The Problem with Legalized Abortion

How do any of your questions result from NJ's argument? I understand what molbio is arguing (though I think they are both doomed to stalemate as it is semantic choice). I don't get your position at all.There is a vastly different role between mother and growing fetus, and people that are autonomous and otherwise independent of each other.If I understand what you are trying to argue the only way, but I think it will backfire, is to analogize to siamese twins. Do you think it should be allowed for a twin not to donate an organ they currently do not share (and one is losing), with the owning twin knowing they can then live a full life without the other (once dead the other can be removed)?Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I think you and molbio have both made good opening statements, though are likely to deadlock in a semantics based draw. It seems to my mind that there are simply two separate metaphysical positions in play, or at the very least two separate understandings about life. They are subjective and so not able to be called right or wrong.But let me take a stab at it... though I haven't won this way yet. It is not that I am more human, just that I am more alive, more a Person than a zygote... or fetus. A human, at that stage of existence is not really alive as a person is. Indeed RAZD had a whole thread... excellent too... on how up to a certain point of development fetuses do not have the characteristics we use for determining if a person is alive. Clearly we do have criteria to determine whether a person is alive or not.It can be agreed that zygotes and fetuses are cellular life, and it is human cellular life, but is it a person... alive as a person? That it might eventually reach that state does not logically demand that we recognize that it is at that state.For example, while we might disagree with tearing down a historical landmark, one would be hard pressed to argue that a building just being erected can't be scrapped because one day it will be a historical landmark (if we just leave it alone long enough).Birth seems a logical, and rather convenient, point to distinguish the fetuses change in state from unborn, to born, and so a person. It has passed through many stages, and developed to a point of relative independence.So the zygote, while human, while living, is simply not a person and so not a child.Let's see where that gets us.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I see the argument, and you have made it clearer, though my complaint remains. Perhaps you can fix it.While the argument IS that a fetus should be treated as a human being, to then make an argument that anti-abortionist arguments could get applied to any human being (so you are using a reductio ad absurdum), is to miss the special nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. Anti-abortionists are not necessarily ignoring that special condition.While it doesn't happen often, I think the closest analogy (to what they are discussing) would be the siamese twin. They are both separate human beings, each with rights, but tied together because of nature in a role of communal sharing to stay alive.Actually in repeating this I just realized my argument wasn't strong enough. The question would really be... to properly analogize the anti-abortionist position, and how they could reply to your reductio... whether twin A which is not needing anything from twin B (who relies wholly on A), can have B removed and so killed?Do you think that would be right?(Note: There is a response to this, but it will end up negating the original reductio... as far as I can tell.).

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

No I don't think they'd have that right, but that equally is not analogous to a pregnancy, where the fetus is draining resources directly from the mother and could at some point pose a threat to the mother's life.It is also, to my mind, not the same as a homeless Person. If some lab threw a bunch of fertilized eggs in the trash (making them homeless as it were), I would not feel obligated to take care of them at all.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Taz, that was an excellent post, and reply to my argument. For someone not liking lala land you maneuvered through it quite well. Exactly. That is unfortunately why I think abortion will always remain a problem within any society. It is entirely based on personal metaphysics, epistemologies, and ethics, that I don't see any way of reconciling them, besides the question of legality. How much freedom of interpretation do we allow.Your position, though viewable as heartless, was consistent and valid. I have no edge to work on. It is your own system, and it works.That said, some might argue that in a LEGAL sense we should construct laws that protect conscious (or in your example perhaps unconscious) individuals, even if that is unfair to the other... especially if they went into the situation willingly to begin with. I cannot argue for the necessity of such laws, but people could choose to institute them for other reasons. I agree, and this is a good example of what I was just saying. Personally my philosophy might be more "heartless" than your own. It really is picking and choosing, though I understand the convenience of choosing "birth", its at least got clear physical changes involved. To my mind, infanticide is okay (why not 2 second after?), but I'm willing to agree to the LEGAL definition for sake of convenience. I had not anticipated your scorched earth philosophy, which was also a valid route. If you wanted to preserve the ability to say "no" to dumping the twin, but "yes" to dumping the zygote, one would have to bring in the level of development of the "other". But that would kill the original argument of having to give blood or organs to other people.You have saved your argument and kept your position. Very cool. I just didn't think you were so "heartless".Unfortunately I didn't see your warning on Amen, until I already posted. We'll see where that goes.{AbE: I decided I should note that I really liked the analogy of having chosen to get hooked up to someone to save their life. I may use that in the future.}Edited by Silent H, : AbE

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

MMmmmmmmmm... maybe I missed that. I was understanding that they would have the rights of such, not that they be viewed as if they were physically such beings.That's where I brought in the twin analogy. Taz did a nice job of breaking that down, but it was based on his personal philosophy. I'm not sure what your thoughts would be on it. I'd have expected him to say one twin can't dump another, but I bet wrong. How about you?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Then you seem to have a valid position. It is not one that I hold (as mine does not view fetuses as persons), but within your own paradigm, it seems logically sound.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well my twin example, and Taz's getting hooked up to save a guy example, are examples where a person can logically argue that a person has individual rights, but is not physically divisible from another due to circumstances.That of course does not mean you have to agree, but it is logically valid and I think what they are arguing... Wow, well I am surprised. I'll try to keep that in mind. However, as Taz pointed out, and I agreed, this then comes down to personal opinions.While your position is valid, it cannot invalidate someone like NJ's opinions (assuming he holds the position I was arguing).I think that's when it shifts solidly to a legal debate... and unfortunately I tend to see that landing in personal division as well. This subject is always tough.Edited by Silent H, : better english

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I think this is the only statement I'd disagree with. I'll bet if this were attempted there would be a pretty big uproar. Especially if the twins were older and both could speak.To be honest, I might not be able to agree a twin in such a position could nix the other one, at least not later in life (which is different shortly post birth). But I'll have to work that out in time.Your analogy to the person who got hooked up to another was easier for me to feel "good" about... even if it was a bad situation. Yeah, I'm empty handed on that one. Can a guy get his battery jumped in a cold parking lot? heheheh.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

In the end I think you'll both have to stalemate, but I like that reduction argument you've got... and she is the one that's dodging.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

No, but we'd likely prevent doctors from helping in the procedure. Frankly if a siamese twin were capable of removing his or her own organs from use by the other all by them self... that'd be one amazing birth defect. Well according to crash I'm not a philosopher, just a logician and ethicist (which does sound classier!)... though your point remains.I agree it sucks, that's why said easier to feel X. You are probably right about religion. I think it is faulty for people to believe they can find moral answers within reason, and its a shame that many atheists have not understood that truth, trying to advance some bizarre notion they can find ethical truths.There is no ethical reality. There is only the identification of one's own ethical principles; what makes one feel good for wholly irrational reasons. And then to be comfortable with those principles or try to change them if they are inconvenient.Again, only religion has worked that angle, and cornered the market.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Unfortunately that is the case, but I was speaking about and honest stalemate. Many times when an argument is pursued two equally logically valid positions can be identified. They both rest on some initial premise which is neither true nor false. A good example is what's going on between me and fgarb in the Bush v Gore thread. What started as an argument I think has revealed two initial positions which are valid, but differ.I think that is the case in this instance... though molbio seems hesitant to actually respond to your points lest she legitimate the possibility you have an equally valid position. But in actuality, doesn't your position logically view humans as clumps of cells? More than clumps of cells in importance, true. But doesn't it treat simple clumps of human cells as identical to massively differentiated clumps of human cells?Haha!!! Let me pick up the banner, where molbio seems to have dropped it and lead the charge.I too could be said to view humans as being more than clumps of cells. But to be semantically consistent with the argument so far, I view Persons and being more important. I realize you are asking what is the difference between a person and a human, which is fair. Too bad this is where I see everyone stalemating.The simple clump of a zygote is human (something molbio erroneously quotes the dictionary to deny), and is alive, but it is not a person. That is to say it is human cellular life, not human personal life. The difference comes when that cellular life reaches a point of differentiation and complexity that it has reached a capacity for independent life, as RAZD might put it fulfilling criteria to prove one is not dead independent from its host. I would also want to add the ability of consciousness, awareness.Thus to my mind a Person could very well revert to merely a large, complex, differentiated clump of human cellular life... say through a massive stroke... or not yet have developed into a Person.Persons have rights (to my mind) and while nonpersons may be treated with respect or preserved, their considerations should not be primary to a person. They have no equal rights. Some opponents try to make the argument that that is like slavery, however I would then point out that if a clump of human cellular life were capable of being a slave (performing such functions) than it would by definition have to be a person... so that argument fails straight away.Unfortunately I cannot get a strong hold against your position. If you cannot see this distinction, or agree with it, there is no logical reason you must abandon your own. It seems consistent and valid.And you have some nice counters.I think my main thrust would have to be bringing up potential problems, complications, based on your theory. Molbio's later points about hybrid vectors for human cellular life or components (though not the first thing she mentioned regarding cloning), or where Nator is heading now.I can't imagine expecting women to get pap smears to prove innocence of fetal-homicide. And wouldn't that have to be done after every menstruation?Its that kind of practical issue which makes it harder, from a legal standpoint. Of course moral is separate from legal.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Could they have been separated without help? I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know and am curious. There are some twins that could use being separated. Doctor! Well if you ever feel like telling I'd be interested. I am somewhat beyond relativism. I believe there are no real moral statements beyond "I like" and "I don't like"... and based on their use by any individual (including ones self) we know the nature of an individuals character. None are better or worse objectively, but it dictates who will like who, and for what reason.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I didn't know, but since I still had a tab open to wiki I decided to check out of curiosity... I'm assuming you meant them. It looks like they'd still have needed some help, though perhaps they could have tried it ala monty python... live organ donation.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard