So I've been working on an essay on the topic of abortion, if for no other reason than to sort out my own views on the subject. In the course of it, I've hit on a hypothetical future scenario. In this scenario I felt like it would only make sense to make abortion illegal. It was no longer needed. However, upon suggesting the scenario to three women whom I highly, highly respect. I've discovered they all disagree with me. I was shocked to discover that. They are all logical, reasonable people and I discovered that their reasoning for being pro-choice differed utterly from my own. I'm curious to see what every one here would do in this hypothetical.
The hypothetical is as follows: In a future world an artificial womb has been developed. The womb can take a fetus from pretty much the time it is conceived straight through to birth with out any help from the mother. Let us further theorize that the act of removing the fetus/embryo from it's mother is entirely safe, quick, and painless. Upon the realization of an unwanted pregnancy, the mother can simply go to a clinic, have her fetus easily removed, and walk away never worrying about it again. To boil down the issue we'll say that there is a more than satisfactory adoption system to handle the care of the child once it emerges from the womb, and that population control has also been dealt with by our theoretical deus ex machina.
So short version, a hypothetical world where the there is an operation that does effectively the same thing as abortion where the mother is concerned, only the child survives.
For those of you who are pro-choice, in this scenario, would you still favor legal abortions? Why?
[ August 01, 2008, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, obviously I would favour making the operation you describe legal, which is in some sense an 'abortion'. I do see some difficulties with the scenario; if you make it effectively cost-free to become pregnant, you might get rather a lot of orphans to take care of after a while. I don't see any reason to keep what is currently referred to as abortion legal, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In this hypothetical I can understand why a person would have some discomfort with a child of hers "out there" somewhere. I don't think, though, that such discomfort outweighs the potential "rights" of the fetus.
In the world as it is, I don't think that the possible rights of a potential human outweigh the rights of an actual woman to sovereignty over her body.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:In the world as it is, I don't think that the possible rights of a potential human outweigh the rights of an actual woman to sovereignty over her body.
Agreed. But let's keep this to the hypothetical, the real world issue has been beaten into the ground here already.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I don't think that would really count as abortion, at least in the terms in which we associate the word. So to say "I agree with abortion if it's like this" is a bit broad and obtuse to the original definition and mindset of the word. This is more along the lines of "advanced giving up for adoption".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can understand why a person would have some discomfort with a child of hers "out there" somewhere.
It should be noted that this discomfort is not one that men have any right to take action against at all once pregnancy begins.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I don't think that would really count as abortion, at least in the terms in which we associate the word. So to say "I agree with abortion if it's like this" is a bit broad and obtuse to the original definition and mindset of the word. This is more along the lines of "advanced giving up for adoption".
You misunderstand the hypothetical. My question is, we given that we have the hypothetical operation I described in the OP, would you still favor legal abortions as we know them now in addition to the hypothetical operation.
IE if there was an operation that would allow the fetus to survive and was equivalent to or better than an abortion in every other way, would you still believe that it is the mother's right to decide whether to use that operation or have a classical abortion?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
quote:In the world as it is, I don't think that the possible rights of a potential human outweigh the rights of an actual woman to sovereignty over her body.
Agreed. But let's keep this to the hypothetical, the real world issue has been beaten into the ground here already.
I was just throwing that in to give some context to my answer.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Abortion should still be legal. But I think I would have a hard time thinking good thoughts about anyone who would choose abortion over an "Early Safe Surrender" such as you describe.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Why would women even bother with pregnancy at all, if it is as cost effective as you say? Just put the fetus in the artifical womb and take custody of the child after nine months.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
quote: IE if there was an operation that would allow the fetus to survive and was equivalent to or better than an abortion in every other way, would you still believe that it is the mother's right to decide whether to use that operation or have a classical abortion?
To sum up: This process is in place, but mother could still kill the fetus if she chooses(the old method). If this is the case then my paradigm has shifted a bit. I would have to say take the option away. If you are with child you may choose to keep it or give it up.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Why would women even bother with pregnancy at all, if it is as cost effective as you say?
For the same reason women still choose to breast feed over bottle feeding. It's more natural and allows for better bonding with the child.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Alcon, I was thinking about the exact same question the other day and I also thought that when the cost + risk + inconvenience of a legal abortion is greater than or equal to the C+R+I of transplanting the fetus, and the mother can be absolved of any further responsibility, it only makes sense to outlaw the abortion. (I can't really buy any arguments that your sovereignty over your body is being infringed upon when the alternative you wish to remain free to choose is no less invasive. If they bring up the existence of their offspring as something that bothers them, tough noogies. That's not their body.) Note the cost has to include finding a willing & capable guardian for the child.
Note, however, that we don't allow the fathers to give up both parental rights and responsibilities unless the mother agrees to give up the baby for adoption. If a mother was similarly detached from the biological process of producing a baby from the fetus, would it make sense to put her in the same position: responsible for support of the child unless and until the child was adopted?
The social and logistical challenges of your scenario are actually quite large. I'm not sure that our society will be able to cope with them as soon as the technology gets there.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I can understand why a person would have some discomfort with a child of hers "out there" somewhere.
It should be noted that this discomfort is not one that men have any right to take action against at all once pregnancy begins.
A completely valid point!
Under the circumstances Alcon describes, I can not think of any legitimate reason why a person would seek an abortion. This hypothetical technology would effectively separate the rights of the woman/mother from the child's right to life. Under these circumstances, I would strongly favor making killing the fetus illegal. I'm curious what reasons
I'm very curious about the reasoning used by those who would still favor legal abortion under these circumstances.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
kmboots speaks for me quite eloquently. Thanks!
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
To me the biggest problem is the "adoption system" that would make this possible. I see no reason to ban abortion if the woman thinks there's no way she can help the child lead a normal life, and there's no adoption system that will certainly integrate him in a loving and caring family. If, for some reason, the very big (99,99% ?) majority of these children could be guaranteed families, than it would make very little sense to still perform abortions.
There are though a few cases in which abortion could still be legal: if the baby suffers from a fatal genetic defect, or in the case of a rape. I'm not sure what to think of those in your hypothetical world. Suppose a child conceived through rape one day finds out about this; what would his reaction be? Should we or shouldn't we let the mother decide whether she wants to bring someone who'd have to deal with this into the world? I don't know. Should the eventual adoptive parents know he was conceived through a rape? Would you be certain that even these children would find loving families? By the way, are the adoptive parents told if this is the case nowadays?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Corwin:
"I see no reason to ban abortion if the woman thinks there's no way she can help the child lead a normal life, and there's no adoption system that will certainly integrate him in a loving and caring family."
You realize that the "right" to abortion has nothing to do with the availability of a happy, normal life for the child? (Although I'm certain that's a factor in many individual decisions.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Suppose a child conceived through rape one day finds out about this; what would his reaction be?
What is the likelihood that the person finding that out would prefer to not exist?
quote:Should we or shouldn't we let the mother decide whether she wants to bring someone who'd have to deal with this into the world?
If the issue is really about the child at this point, why should the mother be the one to make that decision? I understand that we generally want parents to make decisions about their kids, and that allowing the father to have input in this scenario would be particularly bad. The general reason we have for deferring to parents is a presumption that the parents want what's best for the child.
But the decision in this case wouldn't really be made by the mother, but by the person who doesn't want to be the mother. Moreover, the mere existence of the child is inextricably linked to what is surely an incredibly traumatic event for the mother. I don't think the presumption applies here.
In the case of fatal genetic disease, I can't think of any good reason why the father should have less input than the mother in deciding whether a shortened existence is better than no existence. (Of course, I'm still against the whole idea of aborting disabled or ill children in general, but I'm trying to extract that from my analysis of your statement.)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:I'm very curious about the reasoning used by those who would still favor legal abortion under these circumstances.
Why go through so much effort to preserve a fetus or an embryo when it costs virtually nothing to create another? That's a highly inflammatory question but I think the answer to that would explain why or why not a given person in this hypothetical future would still favor abortions. It seems like a person who believes that an embryo is worth preserving is either pro-life or is pro-choice but believes that abortion is a necessary evil. I find the latter position extraordinarily peculiar since I would certainly not be pro-choice if I thought that abortion were evil (I'm not aware of a logical moral weighting system that would make killing an embryo evil but have it be less evil than forcing a woman to go through birth***). One of the strongest pro-choice arguments is that most abortions occur during a period where the fetus or embryo is not conscious. I would argue that the way that society places value on human life is almost entirely based around our consciousness. For example, the concept of harm requires a conscious being to make sense. You cannot inflict mental or physical harm on something that cannot perceive anything. From this point of view it does not make sense to go through extra effort to preserve a fetus.
To be honest, I find the whole "rights of the woman" argument to be an enormous red herring. The crux of the abortion issue is the value of the life of the fetus. If you identify how you determine the value of that life then the answer to Alcon's question becomes virtually self-explanatory. For example, if you believe that fertilized eggs and up have souls and that murder is the destruction of the soul (as opposed to being limited to the killing of a conscious being) then it is obvious why you would not favor abortion. On the other hand, if you believe that human life becomes valuable at the onset of consciousness then it is obvious why abortion is not a necessary evil.
EDIT: Obviously it is not a binary choice between two positions. I just spelled out the two extremes since I happen to fall at one of them.
EDIT2: ***Logical is the wrong term to use here since you can design a logical moral system for any set of beliefs as long as you assume enough things a priori. I'll leave that question in there since I don't usually remove mistakes from my posts but I'll admit here that it is flawed.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Under the circumstances Alcon describes, I can not think of any legitimate reason why a person would seek an abortion. This hypothetical technology would effectively separate the rights of the woman/mother from the child's right to life. Under these circumstances, I would strongly favor making killing the fetus illegal. I'm curious what reasons.
Do you just assume that a fetus has a right to life or do you derive it from some other principal?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Threads, this is not, I suppose, the place to discuss it further, but I disagree. It is entirely possible to weight the potential for a human life as valuable yet not trumping the rights of the mother.
You may not agree, but you are now "aware".
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
My problem with this is I can't imagine a world in which all or at least most of these abandoned children would be adopted into reasonably decent households. I'd much rather the child never be born than have a significantly high risk of living a horrible life. That aside, I have no issue with abortion other than the potential disregard for responsibility and the idea of life. But that's hardly an issue a government should be concerned with, and I still wouldn't see the need to make abortion illegal.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Dag: About the rape situation, in part the problem is what the person would think - and really, I can see people depressed to find this out, and likely to hurt themselves if not given appropriate counseling - and in part whether they would find a loving adoptive family. Otherwise we're actually providing two different services (adoption for the "normal" people, no adoption for those born from rape) that will probably lead to them having different qualities of life. I'm not saying that all people in this case would lead problematic lives, and I don't know what the situation is right now when women give birth but then give up the children they conceived through rape. I'm thinking I'd rather live if it were me in the situation; but I'm not sure where to draw the line since I don't have enough direct experience or talked to enough people who have had this kind of experience to have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Also: good point about the father getting more input in fatal genetic disease cases.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My problem with this is I can't imagine a world in which all or at least most of these abandoned children would be adopted into reasonably decent households.
There are a significant number of people seeking adoption who are unable to find a child.
The only children that face significant difficulty are those with disability or disease - which make up a very small percentage of abortions.
Of course, we can't know if the number of children transplanted under Alcon's hypothetical would greatly outnumber the number of abortions. But I think it's pretty easy to imagine a world where most children who would otherwise be aborted would be bale to find good adoptive parents. We live in one.
quote:I'd much rather the child never be born than have a significantly high risk of living a horrible life.
Have you talked to people who actually are living a horrible life to see if they would prefer not to have existed? It seems awfully presumptuous to decide for someone else that they are better off not existing.
quote:Dag: About the rape situation, in part the problem is what the person would think - and really, I can see people depressed to find this out, and likely to hurt themselves if not given appropriate counseling
Counseling could be arranged. I'm not sure how the child would actually find out. Certainly the probability of finding out could be made low, which would multiply with the probability of harm occurring if he did find out.
quote:and in part whether they would find a loving adoptive family.
I see no particular reason why a family considering adoption should be told about the rape.
quote:Also: good point about the father getting more input in fatal genetic disease cases.
Thank you.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Counseling could be arranged. I'm not sure how the child would actually find out. Certainly the probability of finding out could be made low, which would multiply with the probability of harm occurring if he did find out.
---
I see no particular reason why a family considering adoption should be told about the rape.
Both good points. I was not sure what the situation is right now about adoptive families.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was not sure what the situation is right now about adoptive families.
There are opened and closed adoptions. There is also a movement to grant adopted children the right to open sealed records. So the answer is "it's complicated."
I am guessing that Alcon's system would create a big pushback for more closed adoptions, but of course I can't be sure.
***
Why is there an ad for turtles at the bottom of the page?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Depends on the type of adoption. In open adoptions adoptive parents know a great deal. In the more traditional closed adoption they may know little to nothing.
I know someone who adopted a baby and knows only the age and city of origin of the child's mother. My sister-in-law actually knows the name and has met the birth mother of her adopted daughter.
It just really depends on how the adoption is handled.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I was kinda curious, so I checked the Wikipedia article on abortion in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada Honestly, I would probably just prefer the law remain the same as it does now even in this hypothetical world.
I can sympathize with pro-life if I view it from their angle and I would strongly encourage women in the third term to consider this option in the same way that I would strongly encourage people not to wantonly kill a monkey. (I don't say this lightly, how we treat them now does disturb me significantly)
However, I can't agree with changing the law to make first or second abortion illegal. The existence of an alternative doesn't change whether the fetus is human or not, and thats the main linchpin for whether I can support abortion or not.
(my two, and likely unpopular, cents)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
An interesting hypothetical and I have not yet fully processed it but here are my initial thoughts.
If someone found out 100% that the child would have a fatal disease, living for maximum 2 months in extreme pain, I can see a parent saying, let's abort before consciousness. I am not sure exactly where I am willing to draw the line on this. I think if you knew the child had down's and wanted to abort, that would be wrong though.
Right now, there are lots of fertilized eggs out there frozen, waiting for a womb. I don't consider those life and if there was an artificial womb out there, I would not be pushing for people to take all those fetuses and make them into babies. So, this hypothetical really just adds age to those fetuses.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mucus, in that scenario (where this no extra cost of any kind on the mother going through Alcon's hypothetical procedure or an abortion), why wouldn't you at least want the father to have some say in the outcome?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Dag, most people who exist certainly have a strong will to survive. It's also not really possible to truly imagine not existing, and that tends to strengthen that preference of existing rather than not. More to the point, an existing person has every right to continue to survive; a non existent or potential person has no rights because, well, they don't exist. This reasoning is of course dependent on the belief that a fetus is not equivalent to a human life.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dagonee: Could you be more specific? For example, what kind of system/change in law would you propose to accomplish that under the Canadian system?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This reasoning is of course dependent on the belief that a fetus is not equivalent to a human life.
They don't have to be equivalent for that reasoning to work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, most people who exist certainly have a strong will to survive. It's also not really possible to truly imagine not existing, and that tends to strengthen that preference of existing rather than not.
Can you explain how this is a reason to think you're doing them a favor by preventing them from existing?
quote:More to the point, an existing person has every right to continue to survive; a non existent or potential person has no rights because, well, they don't exist. This reasoning is of course dependent on the belief that a fetus is not equivalent to a human life.
But you're weren't talking about rights. You advocated a preference that it is better that a person not exist than existing with a high chance of a "horrible life."
(BTW, I still think you're vastly overstating the chances of that.)
quote:Could you be more specific? For example, what kind of system/change in law would you propose to accomplish that under the Canadian system?
I'm talking about Alcon's hypothetical world. Say a woman wants to have an abortion rather than a transplant. Assume the father is a normal guy (not a rapist). Before the abortion, should the father be allowed to say "I want this child and will absolve the mother of all responsibility for him," resulting in a transplant rather than an abortion.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is a good hypothetical to make Pro-Choice people ask serious questions of themselves.
But I love to be the devils advocate, so here is my spin...would Pro-Life people allow this system to be created?
For this to work it would have to come at no cost to the mothers. Who foots the bill? The Government? Ultimately the Tax Payers.
Most conservatives have a strict "Pay for your mistakes" belief system. Would they allow or condone a system where their tax money is used to pay for the "mistakes" of the parents?
"You couldn't keep your legs crossed, so I have to spend umpteen hundred thousand dollars to run this womb-machine then feed, house, clothe and educate this kid? Wrong. Its your jollies, you pay."
Would Right-To-Life conservatives care enough about the unborn fetus to allow tax money to cover this system, or is their moral sense of fair play and justice such that it would rather risk the mother getting an abortion then to risk being forced to pay for the child.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think giving some kind of rights to the father would be nice, but I am not sure of the feasibility of it. If you require the father to sign off, what if she doesn't know who the father is? If there are many potential fathers, does she have to get all of them to agree? Do a genetic test first?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:would Pro-Life people allow this system to be created?
I do oppose research into artificial wombs that would result in the death of (what I believe to be) human beings while they work out all the problems that will arise with such a system.
quote:Would Right-To-Life conservatives care enough about the unborn fetus to allow tax money to cover this system, or is their moral sense of fair play and justice such that it would rather risk the mother getting an abortion then to risk being forced to pay for the child.
I wish people would do a modicum of research into the millions of dollars and countless hours donated by pro-life activists to help with either adoption or the parent(s) being able to keep the child in cases where abortion is likely before questioning how much they care about unborn fetuses.
quote:Most conservatives have a strict "Pay for your mistakes" belief system.
This is a gross oversimplification of a very complex idea.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Dan, you jumped to the second part of my hypothetical -- which occurred to me after the initial post.
Which is this: if you are pro-life as it stands, would you be in favor of the development and deployment of such a system if it would mean that we could outlaw abortions almost unanimously?
Would you be willing to have the government fund and run 'womb clinics' and the adoption system that would have to accompany them to make it work at a reasonable level (and what would you consider a reasonable level of funding)?
What if the development of an artificial womb would mean the loss of some fetuses, is that a deal breaker? If it could be done so only animal fetuses were lost, then would you be able to support it?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Who foots the bill?
I made this point on another forum: having even more children would pose economic problems. But we (humans in general) don't seem to be very conscious overall that at our current rate of growth we'll run into problems soon anyway. I don't think anyone actually favors we keep all the babies (maybe even ban contraceptives?) without finding a solution to the finite resources problem.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Before the abortion, should the father be allowed to say "I want this child and will absolve the mother of all responsibility for him," resulting in a transplant rather than an abortion.
Hmmm, tricky, but I don't see that it significantly changes the equation for me from a father and mother disagreeing on abortion in real life.
In real life (for me), if a father or mother disagree on abortion, the choice issue tilts the balance in favour of the woman deciding. In this scenario, the choice issue is less convincing, but not totally non-existent. Even if this new procedure is painless, this procedure would still have to be done against the woman's will if* she disagrees. I think that still resolves my balance in favour of the woman deciding if the two disagree.
There is also the added complication that I do not think parents (either parent) should have a right to absolve their responsibility for a child. One problem, for example, if the father absolves the mother but then dies shortly afterward, is no one responsible for the child?
* Honestly, in this hypothetical, I suspect that the number of abortions that would be performed against the father's will would drop massively anyways rendering the issue partially moot
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:would Pro-Life people allow this system to be created?
I am. I'm also willing to help fund such a project.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There is also the added complication that I do not think parents (either parent) should have a right to absolve their responsibility for a child.
Do you not think that adoptive parents should ever have the same rights as other parents as long as the biological parents are still alive?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Would you be willing to have the government fund and run 'womb clinics' and the adoption system that would have to accompany them to make it work at a reasonable level (and what would you consider a reasonable level of funding)?
Yes. No idea on the funding level.
quote:What if the development of an artificial womb would mean the loss of some fetuses, is that a deal breaker? If it could be done so only animal fetuses were lost, then would you be able to support it?
I answered the first question above. The second is absolutely, I would support it then. But I think it's the only part of your hypotheticals that is flat out impossible.
***
The mere existence of such a reliable artificial womb - government funded or not - would put all abortions in the post viability category under current constitutional law. This means that abortion in those circumstances could be banned by the state, with exceptions for health of the mother.
quote:There is also the added complication that I do not think parents (either parent) should have a right to absolve their responsibility for a child.
Well, I agree entirely there (excepting adoption, which is what I was analogizing this to). I was framing it that way to remove all possible responsibility from the mother, which is the central idea behind Alcon's idea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One way that could lead to the development of an artificial womb that those opposed to experimentation with human fetuses might be the attempted use to treat conditions that lead to the death of the fetus or the death of the mother with very high probability.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's a good point, fugu (if I understood you correctly - I mentally added "ok with" after "might be").
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:would Pro-Life people allow this system to be created?
I am. I'm also willing to help fund such a project.
I agree.
I do have issues with experimenting on unwilling participants (the babies), and I'd hope that first they'd perfect the technology with animals and later work out the human kinks in situations where the technology could be potentially life-saving.
edit: Or what they said.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I would argue that the way that society places value on human life is almost entirely based around our consciousness. For example, the concept of harm requires a conscious being to make sense. You cannot inflict mental or physical harm on something that cannot perceive anything.
*emphasis added by me
I don't think I agree with the value we place on human life being tied to consciousness. If that was the case then why prohibit sexually molesting a brain dead person in a coma? Why disallow abuse or why not subjugate them to medical experiments if they are brain dead and in a coma?
As a society we have decided that we can take them off of life support, but we haven't allowed their living bodies to be abused. There may be a case to be made that we outlaw it because of what it does to the abuser or because it might encourage abuse as acceptable, but I also think there is value still placed on a person who is not aware.
Their consent, even if unattainable, is necessary for certain uses of their body--effectively prohibiting certain said uses.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph: I think it greatly depends on which particular right. The glib answer is that I don't think responsibility is zero-sum, adoptive parents can gain responsibility for a child but it should be much harder for parents to remove that responsibility. The potentially long answer is "it depends".
Dagonee: Good point. I can wrap my mind around the development of a new technology that removes all barriers to abortion. But technology cannot remove the responsibility that a mother has to her child, so if that is how we read the OP then I would contend that we're commenting on an impossibility.
For my part, I read "walk away never worrying about it again" as a possible consequence for the mother rather than as a result of the procedure. (Does that make any sense?)
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Woah! I hadn't realized how close artificial womb technology really might be. Check this out:
quote:Which led at last to the bubbles. In 2003, in an experiment that hasn’t received as much attention as one might expect—perhaps because Liu hasn’t published her results, due to her qualms about how those results will be received by politicians, activists and desperate would-be parents—a mouse embryo grew almost to full term in one of Liu’s artificial wombs. It moved. It breathed. It bubbled. “And not just one bubble,” Liu says. “We saw bubble, bubble, bubble.”
That was five years ago! Wonder where it is now, and why we haven't heard more about it?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Regarding the hypothetical:
Should a serial rapist be allowed to father children over and over again until he is caught?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Dag, I admit I'm not incredibly familiar with the current state of adoption, so I won't press that for the moment. My perception of how many kids spend their childhood in sub par foster care may very well be way off. As for your other point, perhaps "right" wasn't the right word. Let me try again. What the potential person might think isn't important because they will never know. Yes, someone who chooses to abort may may be wrong in their assessment of the risk, but to put it bluntly, so what?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Who foots the bill?
I made this point on another forum: having even more children would pose economic problems. But we (humans in general) don't seem to be very conscious overall that at our current rate of growth we'll run into problems soon anyway. I don't think anyone actually favors we keep all the babies (maybe even ban contraceptives?) without finding a solution to the finite resources problem.
I hate to repost this but it is still not answered... What do you do with all the people? Do we grow, grow, grow until we all die of lack of space/resources? If the hypothetical situation does not account for this I'd leave both abortion and contraception legal.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
One thing I'd be concerned about is whether this procedure would be a complete substitute for medically necessary abortions, particularly in emergency situations. Otherwise, I think it would be great -- prevents the needless destruction of embryos and fetuses while allowing women the freedom to decide whether they want to be pregnant. Everybody wins.
I think government funding for this would absolutely be worthwhile.
We'd definitely have to work out certain things. For example, weighing the costs of supporting a fetus that has such severe birth defects that it will definitely die. Is taking the fetus out from the artificial womb the same as withdrawing life support? We'll also need to figure out how to discourage people from using this as birth control. (Incidentally, would this be seen as more acceptable by the Catholic church than using the Pill?)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The wait for a healthy infant to adopt is incredibly long, which has led to a huge upswing in foreign adoption. Most of the kids in foster care are there temporarily - the goal is usually to return them to their families and in most cases that is done.
Also, kids who spend years in foster care often don't enter the system until they're older - my aunt used to be a foster parent, and she took kids who were in their teens. Most of them were not on the system as infants.
Unwanted, healthy infants usually get adopted pretty quickly. Especially if they're white. Although I should note that I've seen much more cross-racial adoption lately, I know several white couples who adopted black infants.
quote:I hate to repost this but it is still not answered... What do you do with all the people? Do we grow, grow, grow until we all die of lack of space/resources? If the hypothetical situation does not account for this I'd leave both abortion and contraception legal.
Maybe I missed it, but where did someone argue that contraception should be outlawed?
The goal of course, for everyone pro-choice and pro-life alike, is for there to be no unwanted pregnancies. We may disagree how that comes about - whether by distributing free contraception, promoting abstinence, sex education, whatever your personal beliefs - but I think we all agree that ideally, every pregnancy would be a wanted pregnancy.
Contraception, as I see it, is a big part of that. As is good education.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: I hate to repost this but it is still not answered... What do you do with all the people? Do we grow, grow, grow until we all die of lack of space/resources? If the hypothetical situation does not account for this I'd leave both abortion and contraception legal.
Flash freeze the fetus and stagger artificial births so that only a few "unwanted" children are born every couple of years? If the mother decides after a few years that she wants to raise the child after all, and it hasn't been born yet, give custody back to them?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Maybe I missed it, but where did someone argue that contraception should be outlawed?
The goal of course, for everyone pro-choice and pro-life alike, is for there to be no unwanted pregnancies. We may disagree how that comes about - whether by distributing free contraception, promoting abstinence, sex education, whatever your personal beliefs - but I think we all agree that ideally, every pregnancy would be a wanted pregnancy.
Sorry, the part about contraception was not on this forum. Still, even with sex education, for us not to grow beyond the resources at our disposal it would be required that we slow and eventually stop our growth rate. Do we want more unwanted pregnancies in place of the wanted ones And I see a pregnancy that results from banning abortion as unwanted. I may want a baby, but I don't see why someone else has to make it.
So, if you want, take out the part about contraception and the question stays.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by manji: Flash freeze the fetus and stagger artificial births so that only a few "unwanted" children are born every couple of years? If the mother decides after a few years that she wants to raise the child after all, and it hasn't been born yet, give custody back to them?
That's a delay, not an answer. Freezing fetuses still requires resources. Is it better than allowing abortion in the long term?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: yep, just me editing in midstream and not letting the changes propagate.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trent Destian:
quote: IE if there was an operation that would allow the fetus to survive and was equivalent to or better than an abortion in every other way, would you still believe that it is the mother's right to decide whether to use that operation or have a classical abortion?
To sum up: This process is in place, but mother could still kill the fetus if she chooses(the old method). If this is the case then my paradigm has shifted a bit. I would have to say take the option away. If you are with child you may choose to keep it or give it up.
And that is why people don't agree on this matter. A lot of people don't think anyone else should have the right to decide what they can and can't do, even on issues far less important than this.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I don't think I agree with the value we place on human life being tied to consciousness. If that was the case then why prohibit sexually molesting a brain dead person in a coma? Why disallow abuse or why not subjugate them to medical experiments if they are brain dead and in a coma?
1.Because those of us that are conscious are appalled by it because it's gross.
2. Because we wouldn't want it to happen to people we care about.
3.Because we envision ourselves in that situation and are unable to dissociate our consciousness from the idea of what it would be like it it were us that was being treated that way.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I don't think I agree with the value we place on human life being tied to consciousness. If that was the case then why prohibit sexually molesting a brain dead person in a coma? Why disallow abuse or why not subjugate them to medical experiments if they are brain dead and in a coma?
Because some see a difference between a life with an existing consciousness that is now switched off, possibly temporarily, and a life that has never achieved consciousness in the first place.
Some other things to ask about the hypothetical procedure:
Would underage mothers require adult permission/notification to have the procedure?
Would abortion still be permissible in the case of medical danger to the mother that precluded the transplant operation?
Am I the only person to hear about this and start thinking "creche babies"?
Edited to add: Thank you Belle, for pointing out the one thing that can draw both sides together. Love to see more of this.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: I don't think I agree with the value we place on human life being tied to consciousness. If that was the case then why prohibit sexually molesting a brain dead person in a coma? Why disallow abuse or why not subjugate them to medical experiments if they are brain dead and in a coma?
As a society we have decided that we can take them off of life support, but we haven't allowed their living bodies to be abused. There may be a case to be made that we outlaw it because of what it does to the abuser or because it might encourage abuse as acceptable, but I also think there is value still placed on a person who is not aware.
Their consent, even if unattainable, is necessary for certain uses of their body--effectively prohibiting certain said uses.
This partially results from the fact that we don't have a good medical definition of death. The current definition of death (brain death) is fairly well-defined but also controversial. According to the article, it also doesn't apply to patients in persistent vegetative (which is good since people have been known to recover from them). We should tend to the side of caution in cases where it is not clear that consciousness loss is permanent.
There's also a difference between being unconscious and never being conscious. A fetus (at least pre-20 weeks) does not have the capabilities to be conscious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And that is why people don't agree on this matter. A lot of people don't think anyone else should have the right to decide what they can and can't do, even on issues far less important than this.
To put my reply into context, I believe that the vast majority of women do have sovereignty over their own bodies even as things stand today. In the United States, that is. Birth control is reliable, highly effective, cheap, and abundant, after all. However I do acknowledge that some people disagree, for whatever reason, and feel that restricting abortions "violates" a woman's sovereignty, somehow.
But in this case, well, any "violation" of sovereignty cannot be described as anything other than 'minimal'. The "violation" in real-world modern terms is considerable: a lengthy pregnancy that's not without physical (and emotional) risk, or a complicated and expensive surgical procedure that's not without physical and emotional risk.
But in this hypothetical situation described, that's simply not the case. No physical danger, no expense, and I believe we would very quickly find there wasn't even much social risk involved either, if the operation can be done so easily. (i.e. it could be done in any doctor's office or hospital). The only risk involved at all is emotional, and it's not unreasonable to me to say to someone objecting to incurring that emotional risk, "Well, you had ample opportunity to avoid that risk before, and now you're not the only party involved."
--------------
Also, Dan, when you say things like that it's difficult for me to imagine you know or at least understand very many social conservatives, especially seriously pro-life conservatives. If you imagine they wouldn't be elated by the existence of such a procedure, and be willing to shell out big tax bucks to pay for it, well then I think you're seriously out of touch with the people you're mocking.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think most of what I would have said has already been said in this thread, so I won't clog it with repeats, but I wanted to jump in to at least say kudos to Dagonee. I think he said everything I would've said, and much more succinctly and to the point than I would have. Mostly I'm grateful he brought up the rights of fathers in this discussion.
Good stuff Dag.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Good questions, although the hypothetical situation as described will never happen.
IRL, you would still be forcing someone to choose between a risky operation and having a child, which I don't find acceptable.
Of course, just to muddy the waters even further, in my personal life we would always choose to have the child, or to use this "bubble", because we consider a potential life worth the risk. We just don't agree anyone else should be able to make us choose one way or another.
[ August 02, 2008, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:IRL, you would still be forcing someone to choose between a risky operation and having a child, which I don't find acceptable.
Everything depends on where and when you place the choice, Kwea.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Anyone who reads the news knows that there are a lot of people who oppose the morning-after pill for the same reason that they oppose abortion.
If this technology were available, would you favor outlawing the morning-after pill as well, since this could (from the mother's perspective) accomplish the same thing?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Yes ... but then I favor outlawing the morning-after pill anyway, except in cases of rape.
I can see why some wouldn't. It'd be much easier to never really be pregnant in the first place than wait to see that you're pregnant and have to have a "procedure" done.
Well, I don't know about "much" easier. I've heard the morning-after pill induces some rather unpleasant effects.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:IRL, you would still be forcing someone to choose between a risky operation and having a child, which I don't find acceptable.
Everything depends on where and when you place the choice, Kwea.
Honestly, I disagree. That fact that someone is forcing such a choice is where the sticking point is for a lot of people, and this becomes a serious problem once we leave never-never land and enter the real world.
I DO hope that research on this goes forward, and I bet a ton of women WOULD chose a moderate risk to themselves in order to not abort. It is probably our best chance of resolving a large portion of the problems we face regarding abortion.
But there is no magic bullet, and this is not a cure all. For example, I favor making the morning after pill MORE widely available.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Happy Post #11111, Kwea.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I wonder how this would affect the status of frozen embryos. Right now, if no woman wants to carry a particular embryo to term, it will either remain frozen indefinitely or be discarded. However, with this technology, there would be no need for a willing surrogate mother. So would we decide that all frozen viable embryos have the right to be put in an incubator after a certain period of time?
I don't think this technology would be grounds for banning the emergency contraception. Although it's hard to be sure about the exact mechanism of action, it looks as though the morning-after pill (progesterone ones like Plan B, anyway) works mostly by preventing ovulation. Here's a study where researchers determined whether women taking emergency contraception had ovulated. There were no pregnancies among the 34 women who took EC before or on the date of ovulation. Among the 17 women who took EC after ovulation, 3 became pregnant (the abstract says 3-4 pregnancies would be expected).
If the procedure to remove the embryo and put it in an incubator is a far more significant burden than emergency contraception, those who would want a ban would need to demonstrate that the morning-after pill can prevent implantation, or that it does damage that kills the embryo after conception. Even then, it would make sense to ban it only for women who have already ovulated.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I wonder how this would affect the status of frozen embryos. Right now, if no woman wants to carry a particular embryo to term, it will either remain frozen indefinitely or be discarded. However, with this technology, there would be no need for a willing surrogate mother. So would we decide that all frozen viable embryos have the right to be put in an incubator after a certain period of time?
I don't think this technology would be grounds for banning the emergency contraception. Although it's hard to be sure about the exact mechanism of action, it looks as though the morning-after pill (progesterone ones like Plan B, anyway) works mostly by preventing ovulation. Here's a study where researchers determined whether women taking emergency contraception had ovulated. There were no pregnancies among the 34 women who took EC before or on the date of ovulation. Among the 17 women who took EC after ovulation, 3 became pregnant (the abstract says 3-4 pregnancies would be expected).
If the procedure to remove the embryo and put it in an incubator is a far more significant burden than emergency contraception, those who would want a ban would need to demonstrate that the morning-after pill can prevent implantation, or that it does damage that kills the embryo after conception. Even then, it would make sense to ban it only for women who have already ovulated.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I don't think this technology would be grounds for banning the emergency contraception. Although it's hard to be sure about the exact mechanism of action, it looks as though the morning-after pill (progesterone ones like Plan B, anyway) works mostly by preventing ovulation.
That's just the point. Many of the people that oppose emergency contraception are fully aware of this, and still feel that terminating something that has the potential to become life is murder.
If we would use this technology as an excuse to ban the termination of a non-sentient implanted zygote, why should the point of view of the anti-plan-B crowd have any less sway? If it's good enough to close the book on one moral grey area, why not get them all?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I don't think this technology would be grounds for banning the emergency contraception. Although it's hard to be sure about the exact mechanism of action, it looks as though the morning-after pill (progesterone ones like Plan B, anyway) works mostly by preventing ovulation.
That's just the point. Many of the people that oppose emergency contraception are fully aware of this, and still feel that terminating something that has the potential to become life is murder.
I'm a bit confused about this. Are you saying that some people think that preventing fertilization is the same as murder? Or that the possibility (however slight) that an embryo might be killed is grounds for banning it when alternatives are available?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Have you really never met, read about, or heard of people who oppose Plan B on moral grounds?
I'm not one of them, but I assure you that they do exist, and many of them aren't even ignorant of how it works.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Of course I know of people who oppose Plan B on moral grounds, even knowing that there's a very good chance it will prevent conception, not destroy an embryo. I am well aware that the Catholic church opposes all contraception, including condoms, on moral grounds. However, I have not heard of anyone who thinks that preventing conception is the same as murder. That's what I was surprised about.
I would understand if the Catholic church declared that it would be best if its followers terminated unwanted pregnancies through the artificial incubator rather than using condoms or taking birth control. However, I'd argue that before the embryo is created, there is no possible harm to a third party and it would be hard to find grounds to justify banning contraception (unless it could be demonstrated that it posed a thread to embryos).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Honestly, I disagree. That fact that someone is forcing such a choice is where the sticking point is for a lot of people, and this becomes a serious problem once we leave never-never land and enter the real world.
Yes, but again, precisely who is forcing the choice depends on when and where you assign the ultimate choice in this situation.
If you assign the choice to agreeing to and engaging in consensual sexual intercourse, well then you get one answer. If you assign the choice to some point after that agreement and participation, then then exactly who is doing the forcing changes.
And anyway, here's something to consider: having an abortion is not a zero-risk surgical procedure, either. Some time in the undefined uncertain future, it could become possible to perform an operation with nearly equivalent risks to an abortion that would entail transferrence to an artificial womb.
Would your objection remain the same then? Remember, the government (as opposed to the man and the woman, when they had sex) would not be forcing the woman to endure greater risk.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1.Because those of us that are conscious are appalled by it because it's gross.
2. Because we wouldn't want it to happen to people we care about.
3.Because we envision ourselves in that situation and are unable to dissociate our consciousness from the idea of what it would be like it it were us that was being treated that way.
All three of those can be applied to abortion foes/abortion as well.
[ August 03, 2008, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Which is part of what was going through my mind as I wrote them. I kind of liked the sense of irony.
I don't think it's too hard to recognize that if people can dissociate our emotions from these reactions that there is no impact on the so-called victims of abortion, or brain dead victims of molestation, because there is no consciousness. But people are unable or unwilling to dissociate from those emotions, which allows them to continue to regard non-conscious entities as victims.
The fact remains that the opposition to (early term) abortion lies in people's emotional sensibilities, not in concern for the feelings of so-called victims.
In the case of molestation of a brain dead body, there's an additional reason that molesting a brain dead body is untenable. We recognize rape and molestation as a crime, but at least we can understand the sexual motivation behind those crimes, especially if the victim is attractive. But we can't understand the same urge toward a dead or brain dead body, so by comparison we assume that a person who could engage in such an act must be even worse than a rapist of molester, and we certainly don't want such a person around.
In the case of abortion, pro-lifers undoubtedly feel the same way; that a person who could commit an abortion is a person they wouldn't want to have around, and for similar reasons. The difference is that a substantial fraction of people really don't have any problem with it, and have no problem voicing that position. The pro-life side can attempt to demonize those people, but it's much more difficult, if only from a purely numerical standpoint.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The fact remains that the opposition to (early term) abortion lies in people's emotional sensibilities, not in concern for the feelings of so-called victims.
No, my opposition to early term abortion lies in concern for the victim - not his feelings, but the victim as a whole. It's not an emotional sensibility - it would be far more accurate to call it a logical* sensibility.
*I'm not trying to say there's no logical sensibility to the contrary position. Both positions can be logical, but each starts with a different premise that is essentially irreconcilable with the premise of the other.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
How can you define a non-conscious entity as being a victim?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If you believe in souls then a person's soul could be a victim.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Isn't a soul the essence of consciousness?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
For there to be consciousness after death then the soul probably has to be responsible for it, but I really don't know the nuances of what people generally believe about souls. It's just that if there were more to our existence than just material existence then could you harm someone by depriving them of a material existence? If I believed in a soul then I would think so.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:you could potentially harm someone by depriving them of a material existence
Which presents a never ending sequence. Do parents deprive a soul of a material existence when they prevent their daughter from going out with a guy who has a "gleam in his eye?" There has to be a point at which potential existence becomes actual existence. I've never even heard a biblical argument for conception being the beginning of life. Where did that come from?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:There has to be a point at which potential existence becomes actual existence. I've never even heard a biblical argument for conception being the beginning of life. Where did that come from?
There are scriptures which refer to life in the womb - such as the description of Jacob and Esau in the womb and how God chose Jacob over Esau before he was born. Then there are scriptures such as the oft-quoted Jeremiah 1:5 which says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (NIV).
It's clear to me the Bible speaks to the idea of a distinct being existing in the womb before birth. I have very little doubt about that.
It is true, that nowhere does it say "Hey, a soul is present at the moment of conception and therefore life truly begins at conception so abortion at any point is morally and Biblically wrong."
However, for me, I tend to err on the side of life. If I cannot conclusively prove the soul is NOT present at the moment of conception, then I'm going to assume it is, because if there is any question, I'd rather err on that side than the other. To me, we should be much more zealous about protecting life if there's any question. Where it gets sticky is where does one individual's rights outweigh the need to protect life? I've answered where I come down on it, and how I feel about it. I recognize not everyone agrees with me.
*sigh* This is where I wish we could come up with some foolproof way of preventing pregnancy until someone makes a conscious decision that they truly want a child. In my perfect world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies at all and every child would be brought forth into a loving family that truly wanted him/her.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Honestly, I disagree. That fact that someone is forcing such a choice is where the sticking point is for a lot of people, and this becomes a serious problem once we leave never-never land and enter the real world.
Yes, but again, precisely who is forcing the choice depends on when and where you assign the ultimate choice in this situation.
If you assign the choice to agreeing to and engaging in consensual sexual intercourse, well then you get one answer. If you assign the choice to some point after that agreement and participation, then then exactly who is doing the forcing changes.
And anyway, here's something to consider: having an abortion is not a zero-risk surgical procedure, either. Some time in the undefined uncertain future, it could become possible to perform an operation with nearly equivalent risks to an abortion that would entail transferrence to an artificial womb.
Would your objection remain the same then? Remember, the government (as opposed to the man and the woman, when they had sex) would not be forcing the woman to endure greater risk.
Yes, because once again it would involve allowing the government to decide what happens to an individuals body and would force them to have an operation that they didn't choose to have. Even if the risks are exactly the same, it still should be the individuals right to choose which to do.
The other aspect of it is that YOU (not you specifically, but anyone other than the person directly involved) don't get to assign anything to them at the time of intercourse, or even thereafter. Should people consider the risks of sexual intercourse before having sex? Yes! But pregnancy isn't a punishment for having sex, or at least it shouldn't be considered as such.
I hold the positions I do regarding abortion because of the way I was raised. However, I have taken a lot of time as an adult to review my beliefs, and I believe I have considered most (if not all) or the angles regarding this issue.
Lets take abortion of of the equation for a second.
I was raised, and still believe on my own as an adult, that if I see someone in serious, life threatening trouble, I have a responsibility to help them. I will try (and have actually done so at the risk of my own life and financial future) to help them because if I just stand by and let them die I share some responsibility in their death, even if I didn't place them in that situation in the first place. If I try and cannot help.......which has happened....and they die, then I feel sorry, but I don't feel responsible (or at least I try not to) for their death.
However, every person has to assess the risk in those situations themselves, and I wouldn't fault someone else for not helping if they feared they placed themselves too much at risk.
I promise this DOES have something to do with the discussion at hand.
They way this relates to the abortion debate is that I don't see a group of cells inside another human being as a person yet. I don't consider them human. However, they are the building blocks, the potential, of a human. I feel on a personal basis that as such that I have an obligation, with all other things equal, to protect that potential. So in my personal life, abortion isn't an issue for my wife and I ....we wouldn't consider it unless my wife's life was in danger without it. And even then we would carry the scars of that for the rest of our lives.
I also understand that the woman carrying that fetus is a person, a human, and DOES have rights, beyond any doubt. My decision regarding the potential of human life is MY decision alone, based on MY beliefs....and not everyone shares those beliefs. I can't, and shouldn't want to, try and force my decision on her when it would without a doubt violate her choices, and her right to decide what happens to her body.
I understand that others may not feel the same as I do, that they feel the fetus should have rights. The problem is that in order to give those rights to a fetus you HAVE to take rights away from the pregnant woman, and I am not OK with that. Nto by a long shot.
No one can force a person to have an abortion. Not one should be able to force a woman to have a child either, regardless of if it is carried to term or placed in an artificial womb.
At least in my opinion.
[ August 03, 2008, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
quote:Yes, because once again it would involve allowing the government to decide what happens to an individuals body and would force them to have an operation that they didn't choose to have. Even if the risks are exactly the same, it still should be the individuals right to choose which to do.
This is not a persuasive argument, since we as a society permit the government to force us to make choices or do things all the time.
Why should it be the individual's right to choose which to do when one choice terminates a potential human life* and the other does not, but both choices pose the same risk to the individual?
(* and by 'potential' I'm referring to all time periods. As gestation goes on, that potential becomes more and more actual in the minds of just about everyone)
quote:The other aspect of it is that YOU (not you specifically, but anyone other than the person directly involved) don't get to assign anything to them at the time of intercourse, or even thereafter. Should people consider the risks of sexual intercourse before having sex? Yes! But pregnancy isn't a punishment for having sex, or at least it shouldn't be considered as such.
Again, not very persuasive because what you're actually saying is, "You don't get to assign anything in this situation." It's not some sacrosanct circumstance. We assign responsibility to people regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter all the time.
In what way could pregnancy possibly be deemed a punishment (as opposed to the much more accurate word 'consequence') of sex in the hypothetical case of the artificial womb?
quote: I also understand that the woman carrying that fetus is a person, a human, and DOES have rights, beyond any doubt. My decision regarding the potential of human life is MY decision alone, based on MY beliefs....and not everyone shares those beliefs. I can't, and shouldn't want to, try and force my decision on her when it would without a doubt violate her choices, and her right to decide what happens to her body.
I understand that others may not feel the same as I do, that they feel the fetus should have rights. The problem is that in order to give those rights to a fetus you HAVE to take rights away from the pregnant woman, and I am not OK with that. Nto by a long shot.
The problem with this argument is that it's only as persuasive as the extent to which the fetus has rights. If we angle one direction, the fetus is just a cluster of animal cells. Not human, no rights. You can do anything you want with it.
But if we angle the other direction, is is human, it's definitely got rights. And this is the crucial part: if it is human, then it doesn't matter in the slightest what your decision concerning that human being is, or even what the pregnant woman's decision is, morally speaking.
If it's human, then morally it gets a shot at life, period. Especially if the three options are: carry to term, abort, and artificial womb, the latter two carrying the same risk to the woman's health.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:In my perfect world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies at all and every child would be brought forth into a loving family that truly wanted him/her.
I think just about everyone agrees on this.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is not a persuasive argument, since we as a society permit the government to force us to make choices or do things all the time.
On this level?... We don't, really. We make certain laws about what one can and cannot put it one's body. We determine that if someone who is legally an adult has intercourse with someone who is legally a child, they're in legal jeopardy. We say "if you do not pay taxes, then you will go to jail"... And if you then do not pay taxes, your whole body is indeed seized and carried off to jail.
But most of our other laws have very little to do with what one does with one's own body except in relation to what the doing does to someone else's body. Even the mentally ill are very difficult to legally compel to treatment up until the point where they are judged to be an imminent danger to themselves and/or others. And even suicide and drug use are very much in an ongoing legal push-and-pull, very much in evidence in cases like Oregon's "Death With Dignity" act.
If the fetus is a human being, of course, the laws fall under those we apply with regard to a human affecting another human. Failing that, it would be a mistake to rush to judge the argument unpersuasive.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:In my perfect world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies at all and every child would be brought forth into a loving family that truly wanted him/her.
I think just about everyone agrees on this.
Yes, I think this is an area where all pro-life and pro-choice people can come to agreement.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is yet another reason e disagree, I guess. I don't think we do allow people to force us to have operations. There are some restrictions on them as to what is and isn't an approved and safe medical procedure, but most people would agree that 99.9% of the time they should be in charge of their medical treatments.
Also, we have no consensus on what "should" be the moral consequences of sex. Most people, once again, feel that legislating sexual conduct and or repercussions between consenting adults is wrong, and feel they should be able to make such decisions...both about personal morality and about sexual conduct....on their own.
Your morality about sex is your problem, not theirs. The morning after pill is a perfect example of this. Other than strong religious grounds, which I understand but don't wish to be imposed on others against their will, I have yet to hear one good argument against that pill being widely available. Yet people object to it on a regular basis.
As far as rights.....even if it was human, which I do not believe it is at that point.....that doesn't automatically override the mothers rights. Your right to peace and quite doesn't override my right to protest at a political event, for example....although it seems like politicians are always trying to find a way around that one.
If two people assert a right which run counter to each other, a decision needs to be made. I tend to error on the side of what I know, that being that a person who IS alive, and IS a human, has a right to do what they want in regards to their own medical health and treatment.
It seems to me that your counter-arguments are the ones lacking in persuasion. But then again, this is hardly new ground for either of us.To be honest, a lot of my views became more clear to me in discussions here on Hatrack, on the few occasions these type of threads didn't turn into flame wars.
All in all though....this type of medical development only allows for more choices, and would be a HUGE step forward, IMO. I hope it pans out this time, as the research looks promising.
[ August 03, 2008, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
quote:That is yet another reason e disagree, I guess. I don't think we do allow people to force us to have operations. There are some restrictions on them as to what is and isn't an approved and safe medical procedure, but most people would agree that 99.9% of the time they should be in charge of their medical treatments.
We do actually, given certain circumstances. Now, most of those involve either unconciousness or some form of mental impairment (due to drugs or medical condition or whatever), but I'm just pointing out that the 'don't allow people to force us to have operations' thing isn't an inviolate wall.
But to take it a step further, in this hypothetical situation: it's 'force them to have on operation of equal risk that doesn't kill what might be human' vs. 'permit them to perform an operation of equal risk that kills what might be human'.
Morally, that's an easy choice. Truly it is, especially given that we compel people to do stuff all the time. Objecting that we don't force people to do something to their bodies doesn't quite carry much weight when the thing we would be forcing is no riskier than the alternative, which potentially carries grave moral complications.
quote:Your morality about sex is your problem, not theirs. The morning after pill is a perfect example of this. Other than strong religious grounds, which I understand but don't wish to be imposed on others against their will, I have yet to hear one good argument against that pill being widely available. Yet people object to it on a regular basis.
Like I've said, it's only my problem if the fetus isn't human. If the fetus is human...well, I could arguably incur the same responsibilities towards saving an innocent helpless life you discussed above.
quote:If two people assert a right which run counter to each other, a decision needs to be made. I tend to error on the side of what I know, that being that a person who IS alive, and IS a human, has a right to do what they want in regards to their own medical health and treatment.
If two people assert such a right, yes, a decision needs to be made. I think we can agree that a woman's right not to be inconvenienced doesn't extend past another human being's right not to be killed, right? Since there are two possible decisions, each carrying equal risk but only one involving killing something...tell me in what way I'm not being persuasive, again?
quote:I tend to error on the side of what I know, that being that a person who IS alive, and IS a human, has a right to do what they want in regards to their own medical health and treatment.
This is what it comes down to: should we permit someone to kill something that might be human, when the alternative forces zero additional burden/risk on that individual, just to protect their right to choose what to do with their own bodies?
If so, why? What social and moral ends are served by this, Kwea? We've already discussed that a person's right to do whatever they want with their own bodies is not an unlimited universal right.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think it is a lot more than a woman's right to not be inconvenienced, and to be honest I think you know that as well.
And as a former EMT, I am very well versed in when we do and do not treat patients against their will. Once again, you are oversimplifying.
The point I am making is that I don't feel we should have the right for force someone to do something to their own body that they don't want to. That is a far different case than treating someone who has passed out, or even treating a mentally ill patient against their will. You are talking about refusing to allow people the right to decide their own medical treatment despite being in sound mind and body, which is a HUGE deal. It runs pretty much counter to ALL of the established medical wisdom we have in modern medicine.
It is not a simple matter at all, and pretending it is doesn't further your belief at all.
Refusing to admit this doesn't make you any more persuasive. Low risk isn't no risk, and I don't feel it is your right (or the government's right for that matter) to force someone to have a child if they don't want one. Even if they won't then be forced to raise it.
I also don't think that society will be bettered by allowing such an action.
There is a difference between allow someone to make a choice we don't agree with despite the risks, and refusing to help someone in need. I don't think you will be able to ever convince me that a bunch of cells inside another person's body is a person, although as you mention the further along a pregnancy is the close I would be to believing you.
But I don't feel any of your arguments are convincing enough to allow the government to force someone to have an operation against their own will, particularuly when the outcome of that would be a child.
What would be next....forcing a transplant operation years later despite never having seen the child? Medicine has proven over and over again that unlike most areas, the slippery slope DOES happen. Right now we have genetic codes from individuals that have been patented againt the person's will. Some of these are worth billions of dollars in potential income, but they came about from samples taken illegally and used without patiens knowledge or consent.
I think if there is ONE line that needs to be drawn in the samd so people can se it, it shoudl be here......starting with the fact that people have the ultimate right to decide their own treatments, and that they should have control over their own bodies as much as possible.
I prefer to keep the government out of the bedroon, and out of the operationg room as much as possible. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
quote:I think it is a lot more than a woman's right to not be inconvenienced, and to be honest I think you know that as well.
As the real-world situation stands now, I agree. Opposition to it is more than just a woman's right not to be inconvenienced. But I wasn't talking about the real-world present situation. I was talking about the hypothetical situation which started this thread.
quote: The point I am making is that I don't feel we should have the right for force someone to do something to their own body that they don't want to. That is a far different case than treating someone who has passed out, or even treating a mentally ill patient against their will. You are talking about refusing to allow people the right to decide their own medical treatment despite being in sound mind and body, which is a HUGE deal. It runs pretty much counter to ALL of the established medical wisdom we have in modern medicine.
I'm aware of that. All I was trying to do was point out that there are already circumstances when we as a society allow the government or doctors or whoever to do things to patients that those patients either don't want them to do, or haven't consented to. My point was to say that we already do what you're objecting to, on a limited basis, for certain specific reasons.
In the hypothetical situation, when the risks are equal, why shouldn't we include 'potentially saving a life' as an additional reason?
quote: Refusing to admit this doesn't make you any more persuasive. Low risk isn't no risk, and I don't feel it is your right (or the government's right for that matter) to force someone to have a child if they don't want one. Even if they won't then be forced to raise it.
In the hypothetical, it is a simple matter. We're left with an exceedingly simple choice. Or at least, the options are simple to state and the contrast between them is simple to understand. That doesn't make the decision itself less weighty. But in the hypothetical, we're faced with a specific situation.
What shall we do? Shall we permit the killing of what is possibly a human being, or shall we compel a woman to endure an operation which poses no additional risk than the operation she would get to terminate what is possibly a human being?
quote: There is a difference between allow someone to make a choice we don't agree with despite the risks, and refusing to help someone in need. I don't think you will be able to ever convince me that a bunch of cells inside another person's body is a person, although as you mention the further along a pregnancy is the close I would be to believing you.
Fine, alright then. Personally I think the uncertainty is a reason to be more cautious and not less, but how about this: six three months and onward is what we're talking about. It's not just a cluster of cells anymore. What then?
quote:But I don't feel any of your arguments are convincing enough to allow the government to force someone to have an operation against their own will, particularuly when the outcome of that would be a child.
I don't understand how you can make that argument - "...when the outcome of that would be a child." - and misunderstand where I'm coming from.
quote:What would be next....forcing a transplant operation years later despite never having seen the child? Medicine has proven over and over again that unlike most areas, the slippery slope DOES happen. Right now we have genetic codes from individuals that have been patented againt the person's will. Some of these are worth billions of dollars in potential income, but they came about from samples taken illegally and used without patiens knowledge or consent.
In what way is forcing a transplant operation anything like the hypothetical? Such an operation is risky, and does pose a burden to the woman for the rest of her life. I'm not buying into your slippery slope argument for one simple reason: if that little cluster of cells you so blithely dismiss is a human being, then the slippery slope doesn't matter.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I completely understand where you stand on this. I really do......so I don' misunderstand your points at all, I think.
I just don't agree with your conclusions at all.
Even in a perfect world which will never happen, there is still risk....and still gave moral consequences once a child is born, regardless of it you HAVE to raise them or not. The slippery slope is already present, not a hypothetical, as this "solution" opens the door to all sorts of violation of informed consent pant patient/doctor confidentiality by it's very nature.
Such a decision would have far reaching consequences for all medical procedures, and quite frankly I feel it is a Pandora's Box better left alone.
It isn't simple, or easy, and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand their position, Rakeesh.....it could be that they just place emphasis on different things than you do.
Such as the already existing rights of what is undeniably a human being.
And if you think I have blithely dismissed anything at all, you need to pay more attention.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't say you didn't understand your position, Kwea. To be clear, I said you were making the wrong conclusion based on given circumstances-more arrogant perhaps, but a lot less insulting in my opinion since after all we say that sort of thing all the time:)
quote:And if you think I have blithely dismissed anything at all, you need to pay more attention.
I wasn't being precise enough. I don't think you're being blithe in your stance or your reasoning. I think your stance and reasoning have led to what amounts to a blithe dismissal.
Consider yet another hypothetical: suppose tomorrow, some miraculous scientific discovery were made (actually, a series of discoveries, heh) that proved scientifically, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that little 'cluster of cells' was in fact a human being?
Or if you don't like that, suppose tomorrow God manifests in person for all of humanity and declares that, yes, those clusters of cells really are human beings.
What would you say then of the millions of millions of humans killed for the sake of keeping another person's right to kill them safe? "We didn't know!"
Well, that would be a fair response. But the answer to that reply must surely be, "You weren't sure...so why not err on the side of caution?"
quote: Even in a perfect world which will never happen, there is still risk....and still gave moral consequences once a child is born, regardless of it you HAVE to raise them or not. The slippery slope is already present, not a hypothetical, as this "solution" opens the door to all sorts of violation of informed consent pant patient/doctor confidentiality by it's very nature.
I already admitted risk. Equal risk.
It's strange that you're arguing that abortion should remain protected because of the moral consequences of having a child be born. What possible moral consequences could there be? If the woman has no responsibility to carry the child to term, then logically she can do whatever the heck she wants with that little cluster of cells, up to and including giving that kid up for adoption once (at some magic point) it ceases being a right-less cluster of cells and becomes a child (with many rights, not including necessarily the right to exist).
quote:Such a decision would have far reaching consequences for all medical procedures, and quite frankly I feel it is a Pandora's Box better left alone.
Or we've already opened Pandora's Box. You don't know one way or another. Neither do I, of course. But in the hypothetical situation, you're stacking up a lot of intangible hazy values that could just as easily have been avoided with a tiny bit of common sense against the very real possibility of killing a human being before birth.
Yes, informed consent and patient/doctor confidentiality are pretty hazy, certainly when stacked up against 'don't kill people'.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
This is neither hazy, nor intangible:
The number of ob/gyns in the United States is plummeting. New students don't want to get into the field because there's hardly any fields that wouldn't make them more employable and more likely to pay off their student loans in a timely fashion. Older practitioners are giving up in the face of high malpractice insurance rates.
If obstetrics practitioners have to be concerned that practicing the best medicine for their patients may be second-guessed in court- could, indeed, get them incarcerated- those numbers are going to get much, much worse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If obstetrics practitioners have to be concerned that practicing the best medicine for their patients may be second-guessed in court- could, indeed, get them incarcerated- those numbers are going to get much, much worse.
I'm not sure why this issue, in the hypothetical situation, couldn't be very easily addressed with clearly written laws on the matter.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't say you didn't understand your position, Kwea. To be clear, I said you were making the wrong conclusion based on given circumstances-more arrogant perhaps, but a lot less insulting in my opinion since after all we say that sort of thing all the time:)
quote:And if you think I have blithely dismissed anything at all, you need to pay more attention.
I wasn't being precise enough. I don't think you're being blithe in your stance or your reasoning. I think your stance and reasoning have led to what amounts to a blithe dismissal.
Fair enough, Rakeesh. Pardon me if I don't agree with your assessment though.
I don't easily dismiss any of the possible consequences, I have given them more thought than most of the people I know IRL, to be honest.
I do understand what you are saying. I guess the sticking point is where I would have to force people to follow my views, my own beliefs and make them follow a course of action they don't believe in. Probably because of my background in medial protocols I have a very strong feeling regarding a patients right to decide what is best for themselves. I am particularly leery of allowing the government to interfere with this, as I don't think the government has a clue regarding medical decisions most of the time, and I feel this is irrevocably tied to the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" we are all promised.
No nebulous possibility of life is enough, for me, to condone allowing others to force someone to take a treatment they don't want. That doesn't even take into consideration the possible medical (not to mention moral) complications this would involve. Once a child IS born, they DO have rights, and where their rights and the rights of their parent conflict IS an area that WILL be unheralded in medical (and legal) history.
Short of God coming down and telling me personally, I just don't see anything changing my mind. That doesn't mean that I don't want to discuss it though....this has been a remarkably reasonable conversation so far. I hope it stays this way.
What I find most interesting about all of this is the fact that I am arguing FOR rights I would never even consider using myself. If my wife and I didn't want children (and we do, desperately) I would without a doubt feel this artificial womb is the PERFECT solution.
I just don't believe I have the right to force others to make the same choices I would.
[ August 05, 2008, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do understand what you are saying. I guess the sticking point is where I would have to force people to follow my views, my own beliefs and make them follow a course of action they don't believe in. Probably because of my background in medial protocols I have a very strong feeling regarding a patients right to decide what is best for themselves. I am particularly leery of allowing the government to interfere with this, as I don't think the government has a clue regarding medical decisions most of the time, and I feel this is irrevocably tied to the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" we are all promised.
The problem is that, to pro-lifers, it's not (always, or just) about forcing people to 'follow their views'. It's about saving lives.
And the truth is, you really don't have any problem at all forcing other people to behave differently, in the correct circumstances. You even discussed it somewhere in this thread: about what you would do if someone was being attacked in front of you, for example.
If you were walking down the street and saw someone brutally kicking a puppy, would you let your reluctance to force other people to adhere to your beliefs stop you from physically stopping that person from abusing that animal?
What's the difference? On a 'people doing what I believe' basis, that is. There is no difference, except the 'nebulous possibility'.
Well, why do we stop people from driving drunk? There is only a possibility they will be in an accident. A guy might drive drunk for years without ever hurting anyone. And yet when we find out about it, we stop him (or we should). Why? Because it's an unnecessary risk to permit go unchecked.
What if in the future there comes substantive scientific evidence (somehow) that that cluster of human cells is in fact human? What will we as a society say if that happens?
I'll tell you what we won't be able to say with a straight face: "We had no idea!" or "How could we have known?"
---------
And before anyone freaks out, I am not likening pro-choicers to drunk drivers, or suggesting their stance is morally akin to supporting drunk driving.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
What if in the future there comes substantive scientific evidence (somehow) that that veal or lamb chop is in fact human? What will we as a society say if that happens?
I'll tell you what we won't be able to say with a straight face: "We had no idea!" or "How could we have known?"
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Heck, I can't even read that with a straight face. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
In all seriousness, though, Rakeesh's point can't just be dismissed as ridiculous. In order to counter it I think you either have to argue that it's already clear they aren't human or to question what it means to be human and how that morally affects abortion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Actually, I don't for pretty much the same reason that we don't have to counter Hindu that believe that cows are sacred before eating a tasty prime rib or hippies that believe that Mother Gaia gave all animals a soul so we shouldn't harm any animals, period.
Or to spell it out, if you really look at Rakeesh's point, it reduces to "What if X is true? You'd better do Y just in case." It is just Pascal's Wager in a different form.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Or to spell it out, if you really look at Rakeesh's point, it reduces to "What if X is true? You'd better do Y just in case."
That's an truncated restatement of my point, which was more accurately, "What if X is true? We can do either Y or Z, both of which pose the same risk, but if we do Z and it turns out X is true, we'll have been killing lots of people."
It's not just 'do this in case of that'. It's 'each response to that has the same risk, so why not do the more cautious thing?"
So yeah, you need to dig a little deeper there, hoss.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
And how is that different from the naive wager? "What if Christianity is true? We can either believe in God or not, both of which cost the same, but if we do not and it turns out God exists, we're going to Hell."
Or for that matter, "What if Babe the talking pig is real? We can either eat prime rib or pork chop both which cost the same, but if we eat pork chop and it turns out Babe is real, we just ate a talking pig!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"What if Christianity is true? We can either believe in God or not, both of which cost the same, but if we do not and it turns out God exists, we're going to Hell."
Not a valid comparison, for many reasons. First, not a (possible) life or death situation. Second, more than belief is required anyway. Third, it's a matter entirely of the individual's concern in either instance. That's just a few reasons.
quote:Or for that matter, "What if Babe the talking pig is real? We can either eat prime rib or pork chop both which cost the same, but if we eat pork chop and it turns out Babe is real, we just ate a talking pig!"
Well, actually prime rib and pork chops don't cost the same. Second, while there is a lot of uncertainty with when precisely human life begins prior to birth, there is absolutely zero uncertainty about whether or not Babe is a real pig and does, in fact, talk.
Do you have any real questions?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not a valid comparison, for many reasons. First, not a (possible) life or death situation. Second, more than belief is required anyway. Third, it's a matter entirely of the individual's concern in either instance. That's just a few reasons.
It is a valid comparison for many reasons. First, its even better than a life or death situation. Its a *after*life or death situation, the stakes are even higher. Second, are you actually familiar with Pascal's Wager? The wager relies upon mere belief to satisfy God, otherwise the costs would not be the same. In fact, the criticism that religion requires more than just mere belief (e.g. tithing, time, social problems) is actually a criticism made by atheists about the wager. So, good job critiquing the wager, you're on your way to a better way Third, thats entirely a matter of perspective.
quote:Well, actually prime rib and pork chops don't cost the same. Second, while there is a lot of uncertainty with when precisely human life begins prior to birth, there is absolutely zero uncertainty about whether or not Babe is a real pig and does, in fact, talk.
Well, actually they do cost the same depending on portion size. Second, there is actually much uncertainty about whether Babe is a real talking pig. After all, have you checked all pigs in the world to see whether they can talk? Perhaps the talking pig has turned invisible, or perhaps the talking pig is actually a part of everyone? Perhaps the story of Babe is actually an allegory and simply requires the proper interpretation. In fact, I find your statement about my belief in the sacredness of pigs offensive and I demand that you cease eating pork in front of me just in case pigs do have souls.
In fact, what would you say if God appeared tomorrow and declared that pigs had human souls? What would you say to the thousands of pigs that you had murdered to satisfy your own appetite? "We didn't know!"
Well, that would be a fair response. But the answer to that reply must surely be, "You weren't sure...so why not err on the side of caution?"
quote: Do you have any real questions?
Do you have any real objections?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mucus,
quote:First, its even better than a life or death situation. Its a *after*life or death situation, the stakes are even higher.
Yes, but we view threats against someone's life much differently than 'spiritual' threats. One has the force of law arrayed against it, the other does not.
So no, it's not better for that reason.
quote:Second, are you actually familiar with Pascal's Wager? The wager relies upon mere belief to satisfy God, otherwise the costs would not be the same. In fact, the criticism that religion requires more than just mere belief (e.g. tithing, time, social problems) is actually a criticism made by atheists about the wager. So, good job critiquing the wager, you're on your way to a better way [Wink]
How droll. The point was that this isn't like Pascal's Wager for the reasons listed.
quote:Third, thats entirely a matter of perspective.
Not really. Not when it comes to bringing the law to bear.
quote:Well, actually they do cost the same depending on portion size.
*rolleyes*
quote:Second, there is actually much uncertainty about whether Babe is a real talking pig. After all, have you checked all pigs in the world to see whether they can talk? Perhaps the talking pig has turned invisible, or perhaps the talking pig is actually a part of everyone? Perhaps the story of Babe is actually an allegory and simply requires the proper interpretation. In fact, I find your statement about my belief in the sacredness of pigs offensive and I demand that you cease eating pork in front of me just in case pigs do have souls.
OK, so finally you're out with it:) You're going to insist that we pretend that there is, in fact, a chance that Babe is a real talking pig, or was based on a true story because we haven't scoped out every single pig alive and dead to make sure.
Honestly, it would've been less wasteful for both of us if you'd simply cut to that chase early and saved us each some time. That objection of yours has its place in a discussion of theology and religion and atheism, but in this discussion about a hypothetical situation it's just plain tedious.
But let me cut through the haze you're putting out here with a direct question: do you believe there is a real chance that Babe is a real talking pig? If so, do you believe that chance is equivalent to the chance that, at some point during pregnancy, something that was once a cluster of cells becomes instead a human being?
quote:Do you have any real objections?
Yup. I've listed them repeatedly. Feel free to 'rebut' with a silly hypothetical though and consider me answered.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
The question of when a cluster of cells becomes a human being depends on how you define a human being.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I honestly don't believe that it is a human yet, and I feel that it can't be proved otherwise by anything other than religious reasons, which is not even close to being socially accepted as proof.
Also, kicking a puppy doesn't affect a persons body, or their right to decide which medical treatment they receive, so it is a poor example at best. At worst it completely ignores almost every single point I have been trying to make since I entered this conversation.
The argument of erring on the side of caution is used every time some politician wants to remove a right, or impose a penalty for an action they disagree with. While I personally do not approve of abortion, my approval should not matter to someone who wants one, or God forbid needs one.
It IS a matter of degree, of course. The difference between this and drunk driving is that drunk driving places multiple humans at risk. A more proper comparison would be if there was a surgery to permanently remove the effects of alcohol for someone...should we force someone to have it if they get a DUI?
While it would be expedient, I would NOT be in favor of it. It goes too far, and violates their freedoms too much. Free will comes wiht a cost....that cost being that people are allowed to have choices.
Mucas....one of the criticisms of those atheist's arguments against Pascal's wager, is that a lot of people don't consider those other aspects of religion as wasteful or undesirable. There have been PLENTY of studies regarding the effects of religion on a society's stability, and there are a lot of really good non-religious reasons why religion is a good thing for most societies.
People tend to be happier, more productive, and society as a whole tends to function well when a religion helps to hold a society together.
And that is all without even considering God's opinion. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, but we view threats against someone's life much differently than 'spiritual' threats. One has the force of law arrayed against it, the other does not.
Actually, *neither* abortion OR 'spiritual' threats have the force of law arrayed against them. Try again.
quote:How droll. The point was that this isn't like Pascal's Wager for the reasons listed.
And my point is that it is in fact like Pascal's Wager *for* the reasons you listed. Same basic claims create the same basic flaws.
quote: But let me cut through the haze you're putting out here with a direct question: do you believe there is a real chance that Babe is a real talking pig? If so, do you believe that chance is equivalent to the chance that, at some point during pregnancy, something that was once a cluster of cells becomes instead a human being?
I think that the probability of a real talking pig existing is definitely higher than that of God both existing AND him showing up personally to declare that a human fetus is a "human being", whatever that means.
Appending to what Threads said, for someone that doesn't believe in souls the question of what a human being is merely a question of definition and of the law. When does a pig fetus become a "pig"? When does a seed become a plant?
quote:Feel free to 'rebut' with a silly hypothetical though and consider me answered.
The fact that you view this as a silly hypothetical is encouraging since I'm drawing a parallel with a silly hypothetical in the first place.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mucus,
quote:Actually, *neither* abortion OR 'spiritual' threats have the force of law arrayed against them. Try again.
I didn't say abortion. And actually, a sign of how dysfunctional we are on the matter, in some cases abortion does have the force of law arrayed against it. So I don't need to try again.
quote:I think that the probability of a real talking pig existing is definitely higher than that of God both existing AND him showing up personally to declare that a human fetus is a "human being", whatever that means.
That's a clever way to dodge the question I actually asked without ever answering it.
quote:The fact that you view this as a silly hypothetical is encouraging since I'm drawing a parallel with a silly hypothetical in the first place.
By all means, continue to seize on that hypothetical instead of answering other questions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't say abortion. And actually, a sign of how dysfunctional we are on the matter, in some cases abortion does have the force of law arrayed against it. So I don't need to try again.
Actually, you did in your original hypothetical to which I am comparing the wager. Unless you're referring to something other than abortion when you said "millions of millions of humans killed for the sake of keeping another person's right to kill them safe" which is also a strange failure to understand the reasons why someone might go through abortion.
Also, if we're going to be picking and choosing backward states where "the force of law [is] arrayed against it" we can also note that there are states where spiritual threats also have the force of law arrayed against it and in a much more substantive way too.
quote:That's a clever way to dodge the question I actually asked without ever answering it.
Thank you, especially since the question you asked was just a dodge in order to avoid addressing the actual issue we're discussing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Also, if we're going to be picking and choosing backward states where "the force of law [is] arrayed against it" we can also note that there are states where spiritual threats also have the force of law arrayed against it and in a much more substantive way too.
*snort* At least you're letting your real feelings show with this remark:) And anyway, I didn't mean that, I meant places where crimes against pregnant women carry stiffer penalties, especially if the child/cluster of cells is harmed.
Actually, your real feelings were clear already when you chose Babe the talking pig as opposed to something equally unlikely but less silly.
quote:Actually, you did in your original hypothetical to which I am comparing the wager. Unless you're referring to something other than abortion when you said "millions of millions of humans killed for the sake of keeping another person's right to kill them safe" which is also a strange failure to understand the reasons why someone might go through abortion.
I don't even address here the reasons why someone might go through an abortion, Mucus. What part of that statement do you think makes that point exactly?
In the hypothetical I made, we were talking about someone being killed, not just abortion.
quote:Thank you, especially since the question you asked was just a dodge in order to avoid addressing the actual issue we're discussing.
It wasn't a dodge. I rejected the entire 'issue' you brought up to discuss as irrelevant to the larger discussion, Mucus. I did then and I still do now. I didn't 'dodge' it, I called BS on it and gave a list of reasons why.
By all means, continue to say, "N'uh!" and consider me well answered. But say it to someone else, because I've gotten thoroughly tired of going around the bush with you.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The hypothetical assumes that we consider humanity to be inherently superior to other species. I do not - I judge each creature's moral "worth" by their capacity to suffer, and their capacity to experience joy. I do think that "potential" enjoyment of life is something to consider, but in that regard there's no difference between choosing to abort and choosing not to have a child in the first place.
Every individual case is different - there are feelings of the mother, the father, the ability to raise the child, rape, etc that can never be answered with a blanket "Abortion is always wrong or always permissible." But for legal reasons, For legal reasons, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the development of the central nervous system is the only place that line makes sense to me.
In any case, I care far more about the millions of pigs who are treated cruelly and then killed than I do about unborn humans who can't feel pain yet. Whether those pigs can talk or have souls is irrelevant to me.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If obstetrics practitioners have to be concerned that practicing the best medicine for their patients may be second-guessed in court- could, indeed, get them incarcerated- those numbers are going to get much, much worse.
I'm not sure why this issue, in the hypothetical situation, couldn't be very easily addressed with clearly written laws on the matter.
Because even in the hypothetical situation, there may still be cases where an obstetrician has to weigh the risks of trying to deliver a child alive (or, presumably, bring out a living fetus alive for long enough for it to be transferred to an artificial womb) against the health, or life, of the mother. And if there's a professional judgement, there will be those who question that judgement.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The hypothetical assumes that we consider humanity to be inherently superior to other species. I do not - I judge each creature's moral "worth" by their capacity to suffer, and their capacity to experience joy. I do think that "potential" enjoyment of life is something to consider, but in that regard there's no difference between choosing to abort and choosing not to have a child in the first place.
Every individual case is different - there are feelings of the mother, the father, the ability to raise the child, rape, etc that can never be answered with a blanket "Abortion is always wrong or always permissible." But for legal reasons, For legal reasons, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the development of the central nervous system is the only place that line makes sense to me.
In any case, I care far more about the millions of pigs who are treated cruelly and then killed than I do about unborn humans who can't feel pain yet. Whether those pigs can talk or have souls is irrelevant to me.
It is only irrelevant to you because you were born though.
I DO hold that a human life is worth more than other animals, and I find arguments to the contrary to be slightly silly, and usually hard to take seriously. But that doesn't mean I have the right to force you to believe otherwise.
However, if you were to act in a manner that placed a human life in jeopardy because of your views, you could (and would) be prosecuted.
And while I appreciate your support, your claim about "not feeling pain" completely depends on which stage of gestation the fetus is in.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I went back and forth between giving a lengthy treatise on my entire moral system and the shorter statement I actually made, where I just touched upon the issues at hand. I decided to go with the latter, mostly because introducing myself to a forum with a huge wall of text seemed unwise.
quote:I DO hold that a human life is worth more than other animals, and I find arguments to the contrary to be slightly silly, and usually hard to take seriously. But that doesn't mean I have the right to force you to believe otherwise.
Among the caveats I didn't mention is that I DO assume that humans have some traits that make them more valuable than many animals. We can find happiness in a variety ways that animals (presumably) can't - reading poetry, unlocking secrets of the universe, etc. Our intelligence also means we have the potential to bring about great good for the entire world (although so far, I'd say we've been failing to do that). But saying humans are automatically better than everyone else strikes me as self centered.
quote: However, if you were to act in a manner that placed a human life in jeopardy because of your views, you could (and would) be prosecuted.
Of course. But I think your misunderstand those views (understandably, since I didn't explain them well). I don't think humans are "only" animals. I think all creatures are worthy of respect, humans included, and I do my best to make the world a better place for everyone.
Again, going into a lot of detail here will detract from the point of the original post.
quote: And while I appreciate your support, your claim about "not feeling pain" completely depends on which stage of gestation the fetus is in.
Agreed. My point was not that humans are not "people" until after they're born, they're "people" (or should be legally) when their central nervous system is developed, which begins around week 6. I do not know precisely when it's developed enough to feel pain, but at the very least I see no moral qualms with an abortion before then.
Regardless, I find it ironic that many of the most vocal abortion opponents, who keep reminding us to "choose adoption," have yet to adopt themselves. There are approximately 500,000 children in the foster care system. Abortion opponents point to the waiting list to adopt infants, ignoring the many older children waiting for a home, let alone the (approximately) 18,000 children who die every day of starvation.
That, more than anything else, is why the "hypothetical" question will remain just that. No matter what advances in science we make, providing a home for every child will not be possible unless people across the globe are willing to sacrifice many elements of their lifestyle. I don't see that happening anything soon.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The hypothetical assumes that we consider humanity to be inherently superior to other species. I do not - I judge each creature's moral "worth" by their capacity to suffer, and their capacity to experience joy. I do think that "potential" enjoyment of life is something to consider, but in that regard there's no difference between choosing to abort and choosing not to have a child in the first place.
Actually, for me the matter is simpler. Humans are animals with needs just as the birds in the sky and fish in the sea. Animals take what they need when they can. Where we go wrong is not in the taking, but in going beyond what we need.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)