Atheist Nexus Logo

Are we talking past each other on abortion? What is your understanding of the issues?

Simply state what you think are the underlying arguments in the abortion debate.

Tags: abortion, abortion ad nauseum

Views: 244

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Indeed, the argument to infanticide always makes me cringe. Apparently people can't see the difference between giving a kid a bottle and renting out a body cavity for 9 months. *facepalm*
I see the difference but you fail to understanding the underlying justifications. *Roles eyes.*
Actually, my position does not rest with those arguments. There is a difference between a philosophical position and a legal position.

Continue ROLLING eyes though, that way you won't have to read the comments.
Point still stands
That he doesn't even understand the basic argument.

I've yet to have anyone in any debate here address the personhood issue. Lack of personhood is used to justify abortion but then ignored when it doesn't suit for babies.

At least the academics understand this and try to address it. You guys raise arguments that are overwhelmingly ignored by the pro's because they know they haven't even got a leg to stand on.

To be frank there are two levels of this debate the informed and the ignorant and I've been persevering to find at least someone here how has bother to get informed.

In no way must one agree with the other side on everything, but if you cannot even appreciate the force or validity of say the infanticide argument Tooley raises -which informed pro’s do– it just shows you are incapable or unwilling to critically examine the issue.
To Simon JM:

I don't address the personhood argument because I don't care about it. Whether or not something is a person isn't the sole indicator of its right to life. I'm of the mindset that living things should be left alive unless it is necessary for our lives and well being that they don't (for instance, the wheat that made my bread) or when the end of the others life is the only way to ensure that someone else's rights are not infringed (killing and self-defense and abortion).

Now you can continue to ignore my questions and act as if I am ignorant about the issue if you like, but it doesn't do much for the points you are trying to make, whatever they may be.

To me, abortion isn't an inherently moral issue, it is more of a civil rights and legal one. I wasn't aware that by stating my views you would attempt to get me to argue against yours, as that is not what the discussion text indicates.

I was here supporting other people's positions until you negatively engaged me. I responded to your rather silly argument that infanticide should be legal, because in doing so you are arguing that embryos and infants should have the same standing, which I think is silly on the face of it, and it gave me an opportunity to address what I think are major issues, as the discussion text suggests.

I am informed on the personhood issue, but as I've just stated, I don't think it is that relevant to the legality or ethical considerations of abortion aside from the fact that embryos and fetuses do not have full personhood. The fact that infants don't have full personhood either is secondary to their right to life as, to me, neither of my two situations that leads to the ending of life can be met by an infant. I don't need to kill infants for food, survival or self defense, therefore they get to live.
Sorry I wa following another train of thought.

Overall has pointed out that even if the foetus has no rights to be there that in itself doesn't give a right to end its life, if it has some moral value. Therefore she and others argue that if we had artificial womb you would be required to undergo whatever procedure to pass the foetus on.

But it looks like you're not interested in learning about the underlying arguments just the forum to sprout smartarse comments.
Simon the abortion-debate-crusader, how are you? I must say I find your intense interest in this, as a non-uterus owning individual, puzzling and at times a bit threatening. I guess I have a hard time understanding how this can be such a purely philosophical issue to you (or at least that is the impression I've gathered across many conversations on abortion.) The implications are always in the real world, with real women, and real uteruses (uterusi?)

The underlying arguments may be fine and dandy, and people may have come up with all kinds of scales and models and descriptions, but at the end of the day the question is: Do I have the right to bodily autonomy? That's IT. If I have that right, then I have the right to an abortion. Period. Everything else is just speculation on whether not we like abortion, or under what circumstances we personally think abortion is a better option for. But once we put limitations on who can get them, why, where, for what reason, etc. we are putting limitations on the bodily autonomy of women. And that's what the issue always must come down to. If artificial wombs are created, we can revisit the issue. But until then, continued pregnancy requires the hijacking of a woman's body - possibly without her consent.
With due respect how incredibly sexist. I'm using very similar to women who think exactly the same way, gender has no releveance to moral reasoning.

& just as you don't have an unbreakable right to life you don't have an unbreakable right to bodily autonomy. Basic rights can and are overridden when in accordance to other commonly used moral principles.
As far as dependency.

Interesting you should raise but even if you could develop a artificial womb many of the justifications used by Liberal philosophers would mean one could still kill the foetus even if it could be passed on.

You see one justification that allows abortions says a foetus has no moral value so whether there was an artificial womb would make no difference.

& BTW that same reasoning says there is no moral reason that one is required to pass on babies for others to care either. They aren't persons and have no existential moral value.
"As far as dependency.
Interesting you should raise..."

Interesting, and you still haven't addressed/defended what I see as a flaw in your reasoning. Is there or is there not a way to remove a 3-month fetus from its mother's womb and incubate it elsewhere with zero medical risk or invasiveness to mother or fetus? If there is not, then that particular argument of yours is dead in the water.

"...but even if you could develop a artificial womb many of the justifications used by Liberal philosophers would mean one could still kill the foetus even if it could be passed on."

- In terms of your original post, are you asking us;
A) For our own views?
B) To summarize the views of public figures/groups who have weighed in on the debate?
C) For our understanding of the law as written (which country)?

- On the speculation that Liberal Philosophers (who specifically?) would still advocate terminating the fetus in the super-technology scenario I described, I disagree. Every argument I've heard in favor of choice has at its roots viability of the fetus outside the womb and/or rights of the mother to make her own decisions that affect her medically (and financially).

Develop a Star-Trek style transporter beam which will guarantee to safely and non-invasively beam the fertilized egg from my womb into that of a willing surrogate at no cost to me, and I can't think of anyone who would argue against using that in place of abortion.
David Boonin for one.

& BTW there doens't have to be zero risk, if the foetus is a worthy of equal moral consideration it has been made dependent and as compensation is owed protection until such time others can care for it.

That's the point of my other thread.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service