1658

You aren’t offering anything like a logical argument here.

Why is it wrong to murder another human being? We agree that this is wrong, right?

That rationale applies to a baby immediately after it’s born, right?
Logically, that exact same rationale applies to that entity immediately BEFORE it was delivered, since it’s functionally an identical entity.

This is a super extreme edge case, but if you cannot admit even this, then I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.

1659

This is very well said, and a good reason not to get drawn in to the derail. Thanks for putting it so clearly.

1660

Are you really going to argue that the uterus is a different legal jurisdiction? I must admit that’s an interesting one, but is that really going to be your argument?

No, this isn’t a distraction, it’s an edge case that we SHOULD all be able to accept. We assign rights based on an entity’s inherent qualities. We generally accept that people should not be murdered, because they are people.

If some entity meets the required qualities for personhood, then that person deserves the same rights we grant to other people, whether that be a child, or an animal, or whatever.

Now, it’s totally fair to say, “An embryo is not a person.” I totally agree with that, which is why I don’t buy into the idea that abortion at early stages is killing a person.

But at some point, that fetus does in fact become a person, because it’s functionally identical to a child after it is delivered, and we all agree that child is a person. Logically, the fetus that is developmentally identical, has to be considered a person, at least in my mind.

But what this shows, and what it was originally brought up for, is that the idea that you can have an opposition to at least some sorts of abortion, without having any kind of religious basis for that opposition.

1661

This is literally always the thing though, isn’t it? First off, this whole argument is a bad faith distraction, since it only applies to late term abortion. But beyond that, why would there be any point where the woman loses autonomy over her own body in favor of another entity? Even if we are to stipulate the overt absurdity that the two are equivalent, why do the woman’s rights automatically come second?

It’s inside another human being, for fuck’s sake.

1662

Again, there is almost no anti-abortion movement that isn’t religious. We can play games to gin up theoretical anti-abortion rationales that aren’t religious, but it is just a game, because the actual anti-abortion movement? It’s religious.

1663

Are you saying that a woman should be forced to bear a child if it presents a risk to her life?

If not, then who cares? That’s not at stake. Late term abortions are not provided for convenience. RvW and the rest of the legal apparatus around abortions allow states to restrict them and most people are fine with that. There’s no hint of that changing anytime soon, nor any substantial political movement to do so.

1664

It’s not bad faith at all. Indeed, I think it’s actually you who is engaging in a bad faith argument at this point.

The discussion of this extreme edge case is not a distraction, it’s merely a very isolated example of an abortion that I can say, “That, for sure, is wrong.”

I don’t oppose all abortions. I think that based on the statistics, I support the vast majority as simply being a medical procedure.

But at the same time, I also admit that there are subcases that I would describe as wrong.

Because at the point in the hypothetical case here, you are talking about actually killing another human being.

If the fetus is indeed a person, then it is deserving of rights on its own. The mother also has rights in that situation. It cannot be simplified down to a situation where ONLY one of them has rights.

Two points:

  1. If the fetus is in fact a human being, then why wouldn’t its rights be equivalent?
  2. Stipulating that they are equivalent, the reason why they would come second would be based on a utilitarian goal of reducing harm. In the case we’re talking about, having the baby delivered would cause less harm to the mother, than aborting the child at that point would cause to the child (which would be essentially maximum harm).

But it’s a fully functional human being. It has exactly the same capacity for thought and suffering that it will have after its delivered.

I guess this highlights a key aspect of this.
Why do you think it’s wrong to kill another human being? Do you?

No, because in that case you have essentially two equivalent levels of harm that could be caused.

Again, please try to understand this. I’m not using this as some argument against abortion.

It is merely an example of why the critical element here is whether you accept the fetus is a person.

For ME, that fetus becomes a person fairly late in its developmental cycle… certainly not before 20 weeks. But at some point in the last trimester, certainly at the point of viability, that fetus is a person to me…because if we were to remove it from the mother’s body, it would be considered a person. There’s no magical transformation that takes place there. From the perspective of science, it’s exactly the same entity. If we give rights to one, we need to give rights to the other.

Now, other folks may choose to assign that personhood differently than I do. And while I may disagree with how they make that assignment, I can still understand how killing that entity becomes a big problem for them. Just like killing a 39 week old fetus would be a problem for me. Because it’s killing a person. When someone is killing a person, that’s a problem for all of us here. We don’t turn away and say, “That’s none of my business.”

1665

But doesn’t this make the bodily autonomy arguments less absolute and more squishy? So as a society we’ve defined a stage where abortion is only okay for very specific reasons.

1666

Right. You’re also not an abortion crusader. I don’t know a single person who believes that a clump of cells is a human being except those coming at it from a religious point of view (e.g. it “has a soul”). I’m sure they exist, but I don’t think they exist in meaningful numbers.

1667

Absolutely, I think that once you move away from a functional definition of personhood, you are left with limited basis other than religion.

Although even in those cases, if a religious person truly believes that an embryo is a person, then I can understand why they would oppose abortion, and it wouldn’t have anything to do with the suggested motivation of wanting to oppress women.

I think there are in fact lots of people whose motivation is exactly that sort of oppression, or others who use it as nothing more than a political cudgel. But I suspect at least some folks actually believe that human personhood starts much earlier than I believe.

1668

How? Seems important.

1669

I actually do understand this. It’s not really an obscure point and it’s not necessary to do religious apologia on this topic. We get it.

I do think it’s notable that all of your discussion around the issue talks quite a bit about the fetus and what it is and its rights, but barely mentions pregnant women. The entire thorniness of the issue is because there is a pregnant woman involved. You can’t talk about abortion without talking about a pregnant woman. It doesn’t make sense.

I don’t really care about motivations. The result of restrictions on abortion will be that women–and specifically women–will have less opportunity to control their own lives, choices, and destinies. That is an inevitable consequence of the inalterable fact that it is women who get pregnant and not men. And it’s not debatable that will happen.

1670

I don’t think that everyone here does, or rather doesn’t want to acknowledge that on some cases, the woman’s rights are not in fact absolute, because they come in direct conflict with another entity deserving of rights.

Well, that’s because in this audience, virtually everyone is ONLY concerned with the woman’s rights, and believes that the fetus had zero rights.

When talking to pro life people, I tend to focus on the woman’s rights, and on the other end of the developmental scale.

Absolutely, but there are cases, limited though they may be in the grand scheme of commonly practiced abortion, where the woman’s rights should on fact be limited.

While late term abortions are exceedingly rare (this is a reason why I’ve stated before that I’m not motivated by a pro life perspective when it comes to voting, and at this point it’s be more motivated by a pro choice angle), they are a thing which happen, and in those cases I can say they are definitely wrong.

That doctor in Philly who was arrested a few years back was doing late term abortions, and they were monstrous. We should have no problem condemning then as such. Indeed, in those cases, not only were the abortion practices immoral and unethical from the perspective of what he did to the children, but they were also unethical from the perspective of the mothers, who were greatly endangered by the procedures.

1671

Not all murders are wrong, just ask the police for some great examples.

Not all late term abortions are wrong, but they should only happen for grave circumstances that should be spelled out plainly in the law governing abortion.

Before viability I’m in favor of it being the woman’s decision. Plenty of factors to take into account that that particular woman would be the best person to decide about, not some church ladies, politicians, and policemen.

And I’m out, cause this thread is just like talking to trumpers - they know what they know and they have no room for other people’s lives or beliefs in their relentless pursuit of making other people do what they want them to.

1672

There are pro-life folks here. This is an odd tack to take. I actually have a position on abortion and tend to advocate for that position regardless of my audience. Are you saying that you see yourself as a sort of permanent devil’s advocate?

I think maybe you assume that’s what we’re all doing too? When you say stuff like this it’s very frustrating:

  1. I don’t like the use of rights language here. You’re the guy who has argued strenuously (and I agree) against the idea of natural rights.
  2. There are literally zero people here who think a fetus’s life has no moral weight up to the moment of birth.
  3. In the first trimester, which is when the vast majority of abortions occur, the woman’s rights are absolute.
1673

I don’t think there are any folks here who are pro life to the extent that they oppose all abortions, are there? Certainly no more than one or two. The forum is most definitely heavily slanted towards the pro choice side of the argument.

Well, two things.

First, I’ll always learn more from discussing things with people that have different positions than I do, to or sometimes just arguing those positions, because I may then get exposed to arguments for my “own” position that I wouldn’t otherwise have. The act of discussion can help you refine your own perspective.

Second, there are elements of an argument which I see as incorrect, even if I might agree with the overall position in a general sense. For instance, I can agree that most abortions are acceptable (I’m reluctant to say “fine” due to how traumatized they can be), but still understand that there are legitimate, or at least honest, ethical or moral arguments against it. Or I can admit that there are edge cases which really do merit limitations.

I don’t understand how you can not use rights language. The pro choice position is based entirely on the rights of the woman.

I don’t think this is accurate.

I would agree, but that’s because I don’t believe an embryo is a person.

Again, note that I’m not arguing against abortion, certainly not in any broad sense here.

I’m merely pointing out that opposition to abortion can be based not only in legitimately held ethical beliefs, but that those beliefs are not even necessarily religious. Now, my limited opposition is, as Kevin put it, not abortion crusade language.

1674

This is clearly getting us nowhere so I’m done, but let me be clear that I sincerely and profoundly disagree with you on this point. There’s no “bad faith” here, bodily autonomy is about as close to “sacred” as a thing can be to me and the implications of allowing the government to dictate what you can and can’t do with your body are profound and disturbing beyond words.

1675

Especially if the reasons for it are religious.

1676

That’s really just the tip of the iceberg. On the “god I hope this stays sci fi but I’m not counting on it” front I’ve often wondered how one overcomes an autocracy that’s able to simply install a monitoring chip in the head of every citizen.

1677

Do it when they are children. Before they know any better. Frighten them with sick and twisted bible stories. Then keep pounding them with bullshit. Keep telling them how they have “original sin”. Then tell them how they can fix that.

Religion is a cancer on the world.