ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws

Reply
Old 16th May 2019, 03:59 PM   #361
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,211
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Some "choices"!
1. carrying to term against her wishes
2. committing suicide
3. endangering her life with a botched, illegal abortion
4. endangering her future ability to have children from a botched abortion

Yep, women will really have some great options there!
Nobody claimed the choices would be considered satisfactory to her. But they are still choices.

Quote:
I wonder how you'd feel if you ever had to face an unwanted pregnancy at 12, 13, or 14 years old after being raped by daddy and then kicked out of the house when mommy doesn't believe you. Oh, wait...you'll never face that, will you? It's easy to tell others what to do and get on your moral high ground when it's all just something you'll never face.
Like I already said, a relative of mine DID face that. She WAS raped by her father. Her mother had died in a car accident, so belief wasn't relevant. She DID have an abortion. And guess what: it didn't protect her. It enabled her father to continue to rape her, for years. And it eventually drove her to suicide.

I know why people in that situation would want an abortion. But that doesn't mean it will necessarily help, at all.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:15 PM   #362
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,510
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nobody claimed the choices would be considered satisfactory to her. But they are still choices.
SATISFACTORY? These kinds of 'choices' have a name: Sophie's Choice.

Quote:
Like I already said, a relative of mine DID face that. She WAS raped by her father. Her mother had died in a car accident, so belief wasn't relevant. She DID have an abortion. And guess what: it didn't protect her. It enabled her father to continue to rape her, for years. And it eventually drove her to suicide.
A relative is not YOU. As I said, YOU will never face this.

An abortion isn't meant to PROTECT anyone from rape. And if she'd given birth to that child and given it up for adoption, do you think her father wouldn't have continued to rape her? And she would likely still have committed suicide.


Quote:
I know why people in that situation would want an abortion. But that doesn't mean it will necessarily help, at all.
But it has helped many, many girls and women. But that should be their decision, not yours or some middle aged/old men sitting in a room more concerned with getting re-elected than anything else.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:17 PM   #363
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Some "choices"!

1. carrying to term against her wishes

2. committing suicide

3. endangering her life with a botched, illegal abortion

4. endangering her future ability to have children from a botched abortion



Yep, women will really have some great options there!



I wonder how you'd feel if you ever had to face an unwanted pregnancy at 12, 13, or 14 years old after being raped by daddy and then kicked out of the house when mommy doesn't believe you. Oh, wait...you'll never face that, will you? It's easy to tell others what to do and get on your moral high ground when it's all just something you'll never face.
I count at least five options now.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:21 PM   #364
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,510
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I count at least five options now.
Now I know how Trump's advisors feel when they try to educate him on something.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:25 PM   #365
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,490
Abused 12-Year-Old Alabama Girl Doesn’t Think She Can Handle Being A Mom On Top Of Everything Else
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:27 PM   #366
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,178
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you're drowning and I try to save you, I don't get to change my mind halfway through because the physical burden is too inconvenient.
Of course you get to do that. I don't know of any public-safety advice that says you should ignore considerations of your own safety in trying to rescue someone else.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A firefighter doesn't get to opt out of carrying people from a burning building because "lol people are heavy".
Can you cite where women getting abortions are texting "lol" to their friends? Perhaps that's a literary flourish you allowed yourself.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Then there's all the idiots who think they want to breed, and then change their mind halfway through. Or who kept meaning to reverse the reversal but never get around to it, and go on having sex anyway.
So what if they're idiots?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Even in a world of condoms, easy-access birth control, and the old standby of abstinence, we still seem to need abortions of convenience on the regular. I don't think foolproof technology is going to be the right answer for solving human problems.
OK, I'll bite: what's the right answer?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:34 PM   #367
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,941
"Hey I don't care if a Woman's basic rights are taken away as long as I get my Tax cuts".
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:50 PM   #368
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
How do you prove that is what murder assumes? For many it is based on the assumed presence of a soul.
Murder
Quote:
is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse
Doesn't matter what someone assumes, if it's legal then it's not murder.

But hey, what if the 'presence of a soul' was the criteria for murder? Could be tricky since the prosecution would have to prove that the victim had one! And it would be open season on Atheists and liberals (aka Communists) since we all know they don't have souls.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:50 PM   #369
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,043
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The reasoning is not difficult. Some believe that the fact that a being will become a full-fledged person if allowed to develop naturally entails that the being deserves the rights of a person now. In fact, that's an easier position to defend than the pro-choice position, since conception is an obvious point where something big has changed.

Everyone agrees (almost everyone) that killing an infant is bad. Most agree that it is just as bad as killing a normal adult human. Almost everyone agrees that preventing a fetus from forming is not morally the same as murder (even the Catholic church, which regards contraception as wrong, does not view contraception as murder). So, at some point at or after fertilization and before birth, this lump of cells must become a thing with rights. The question is when. Conception itself is a natural choice. Other times can be selected, but it's a more difficult task to explain why it's that moment when the fetus starts to matter. (Having a heartbeat, for instance, is a pretty obviously stupid point to claim is the origin of moral considerability.)

There is the related problem that any other time is harder to pinpoint. Singer, for instance, ties moral considerability to the ability to feel pain (I'm not saying he thinks abortion is wrong once this occurs -- his position is nuanced and it's not clear to me what his views on abortion are). But it's not clear when the ability to feel pain occurs. What change occurs so that, the day before, the fetus couldn't feel pain and the day after, it can? I'm not even talking about the problem of measuring which fetuses can feel pain, since they develop at different rates, but whether there's really some specifiable time when feeling pain is suddenly a capacity or, if it develops gradually, the time at which the capacity has developed enough to matter.

So, while I don't agree with the pro-life position, I understand it fairly well and don't think it's a stupid position to take nor that pro-lifers are motivated by misogynism. (I'm sure some are, but some people are just bad people.)
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
This is obviously a question that everyone with an opinion on abortion must answer, not just the pro-life camp. Why, indeed, is the living thing before viability or birth or the second trimester or whatever okay to kill but the living thing after that not okay?

Nimble's going to have a hard time defending his admittedly speciesist position and even that doesn't really entail his position on abortion, but others need to realize that the onus isn't on him. We all share it, so long as we have an opinion.

I find the abortion question a tough nut. I tend to think that abortion is acceptable in most circumstances, but I also recognize that I don't have an argument that I find anywhere near satisfactory.
I think your posts do a great job of capturing the essence of the debate and the difficulty in determining a point at which to consider it alive.

I disregard any religious arguments because of the obvious problem with laws being predicated on religious beliefs. I'm not a fan of the argument that it counts as life at conception just because it has the potential to become a person. It still requires many steps before it becomes a person and in vitro fertilized eggs or even sperm has the same potential it just takes an extra step or two. I can understand the argument, but I don't feel it's a strong one. Pleading humans as a special case separate from animals because of self-awareness or intelligence doesn't really work for me either. It feels too similar to the religious soul argument and to various extents it can be argued that animals display self-awareness and intelligence.

Even if we don't plead a special case for humans and were to base it off of something like the ability to feel pain or self-awareness, what is the argument for why it is okay to kill animals whether for sport or food or we deem them an annoyance. Nimble, the poster I originally responded to said (paraphrase) abortions are usually killing for the sake of convenience. That's why I asked if they were vegan. Killing for sport or for food or because they are deemed an annoyance is also killing for the sake of convenience.

As you put it, the abortion question is a tough nut. It's hard to find arguments whether for or against that have consistency when applied to other facets of life. There doesn't seem to be an absolute answer as to where the line should be drawn. The pain argument makes the most sense to me. From what I've read fetuses can feel pain sometime between 8-16 weeks after conception and so after that there would be restrictions on abortions except in special cases.

Last edited by The_Animus; 16th May 2019 at 04:53 PM.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:02 PM   #370
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,211
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
An abortion isn't meant to PROTECT anyone from rape. And if she'd given birth to that child and given it up for adoption, do you think her father wouldn't have continued to rape her?
Quite possibly not. The baby would have been proof of the rape.

Quote:
But it has helped many, many girls and women. But that should be their decision, not yours or some middle aged/old men sitting in a room more concerned with getting re-elected than anything else.
It wasnít her decision. It was his.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:06 PM   #371
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,777
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
"Hey I don't care if a Woman's basic rights are taken away as long as I get my Tax cuts".
I would say that the right to life is basic.

I would say that the right to choose whether some other life continues is not basic at all, but rather complex and debatable.

And of course neither has anything to do with tax cuts. Do you have an honest argument about life and human rights?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:10 PM   #372
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,947
Wow. I'm actually adding "A 12 year old rape victim being forced to carry to term is a BAD THING" to the list of things I've managed to find people to be contrarian over.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:18 PM   #373
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
An argument based on "potential" is a weak argument. Depriving a potential person of "a future like ours" sounds like another version of the potential argument. And killing an adult or a child is wrong for reasons besides those. That's not the only reason why killing is wrong.

Forcing a woman (say a rape victim) or girl to become a single mother also deprives her of "a future like ours". You've taken away 20 years of her life. Anyone who feels so strongly about this that they would deny abortion to a rape victim or a single woman in a difficult situation should prove it by "putting their money where their mouth is" so to speak and adopting a child or two. If you're not willing to take on that burden yourself, then you have no right to impose that burden on someone else.
I don't want to defend Marquis, but I have an idea how he would respond. He actually explicitly responds to the potentiality objection you raise, but I'd just as soon skip that as a bit abstruse.

For the second, yes, certainly, the single mother has lost some of the future enjoyable experiences she otherwise would have had. The fetus (or the victim of a murder) would lose not merely some of their future like ours, but its entirety. This is worse. Hence, one cannot defend abortion on the grounds that it preserves the woman's future since the cost to the other party is much worse.

By the way, Marquis chickens out at the beginning of the article and explicitly omits pregnancy due to rape from the discussion. I think this is intellectual cowardice on his part, since his argument applies equally well to that case. If he had the courage of his convictions, he would say that abortion is wrong even in that case, seems to me.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:22 PM   #374
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,178
Leaving logic cleanly behind I find that forcing a girl/woman to carry a fetus to term is more horrifying to me than allowing women the right to end their pregnancies.

On the one hand: A right that has been legal for decades, is legal in other advanced countries, was legal under common law for hundreds of years and is not rigorously proscribed by many religions can continue to exist.

The state does not have a compelling enough case to justify such a step backward.

And not to hold the woman criminally liable? Makes no sense whatsoever. Punish the hit man, but not who ordered the hit. Horrible legislation.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:26 PM   #375
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I think your posts do a great job of capturing the essence of the debate and the difficulty in determining a point at which to consider it alive.

I disregard any religious arguments because of the obvious problem with laws being predicated on religious beliefs. I'm not a fan of the argument that it counts as life at conception just because it has the potential to become a person. It still requires many steps before it becomes a person and in vitro fertilized eggs or even sperm has the same potential it just takes an extra step or two. I can understand the argument, but I don't feel it's a strong one. Pleading humans as a special case separate from animals because of self-awareness or intelligence doesn't really work for me either. It feels too similar to the religious soul argument and to various extents it can be argued that animals display self-awareness and intelligence.

Even if we don't plead a special case for humans and were to base it off of something like the ability to feel pain or self-awareness, what is the argument for why it is okay to kill animals whether for sport or food or we deem them an annoyance. Nimble, the poster I originally responded to said (paraphrase) abortions are usually killing for the sake of convenience. That's why I asked if they were vegan. Killing for sport or for food or because they are deemed an annoyance is also killing for the sake of convenience.

As you put it, the abortion question is a tough nut. It's hard to find arguments whether for or against that have consistency when applied to other facets of life. There doesn't seem to be an absolute answer as to where the line should be drawn. The pain argument makes the most sense to me. From what I've read fetuses can feel pain sometime between 8-16 weeks after conception and so after that there would be restrictions on abortions except in special cases.
The pain argument (ability to feel pleasure and pain is called sentience in philosophical circles, a bit different than the usual definition of sentience) is famously defended by Singer. I don't know if he ever applied it explicitly to the abortion debate and he regarded the question of whether it's okay to kill animals more difficult than the question of whether it's okay to hurt them. I've read the article a few times and still find his conclusion on killing hard to pin down.

One article he wrote on this is called "All Animals Are Equal". (If it's really an excerpt rather than an article, you might not find it under that name. Let me know.) It's an easy read. The biggest annoyance is the amount of time he spends on arguing that animals can feel pain, something that seems obvious to me. Perhaps that was less widely accepted at the time he wrote that article, but I kinda find that hard to believe.

Thanks for your kind remarks.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:31 PM   #376
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
And not to hold the woman criminally liable? Makes no sense whatsoever. Punish the hit man, but not who ordered the hit. Horrible legislation.
I believe I agree. If abortion is like murder, then surely the woman ought to be prosecuted as well as the doctor, at least if it's an elective abortion of a pregnancy due to consensual intercourse and the woman was in a position to make a competent and informed decision. This inconsistency is surely motivated by political considerations.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:44 PM   #377
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,178
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I believe I agree. If abortion is like murder, then surely the woman ought to be prosecuted as well as the doctor, at least if it's an elective abortion of a pregnancy due to consensual intercourse and the woman was in a position to make a competent and informed decision. This inconsistency is surely motivated by political considerations.
It makes sense, if you posit that women do not have agency in the matter.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:04 PM   #378
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,490
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
For the second, yes, certainly, the single mother has lost some of the future enjoyable experiences she otherwise would have had. The fetus (or the victim of a murder) would lose not merely some of their future like ours, but its entirety. This is worse. Hence, one cannot defend abortion on the grounds that it preserves the woman's future since the cost to the other party is much worse.
Reducing the entire moral equation down to hypothetical possible futures ignores too many other reasons why murder is wrong. If you murder an adult human, that person is already an actual fully formed human being, not a fertilized egg that is programmed to grow into one in the future. The human being almost certainly has a family, friends, perhaps dependent children and/or colleagues, all of whom will be impacted by their loss. Nobody is going to miss that zygote in the same way or have their life altered because some person who hadn't been born yet in any case isn't born. Certainly not more than its mother.

So murder is not wrong solely because it deprives a person of "a future like ours" but for many other reasons as well that do not apply to a fetus.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:30 PM   #379
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,794
For the pro choice side...

Do you have an argument that the "abortion is murder" side hasn't heard yet? If not, why even discuss the subject with them?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:37 PM   #380
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,490
I had another thought about this:

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
A better argument is Marquis's argument . . .
The article is titled "An Argument that Abortion is Wrong".
Getting into an argument about this was probably a mistake because "whether abortion is right or wrong" isn't actually the right question to ask. At least it isn't the primary question that I'm concerned with. It's "whether abortion should be illegal or legal and under what circumstances". Even if, for the sake of argument, Marquis is correct that "Abortion is Wrong" as a metaphysical matter, the question remains as a separate legitimate question of public and social policy. Because there are other wrongs and considerations to balance it against. What is in the overall best interest of society as a whole?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:49 PM   #381
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,794
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I had another thought about this:



Getting into an argument about this was probably a mistake because "whether abortion is right or wrong" isn't actually the right question to ask. At least it isn't the primary question that I'm concerned with. It's "whether abortion should be illegal or legal and under what circumstances". Even if, for the sake of argument, Marquis is correct that "Abortion is Wrong" as a metaphysical matter, the question remains as a separate legitimate question of public and social policy. Because there are other wrongs and considerations to balance it against. What is in the overall best interest of society as a whole?
I think you have a bigger philosophical hurdle of how can you even answer the question what is in the interest of society.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 07:01 PM   #382
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,859
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Fair enough, I guess.

But I tend to see physical burdens as social burdens. If you're drowning and I try to save you, I don't get to change my mind halfway through because the physical burden is too inconvenient. A firefighter doesn't get to opt out of carrying people from a burning building because "lol people are heavy".

Anyway, if your criteria is "sharing the body", does that mean you would allow abortions of convenience up until the moment of birth?


Technological advance and social safety net don't seem to be well correlated in fact or fiction. The Soviet Union was plenty advanced, with nuclear power plants, probes to other planets, supersonic aircraft, space stations, computers, etc. But their social services were pretty bad even by the standards of the day.

The Klingons have warp drives, teleporters, and cloaking devices. But are their social services up to your humanitarian standards?



Well. If you don't make it mandatory, you'll have conscientious objectors who opt-out. Hell, even if you do make it mandatory, you'll still have people opting out. Look how well that works with vaccination and home schooling.

Then there's all the idiots who think they want to breed, and then change their mind halfway through. Or who kept meaning to reverse the reversal but never get around to it, and go on having sex anyway. Even in a world of condoms, easy-access birth control, and the old standby of abstinence, we still seem to need abortions of convenience on the regular. I don't think foolproof technology is going to be the right answer for solving human problems.
Analogies, huh.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 07:18 PM   #383
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,490
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I think you have a bigger philosophical hurdle of how can you even answer the question what is in the interest of society.
I'm a consequentialist and a utilitarian.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 07:25 PM   #384
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,794
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I'm a consequentialist and a utilitarian.
The issue is the measuring.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 08:23 PM   #385
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Reducing the entire moral equation down to hypothetical possible futures ignores too many other reasons why murder is wrong. If you murder an adult human, that person is already an actual fully formed human being, not a fertilized egg that is programmed to grow into one in the future. The human being almost certainly has a family, friends, perhaps dependent children and/or colleagues, all of whom will be impacted by their loss. Nobody is going to miss that zygote in the same way or have their life altered because some person who hadn't been born yet in any case isn't born. Certainly not more than its mother.

So murder is not wrong solely because it deprives a person of "a future like ours" but for many other reasons as well that do not apply to a fetus.
Sure, but blame my presentation, not Marquis's writing. He makes clear that murder is wrong for many reasons, but the primary victim is clearly the person murdered, not his loved ones, and the primary reason is the loss of a future like ours.

Abortion doesn't share all the factors that make murder wrong, but it shares the most significant factor. At least that's Marquis's argument.

If you're concerned that I'm not accurately conveying Marquis's argument clearly enough (and honestly, you probably should be), I can email you a scan of his article. It's a brief read. Of course, if not, that's fine too.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 08:30 PM   #386
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I had another thought about this:



Getting into an argument about this was probably a mistake because "whether abortion is right or wrong" isn't actually the right question to ask. At least it isn't the primary question that I'm concerned with. It's "whether abortion should be illegal or legal and under what circumstances". Even if, for the sake of argument, Marquis is correct that "Abortion is Wrong" as a metaphysical matter, the question remains as a separate legitimate question of public and social policy. Because there are other wrongs and considerations to balance it against. What is in the overall best interest of society as a whole?
I think that if abortion is just as bad as murder, then abortion ought to be illegal. If somehow we determined that making murder legal would reduce murder rates and make it safer for killers (don't ask how, I got no story for that), it would still be the wrong public policy. There is simply something wrong about saying that the state regards murder as acceptable, since legalized murder provides benefits lacking in illegal murder.

Now, it's a silly hypothetical, but I hope you get my point. The failure to recognize fundamental human rights as essential is, first, wrong morally speaking and, second, probably produces strongly negative effects that are hard to predict.

Back to abortion, those who think that abortion is like murder would say that legalizing abortion is dehumanizing, leading to generations who fail to value human life in an appropriate way and, yes, of course, wrong.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 08:33 PM   #387
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I'm a consequentialist and a utilitarian.
Ah, that explains your previous post.

Well, if you take a utilitarian view, the whole discussion of moral rights is pretty difficult to take seriously. They don't particularly fit into your moral theory. And, of course, in that case, the only question that matters is the one you just asked: what is the outcome of legalized abortion compared to illegal abortion?

Hard question to answer, obviously, but I'd think a plausible case could be made that legalized abortion would produce a better outcome than the alternative.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 08:56 PM   #388
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,197
Alabama lawmakers explicitly don't worry about IVF.
Why would a fertilized egg in the lab not count, but a just fertilized one in the womb does?
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 09:26 PM   #389
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,305
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Wow. I'm actually adding "A 12 year old rape victim being forced to carry to term is a BAD THING" to the list of things I've managed to find people to be contrarian over.
Yeah, this is insane.

I don't know what to say to that. Or actually I do, but I don't wanna get banned.
__________________
Gone fishing
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 10:09 PM   #390
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,325
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I would say that the right to life is basic.

I would say that the right to choose whether some other life continues is not basic at all, but rather complex and debatable.
I would say that both the right to life and the right to autonomy over one's own body are both pretty basic. When the two come into conflict I can see why reasonable people can end up disagreeing.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 10:23 PM   #391
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,984
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You are ignoring the problem: the word, 'vast'.

A small majority supports making abortion illegal, not a vast majority. And the larger the population polled, i.e. the country instead of the states passing these laws, the majority supports pro-choice laws.
Looks like a feature of the federal system to me. States which want to ban abortions can do so (subject to those laws being ratified by SCOTUS - something that appears more likely right now), those which want the right to choice can have it.

There are some things where the country has decided that a certain right is fundamental enough to be determined at a national level. The civil rights and womens rights movements over the last 60 years or so have expanded that list. It seems that the backlash against it, the election of Trump is a symptom of this, is trying put some or all of those rights back in play.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 10:36 PM   #392
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,325
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I always have to bring this up in this topic.

Abortion rates have been dropping like a rock in the last few decades. After Roe V Wade in 1973 there was about a decade long uptick in abortions but then from the early to mid-80s to now basically that rate has been steadily falling to the point that there are fewer abortions being performed now then before Roe V Wade.

And since the good old United States likes being the statistical outlier in a lot of things both good and bad, this isn't some fluke. Worldwide that trend holds.

The country with the most abortions per X number of women per child bearing age? Pakistan. The one with the least? Switzerland.

If you actually care about there being fewer abortions, make them legal. The only difference is the legal ones are safer.

We've traded a lot of dangerous, illegal abortions for fewer overall abortions and safer abortions. Who's not winning in this scenario?
This really needs to be emphasised more.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 11:36 PM   #393
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,898
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Looks like a feature of the federal system to me. States which want to ban abortions can do so (subject to those laws being ratified by SCOTUS - something that appears more likely right now), those which want the right to choice can have it.

There are some things where the country has decided that a certain right is fundamental enough to be determined at a national level. The civil rights and womens rights movements over the last 60 years or so have expanded that list. It seems that the backlash against it, the election of Trump is a symptom of this, is trying put some or all of those rights back in play.
'States' want to control abortion laws in the country. If you think all they want is states' rights to have their little religious islands amongst the bigger sinful country, you don't have your eyes open. This isn't about states' rights. This is about religious extremists and the people promoting them because they are one issue voters who will vote for their right wing policies.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 11:42 PM   #394
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 777
This whole matter of the morality of abortion, I fear, will ever remain an intractable problem. Simply because it involves the clash in rights of a fully developed human carrying inside her an absolutely dependent, developing human-to-be. In such a conundrum, I lean toward the woman herself as the most competent authority on what is best for her (along with her doctor.)

As a man, I get really steamed by other men moralizing against women on matters completely outside their own direct experience. It's bad enough when some women engage thus. But men, please; STFU.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 12:00 AM   #395
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,178
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Alabama lawmakers explicitly don't worry about IVF.
Why would a fertilized egg in the lab not count, but a just fertilized one in the womb does?
Because it's not in a pregnant woman. There's some who think test-tube babies don't count because God said (paraphrase) I knew you in your mother's womb. So fertilized eggs are not yet in their mother's womb.

There's also a verse about the damages a man can claim if someone causes his wife to miscarry. It's a financial penalty. Not life in prison.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 12:27 AM   #396
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,490
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If we take it off the table, how should one settle whether abortion is permissible? One still needs some argument about what feature is relevant for having a right to life. Rejection of this particular pro-life argument doesn't entail that abortion is okay. It leaves the question unsettled.
Then perhaps if the question is unsettled, the government should not impose a particular view on everyone, and leave it to the conscience of the person who will have to live with the consequences.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 12:39 AM   #397
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,782
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I always have to bring this up in this topic.

Abortion rates have been dropping like a rock in the last few decades. After Roe V Wade in 1973 there was about a decade long uptick in abortions but then from the early to mid-80s to now basically that rate has been steadily falling to the point that there are fewer abortions being performed now then before Roe V Wade.

And since the good old United States likes being the statistical outlier in a lot of things both good and bad, this isn't some fluke. Worldwide that trend holds.

The country with the most abortions per X number of women per child bearing age? Pakistan. The one with the least? Switzerland.

If you actually care about there being fewer abortions, make them legal. The only difference is the legal ones are safer.

We've traded a lot of dangerous, illegal abortions for fewer overall abortions and safer abortions. Who's not winning in this scenario?
The people not winning are the same people pushing to make abortions illegal. It's evangelical men who are used to be in charge over women, and who feel that their God gave them the role as the leader of the household. They think women who end up pregnant outside of wedlock are sluts that ought to be punished, and that having an abortion while married is an affront to God who told them to procreate.

They are simultaneously worried about being outbred by "inferior races" which would result in whites being in the minority.

In short, the losers in your scenario are white supremacist Christian men.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 12:58 AM   #398
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,518
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If you actually care about there being fewer abortions, make them legal.
I'm trying hard to figure out how that could possibly be true; it seems to me like you are just using post hoc reasoning.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 01:04 AM   #399
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,325
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Then perhaps if the question is unsettled, the government should not impose a particular view on everyone, and leave it to the conscience of the person who will have to live with the consequences.
I think he was saying that that one argument doesn't settle the issue, not that it isn't settled by other arguments.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 01:04 AM   #400
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,782
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I'm trying hard to figure out how that could possibly be true; it seems to me like you are just using post hoc reasoning.
It's based on historical data, which has already been explained.

Hand in hand with legal abortions go better sexual education and less stigma for the use of contraceptics. All of this has been shown to be related.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.