The Abortion debate

[Houseman]

I’m not doing your fuckin’ work for you. If you’re deadset on this then you should be able to answer the question with a broad set of variables.

No need to get so hostile. I thought it would have been obvious. I apologize.

If the answer is my question is no, then the answer to your question is also no.
If the answer to my question is yes, then the answer to your question is also yes.

That is how we determine moral culpability. If you knowingly do something to cause a miscarriage or otherwise do not take the proper precautions, then you are morally culpable. If you don't, then you aren't.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Because you said "it has no legal right or ownership towards its mother's body"

That may not have been the best wording on my part, but it's still true.

Even a child doesn't own the house it lives in. It certainly doesn't own its parents because they provide it with food. Its ability to live in that house or receive food is entirely conditional on them, that's part of what makes it a relationship of dependence. The obligation on parents to care for a child, which as mentioned is actually quite limited, is not a general quality of personhood.

You don't think it's immoral to refuse to care for you child? I do.

I think it's no less immoral than refusing to care for any person (and bear in mind, I don't think zygotes are people, I'm indulging this as a fun hypothetical) who requires care, including those who have unwanted pregnancies.

I certainly don't think it's more immoral for someone to refuse to care for a child they personally shot out of their vagina than it is for you (or anyone) to refuse to care for that same child. If it's wrong to refuse to exercise the capacity you have to care for someone in a position of need (and bear in mind, most people who end up refusing to care for their children probably don't have the capacity to do so) then why would you not apply that obligation as a general moral principle?

Because what bothers me is when unfeeling, unthinking clumps of human cells evoke more moral responsibility than the thinking, feeling, complex human beings who carry them.

 

[Houseman]

I think it's no less immoral than refusing to care for any person (and bear in mind, I don't think zygotes are people, I'm indulging this as a fun hypothetical) who requires care, including those who have unwanted pregnancies.

I think that refusing to care for your children is even more immoral than refusing to care for someone else's child, like how murdering someone is more immoral than slapping them.

If it's wrong to refuse to exercise the capacity you have to care for someone in a position of need (and bear in mind, most people who end up refusing to care for their children probably don't have the capacity to do so) then why would you not apply that obligation as a general moral principle?

I think it is a general moral principle. Jesus gave to the poor as a way of exercising that potential, for example. It was not the most important thing in his life, however, so assuming one wanted to use Jesus as a moral example, that should give us a hint on how such a thing should be prioritized.

Because what bothers me is when unfeeling, unthinking clumps of human cells evoke more moral responsibility than the thinking, feeling, complex human beings who carry them.

Well, the bible also says that "weaker vessels" deserve more consideration at 1 Peter 3:7, so that might ring true. Who requires more attention and care, a baby that cannot possibly care for itself? Or an adult woman who is capable of acquiring food, clothing, and shelter for herself? Don't we have more of a moral responsibility for caring for those who cannot care for themselves, than for caring for those who can?

 

[Agema]

Never regaining brain function is sort of the definition of brain dead. If there's a chance of recovery, you aren't brain dead. That's what those words mean.

That they'll never regain brain function is a prediction, not a guarantee.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I think that refusing to care for your children is even more immoral than refusing to care for someone else's child.

Why though?

Is someone else's child less of a person? Is the moral quality of helping a person in need determined by the amount of DNA you share with them?

I think it is a general moral principle. Jesus gave to the poor as a way of exercising that potential, for example. It was not the most important thing in his life, however, so assuming one wanted to use Jesus as a moral example, that should give us a hint on how such a thing should be prioritized.

Assuming that the account we have of Jesus life is accurate (which is a big ask, but let's assume divine inspiration or something) then Jesus seems to have lived a pretty punk existence, one which very few modern Christians would particularly care to emulate.

Don't we have more of a moral responsibility for caring for those who cannot care for themselves, than for caring for those who can?

Let's say you built a time machine and travelled back to before the evolution of hominids, but your time machine broke and you were stranded in a world with no other humans in it. How long do you think you, an adult human, would live before succumbing to starvation, predation, illness, despair, injury or some other hazard?

Humans did not evolve to be self-sufficient. That's why we built a society in the first place. Even discounting the idea that very few modern humans have any knowledge or training in how to survive alone, even the few that do do not ultimately have a great chance of making it long term. Because we live in a society, we are dependent on other people. If you want food clothes or shelter, someone has to give you those things, and typically you're expected to give something in return. If you can't give something in return, then you can't get those things.

Additionally, a baby has relatively simple needs. The needs of an adult living in a modern society are often far more complex and abstract. If someone can't meet those needs. If someone can't find a job, or they have a job but it doesn't pay enough to support a child, because half the people living on this planet are only sharing 1% of the wealth while the top 1% collectively owns nearly half the world's resources, then there's clearly a relationship of dependence there. How do you morally account for that dependence?

Or is the good Christian thing to do to blame those people for not working hard enough, and then fantasize about punishing them with unwanted pregnancies?

 

[Elijin]

Not providing your child with the necessities of life is criminal. If those necessities happen to be a womb, then it would be criminal not to provide one.

So any woman of age who is not pregnant or nursing is guilty of criminal negligence? Gotcha.

 

[McElroy]

I judge pro-life people harshly. They put too much emphasis on conception. I don't think you should be philosophically pro-life either. Life is full of suffering already and having offspring is our selfish DNA fulfilling our egoistic purpose. I'm not above judging women, but that's because of other choices they might make in their lives.

 

[Houseman]

Why though?

Is someone else's child less of a person? Is the moral quality of helping a person in need determined by the amount of DNA you share with them?

In an ideal situation, that child should have their own parents. They are the ones with the responsibility of caring for that child. Denying your responsibilities is immoral.

If that is not possible, if the child's parents have died, then of course someone else from this now-less-than-deal society should take care of them, perhaps several people, if necessary. It would be their moral duty, as a whole, to care for those who need care.

But one has a greater responsibility to care for one's own child, which is what makes it "more immoral" if they deny that responsibility.

Assuming that the account we have of Jesus life is accurate (which is a big ask, but let's assume divine inspiration or something) then Jesus seems to have lived a pretty punk existence, one which very few modern Christians would particularly care to emulate.

Ok.

Additionally, a baby has relatively simple needs. The needs of an adult living in a modern society are often far more complex and abstract. If someone can't meet those needs. If someone can't find a job, or they have a job but it doesn't pay enough to support a child, because half the people living on this planet are only sharing 1% of the wealth while the top 1% collectively owns nearly half the world's resources, then there's clearly a relationship of dependence there. How do you morally account for that dependence?

Your question seems very broad. It seems like you're asking "what is the best way to live in society?"
Can give a specific example?

So any woman of age who is not pregnant or nursing is guilty of criminal negligence? Gotcha.

This sounds like the "every time a guy masturbates, he commits genocide!" argument that betrays a poor understanding of biology.
If you do understand where babies come from, then I don't understand how you can make this argument with a straight face.

 

[CaitSeith]

All I want to say is that the pro-life debate doesn't really care about no one's life (born or not).

 

[Agema]

All I want to say is that the pro-life debate doesn't really care about no one's life (born or not).

We shouldn't call them the pro-life mocement when the only life they are pro- is a bundle of cells in a uterus. I'll bet you there's a healthy overlap with people who support capital punishment and think the police should be allowed to delete black people at will.

 

[Elijin]

I mean, I'm just paraphrasing your argument. That a woman failing to provide her womb to a non existent child, is criminal.

 

[Houseman]

I mean, I'm just paraphrasing your argument. That a woman failing to provide her womb to a non existent child, is criminal.

I think the misunderstanding here is based on the phrase "a non-existent child"
What I said was that failing to provide for your child is legally and morally wrong. I never said anything about "non-existent" children. I've been assuming that the creation of a child (at conception, under my definition) is a prerequisite for all this.

 

[Elijin]

Let's play out your world view.
~
20 year old woman, works in construction. Income just barely makes ends meet. No savings to speak of. Has not been taught to be ashamed of her body or sexuality, she goes out and finds a consenting partner. They employ appropriate contraception, have their fun and never even exchange details. Fast forward, the contraception failed, as sometimes happens, she is now pregnant and her legal obligation as a parent has begun.

In your world, any step to end the pregnancy is criminal.
At this point her options:

Being the sole income provider for herself, she continues to work with her only skill set. The job is physically demanding and stressful, inevitably a miscarriage occurs. Having knowingly engaged in this risk, she is now criminally negligent.

Or

She leaves her job for the safety of the foetus. Without any savings and her skill set rendered unusable, she quickly falls behind financially and is evicted. Without reliable shelter and sustenance, a miscarriage occurs. She failed to provide adequate care, shelter and necessary calories, so she is found criminally negligent.
~

Nice world you've created there, Houseman.

 

[Houseman]

she goes out and finds a consenting partner. They employ appropriate contraception, have their fun and never even exchange details.

As per my religious beliefs, that's where she went wrong. If this is my hypothetical world, where intentional or negligent miscarriages are illegal, then premarital sex would also be illegal.

But lets ignore that for now and keep going along with your scenario

She failed to provide adequate care, shelter and necessary calories, so she is found criminally negligent.

Like I said to Gordon: "If you knowingly do something to cause a miscarriage or otherwise do not take the proper precautions, then you are morally culpable. If you don't, then you aren't."

She shouldn't be criminally negligent as she took the proper precautions to the best of her ability.

What normally happens to homeless women with starving newborns? Does their child get taken away by CPS? Is the homeless woman criminally negligent in these cases? I don't know, but I would imagine that it would be treated similarly. CPS can't take the child into custody, unless they have artificial womb and fetus extraction technology, (which, if this is my hypothetical world, they could have, if I wish it) but they can take the woman. Ideally, the woman gets a 3 hots and a cot and whatever else she needs to deliver a healthy baby.

 

[Elijin]

Well, that's easy.

If your view to be enabled requires a fundamental reworking of consent and sexual conduct laws to be viable, then you might just be wrong.


For a bonus round, I wonder how easily I'd find past posts of you being critical of OTHER religions handing down laws. Maybe some Muslim ones?


But for real, you're entitled to your religious belief about the morality of this. But that religious stance has no place impacting the law.

 

[Houseman]

If your view to be enabled requires a fundamental reworking of consent and sexual conduct laws to be viable, then you might just be wrong.

I'm fine with that.

For a bonus round, I wonder how easily I'd find past posts of you being critical of OTHER religions handing down laws. Maybe some Muslim ones?

I'd imagine you'd have quite a hard time, because I'm pretty sure I never commented on any such thing on this or any other site. It's not the sort of thing that I do.

But for real, you're entitled to your religious belief about the morality of this. But that religious stance has no place impacting the law.

I agree. That's why I said, in post 4, that I'm not going to vote for legislation denying abortion for others.

 

[Terminal Blue]

In an ideal situation, that child should have their own parents.

In an ideal situation, noone should have an unwanted pregnancy. The ethics of abortion specifically concern a non-ideal situation.

I mean, even if you do have your own parents, that doesn't mean your parents are equipped to take care of you. They might not have the financial means to take care of you, they might not be able to sacrifice the earning potential they need to live in order to take care of you. They might not be psychologically equipped to take care of you at that point in their lives, or generally for that matter. Again, none of this is ideal, but assuming an ideal situation would defy the entire point of this exercise.

If your argument is that parents have an obligation to support their children because otherwise those children will be harmed, then do you not have an obligation to support those parents, or to support those children yourself, simply because otherwise those children will be harmed?

Is this about protecting the individual's right to the necessities of life, or is it about enforcing responsibility on people by using children as a punishment for people who fall short of your own fairly arbitrary standards of personal morality (whether through any fault of their own or otherwise)? It can't be both.

 

[Houseman]

If your argument is that parents have an obligation to support their children because otherwise those children will be harmed, then do you not have an obligation to support those parents, or to support those children yourself, simply because otherwise those children will be harmed?

I would say that we all have a moral obligation to support everyone who needs support, but that we are all constantly failing at this. However, one should not be unduly concerned about this, as this is not a problem that one person or even an entire country, can solve alone.

Is this about protecting the individual's right to the necessities of life, or is it about enforcing responsibility

Why can't it be both? Frankly, responsibility needs to be enforced. A lack of responsibility causes so many problems. Fathers might not feel responsible for their children or their baby mommas, who, in turn, might not feel responsible for their baby daddies or children. This leads to broken families, broken homes, and broken people.

If you have sex, you need to deal with the consequences. That's responsibility. Aren't ready for the consequences? Then don't have sex. To preempt the subject of rape: this is a tragedy, yes, but it need not be compounded with another.

 

[Trunkage]

As per my religious beliefs, that's where she went wrong. If this is my hypothetical world, where intentional or negligent miscarriages are illegal, then premarital sex would also be illegal.

I think it should be illegal to get married before having sex. I've seen far too many marriages disintegrate because they didn't try before they buy and not realising they aren't sexually compatible

 

[Terminal Blue]

I would say that we all have a moral obligation to support everyone who needs support, but that we are all constantly failing at this. However, one should not be unduly concerned about this, as this is not a problem that one person or even an entire country, can solve alone.

So why should anyone be unduly concerned about abortion?

Even if we accept your premise that a single cell can be a person, why should that person evoke more moral outrage than the millions of people who die of preventable causes each year (including several million actual children).

The issue here is not just how much of your personal wealth you have sacrificed for others, as you point out that is indeed a fairly small contribution in the grand scheme of things (although not as small as not having an abortion, even if we accept that that is a contribution at all). The bigger issue is what, ethically and politically, you have done to advocate for those millions of people, again including children, who die preventable deaths due to living in an unfair economic system. Do you advocate for them with the same zeal with which you advocate for the protection of single celled zygotes, or are the zygotes somehow more important for some reason?

Why can't it be both? Frankly, responsibility needs to be enforced. A lack of responsibility causes so many problems. Fathers might not feel responsible for their children or their baby mommas, who, in turn, might not feel responsible for their baby daddies or children. This leads to broken families, broken homes, and broken people.

Do you seriously believe that a family consisting of people who are forced to be together out of desperation and coercion is not a broken family? Do you believe that is a healthy environment in which to raise a child who, from the day of their birth, is unwanted and unloved by the only people you feel are responsible for them? Do you believe that environment produces healthy people who are not, in a very real sense, broken.

This is why it cannot be both. You cannot care about the wellbeing of a child, and also be determined to use that child as a weapon against its parents, or as a way of forcing them to live the miserable, shitty life you believe they deserve for falling short of your moral standards. Using a child in that way is inherently harmful to the child and, ironically, is deeply inconsistent with the idea that they possess an individual personhood worth a damn.

If you have sex, you need to deal with the consequences. That's responsibility. Aren't ready for the consequences? Then don't have sex.

Are you willing to apply this to the unintended consequences of actions generally, or only to the consequences of actions which you personally disapprove of?