Any atheists against abortion rights?

[ronburgundy]

There is no rational basis for distinguishing between late-term and day 1 abortions. Both have the biology that if not prevented from completing its natural course will develop human self-awareness and thinking and become individual persons. I have far more respect for people who are against non-life-saving abortions at any stage than those who decide that some moment when an arbitrarily sufficient number of stem cells have formed into the rudiments of particular structures.

The rational argument for abortion is that, by definition, the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body. Rights belong only to person's. Nothing and no one has rights that impact another person's body. So it follows that a living thing cannot be granted full rights over itself, if it is within another's body. The mother was there first as an individual person, so she retain's her rights. The fetus acquires rights only the moment it is physically an individual person.

The birth demarcation point has direct ties to very core of the concepts of personhood and rights, whereas the early/late distinction does not.

I disagree entirely. If it is immoral to kill a child a couple of days after it is born then it is immoral to dissect it from the womb a few days before birth, and then kill it. Or kill it in the womb then dissect it, if being outside the body is the issue.

You merely prefer that demarcation point, and are question begging to get to your conclusion: "the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body." Well, that is *exactly* the point of contention in this discussion, usually.

No, I am using the easily observable scientific fact that the fetus lacks the physical property of being physically independent from the mother (IOW, its insides are only inside itself and not inside a person who has been as a matter of fact and law a individuated person.
You are trying to pretend that objective facts have no relevance and that we can just slap the word individual person on things no matter if they lack the basic properties.

 

[Copernicus]

The issue of abortion is different from a governmental perspective, because governments represent a collective of individuals with different attitudes and perspectives on what a "person" is. The Supreme Court cannot rule on how to define the ordinary sense of that word. Such a question is best left up to philosophers and other academics. For many of us, the philosophical one is the more interesting question, but people seem strongly inclined to confuse it with the legality of abortion. What the Court did in Roe v Wade was to consider the question of where the government had a stake in the well-being of an individual. That is, to declare abortion illegal, it had to come up with the concept of a civil person--the point at which the individual has civil status. Then, and then only, the question of civil rights arises. Their decision was more or less what human society had generally made a practice up until the 20th century--that viability outside of the womb was the final issue. Hence, the first two trimesters are solely the right and responsibility of the mother. Legislatures can consider issues dealing with the third trimester, but only if a civil issue (not religious) is the basis of the law.

So SCOTUS considered civil arguments--e.g. when birth certificates, death certificates, and inheritance become involved. Fetuses can be given names by parents, but those names are not official until a birth certificate is used to make them a matter of record. Destroying a fetus is not the same as destroying a civil person with civil rights. That interpretation can change, but only if legislation to change it is unchallenged or deemed constitutional by the courts.

 

[J842P]

A newborn is not a person

Many would disagree.

Person: A human being regarded as an individual.

IOW, a newborn is physically individuated, thus a person, while a fetus inside the mother is not.

Yes, but this is all entirely built on question-begging: you are simply claiming that a fetus at all stages until it is born is not an individual person, but many would disagree. There is no hard and fast biological definition of 'individual organism' (most such concepts in biology are fuzzy), and even if there were, it is not clear why that is relevant for a *moral* argument.

For example, your claim that conjoined twins are "neither one nor two people" is rather crazy to me. They are clearly two different people, that share at least some organs, practically, at least, some skeleton/skin.

 

[J842P]

There is no rational basis for distinguishing between late-term and day 1 abortions. Both have the biology that if not prevented from completing its natural course will develop human self-awareness and thinking and become individual persons. I have far more respect for people who are against non-life-saving abortions at any stage than those who decide that some moment when an arbitrarily sufficient number of stem cells have formed into the rudiments of particular structures.

The rational argument for abortion is that, by definition, the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body. Rights belong only to person's. Nothing and no one has rights that impact another person's body. So it follows that a living thing cannot be granted full rights over itself, if it is within another's body. The mother was there first as an individual person, so she retain's her rights. The fetus acquires rights only the moment it is physically an individual person.

The birth demarcation point has direct ties to very core of the concepts of personhood and rights, whereas the early/late distinction does not.

I disagree entirely. If it is immoral to kill a child a couple of days after it is born then it is immoral to dissect it from the womb a few days before birth, and then kill it. Or kill it in the womb then dissect it, if being outside the body is the issue.

You merely prefer that demarcation point, and are question begging to get to your conclusion: "the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body." Well, that is *exactly* the point of contention in this discussion, usually.

No, I am using the easily observable scientific fact that the fetus lacks the physical property of being physically independent from the mother (IOW, its insides are only inside itself and not inside a person who has been as a matter of fact and law a individuated person.
You are trying to pretend that objective facts have no relevance and that we can just slap the word individual person on things no matter if they lack the basic properties.

No, **you** are merely by fiat coming up with physical properties which you claim are necessary to consider someone an *individual*, this being exactly the point of contention, and are merely begging the question. For the record, I'm totally fine with abortion. But that doesn't mean you have actually addressed the moral issue.

 

[Elixir]

No, **you** are merely by fiat coming up with physical properties which you claim are necessary to consider someone an *individual*, this being exactly the point of contention, and are merely begging the question. For the record, I'm totally fine with abortion. But that doesn't mean you have actually addressed the moral issue.

In the absence of a more objective criterion, we would have to either confer full rights upon barely visible, non-sentient blobs of protoplasm (blastocyts), or withhold such rights until the cord is cut and the "individual" is breathing on its own.
I'm not in any way willing to confer full rights on what looks and acts exactly like a microscopic booger, let alone elevate those rights above those of "actual" persons, as the alt-godders are wont to do. So ... do you have another objective point between conception and birth that might be objectively considered the beginning of "personhood"?

 

[J842P]

No, **you** are merely by fiat coming up with physical properties which you claim are necessary to consider someone an *individual*, this being exactly the point of contention, and are merely begging the question. For the record, I'm totally fine with abortion. But that doesn't mean you have actually addressed the moral issue.

In the absence of a more objective criterion, we would have to either confer full rights upon barely visible, non-sentient blobs of protoplasm (blastocyts), or withhold such rights until the cord is cut and the "individual" is breathing on its own.
I'm not in any way willing to confer full rights on what looks and acts exactly like a microscopic booger, let alone elevate those rights above those of "actual" persons, as the alt-godders are wont to do. So ... do you have another objective point between conception and birth that might be objectively considered the beginning of "personhood"?

Well sure, I agree, that at say, day 15 of the pregnancy, that is clearly not another individual *person* (although again, defining individual life-form is a fuzzy thing). But then again, say, week 39, that is *clearly* an individual person. The interesting question is when does that status change, and perhaps more interesting, why.

Let me ask you this, would you consider someone who, for no reason related to health, decided to open an excision into their womb and slowly kill the child inside to be doing something morally neutral? I doubt it. Indeed, I think most people would consider that equivalent to murder.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In the absence of a more objective criterion, we would have to either confer full rights upon barely visible, non-sentient blobs of protoplasm (blastocyts), or withhold such rights until the cord is cut and the "individual" is breathing on its own.
I'm not in any way willing to confer full rights on what looks and acts exactly like a microscopic booger, let alone elevate those rights above those of "actual" persons, as the alt-godders are wont to do. So ... do you have another objective point between conception and birth that might be objectively considered the beginning of "personhood"?

It is an interesting question, but I find it just as hard to not care about an infant moments before birth as I find it to care about a freshly fertilized egg cell. Both extremes seem a little dogmatic to me.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think they the demarcation line should less “is it outside the mother” and more “can it survive outside the mother”. If a fetus is viable, then abortion shouldn’t be an option.

Since late term abortion just for the fuck of it isn’t actually a thing, it’s somewhat of a moot point at the moment, but as technology advances and the time at which it becomes viable becomes earlier and earlier, it could potentially become one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree entirely. If it is immoral to kill a child a couple of days after it is born then it is immoral to dissect it from the womb a few days before birth, and then kill it. Or kill it in the womb then dissect it, if being outside the body is the issue.

And who is arguing for non-medical abortions a few days before birth?

 

[steve_bank]

I think abortion should be up yo both the father and mother, not just the mother.

I am not comfortable with late term abortions.

 

[J842P]

I disagree entirely. If it is immoral to kill a child a couple of days after it is born then it is immoral to dissect it from the womb a few days before birth, and then kill it. Or kill it in the womb then dissect it, if being outside the body is the issue.

And who is arguing for non-medical abortions a few days before birth?

At least *some* people, those people who say there should never be any restrictions on abortion at all. Ever. Like I said, I find this an interesting ethical topic, and politically interesting to in that it reveals how people try to rationalize their political positions. Like I said, I'm pretty pro-abortion, and could probably even be convinced to be OK with infanticide. That depends on the argument, though.

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree entirely. If it is immoral to kill a child a couple of days after it is born then it is immoral to dissect it from the womb a few days before birth, and then kill it. Or kill it in the womb then dissect it, if being outside the body is the issue.

You merely prefer that demarcation point, and are question begging to get to your conclusion: "the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body." Well, that is *exactly* the point of contention in this discussion, usually.

No, I am using the easily observable scientific fact that the fetus lacks the physical property of being physically independent from the mother (IOW, its insides are only inside itself and not inside a person who has been as a matter of fact and law a individuated person.
You are trying to pretend that objective facts have no relevance and that we can just slap the word individual person on things no matter if they lack the basic properties.

No, **you** are merely by fiat coming up with physical properties which you claim are necessary to consider someone an *individual*, this being exactly the point of contention, and are merely begging the question. For the record, I'm totally fine with abortion. But that doesn't mean you have actually addressed the moral issue.

Actually he has. The moral issue requires a definition of what it means to be a person. And any definition of an individual or of a person is going to be by fiat unless there is unanimity.

 

[laughing dog]

I think abortion should be up yo both the father and mother, not just the mother.

I am not comfortable with late term abortions.

Then don't have one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree entirely. If it is immoral to kill a child a couple of days after it is born then it is immoral to dissect it from the womb a few days before birth, and then kill it. Or kill it in the womb then dissect it, if being outside the body is the issue.

And who is arguing for non-medical abortions a few days before birth?

At least *some* people, those people who say there should never be any restrictions on abortion at all. Ever. Like I said, I find this an interesting ethical topic, and politically interesting to in that it reveals how people try to rationalize their political positions. Like I said, I'm pretty pro-abortion, and could probably even be convinced to be OK with infanticide. That depends on the argument, though.

I think that's more a matter of being afraid of give an inch, take a mile behavior--backlash against the Republicans, not that they really favor such abortions.

 

[J842P]

Actually he has. The moral issue requires a definition of what it means to be a person. And any definition of an individual or of a person is going to be by fiat unless there is unanimity.

Well sure, that's exactly what I'm saying. It will be by fiat even in the absence of unanimity, but he is trying to pretend that there is some objective, scientific criteria that says "outside the womb" => "individual person" (a moral specification), whereas "inside the womb" => "not an individual person".

I am saying that there is no clear-cut definition of "individual organism" in biology, most phenomenon being quite fuzzy there, and even if there were some *biological* delineation, that doesn't imply anything about the moral judgement of being an "individual person". That is simply a fallacious appeal to nature.

So yes, fundamentally, we will all appeal to some moral axiom when it comes to making a moral judgement. And while these moral axioms come about more-or-less by fiat, usually, people can come to some sort of a consensus about these axioms (murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc), and then have a discussion that uses reasoning and logic built on top of those axioms to conclude that something else is acceptable or not, if we want to maintain consistency

Which, is also simply a preference - there's no real reason why our morality has to be consistent. Or to paraphrase Nietzsche:

Granted that we want consistency, why not rather inconsistency?

Plus, I don't believe for a second that this is the moral axiom that ronburgandy would actually be using. So, to reiterate, the claim is that:

The rational argument for abortion is that, by definition, the fetus is not an individual person so long as it resides inside the mother's body. Rights belong only to person's. Nothing and no one has rights that impact another person's body. So it follows that a living thing cannot be granted full rights over itself, if it is within another's body. The mother was there first as an individual person, so she retain's her rights. The fetus acquires rights only the moment it is physically an individual person.

But I doubt ronburgandy would be OK with, say, someone opening their belly and slowly torturing a fetus until it dies, say, a couple of days from birth. Clearly, then, there is something about the fetus/child that is morally important while it is still inside the womb. Unless ronburgandy really thinks the fetus/child is not an individual until it is "outside", in which case, would this not just be the equivalent of someone who engages in auto-masochism, even to the point of killing some part of themself? That may come off as deranged, but not immoral per se.

- - - Updated - - -

And who is arguing for non-medical abortions a few days before birth?

At least *some* people, those people who say there should never be any restrictions on abortion at all. Ever. Like I said, I find this an interesting ethical topic, and politically interesting to in that it reveals how people try to rationalize their political positions. Like I said, I'm pretty pro-abortion, and could probably even be convinced to be OK with infanticide. That depends on the argument, though.

I think that's more a matter of being afraid of give an inch, take a mile behavior--backlash against the Republicans, not that they really favor such abortions.

No doubt.

 

[laughing dog]

Well sure, that's exactly what I'm saying. It will be by fiat even in the absence of unanimity, but he is trying to pretend that there is some objective, scientific criteria that says "outside the womb" => "individual person" (a moral specification), whereas "inside the womb" => "not an individual person".

Being inside or outside of the womb is an objective and observable criteria regardless of one's opinion of its value as a criteria.

The fundamental issue in abortion is that there is no real consensus on
1) what constitutes a person, and
2) whose rights prevail.

People on all sides prefer their fiat definition that makes their case. It is pointless to claim that one particular definition is "by fiat" - to some degree, all of them are to the dissenters.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So yes, fundamentally, we will all appeal to some moral axiom when it comes to making a moral judgement. And while these moral axioms come about more-or-less by fiat, usually, people can come to some sort of a consensus about these axioms (murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc), and then have a discussion that uses reasoning and logic built on top of those axioms to conclude that something else is acceptable or not, if we want to maintain consistency

I don't think we generally go with axioms. If a general moral claim is made, how do you go about ascertaining whether it's true?

The usual (and a proper) way of doing it is by considering whether it holds in hypothetical scenarios. For example, you do that when you say:

But I doubt ronburgandy would be OK with, say, someone opening their belly and slowly torturing a fetus until it dies, say, a couple of days from birth. Clearly, then, there is something about the fetus/child that is morally important while it is still inside the womb.

There, you're challenging his claim about rights, in a reasonable and effective manner.

By the way, yes, something is morally important. But there are remaining questions, such as what, or how important. For example, it's also immoral to do that to, say, a dolphin or a gorilla or a dog - especially if it's one's own dog.

Which, is also simply a preference - there's no real reason why our morality has to be consistent.


Granted that we want consistency, why not rather inconsistency?

Because an inconsistent set of claims necessarily involves false claims, and when it comes to morality, usually one wants to know moral truths, not to have false moral beliefs. Granted, a person might say: "but why not have false moral beliefs?" But for that matter, they might say: "Why not have false beliefs about the age of the Earth?", or about the origin of humans, etc. I don't think that that sort of reply would be normal, or that it's a particular difficulty for morality.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Blacks were always objectively individual organisms. Whether we choose to give rights to all individuals is very different from the fact that the concept of rights cannot logically be applied if an organism is not objectively and physically individuated from another organism that has rights (i.e., the mother).

What are your thoughts on conjoined twins? Are twins joined at the hip one person or two?

At the core of rights, is the concept of the physical person and a natural limitation on rights is the boundaries between physically individuated persons. That's what allows us each to control our bodily movements, but as soon as that results in physical contact with another individual, now their right not to be hit takes precedence.

Would you be for the right to shoot homeless people who were placed in your house against their will, and who are using your electricity and eating your food? Note that abortion isn't just removing the unborn from the womb. It is the killing of the unborn.

I understand the arguments made about conscoiusness and self awareness and ability to feel pain, etc. Some of those arguments for abortion are actually pretty good. We had someone on here arguing that you should be allowed to kill newborns based on that, and while I can't agree with his position, it had some logic to it. I don't see much logic in this "not a person until independent" line of thinking though.

Incorrect on just about all levels (and your analogies have already been shown to be horrible, Pandora, is that you?)....

But I want to mostly address the part I bolded. What you say is probably true in less than 0.5% of the cases of actual abortions. We can't say for sure, though, because the meatheads who want to completely ban it have also prevent the CDC from keeping statistics.

Nearly all abortions occur while in the blastocyst stage. Those are mostly spontaneous, and happen naturally in ~50% of all pregnancies. Now, if you want to follow your 'logic', those would at least have to be tried as involuntary manslaughter. You really want to go down that road?

Secondly the tiny percent that occur after the midpoint, or even late in the 3rd trimester, are invariably due to health issues of the mother or fetus. Do you really think that all those young (imaginary, and mostly black) teens that the rightwing screams about would waffle back on forth on whether or not they wanted to keep a baby and then 1) change their minds at the last minute; and 2) find a doctor willing to do it for only that reason?

I know a few people who had late term abortions. And I'm loath to even call them that because in each case, the fetus wasn't viable, and would have either been born dead, or not survived for more than a few days, even with the best, most expensive medical technology we have available. Most importantly, these weren't just in and out happy go lucky procedures. The women (and the families, frankly) were fucking devastated. And this part's important, so pay attention: They wanted to have the baby. Now you would also have them put on trial for fucking murder? And you would dare to call them immoral?

- - - Updated - - -

I think abortion should be up yo both the father and mother, not just the mother.

I am not comfortable with late term abortions.

How would you do this exactly? Put it up for a vote?

Do you feel the same way about much less dangerous medical procedures, like vasectomies?

 

[Playball40]

And that would never happen, so why are we arguing about it. Even Roe v Wade has restrictions.

I disagree entirely. If it is immoral to kill a child a couple of days after it is born then it is immoral to dissect it from the womb a few days before birth, and then kill it. Or kill it in the womb then dissect it, if being outside the body is the issue.

And who is arguing for non-medical abortions a few days before birth?

At least *some* people, those people who say there should never be any restrictions on abortion at all. Ever. Like I said, I find this an interesting ethical topic, and politically interesting to in that it reveals how people try to rationalize their political positions. Like I said, I'm pretty pro-abortion, and could probably even be convinced to be OK with infanticide. That depends on the argument, though.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The fundamental issue in abortion is that there is no real consensus on
1) what constitutes a person, and
2) whose rights prevail.

I really don't care about personhood.

we can all agree that the 30 year old leukemia patient who wants my bone marrow is a person, but I am not forced to donate parts of my body to them, even if their 'life depends on it.'
I have autonomy over my body and the state cannot force me to give blood, donate a kidney, give half my liver, etc. Even if lives depend on it. They also cannot just draft me to use my kidneys and liver to filter blood for another person as a living dialysis or whatever machine.

Seems straightforward to me, the person who owns a womb should be able to decide if they want to share it. Wether a life depends on it or not...