides whether the unborn child in her womb is human or not?? If she wants it, then it's a human and a guy can be charged with murder for killing it. But if she doesn't want it, you can cut it up in pieces and suck it out because it's not human? I mean, you can get serious charges for destroying an eagle egg because it's recognized to be an unformed, immature eagle. But a fertilized human egg? "Oh no, it's not human yet. You can do whatever you want with it." Anyway, this is totally off of the original topic...although I guess most of the original people debating in this topic aren't around anymore, anyway.

An eagle egg is much, much more self-sustaining than a human egg.

[Snorri1234]

I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

If you read the first post you'll see that FabledIntegral doesn't believe that a fetus is a human life.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've got a question for FabledIntegral.

No, I haven't read this entire thread, but I want to just skip to this one thing.

Why is it that you seem to believe that a fetus is a human life? Because it has the potential to become a "human being?"

If you read the first post you'll see that FabledIntegral doesn't believe that a fetus is a human life.

Ah thank you, sir. I didn't have the time, so I appreciate it.

[BigBallinStalin]

So the mother decides whether the unborn child in her womb is human or not??

Yeah, the mother decides; not you and your extreme version of "human life." Thank God (or just us) that the laws keep you and your extreme ideas at bay.

If she wants it, then it's a human and a guy can be charged with murder for killing it. But if she doesn't want it, you can cut it up in pieces and suck it out because it's not human?

Sure, but this is a rare circumstance, so this doesn't hold much weight if you're trying to apply this to the whole. And don't worry about it, the lawyers and judges will handle this case.

I mean, you can get serious charges for destroying an eagle egg because it's recognized to be an unformed, immature eagle.

Why not? We inadvertently killed off most of those eagles, so it's a little something we can do for not choosing to life a balanced life within our delicate environment.

But a fertilized human egg? "Oh no, it's not human yet. You can do whatever you want with it." Anyway, this is totally off of the original topic...although I guess most of the original people debating in this topic aren't around anymore, anyway.

You sound way to overheated over this. I hope you're done venting, and if not, go carry a "Baby-Killer" sign outside an abortion clinic and harass those poor women. Maybe you'll get arrested.


That's the most unfortunate issue. Those abortion clinic terrorists and those other anti-abortion zealots harassing people. WRONG WAY. Go bother the law-makers and lobbyists instead of engaging in acts of terrorism--which is what it exactly is.

[john9blue]

Assuming the baby and mother are healthy, what are the odds that the fertilized egg at any stage of development will someday form a human life? Very very high, say 90% for example, although it is probably higher. So doesn't destroying the egg (and future human life) have a 90% chance of being murder? And if a judge was 90% sure of a murder suspect being guilty, wouldn't they be charged and sentenced?