I agree with what you say, but it's just hard for me to rationalize that abstinence is the only option you get if you don't want to have a baby. Neither condoms nor birth control are 100% effective and while using both at the same time makes you're chance of getting pregnant minuscule, it can still happen.
Some napkin calculations I found online say that sex happens 120 million times a day, so if the chances of getting pregnant using two forms of contraceptive are one in a million, and everyone's using them, are those 120 people daily just shit out of luck?
I'm not trying to argue either, it's definitely a very difficult issue and relatively impossible to have a fully convincing argument.
The prolifer response is, "those 120 people a day are just shit out of luck, because them getting unlucky doesn't justify the murder of another human being.
The whole partisan and religious debate here (in the US, not reddit specifically) is absurd to me. It's an incredibly simple question with an incredibly complex, and arguably unknowable, answer: is a fetus a "human life"?
If you believe yes, then obviously it would be wrong to kill that autonomous human life just because you don't want to birth it. If you believe no, then an abortion is no more ethically wrong than liposuction. But they're just that: beliefs. There is no conclusive answer so far; I know reddit likes to shit on the pro-life crowd, but even though I'm not one of them, I see where they're coming from.
Well, there is a conclusive answer to it. Biology will tell you that a fetus is a living human organism. Anyone who denies it being a human life is simply incorrect. The true argument is not a scientific one, but an ethical one for when that life should be granted protections.
I feel like you’re being pedantic. A fetus is obviously alive; so is the tree outside and a wad of sperm in a tissue. The question is at what point is it considered a living human being.
From the moment of conception, it is a new, living human organism. That's basic developmental biology and isn't a question that's still out there waiting for an answer. Sperm is different in that it's a haploid gamete - more like part of an organism rather than being its own organism.
This is a philosophical and ethical debate. The science behind it is known, and it will be a much more productive debate once everyone finally accepts it and begins their positions from this common point of understanding.
But is it a human in the same way a tadpole is a frog? They are obviously two different things with one becoming the other. Does a human grow a soul like a tadpole grows legs?
But using that line of reasoning, would it be ethical to pull the plug on any given person who is in a coma of some sort just because they don’t have the amount of brain activity that a conscious person would?
I understand the pro choice argument, I used to be pro choice myself (I wouldn’t really call myself pro life, but I do find it to be unethical because it is preventable in most cases and this is coming from an atheist point of view) but this entire argument doesn’t really have a right or wrong answer. It just depends on whether or not you acknowledge or believe that a fetus is a human being. It’s a difficult topic and I think both sides have extremely loud minorities screaming really terrible arguments. (Not referring to you)
But using that line of reasoning, would it be ethical to pull the plug on any given person who is in a coma of some sort just because they don’t have the amount of brain activity that a conscious person would?
A coma? No. Braindeath? Yeah, sure. They're dead. Their soul/spirit/mind/personality is gone. They have died but their body is being kept animate.
Yeah. Personally I think that even if there's no brain activity that there's a point of responsibility. If you stand in the rain, you'll get wet and I don't think it's fair to renege on the consequences of our actions except in exceptional circumstances - and even then we have to weigh the thing we're being free of - both presently and potentially.
If I'm being honest, it's a question of how much are we willing to compromise ethics for what makes life easier and more convenient. If it wasn't so inconvenient to have a baby when you decide you don't want one, you wouldn't have an abortion. If we had state apparatus to care for them, etc.
Everyone knows its wrong, deep down. It's just a question of how much do we gain from sticking to the strictest ethical law over just telling ourselves it's okay and we don't even need to be upset, it's not even a person! Same self-reassuring argument used by humans to justify murders since the dawn of time.
It all comes down to us looking left and right and asking society "are you really going to make me do this thing? It means you'll have to do it too if you draw the short straw", and no one wants to just decide the part of ourselves we're selling to purchase this convenient out just isn't worth it.
I strongly disagree with your statement that everybody deep down knows that abortion is wrong. I am one of many people that honestly doesn't view abortion as wrong for whatever reason not on the surface and also not deep down. You have to acknowledge that not everyone is sharing your feelings on this.
If I said "we should do way more abortions. Abort more babies, don't even bother with contraception, we'll just abort them. We need to be aborting far more than we currently are".
That statement is obviously hyperbolic, but it highlights the gut reaction of disgust that is often too soft to notice when dealing with the tired normal argument. If abortion is just like getting a mole removed, why not ramp it up? Be proud of your abortions.
It's ridiculous because people understand somewhere below the practiced convincing that its a practice we'd rather not need to do. Why would we rather not do more abortions? Why is something totally okay to do, but also we recoil at the notion of doing it far more often?
It's also unethical to force someone to carry an unwanted baby to term.
It's not like the only unethical part here is a baby that could have been born not being born.
There's also the ethical complication of the total life if the child if carried to term - there's only so much economical space for a parent to have a child, and few have more than 3. That unwanted child is in a very real sense taking one of the 1-3 spots that a wanted child could be in.
I view that statement as a misplaced starting line, one that cannot be reasonably held. What is unethical is getting yourself into the position of being pregnant when you can't handle a possible consequence of it. If you can't have a baby, dont have sex. "But it's fun" "but it's my right to do what I want with my life" "it's my body" are absurd arguments that amount to a more sophisticated "but I waaaant it!".
The default position is not "I'm pregnant, I now have to decide whether or not to kill my child or have it", the choice is made already at that point. When you have sex, you have already accepted the risk that your life may change drastically. That is when the choice is made. Not after the dice have landed. That's not choosing something anymore, it's killing another person you decided to take a chance on creating because you don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions. It is childish in the worst possible sense.
I can't stress this enough: your position is not ethical. You are beginning the process at an incorrect starting point. Many people want to do this because sex is fun, really fun, and they want to do it without needing to accept the weight of life's most heavy responsibility.
It is nothing less than the avoidance of responsibility. It's wanting your cake and eating it too. You do not get to kill a person because you have lost the gamble you were playing. You do not get to take your chips back if you bet on black but it comes up red, you just lose your money.
You have rights to your body, absolutely. You get to choose whether or not to have sex.
You do not have rights to another person's body, whether or not they live or die based on your convenience.
I don't get to invite a dude onto my boat and then decide once we're in the middle of the ocean that he's way more annoying than I thought he'd be, and he can't ride on it anymore. It's my boat, but I am killing him by kicking him off. I decided back at the docks whether or not I was going to have to share my boat with someone for the whole voyage. If I wasnt prepared to go the whole trip, I shouldn't have opened my boat for business. He gets off at the port, and I can decide to never see him again. But I cannot kill him because I got unlucky with a bad passenger and want out.
A tiny correction. Even if the fetus is a life, that wouldn't make it wrong to kill it. We end lives all the time for various reasons. I swat bugs. I buy ham at the supermarket.
The real argument is whether or not the fetus is a person, and that's a much harder question to answer.
The question is even slightly more subtle. For many pro-lifers the issue is not whether or not the fetus is a person, but whether or not the fetus has the potential to be a person. For instance, some pro-lifers that I have met think it is okay to let a brain dead person on life support die, because they have permanently lost their personhood. In contrast, while a fetus may not be a person at a certain stage of development(no brain activity), it would still have the ability to become a person if given the chance to develop.
We also provide justifiable reasons to kill a person. So I don't think that answers anything either way. Is abortion similar to murder or justifiable homicide (self-defense, for example).
Excellent points and this is the central question avoided by arguments!
When is it a human? At some point we all agree. A new born baby, even a 26 week premature baby on life support in NICU, is a human and if I shoot it with a gun, it’s murder.
If I shot a pile of sperm with a gun, I’d be strange but no one would consider it murder.
At what point does a group of cells change into a human and have those rights?
Exiting a woman’s body isn’t a satisfying answer since nothing changes about the person before and after it traverses a vagina. Humanity should be central to the human - not the ‘life support’ system it’s connected to.
And it’s too important a question to allow individuals to decide. You believe it’s not a human so it’s ok to end it? We don’t allow that for any other definition.
It’s a decision that we as a society should decide but, I believe, find too difficult and controversial to make. It’s emotional, filled with consequence, and difficult.
Thanks for your comments.
Wanted to correct something - sperm doesn't form humans - they have half the DNA to. Fertilized eggs do and they're different.
Tagging u/Murmaider_OP and u/Akucera since they're on the topic as well. There's actually a refreshingly easy answer to "when does life begin" (at least, relatively easy).
We know when life ends (almost exactly) - when your brain stops doing things (at least, in all but the most basic things - you can be a vegetable and braindead).
If we apply this same standard, then we see that personhood should begin when the fetus has brain activity that isn't totally base-level (like heartbeat and breathing). This occurs at about 18 weeks. But most importantly... it can actually be measured.
There is a closed-form answer: scan the fetus's brain. If there is activity, it's a burden that it would be murder to remove. If there isn't, then it isn't murder.
I'm a Christian. My conscience makes me fall on the pro-life side of this debate. For that reason, I'd like you to stop reading this comment because it's going to make a decent argument for pro-choice.
Damnit, you kept reading. See, the thing is, I'm also a Neuroscience major, and I want to correct something you've said.
There is a closed-form answer: scan the fetus's brain. If there is activity, it's a burden that it would be murder to remove. If there isn't, then it isn't murder.
I'll run you through some background real quick:
Up to 12 - 14 days after conception, the embryo can spontaneously split in two (or more) and create identical twins. We cannot define 'life' to begin before 12-14 days, because if that were the case, then it would be possible for one life to split into two lives. The embryo can only be said to be 'alive' at some point after this 12 - 14 day window.
By the 18th week of pregnancy the fetus has a precursor to the brain.
At 14 - 16 weeks of pregnancy the fetus can react to external stimuli...
But its reactions are reflexive and aren't driven by any higher-order neural functions. At week 20, the thalamus is formed. The thalamus is a deep region of the brain that relays information from the sensory systems to higher, more complicated regions of the brain. Perhaps the fetus is truly 'alive' once it's thalamus is formed?
At week 25 we can detect regular EEG activity in the brain. Before 25 weeks the brain's activity isn't sustained or coordinated, afterward there is sustained neural activity that appears similar to that of your brain or mine.
Here's the thing, though - who cares if the fetus is alive? We kill living things all the time. As I've said above, I've killed flies. I've killed spiders. I shot a rabbit once. I buy ham and chicken and beef (which isn't actually killing those animals but it's certainly providing an economic incentive for others to kill those animals for me). How come it's okay for me to end those lives? If we'd scanned that rabbit's brain, we'd have found activity. If we scanned the brains of the pigs and chickens and cows I've eaten, we'd find activity there, too. Merely having neural activity in a brain cannot be the defining factor of "humanity" or "personhood" by which we draw the line between meat and murder. So I think you're incorrect when you say, "scan the fetus's brain - if there's activity, it's murder."
No, there's something special about the activity of our brains that isn't present in the brains of other animals.
Is it intelligence? A spider isn't intelligent. Perhaps that's why it's okay for me to kill spiders.
No; pigs are remarkably intelligent and it's okay for us to kill them.
Is it the possession of emotions? A spider hasn't got emotions. Perhaps that's why it's okay for me to kill spiders.
No; pigs have emotions, too.
Maybe it's the sense of self-consciousness; the ability to look at oneself in the mirror and recognize it-
No; pigs can do that, too. So can dogs, if you alter the test to focus more on recognizing one's scent than one's image (dogs are driven more by scent than sight, so it's not fair to evaluate their behavioral complexity by sight than by scent).
Perhaps it is the ability to solve complex problems - if something can do that, then its brain is complex enough to be protected-
No; crows and octopi (and to an extent, pigs!) can solve complex problems.
Perhaps the only distinguishing factor between us and the other animals is the richness of our experience compared to theirs. Humans have intelligence, emotion, self-consciousness, can solve complex problems, think about each other, make complex plans for the future, and sit on Reddit at 9:55 pm contemplating the mysteries of what makes us human. No animal has done the same*.
...but if that's what makes us human - if it's the richness of our experience of life - then surely fetuses aren't human. In fact, even newborn babies don't possess the richness of our experience of life. Infants only recognize their own reflection after 20 months. They don't seem to be able to solve complex problems. They certainly don't make long term plans, think about other humans, or sit on Reddit contemplating the mysteries of what makes them human. They giggle, throw tantrums, don't go to sleep when they should, and soil their diapers. By that metric, even newborn babies aren't properly human.
Merely having neural activity in a brain cannot be the defining factor of "humanity" or "personhood" by which we draw the line between meat and murder. So I think you're incorrect when you say, "scan the fetus's brain - if there's activity, it's murder."
Very well, I had left off the implicit part but...
Killing a human organism with activity in a human brain would be murder. Because you can really only murder people. If we get hung up on the word murder, then let us say "end a life".
I have read that brain waves can start as early as the 18th week; we don't really need a number since this is a thing that can be measured anyway.
It's really about consistency. If we say that a human is dead because they don't have brain waves anymore, then should we not also say that a human has a life when they begin having brain waves?
Once again, please don't read this comment. I don't like strengthening the pro-life argument.
should we not also say that a human has a life when they begin having brain waves?
I agree with you here. A human has a life when they begin having brain waves. That's a good definition, consistent with the fact that we say that humans are dead when they stop having brainwaves. From there, we could say that because murder is defined as the killing of a living human being, then killing a fetus with brainwaves is murder.
But I don't really care about what we call the act of killing a fetus that possesses brainwaves. Sure, we call it murder, but what I'm interested in is, "is the act of killing a fetus that possesses brainwaves, unethical?" Sure, you could respond with "yes, because murder is unethical!", to which my response would be, "but why? What makes murder unethical?"
Merely ending a life is not unethical. I've given examples above of many times we end lives without thinking twice. No, there's something special about human lives in particular that make them special; that makes ending them abhorrent.
So what's so special about human lives? If we can isolate what makes human lives special, then we can understand why ending them is so sad. We might also find cases where something is genetically human, but doesn't possess that "specialness" that human lives usually possess, and in such a case, surely ending the life of that thing would not be as bad as ending an ordinary human life.
The fact that human lives are lived by things that are genetically human doesn't make human lives "special". A braindead human is living a life that isn't "special" enough for us to get worked up about pulling the plug on them, yet they're genetically human. From this, we know that it's not our chromosomes or our bodies that really make our lives important and worth protecting.
Orangutans are living lives that are "special". They've been recognized as persons in a court of law. They are self aware, conscious, sentient, and capable of emotion and reasoning. Yet they're not genetically human.
Hypothetically, a supercomputer could simulate the action of every neuron in a human brain. That supercomputer would be living a life that is "special". It would be self aware, conscious, sentient, and capable of emotion and reasoning. Yet it wouldn't be genetically human.
What's so special about human lives? I think the answer is that, "human lives are special, because most humans live lives with self awareness, consciousness, sentience; with emotion and reasoning; and to a depth and fullness that most other living organisms do not." That's what makes human lives special, not the fact that human lives are being lived by something with human chromosomes or with a human body.
The implication of this is that the life of a fetus is not yet "special". A fetus does not live a life with self awareness, consciousness, sentience, emotions or reasoning, nor does it live a life to a depth and fullness surpassing most other organisms. If we compare the life of a fetus to that of an Orangutan or our hypothetical supercomputer, it's clear to see that the fetus's life is actually less "special" than that of the Orangutan or the supercomputer. Thus, killing a fetus would not end a life possessing that "special" quality that's worth protecting. It wouldn't be abhorrent in the same way as murder normally is.
Sorry for taking so long to say that, but I wanted to be clear about my thought process.
I really appreciate your arguments. This thread has been surprisingly refreshing, however, I wanted to jump in and point out that we as a society have made a decision, it's most commonly referred to as Roe v. Wade.
The process of sexual reproduction completes when the gametes of the parents fuse, resulting in a new individual human organism.
There is no real controversy over whether the unborn is alive, or whether it is a human being. (On the street level, sure, but not on the scientific or philosophical level) The question isn't even whether these living human beings should be treated as persons under the law. They already are in cases of fetal homicide. The questions is whether it's right to make an exception and treat them as legal non-persons when the mother wants the unborn killed.
. If I shot a pile of sperm with a gun, I’d be strange but no one would consider it murder. At what point does a group of cells change into a human and have those rights?
What gives you the right to own your body in the first place? It stems from property rights. You own your body because you grow your body and take care of it. Thus it is yours. Because of this, I view life to be human and of value when it is reproducing; i.e. cell division/mitosis. The life is actively attempting to grow. And left to grow will form into a human life (assuming all things go well of course).
Hmm. I think the term 'person' is actually more appropriate here than 'human' (but I'm willing to be argued otherwise). We take braindead humans off life support. It's ethical to do so because those humans aren't persons anymore. They're human, yes - genetically, structurally, and by appearance - but the thing that makes them special, their personhood, is missing.
Additionally, an Orangutan has been granted the status of a 'non-human person' by an Argentinian court. The Orangutan isn't a human, obviously, but they were ruled to be a person because they were sentient and intelligent enough to understand that they lived in a zoo. Because of this, the Orangutan was given special rights and privileges to not be harmed or treated poorly. I imagine you and I would think it unethical to kill this Orangutan - not because they're human, but because the Orangutan is a person, and killing it would be murder.
Given that it's ethical to take humans off life support, and given that we would be disgusted by anyone who killed (without good reason) the Orangutan I mentioned above, I'd say that the thing that determines if an action is immoral or not is whether or not it ends a person's life, not a human's life.
If I understand you, you believe that rights belong to persons, not to humans. As evidence, you point to non-personal humans which don't have rights and non-human persons which do have rights. Is this correct?
I would suggest you find a better example for the non-personal human part of the argument, since humans who are obviously persons are regularly not given or removed from life-support as well. End of life care is an ethical battlefield itself, so it's probably not useful to try and clarify one controversial issue by appealing to another that is equally controversial.
This is a very simple way to think about it that doesn't adress all the other issues with it. The benefits of abortion are undeniable if we are beeing honest. It doesn't boil down to wether or not it is a human lifeform.
If you really don't want to argue with a pro-lifer about abortion anymore, go ahead and immediately change the subject over to police brutality, the prison industry, private armies, capital punishment, etc. If you're lucky, you'll get to see the look in their eyes as they change gears from demanding all fetuses be born to rationalizing the murder of innocent adults.
Almost universally in America, conservatives aren't pro life. They're pro birth. It's easier to scream obscenities at pregnant women than it is to protest the justice system, and doing the former assuages their guilt over not doing the latter.
Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean any argument they make is invalid. There are others who have consistent beliefs on human life who argue against abortion, even if you don't hear much about them.
Right. Dismissing an argument because the person doesn't follow their own logic consistently is just an ad hominem attack. It doesn't tell you whether the argument itself is valid or not.
If you can't win the pro-life/pro-choice argument without changing the subject, then perhaps you're on the wrong side of the argument?
If you're on the right side of the pro-life/pro-choice argument, you should be able to win it without baiting your opponents into ranting about police brutality, the prison industry, etc. To go after your opponents' other beliefs fails to address the argument they've got for their stance on pro-life/pro-choice, and that's ad hominem. If you can't win an argument without resorting to ad hominem you're probably not in the right.
Prolifer here, that's pretty much it. This whole shit is about body autonomy but what do you do when there are two bodies in one? Does one not get a choice at whether they live or die? Face it, we aren't dealing with 120 unlucky people, were dealing with people who were irresponsible and now don't want the responsibilty it a child. Also, adoption is a thing.
There’s tons of grey area though. Rape? Complications? You can’t say well “if you get unlucky fuck you enjoy possibly dying giving birth to an unplanned baby. Enjoy either crippling depression post birth or a life of poverty as you struggle to make ends meat as a single mom at 18”
If you hold all life sacred in a religious or moral sense then a baby induced by rape is equal to a planned baby born to a king. Few people hold this point of view.
Most pro lifers are also comfortable with abortion when the mothers life is at risk but this is also a contradiction, as day one the baby is 100% equal in rights to the mother and if the baby will live we should always let the mother die so it can survive. After all it’s not the baby’s fault the mother was gang raped right? Cause fuck her right?
Most pro lifers are also comfortable with abortion when the mothers life is at risk but this is also a contradiction, as day one the baby is 100% equal in rights to the mother and if the baby will live we should always let the mother die so it can survive.
Is that really a contradiction though?
If the mother would have a high chance of dying during child birth not only would the net gain of life be 0, you'd also damn a baby to grow up without their mother.
Other than the pro-life extremists I don't think there are many who'd be against an abortion in a life-threatening pregnancy.
And whenever I see those posts pop up it annoys the fuck out of me that people are only discussing the extremes (rape, complications on one hand vs. restricting late term abortions on the other) and making it out as if there's a substantial amount of people disagreeing with them.
In my humble opinion, things like this have to be weighed just like many other things in life. When you are accused of a crime you get the opportunity to go to trial to defend yourself, while the prosecution gets the opportunity to try to convict you. Things shouldn't be so black and white when it comes to taking the life of a child either. Certain situations warrant action, like the life of the mother should be priority because she's the one giving birth. If the mother is at risk, or was raped, I can agree that those circumstances justify an abortion. However, having unprotected sex regularly while knowing what the outcome could be, and thinking you can abort any mistake you make is insane. We should not be able to prevent a life from growing because of that.
I don't think anyone's pushing for abortion to become the new contraception. I don't know exactly what the procedure entails but from what I understand it's a lot more invasive than using a condom. It's maybe worth giving people a little more credit — I certainly don't know anyone irresponsible enough to rely on nothing but abortion as a method of contraception.
And say, for the sake.of argument, that there is a couple who has regular unprotected sex hoping against all hope for the woman not to get pregnant. I claim this is either irresponsible or must be done out of some grest financial need.* In either case, this doesn't sound to me like a couple able to fully provide for a child, physically or psychologically. Irresponsible parents raise delinquent children. Parents too poor to afford contraception certainly can't afford the thousands of little costs of a child, even though they may care for it deeply. Would it be much of a life this child would live? especially if it is never wanted?
A child is an unending investment of time, attention, money, mental space, affection and care. I firmly believe children should only be had by people ready and willing to make this investment. How can the child turn out well if its parents don't want it?
You do agree, however, that abortion should be legal, and perfectly licit under certain conditions. Given the circumstances you agree would justify an abortion, it seems to me that you would appreciate a check on people seeking abortions. Perhaps a miniature trial. I personally think this would discourage people in need from benefitting from abortions: what if you do not have sufficient evidence? what if you've been raped, and you know you've been raped, but don't at that moment wish or dare to out the perpetrator? are you to live with the consequences of the act simply because you could not carry the burden of evidence?
The crux of my argument is the belief that fewer people will fall through the net, and with lighter consequences, if abortion is relatively freely available to all than if it is illegal. In the first case, the system fails in cases like your example or if someone is coerced into having an abortion. In the second case, people who are unable to provide for a child, who do not want one, who have been unlucky (condom failure, forgot to take one pill, . . .) or who have had the pregnancy forced upon them will all ne punished. That is what illegality entails: punishment.
I think it is much more humane to provide for these people, and try to avoid cases of abuse of the system (some quantity of which is just to be expected in any humanitarian scheme) and minimise cases of coersion to abort.† Illegality is much too harsh and black-and-white to accurately reflect the delicacy of the situation, and it is much less damaging to allow a small number of irresponsible people to abuse the system then it is to hold a larger number of victims of circumstance to pregnancy and the care of a child, with all the risks and investments that entails.
* Unless you have any other ideas?
† Perhaps by having a medical aide take the patient aside for a moment and ask whether this is what she really wants.
The odds of dying during birth in the first world are very very low...rape, complications, and medical issues account for an extremely low percentage of abortions. Like less than 3% if I’m remembering correctly. The vast, vast majority of abortions are performed on women who did not plan for the pregnancy and were not on birth control. Also, like the person above you said, adoption is a thing. Women can also develop depression after having an abortion so the depression argument isn’t a very convincing one either.
Using gang rape to argue for abortions is not a very good argument because it is such a small minority. And most pro life people that I know would argue that in the case of rape or medical necessity, it is a catch 22 and a “necessary evil”. Around 97% of abortions have nothing to do with this though.
I feel like your wording and language were unnecessarily crude and accusatory toward the original comment. Nobody is saying “fuck all these women who were gang raped” so stop being silly.
The United States has the highest maternal death rate in the first world. It isn't something to shudder at. Many women die every year during child birth, leaving behind their loved ones.
Thanks for laying out your argument in a non intrusive and non emotional way. It really is appreciated.
I think if I were to make an argument against what you said, it would be that, yes, there is an option. If safe sex yields a child, then there are programs that will take that child if you are incapable. People will argue that these programs will torment their child or cause it to have a bad life, but my opinion is that if you care that much for the baby that you would rather kill, then your priorities and mindset are skewed
Adoption is a great resource, but giving birth to a baby is no picnic. Pregnancy will permanently alter your body and comes with many physical and mental complications, as well as outside problems like the inability to work. It's a lot of money to be pregnant as well, with prenatal care and hospital bills to provide for. This just isn't feasible for some people, yet the only way to avoid accidental pregnancy is complete abstinence from the opposite sex. Not even mentioning those who become pregnant as the result of assault. It's a nice notion that adoption is a universal solution, but just not realistic in practice.
Prolifers (generally) get that pregnancy is hard. But to them, it being hard is not an excuse to end a human life/fetus so this argument doesn’t really enter their equation, yet it is often one of pro-choice’s first arguments. hence we have a lot of frustrated people when this topic comes up!
If only there was some viewpoint that made it so people who are morally opposed to abortions could choose not to have them, and people who aren't could choose to get them if necessary. Some kind of "choice is good" stance.
they would say, that is a stupid solution to anything morally wrong (in their view) like kidnapping, theft, murder, rape....etc., prolifers would say “choice is good” is bad for morally wrong things that hurt another person (in their view).
I feel like assault is, by nature, a bit of a different case.
It's like...if you go skydiving, you have to sign a waver recognizing that you have a chance of dying. Skydiving is inherently dangerous, and there's always a chance of chute failure, but if that happens, you can't sue the instructor.
But if you're just along for the view and a crazy instructor throws you out anyway, there wasn't anything you could have done to prevent that from happening. You've got every right to take action to recompense your injury.
In much the same way, having sex, no matter what methods you take to reduce your risk, always has a chance of pregnancy, and you have to realize that before going ahead with it.
But being assaulted, you never have any choice in the matter, so you should be morally free of actions to deal with any consequences.
If someone is driving their car in a safe and proscribed manner, then an accident would be outside of their control, and they would not be liable. If I'm driving the speed limit, am fully alert and not intoxicated in any manner, but a defective tire blows, causing me to crash and kill someone, then it was not my fault, and I am not liable.
However, if I was doing some sort of unnecessary and risky action while driving - say, texting - and that activity caused my crash, then I'm now liable. If I hit someone, I may face criminal charges for my actions. Not because I was driving, but because of the knowingly extraneous, unnecessary, and dangerous actions taken while driving which caused the crash and the ensuing death.
There are accidents where you are not at fault. You know that, if you drive, someone can hit you. It doesn't have to be your fault at all. A drunk driver, perhaps. But everyone still drives, people get in wrecks, and healthcare providers help them.
Just like having sex on the pill with a condom; it's just like driving in a safe and proscribed manner, as you said. Shit still happens.
Same with driving, though. It's optional. So if you drive and get hurt, they should deny the claims, right? It's a willing risky behavior. Or how about if you have a heart attack and have ever eaten a Twinkie in your life. Absolute avoidable issue, you took the risk, denied.
Though, some people need to drive to get to work. Sex is pretty much just a recreational activity. There are lots of other ways to bond with a partner that don't have a risk of creating a child. There usually isn't much of a way to get across a city quickly besides taking a car, bus or train.
On a fundamental level, you're right. If driving were purely optional, then any time an accident happens while doing it, you should be liable.
However, for many people, driving is not optional. Survival in modern society requires driving, and therefore doing so is not seen as an extraneous behavior for which simple participation is seen as inherent consent for negative consequences should something go wrong.
However, this could change in the future. If all cars had autopilots, then choosing to drive yourself could very well be considered enough to warrant consequences in the event of an accident, as you would be making a Edit:Purely optional choice with the recognized possibility of bringing harm to another.
But if you say that the pro-life movement is about saving a potential life rather than about controlling the bodily autonomy of an actual woman, it shouldn't matter how the woman was impregnated. The fetus in the assault scenario didn't have any choice in how they were conceived either, so why do they lose their right to life just bc their father was a rapist? This is where the logic of the pro-life movement falls apart. If it's about saving lives, then you have to save all potential lives. But in the case of rape / assault, it becomes clear how cruel it is to favor the rights of the embryo / zygote / fetus over the rights of the woman. And it is ALWAYS that cruel. Pregnancy is painful and expensive and dangerous and disruptive and changes your body forever and women die in childbirth. Sex is a natural part of life. There are a lot of reasons birth control fails. To force a woman to endure nine months of an unwanted / unviable pregnancy when there are safe medical procedures that could terminate the pregnancy is just another form of assault. The government should have no say in this decision. It's between a woman and her doctor.
It's a very dark viewpoint to say that if you don't care about one kind of life, you shouldn't care about any sort of life.
In the case of children conceived of willing participation, we have clear and pre-defined guidelines that lay out a case for the parents responsibilities in the matter, just as with any other situation which involves an innocent bystander. It isn't so cut and dried when it comes to rape, so I choose to leave those debates to the philosophers instead.
But that doesn't make any other argument any less valid.
the only way to avoid accidental pregnancy is complete abstinence from the opposite sex.
You make several points that are true, but this one certainly isn’t, or is at least omitting an import detail. The only way to avoid accidental pregnancy is complete abstinence from PiV with the opposite sex. You can attempt to make the argument that manual stimulation, oral sex, anal sex, and other alternatives to PiV aren’t realistic, but, when you are arguing against someone that views abortion as murder because they view a fetus as a person, I don’t think they will accept that abstinence, manual, oral, or anal sex is good enough, and some murder will have to be tolerated because PiV is necessary.
Okay, I thought I implied that I was talking about PIV since we all know a bj doesn't cause babies. The point remains that most people are biologically coded to want to have PIV intercourse, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that. Really the debate isn't "should abortion be impossible?" but "how difficult should we make getting an abortion?", because rich people are going to keep jetting off to countries with less strict laws and poor people are going to keep using wire hangers. No consequence will ever stop people from having PIV sex.
I don’t think I implied abortion should be impossible or not. I’m saying to pro-lifers, the debate is over whether a fetus is a person or not. And they say it is, which is why they consider it murder. So pro-choicers need to be arguing why a fetus isn’t a person. Not utilitarian reasons, nor women’s choice reasons, nor anything else. Because while those may very well be valid concerns and points, I don’t think it will be convincing if the other person thinks it is murder.
Also, people are “biologically coded to want to have PIV intercourse” for a reason... because people are “biologically coded” to reproduce. And this throws out all people that identify as homosexual, I guess, right? Again, though, my point is that the pro-lifers think this is murder, and they think your argument sounds like “it is easier to murder than to fight against this biological urge,” and it will always be unconvincing to them. If theft, or rape, or assault and battery were “biologically coded” in us, I think we would find a group of people saying that wrong is wrong, and biological urges don’t make an immoral action moral.
You're definitely right about why people are so divided on this issue. It's a huge gray area around when a fetus is considered a person with rights, and I know that society will never be able to come to a single conclusion on that. That's why I think it's best to let people choose for themselves.
And I myself am homosexual actually, that's why I said "most" people are coded that way. It is true, an overwhelming majority of people are straight and non-asexual. That's undeniable. PIV sex is natural and commonplace. It's not destructive like assault or rape, it's just your body's will to reproduce. I don't put it anywhere near murder because I myself don't consider a fetus to be it's own being until it can live outside a host. That's my personal benchmark, so I understand if some people take issue with it or strongly disagree. This is a very personal topic, where people should be able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. That's why I advocate for the power of choice.
Sure, that’s fine. And since you are saying how you feel about it, I guess I can say how I feel. I believe it is a person at conception. I believe intentionally ending a pregnancy is wrong. But that doesn’t mean I think the state should be involved in stepping in and doing something about it. There are other immoral acts that I don’t believe in using state violence to stop. As long as no doctor is forced to perform an abortion if he or she is uncomfortable doing so, then so be it. I still think there will exist people that are willing to perform abortions. Finally, if the woman has the only say that matters in whether a child will be brought into this world, from a legal standpoint, then she is the only one that has responsibility to provide for it, from a legal standpoint. That is, if the father gets no say in whether to keep the child, then I do not believe the father should be legally obligated, using state violence, to provide financial child support. This doesn’t mean I don’t think he is morally obligated to do so, because I do think it only right that he help care for his offspring. But again, I don’t want to use state violence to bend society to every moral rule.
Sure, when coupled with birth control pills and condoms, other forks of sexual contact can still result in impregnating, although we are talking about absurdly low probabilities here. And the pro-lifers would still say it’s a person and it would be murder to abort in even these extremely, extremely rarest of cases.
Yeah, you too. These discussions don't have to be cutthroat arguments. We're basically on the same side -- we both want the best for everyone involved, there are just different ways to see what's 'best'.
From a utilitarian point of view, one could argue that the ultimate sum of distress and negative impact that arise from adoption could very well be greater than that of abortion (though of course it's impossible to quantify), and so the ethical thing to do if those were the two options is to abort.
Then again, utilitarianism could also be used to argue that the ethical thing to do would be for everyone to stop having kids, because of overpopulation and global warming and general unhappiness that is felt by a lot of people. It's sort of a troubling ethical framework in general, so I tend to stray away from it.
Here's a little thought experiment to think about. Again, I'm not writing this to change minds or anything, I just want to get my thoughts written out, and see if people can find any glaring ethical errors in them.
Would abortion be ethical if the mother was found to have complication that would allow her to give birth, but at the cost of her own life? I, and I'd think a lot of other people, would argue that yes, it would be ok then. So I think there's a sort of 'common sense' feeling we get that a mature, already well underway life has, through some way or another, more 'rights' or 'value' than one that's hardly started.
Now how about a single mother of 5 who lives in a two bedroom apartment with them all and can hardly manage to feed everyone, who happens to get pregnant again? Seriously, incredibly irresponsible, but it happens. If she has the kid, then that's condemning the 7 of them to have probably very difficult, painful lives. Even hungrier and more cramped than before. Clearly there's a huge difference between the two scenarios, and our common sense feeling doesn't work as well in this one, but everyone draws a line somewhere.
I'm not entirely sure where my line is, and I hope I never have to find out for myself.
I really appreciate that. Had a pretty stressful day and this little exchange got my mind off of it and made me rethink some things and got my gears turning, so cheers to you too!
I really like the way you laid out the thought process. Another point (maybe two) that I'd like to add/ask your view on too is 1) how ethical is it to require a person to continue to carry and give birth even if they know the fetus will not under any circumstances live after birth? From the utilitarianism point of view.
And 2) and what point does individual choice and/or freedom come into play? I know the basis of the utilitarianism point of view is essentially what's good for the majority of people but surely personal choice and bodily autonomy comes into play.
I don't recall the word for it but some one once explained the difference between making choices/laws based on personal beliefs vs making laws that suit the majority of people. And they explained that's why it was so important that the choice was there (regardless of what situation, not necessarily pregnancy), each person could make choices as to what was good for them and their situation. I liked that stance but I can't remember the term they used.
Just to be clear I'm no ethicist by any means, I just took a philosophy class a while ago and it's fun to think about different ethical frameworks. But I'll do my best to answer as well as possible.
1) I think that it would be absolutely unethical to require a woman to carry a baby to birth if she knew certainly that it was dead on arrival. Utilitarianism is all about maximizing the possible 'goodness' or happiness in a population so it's basically about (not at all concrete) math.
The baby in this case derives relatively little good from being carried to term because it's not yet conscious. It could maybe be argued that it's somewhat comfortable in the womb, but whether or not that comfort matters much is debatable because its never stored in memory.
The mother, however, would likely be better off (less physically and emotionally taxed) if she were to end it early.
Of course this changes completely if instead of a 100% chance of the baby dying, it was say a 90% chance. In this case the emotional stress of the mother ending a potentially viable pregnancy might cause more unhappiness to her than if it were to die after birth, and she may be willing to take that risk.
Of course, the utilitarian would also probably not try and compel the mother one way or another either, they would just say do whatever makes you happiest in the long run. In other words, it wouldn't be unethical for her to do it, but it would be to require her to do it.
2) I'm not super clear on this point, but from my understanding personal choice comes into play in utilitarianism when the decision you're making only affects yourself. For example, you can choose whether or not you want red or blue paint on your walls, cause that's basically just whichever one makes you happier.
But in the classic example of the trolley problem, the only ethical choice is to flip the switch and kill the one guy in order to save the 5. You don't get to decide what to do just because you don't like the 5 guys or you don't want the 1 guy's blood on your hands.
Or, for a lower stakes example, say you're going to a restaurant with two friends. It'd be unethical to go to a restaurant that two of you think is 10/10 and the other thinks is 1/10, if there's another restaurant that all three think is an 8/10.
At least I think. Don't quote me on any of this lol.
I'm not quite sure what view you're talking about in the end there, but check out ethical egoism -- its the view that you ought to only act in your own self interest. And contrast that with ethical altruism, which states that you ought to act in the interest of others, no matter what consequences it has for you. I tend to think they both go a bit too far in opposite directions.
Also, sorry, that ended up being way longer than I intended, but it's just kinda fun to write about this stuff.
I also enjoy it. Thank you so much for your well thought out and articulated reply. I greatly appreciate the fact we're able to have a conversation about this. Thank you for a direction to look at in terms of the ethical egoism. My Google foo is failing me trying to find it so that should help me!
Yea no problem! Also check out Kant’s Deontology! I did a little reading after that last comment and was reminded of it. It’s personally one of my favorites. It’s sort of a much broader interpretation of “treat others like you would want to be treated” and it’s central idea is
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
Which is basically saying something is only ethical if you could truly want to live in a world where everyone did that same thing all the time.
So you can test things — like say you need a bank loan and are wondering whether it would be ethical to lie to get one. If there was a world in which everyone trying to get a loan would lie to get it, then the banks themselves would know you were lying cause that’s what they’d do, and no one would give out loans. That wouldn’t work very well, cause you want that loan. So that must be unethical. Something like that. Interesting stuff. Cheers!
Have you considered that the quality of a child’s life is more important than the potential for life?
Forcing women to have children they don’t want often results in abused and neglected children. If those children are taken away by social services they will have little chance of being adopted and a greater chance of being sexually and physically abused by foster parents. Adopted kids (no matter what age) have higher rates of suicide and mental illness.
Truly caring about a child is considering the circumstances they will be born into.
But with this argument you are moving away from the pregnancy and into the post-delivery period. If you take all reasonable precautions such that your risk of conceiving is miniscule, are you just shit of luck if you happen to be one of those 240 couples?
To put it another way, when you drive on the road in a car, you're aware of the risk of yourself or a passenger dying in a motor vehicle accident. You can and should take all reasonable precautions to prevent that from happening, but if it happens, are you legally obligated to give a life-saving blood transfusion to your injured child passenger?
If safe sex yields a child, then there are programs that will take that child if you are incapable.
This thread is about bodily autonomy for the 9 months before that. Please don't shift the subject to an unrelated pro-life argument just because you don't have any good response to what they said.
But there are over 3,000 daily abortions, which means that only 4% of those cases are luck-based, which is not enough to justify abortions being legal only for those 4% of abortions
Not agreeing or disagreeing but this is the best analogy I ever saw with this.
It's raining outside.
Step outside, you're going to get wet
Step outside with an umbrella, rainboots and raincoat, you might get wet.
Stay inside, you remove any chance of getting wet.
We don't like saying abstinence is the only way because it's not what we want as a selfish society that enjoys sex. But if you don't have sex, you won't have a baby.
Just because it’s a primal, natural thing to do, doesn’t mean it is without consequence. Want to do it? You know the consequences. If that’s a chance you’re willing to take, then you’ll have to deal with the outcome. Simple as that. If you’ve got the soundness of mind to justify terminating a pregnancy, you’ve got the soundness of mind to prevent a pregnancy. Yes, abstinence is your only guaranteed method. Does this suck? Kind of, yeah.
It’s life. The only way to 100% not crash the car you are driving is to not drive. The only way to 100% not choke to death on eating food is to either starve (or only eat liquids I guess). You are constantly surrounded by small actions and choices that could have life altering changes. This is the way of life. Trying to make the probabilities more or less“fair” is impossible. Trying to rationalize the “injustice” of the consequences is not for any human to do...it’s nature.
I think the counteargument is simply that it's a known risk and that risk-reward and acceptable risk assessments are very much incorporated into our lives and learning in all sorts of other ways. You're willing to take the risk (and its possible repercussions) or you aren't.
The bottom line, regardless of all these other side arguments, is whether or not the fetus should be protected as a person, which is basically purely philosophical right now, so there aren't any particularly compelling arguments in either direction. I don't particularly think a fetus merits protection, so I'm pro-choice, but I'm absolutely not willing to take a strong stance in argument (because I don't believe there is one worth defending). I think life, in general, is better with the option to have abortions, and so I want people to have the right. That's as far as it goes for me.
t's just hard for me to rationalize that abstinence is the only option you get if you don't want to have a baby.
Huh? The only way to be absolutely sure you don't make a baby is to not do the one thing that can make babies.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Btw, did you know that couples where both the man has had a vasectomy and the wife has had her tubes tied have ended up pregnant? This has happened more than once.
it's just hard for me to rationalize that abstinence is the only option you get if you don't want to have a baby. Neither condoms nor birth control are 100% effective and while using both at the same time makes you're chance of getting pregnant minuscule, it can still happen.
In my mind, it's as simple as this. If you choose to have sex, you have to accept the fact that you're taking this risk. Sure, you can do everything you can to reduce the risk, but it's still there, and there's nothing you can do to change that short of sterilizing yourself. Why shouldn't we expect people to take responsibility for their decisions? This is the standard we as a society hold men to. If you impregnate a woman, you need to take responsibility for your actions and be there for your child and provide for the family you've just created. Why would it be any different for women? You know the potential consequences full well when you choose to have sex. Why should it be the unborn child's burden to bear when you fuck up?
Now for those of you who bothered to read this far, please let me say a few more things before you respond. I'm not one of those "all unborn lives matter until they're born" type people. I am 100% for building up social programs for single parents, struggling families, underage mothers, streamlining adoption, improving sex education, the whole shebang. And in cases where a pregnancy is due to rape, incest, is a danger to the mother's life, or the mother is under some federally established age of consent by which everyone will have received sufficient sex education, I believe abortion should be made one option among several including adoption and what have you. I'm also very much for the socialization of health care, which would take care of the medical costs associated.
I understand that we don't live in such an ideal society. Under the current circumstances [in the USA], I can stomach the idea of abortion while we work towards a more ideal world where we reduce unplanned pregnancies and provide health care and social services to disadvantaged families. But in my ideal world, abortion would only be a last-resort option for extreme cases.
And let's not forget that having sex just for pleassure is something humans are made for and it hurts our body and our psyche to just practice abstinence until we want a child, We do not go in heat like animals, that's just the way our body is.
The first argument I can think that a religious person would make is that sex is meant only for procreation. Some sects of Christianity prohibit contraception, as that prevents a person's "god given" ability to procreate. It, according to them, is the "god given" responsibility of a woman to bear children when married, so to do so only for pleasure is a sin. Therefore, to them, abstinence truly is the only option.
Edit: for those of you downvoting, please be aware I do not agree with this line of thinking.
Oh yea I totally agree, that's a decent argument if you're religious. The thing is, religion has absolutely no place in deciding the laws of any democracy. General public morality, sure, but not laws. Separation of church and state, and all that jazz
Oh yeah, I completely agree that religion needs to start the fuck out of politics, but I was playing devils advocate so we can be more aware of how some people think.
It's 2018. We have technology. We live in the future. Consent to sex is no longer consent to procreate. That's what a lot of these pro life people don't understand or refuse to acknowledge.
Does not matter. If you want to have sex, you assume the responsibility that comes with it. Get castrated if you want to have sex without the possibility of a child.
141
u/figure--it--out Sep 11 '18
I agree with what you say, but it's just hard for me to rationalize that abstinence is the only option you get if you don't want to have a baby. Neither condoms nor birth control are 100% effective and while using both at the same time makes you're chance of getting pregnant minuscule, it can still happen.
Some napkin calculations I found online say that sex happens 120 million times a day, so if the chances of getting pregnant using two forms of contraceptive are one in a million, and everyone's using them, are those 120 people daily just shit out of luck?
I'm not trying to argue either, it's definitely a very difficult issue and relatively impossible to have a fully convincing argument.