Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for Pro-Choicers

unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 6:34:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

I don't really follow what you're asking to be honest. Abortion is either okay or it is not, regardless of what other technological options exist. It would be a bit like saying stealing cars should be okay, until such time as replicators are invented to people can simply create any car they want. But no, that doesn't change how right or wrong stealing is.

At any rate, if terminating a pregnancy is wrong, then it's wrong no matter what, unless doing so avoids a greater evil. I do not, however think abortion in and of itself is wrong - at least not up until the point where an unborn child could potentially have sentience.
Up until that point it isn't a person, so t would be a waste of time and money to fart around trying to put it in an artificial womb. We are not short of people - we in fact have way too many, so we don't need to be putting resources into making more.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 6:39:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

if one could create an artificial womb something that could nurse a fetus to the point of birth that would be really cool. don't listen to drayson he doesn't get that things aren't black and white. but you're idea is really good
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 7:51:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think there's a potentially fair argument to be made for terminating the child depending on the specifics of the financial/institutional situation/conditions they'd be brought into or if they child had known birth defects. No one should be forced into being an accessory for the creation of suffering.
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 7:52:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 7:51:46 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
I think there's a potentially fair argument to be made for terminating the child depending on the specifics of the financial/institutional situation/conditions they'd be brought into or if they child had known birth defects. No one should be forced into being an accessory for the creation of suffering.
But, beyond that, no I don't really see a reason why the child would be terminated(granting that the alternative process was cheaper or otherwise paid for).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:00:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

Abortion would still be permissible because the organism in question has not reached a point of moral significance. Whether it is terminated or sent to an artificial womb makes no difference. And since I'd imagine that the latter option would be more costly and difficult, abortion would remain the more efficient method that can be secured as a right to those women that need it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:16:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 7:51:46 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
I think there's a potentially fair argument to be made for terminating the child depending on the specifics of the financial/institutional situation/conditions they'd be brought into or if they child had known birth defects. No one should be forced into being an accessory for the creation of suffering.

Except for the birth defects, most of those can be corrected with adoption.

I don't give two sh!ts about how bad it feels to have to carry your baby for 10 months and lose it at birth, why does it feel any better to murder it?

Sorry, that's a strawman at it's best, but that's usually the only justification I get when I ask why the woman can't adopt it out. I have tried hard to find adoption rates in the US, but the fluctuate too much from different sources for a reliable one.

Also, unless it's a really extreme birth defect, like being limbless or completely paralyzed then there is no justification, aborting kids because of moderate autism (I have heard people say they would abort for moderate autism) is flirting with eugenics.
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:27:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:16:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Except for the birth defects, most of those can be corrected with adoption.

Adoption can be a wonderful thing for everyone involved, but to assert that it"s the best choice in all cases, or for all people, or without complications is a dramatic misrepresentation of the facts.

I don't give two sh!ts about how bad it feels to have to carry your baby for 10 months and lose it at birth, why does it feel any better to murder it?

Sorry, that's a strawman at it's best, but that's usually the only justification I get when I ask why the woman can't adopt it out.

Well, I'm glad you saved me the trouble.

Also, unless it's a really extreme birth defect, like being limbless or completely paralyzed

Great, so we're agreed.

aborting kids because of moderate autism (I have heard people say they would abort for moderate autism) is flirting with eugenics.

Sure, in the same sense that firing someone who happens to belong to a minority is flirting with racism.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:00:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

Abortion would still be permissible because the organism in question has not reached a point of moral significance. Whether it is terminated or sent to an artificial womb makes no difference. And since I'd imagine that the latter option would be more costly and difficult, abortion would remain the more efficient method that can be secured as a right to those women that need it.

It is still wrong to kill potential life, these arguments usually end in a stalemate that can ruin friendships, but here is an interesting point;

Why is it that certain eggs are protected by law, such as sea turtle eggs?

http://www.seaworld.org...

I would also like to point out that after six weeks a fetus (actually a human after the 6 weeks) gets a hearbeart, which is the ultimate indicator of life.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:36:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:27:03 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:16:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Except for the birth defects, most of those can be corrected with adoption.

Adoption can be a wonderful thing for everyone involved, but to assert that it"s the best choice in all cases, or for all people, or without complications is a dramatic misrepresentation of the facts.

I don't give two sh!ts about how bad it feels to have to carry your baby for 10 months and lose it at birth, why does it feel any better to murder it?

Sorry, that's a strawman at it's best, but that's usually the only justification I get when I ask why the woman can't adopt it out.

Well, I'm glad you saved me the trouble.

Also, unless it's a really extreme birth defect, like being limbless or completely paralyzed

Great, so we're agreed.

aborting kids because of moderate autism (I have heard people say they would abort for moderate autism) is flirting with eugenics.

Sure, in the same sense that firing someone who happens to belong to a minority is flirting with racism.

lol, how do you even draw that sort of comparison?

There is a difference between saying "This person has been performing really poorly at work and it would be in our interest to let them go and find someone more productive" and "Let's abort this baby because it isn't fully mentally competent"
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:38:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:31:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Why is it that certain eggs are protected by law, such as sea turtle eggs?
http://www.seaworld.org...

Because they're endangered, the citizens/representatives that banned together to agree on the law care about them, and the eggs will eventually hatch to replenish their population.

I would also like to point out that after six weeks a fetus (actually a human after the 6 weeks) gets a hearbeart, which is the ultimate indicator of life.

Debatable.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:41:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:38:47 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:31:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Why is it that certain eggs are protected by law, such as sea turtle eggs?
http://www.seaworld.org...

Because they're endangered, the citizens/representatives that banned together to agree on the law care about them, and the eggs will eventually hatch to replenish their population.

Principal is essentially the same, you are protecting potential life because of it's value when it becomes a fully recognized living being. Are we now going to say an endangered animal is more valuable than a human being? I think that is debatable.

I would also like to point out that after six weeks a fetus (actually a human after the 6 weeks) gets a hearbeart, which is the ultimate indicator of life.

Debatable.

What do you think is the ultimate indicator of human life?
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:42:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:36:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:27:03 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:16:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Except for the birth defects, most of those can be corrected with adoption.

Adoption can be a wonderful thing for everyone involved, but to assert that it"s the best choice in all cases, or for all people, or without complications is a dramatic misrepresentation of the facts.

I don't give two sh!ts about how bad it feels to have to carry your baby for 10 months and lose it at birth, why does it feel any better to murder it?

Sorry, that's a strawman at it's best, but that's usually the only justification I get when I ask why the woman can't adopt it out.

Well, I'm glad you saved me the trouble.

Also, unless it's a really extreme birth defect, like being limbless or completely paralyzed

Great, so we're agreed.

aborting kids because of moderate autism (I have heard people say they would abort for moderate autism) is flirting with eugenics.

Sure, in the same sense that firing someone who happens to belong to a minority is flirting with racism.

lol, how do you even draw that sort of comparison?

There is a difference between saying "This person has been performing really poorly at work and it would be in our interest to let them go and find someone more productive" and "Let's abort this baby because it isn't fully mentally competent"
Because they're both non sequitur examples.

There are non-racial motivations and non-genetic purity/improvement motivations in both decisions, although they're being associated with the two topics.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:44:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:42:12 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:36:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:27:03 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:16:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Except for the birth defects, most of those can be corrected with adoption.

Adoption can be a wonderful thing for everyone involved, but to assert that it"s the best choice in all cases, or for all people, or without complications is a dramatic misrepresentation of the facts.

I don't give two sh!ts about how bad it feels to have to carry your baby for 10 months and lose it at birth, why does it feel any better to murder it?

Sorry, that's a strawman at it's best, but that's usually the only justification I get when I ask why the woman can't adopt it out.

Well, I'm glad you saved me the trouble.

Also, unless it's a really extreme birth defect, like being limbless or completely paralyzed

Great, so we're agreed.

aborting kids because of moderate autism (I have heard people say they would abort for moderate autism) is flirting with eugenics.

Sure, in the same sense that firing someone who happens to belong to a minority is flirting with racism.

lol, how do you even draw that sort of comparison?

There is a difference between saying "This person has been performing really poorly at work and it would be in our interest to let them go and find someone more productive" and "Let's abort this baby because it isn't fully mentally competent"
Because they're both non sequitur examples.

There are non-racial motivations and non-genetic purity/improvement motivations in both decisions, although they're being associated with the two topics.

Then what's a logical justification for aborting based on moderate autism? It is eugenics when the mother does indeed want a baby and aborts it based on a minor defect and then gets a new baby that fits her idea of a suitable child.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:48:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:31:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:00:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

Abortion would still be permissible because the organism in question has not reached a point of moral significance. Whether it is terminated or sent to an artificial womb makes no difference. And since I'd imagine that the latter option would be more costly and difficult, abortion would remain the more efficient method that can be secured as a right to those women that need it.

It is still wrong to kill potential life, these arguments usually end in a stalemate that can ruin friendships, but here is an interesting point;

Why is it that certain eggs are protected by law, such as sea turtle eggs?

http://www.seaworld.org...


I would also like to point out that after six weeks a fetus (actually a human after the 6 weeks) gets a hearbeart, which is the ultimate indicator of life.

I respect you C_A, but I must say that this argument is astoundingly weak. Morality isn't just some declarative confession of emotions but a reasoned system based on subjective predicates. So the phrase "it is still wrong to kill potential life [full stop]" means absolutely nothing - nothing whatsoever, without justification (which at best would end appealing to subjectivity). Furthermore, a heartbeat has nothing to do with moral significance. What differentiates humans from amoral objects is sentience. Until the developing fetus has reached such a stage that it can be reasonably assumed to process pain and feeling, it is ethically inert. A heartbeat does not indicate sentience.

The protection of sea turtle eggs is probably not to prevent them from suffering pain, but ensuring the continuation of the species. Humanity is in no danger of going extinct from the legalization of abortion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:50:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:41:54 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Principal is essentially the same, you are protecting potential life because of it's value when it becomes a fully recognized living being. Are we now going to say an endangered animal is more valuable than a human being? I think that is debatable.

Not really. It's valued because it is potential life, with life being the objective(unless it can be demonstrated that they're being kept alive for some productive purpose like research for practical application in an industry, which doesn't seem to be the case).

Humans and their value serves different foundations.

What do you think is the ultimate indicator of human life?

I haven't really concluded yet, partially because "human life" is an awkward phrase.

It's debatable because no reason has actually been given as to why it's the standard indication for human life, it's just been stated to be so, and there exists alternatives.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:55:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:50:31 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:41:54 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Principal is essentially the same, you are protecting potential life because of it's value when it becomes a fully recognized living being. Are we now going to say an endangered animal is more valuable than a human being? I think that is debatable.

Not really. It's valued because it is potential life, with life being the objective(unless it can be demonstrated that they're being kept alive for some productive purpose like research for practical application in an industry, which doesn't seem to be the case).

Humans and their value serves different foundations.

Of course an egg of an endangered species has some value, if you allow the egg to be roughed up or cracked prematurely there is a good chance what's inside it will die, and if it dies then that once again decreases the populous of an already endangered species.

In the case of a child, how can we determine what actual value it will have when it lives? Of course potential life has value, plenty of valuable people in society have had mothers that were in a situation that choicers might say is a logical situation to abort in.


What do you think is the ultimate indicator of human life?

I haven't really concluded yet, partially because "human life" is an awkward phrase.

It's debatable because no reason has actually been given as to why it's the standard indication for human life, it's just been stated to be so, and there exists alternatives.
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:56:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:44:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:42:12 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:36:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:27:03 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:16:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Except for the birth defects, most of those can be corrected with adoption.

Adoption can be a wonderful thing for everyone involved, but to assert that it"s the best choice in all cases, or for all people, or without complications is a dramatic misrepresentation of the facts.

I don't give two sh!ts about how bad it feels to have to carry your baby for 10 months and lose it at birth, why does it feel any better to murder it?

Sorry, that's a strawman at it's best, but that's usually the only justification I get when I ask why the woman can't adopt it out.

Well, I'm glad you saved me the trouble.

Also, unless it's a really extreme birth defect, like being limbless or completely paralyzed

Great, so we're agreed.

aborting kids because of moderate autism (I have heard people say they would abort for moderate autism) is flirting with eugenics.

Sure, in the same sense that firing someone who happens to belong to a minority is flirting with racism.

lol, how do you even draw that sort of comparison?

There is a difference between saying "This person has been performing really poorly at work and it would be in our interest to let them go and find someone more productive" and "Let's abort this baby because it isn't fully mentally competent"
Because they're both non sequitur examples.

There are non-racial motivations and non-genetic purity/improvement motivations in both decisions, although they're being associated with the two topics.

Then what's a logical justification for aborting based on moderate autism? It is eugenics when the mother does indeed want a baby and aborts it based on a minor defect and then gets a new baby that fits her idea of a suitable child.
A) That situation doesn't necessarily follow, or at least you haven't shown that it does.
B) I didn't say it was necessarily logical, I simply said it doesn't amount to eugenics.
B) You haven't provided that other motivations do not exist. Not wanting a child to suffer or be at a disadvantage, but still wanting a child that wasn't born in a situation in which they would inherently suffer or be at a disadvantage isn't parallel to improvement of a population. It involves individuals, and treating those individuals on an individual levels, not under a social philosophy.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 8:58:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:48:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:31:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:00:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

Abortion would still be permissible because the organism in question has not reached a point of moral significance. Whether it is terminated or sent to an artificial womb makes no difference. And since I'd imagine that the latter option would be more costly and difficult, abortion would remain the more efficient method that can be secured as a right to those women that need it.

It is still wrong to kill potential life, these arguments usually end in a stalemate that can ruin friendships, but here is an interesting point;

Why is it that certain eggs are protected by law, such as sea turtle eggs?

http://www.seaworld.org...


I would also like to point out that after six weeks a fetus (actually a human after the 6 weeks) gets a hearbeart, which is the ultimate indicator of life.

I respect you C_A, but I must say that this argument is astoundingly weak. Morality isn't just some declarative confession of emotions but a reasoned system based on subjective predicates. So the phrase "it is still wrong to kill potential life [full stop]" means absolutely nothing - nothing whatsoever, without justification (which at best would end appealing to subjectivity). Furthermore, a heartbeat has nothing to do with moral significance. What differentiates humans from amoral objects is sentience. Until the developing fetus has reached such a stage that it can be reasonably assumed to process pain and feeling, it is ethically inert. A heartbeat does not indicate sentience.

Some living beings don't have pain or feeling, I believe it's called Ashlyn disorder, does this mean that objectively they are not human beings?

The protection of sea turtle eggs is probably not to prevent them from suffering pain, but ensuring the continuation of the species. Humanity is in no danger of going extinct from the legalization of abortion.

Yes, we are protecting them because of their objective value, why would we need protect potential life that will contribute to society and have objective value also?
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 9:05:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:55:28 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Of course an egg of an endangered species has some value, if you allow the egg to be roughed up or cracked prematurely there is a good chance what's inside it will die, and if it dies then that once again decreases the populous of an already endangered species.

In the case of a child, how can we determine what actual value it will have when it lives?

You're making my distinction that they aren't the same for me. The value is already predetermined in the case of the egg. If it will live, it will be valuable for the objective, because the objective is life, nothing more. You're questioning the value of a child coming to life, which implies that it living alone is not sufficient for value.

Of course potential life has value, plenty of valuable people in society have had mothers that were in a situation that choicers might say is a logical situation to abort in.

There are people born that could have been aborted that are beneficial or detrimental to society. There are people that potentially could have been born that could have been beneficial or detrimental to society. Your hypothetical isn't valuable, there's no effective measurement or scale here.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 11:03:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:31:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:00:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

Abortion would still be permissible because the organism in question has not reached a point of moral significance. Whether it is terminated or sent to an artificial womb makes no difference. And since I'd imagine that the latter option would be more costly and difficult, abortion would remain the more efficient method that can be secured as a right to those women that need it.

It is still wrong to kill potential life, these arguments usually end in a stalemate that can ruin friendships, but here is an interesting point;


"potential life" is a rather non-sensical phrase. That would include all sperm and all eggs. Any person who allows a human ovum to be destroyed unfertilised is guilty of the same moral encroachment, by that reasoning.

Why is it that certain eggs are protected by law, such as sea turtle eggs?

http://www.seaworld.org...


Because they're rare? There are certain animal species on this planet that are endangered and have laws in place to help prevent their extinction. You'll notice cockroach eggs are not protected by those same laws.

And also, Humans aren't one of those species either, we're in no danger of dying off anytime soon.


I would also like to point out that after six weeks a fetus (actually a human after the 6 weeks) gets a hearbeart, which is the ultimate indicator of life.

Wrong. Brain activity is the ultimate indicator of life. We consider someone "dead" when brain activity has ceased. This is why a heart can be kept beating after a person is actually dead, for use in transplant.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 11:28:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, the baby has a right to life. It does not, however, have the right to violate the property rights of the mother. If the only way to expel the baby is to kill it, that's fine. If, however, it is able to survive without continuing to violate your property rights, aborting it would become, not exactly immoral, per se, but a stupid act.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 11:29:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm still fairly undecided on the issue though, so that opinion is likely to change.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 11:41:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

I would rather see that than just killing a baby for no other reason than the mother does not want it.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 1:18:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 9:05:30 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:55:28 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Of course an egg of an endangered species has some value, if you allow the egg to be roughed up or cracked prematurely there is a good chance what's inside it will die, and if it dies then that once again decreases the populous of an already endangered species.

In the case of a child, how can we determine what actual value it will have when it lives?

You're making my distinction that they aren't the same for me. The value is already predetermined in the case of the egg. If it will live, it will be valuable for the objective, because the objective is life, nothing more. You're questioning the value of a child coming to life, which implies that it living alone is not sufficient for value.

An endangered species is not valuable living alone on it's own for more than it's life span unless it reproduces either. It only has value based on it's actions and whether is reproduces or not. The same goes for humans, we are valued based on our actions while we are living. Until you can determine what actions a fetus will carry out once it's living you cannot determine the value of said fetus, so there is no justification for aborting it because of the situation it would be born in to or due to a blanket statistic.

wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 3:46:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:58:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:31:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I would also like to point out that after six weeks a fetus (actually a human after the 6 weeks) gets a hearbeart, which is the ultimate indicator of life.

Nonsense.

Some living beings don't have pain or feeling, I believe it's called Ashlyn disorder, does this mean that objectively they are not human beings?

Are you saying you think it would be okay to kill anyone having a heart attack?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 3:47:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 1:18:24 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
An endangered species is not valuable living alone on it's own for more than it's life span unless it reproduces either. It only has value based on it's actions and whether is reproduces or not. The same goes for humans, we are valued based on our actions while we are living. Until you can determine what actions a fetus will carry out once it's living you cannot determine the value of said fetus, so there is no justification for aborting it because of the situation it would be born in to or due to a blanket statistic.

So, according to your logic, it is moral to kill anyone whose actions you disapprove of?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 4:16:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 8:00:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

Abortion would still be permissible because the organism in question has not reached a point of moral significance. Whether it is terminated or sent to an artificial womb makes no difference. And since I'd imagine that the latter option would be more costly and difficult, abortion would remain the more efficient method that can be secured as a right to those women that need it.

The point of the thought experiment was that both termination and evacuation of the foetus were equally burdensome, in order to make it more explicit whether abortion covers merely "reproductive rights" (i.e. primarily a bodily integrity position), or whether it would extend to the termination of an organism.

Just to be clear, your position is that it makes no moral difference killing the foetus if the aims of the woman can be met through evacuation? And I'd assume that this holds until the point where such an organism gained moral significance?

The reason I ask is that surely motive in cases of abortion have to morally relevant to some extent. Even most ardent supporters of abortion or infanticide (although I don't know if you'd go that far) would view sex selective abortion/infanticide, for example, as on much shakier ground that termination because of uterine cancer or rape.

If motives are important, surely killing the foetus instead of evacuating it is much harder to justify?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 4:40:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 4:16:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 9/3/2013 8:00:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2013 6:22:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
It's more out of interest than making an argument, but I just wondered if technology could effectively end the abortion debate.

Following Kaczor, let's say we had the technology to provide artificial wombs. Let's also posit that this would be as equally as burdensome as abortion and that such a process would allow the mother to relieve herself of being responsible for the child (e.g. financially, etc) and the offspring would be put up for adoption. In such a scenario, is abortion still permissible?

Put another way, is abortion primarily about evacuating an unwanted organism, or is does it necessarily involve terminating this organism, at least in some cases?

Abortion would still be permissible because the organism in question has not reached a point of moral significance. Whether it is terminated or sent to an artificial womb makes no difference. And since I'd imagine that the latter option would be more costly and difficult, abortion would remain the more efficient method that can be secured as a right to those women that need it.

The point of the thought experiment was that both termination and evacuation of the foetus were equally burdensome, in order to make it more explicit whether abortion covers merely "reproductive rights" (i.e. primarily a bodily integrity position), or whether it would extend to the termination of an organism.

Just to be clear, your position is that it makes no moral difference killing the foetus if the aims of the woman can be met through evacuation? And I'd assume that this holds until the point where such an organism gained moral significance?

The reason I ask is that surely motive in cases of abortion have to morally relevant to some extent. Even most ardent supporters of abortion or infanticide (although I don't know if you'd go that far) would view sex selective abortion/infanticide, for example, as on much shakier ground that termination because of uterine cancer or rape.

If motives are important, surely killing the foetus instead of evacuating it is much harder to justify?

I've made it pretty clear that the development of some form of sentience would be a reasonable determinant of moral significance. So that limits my support for abortion to the first few weeks of pregnancy, very much in line with current abortion laws. Anything the woman chooses to do be it termination or evacuation is morally inconsequential in that period because she is operating with non-sentient biological material - a mass of cells does not a human make. To ask me to establish a preference between two equally inconsequential options (in the frame of the first few weeks) is to ignore this point.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 4:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's a wild thought:

If we decide that abortions are a bad thing, let's just reduce the number of abortions by increasing access to contraception, and promoting sexual education.

Here's another wild thought:

If it's not your body, it's not your place to decide what happens with it -regardless of how passionately you might feel about an issue.

I have some more wild thoughts, but I think that we're all aware of the socioeconomic implications of abortion...
Tsar of DDO