So don’t get pregnant then.
Now you’re talking about a fully formed person that is independent of anyone else’s body. Yes, they need assistance, but parental responsibilities are another question.
It’s a competing rights situation. IMO there needs to be a reasonable line drawn. I don’t think Texas has done that.
3 Likes
Again, she can choose not to get pregnant. Why do you keep blaming other entities for women getting the short end of the evolutionary stick.
1 Like
The “fully formed person” point doesn’t make sense. Without getting into semantics I’ll merely point out that there are obviously many unborn babies who are more “fully developed” than born babies.
This fact makes the point about “independent of anyone else’s body” merely a technicality concerning location.
I’m not sure they’re another question, fundamentally. Both questions are about compelling people to support other people, at a cost to their own lives. So what’s the distinction? If anything, abandoning a baby after birth seems better because someone else can take care of it.
This is why I’d rather find a basis that doesn’t depend on anything as vague as “fully formed” or even “alive”. I’d like to be able to say that even if a fetus is a life, is aware, has emotions, personality, memories, whatever else, the mother still has a right to an abortion. Otherwise we get caught up in these semi-mystical debates that have no real resolution.
(Again, still feeling my way through this line of argument. I reserve the right to change my mind later)
If you ever get there, you’ve gone terribly wrong.
One is a question of control over one’s own body. One is the question of responsibility to support another person, separate from one’s own body.
Err…she could just as easily say, “so keep your dick in your pants then”.
1 Like
Well, perhaps, but as others have pointed out, there are lots of other lives we obviously don’t care about, and I don’t think the asymmetry argument is enough. What is the rational basis for saying that the life of an unborn child is sacrosanct, but (to pick one of dozens of obvious examples) it’s totally fine for livestock to be born and raised in conditions of almost unimaginable suffering so that we can have burgers? I can’t think of one that doesn’t require additional unquestioned axioms.
Starting from “we care about some lives but not others” seems more honest to me. From there, it’s possible to have a productive conversation about which lives, and why.
Human lives?
Human life
I reject the premise of this question. Also, let’s stick to human life.
Well, I care about all human life. It doesn’t mean that I’ll treat all human life the same regardless of the circumstances. I make rules for a living, and I prefer black and white ones to fuzzy ones (and in the AI and analytics work I do I am forced to use black and white rules). Unfortunately, black and white rules don’t work too well in this space. This is more true of the legal issues, but also applies to a lesser extent to the moral issues in this case.
1 Like
“Human lives matter more than non-human lives” isn’t axiomatic for me, but if it is for you, then pick an example involving humans instead. There are plenty to go around. Regardless, as you say, the circumstances matter, and having a consistent position means explaining why and how they matter. I’ve suggested a framework for doing so based on community impact. I’m not very happy with it, but it’s what I have so far. I’d love to hear some better ones.
That’s a problem for this discussion. If you don’t see a reason to avoid running over and killing a person if it will kill a deer, it is unlikely that we will find any common moral ground.
I agree with this.
I find utilitarian thinking inherently immoral. Killing in an innocent human (born if you prefer) is wrong, regardless of whether it will save more and impact the community positively.
I would start with deontological morality based on the fact that human life is inherently valuable and deserving of rights merely by being alive. TG rightly points out that there is a conflict of rights associated with this issue, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a moral framework from which to proceed to discuss the issue.
1 Like
Great! What is it, and how does it address cases other than abortion?
Also, the framework I’m suggesting isn’t utilitarian as such. I wrote that communities are selfish, meaning they prioritize themselves over others, and I think it’s hard to argue that this isn’t true in practice. From there I made an argument about the position of an unborn fetus within the communal heirachy.
It is the basis of rights in America.
So it’s axiomatic: (Human) life is important because it is. Which is fine, but it excludes any further discussion of the mother’s rights, which have already been overruled by it. Regardless, I don’t share the axiom, so I have to find some other approach.
If you have to find an approach, it kind of seems like you already have your own axiom and are only seeking to justify it.
2 Likes
No, I’ve explicitly contradicted this point, as have others. There is more than one right.
Yes, and when someone denies human life has inherent value, that will be a problem in finding common ground. It is also the beginning of the justification for all sorts of evil actions.
1 Like
Sort of, yes! I already have my conclusion: Abortion is ethical. From there I’m trying to find both axioms and logic to reach that conclusion. I’m not making any claim to objective truth, here.
But your position is that the baby’s right to life overrides the woman’s right to choice, isn’t it? You seemed pretty clear on that above.
Anyway, I agree we’re unlikely to find common ground.