Abortion hypotheticals

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Abortion hypotheticals

Post by esquizofrenico » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:28 am

PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:00 pm
esquizofrenico wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:24 pm
PsYcHo wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:49 pm
To me, if you think in Jebus's first example was okay, then you should be fine with the second as well. (fourth trimester abortion?)
This is clearly not true, the first and the second case can be differentiated in that for the first case you can say that the mother is not trying to kill the baby but to exert her right of body autonomy, that unfortunately leads to the dead of a baby;
Before I respond, I want to make it clear in case of rape I don't feel this way, but if we aren't talking about rape......

The mother made the choice to have unprotected sex. (Or maybe the condom broke, my next point will still apply)

I'm a realist. Sex is fun and feels good, and sometimes the guy who says he "won't go inside you" lies, or the condom breaks, or your timing is off for the rhythm method, whatever.

Plan B pills exist, so that's an option.

So are, birth control, proper use of condoms, properly using the pull out method, diaphragms, spermicide, IUD, or twenty other options https://www.birthcontrol.com/

If you can't be bothered to use any of those methods, and still get pregnant, maybe I'd feel understanding if you have your abortion in the first month or two. Still don't have to like it, because ADOPTION exists, but I'd get it. (I'm an adoptee, btw ;) )

But if you go past that, and still want to use the excuse of body autonomy, you're ignoring the autonomy of the body living inside of you because of your choices.

Take responsibility for your actions, give the damn child away. I'll never understand how persons who won't kill a damn fish think it's okay to kill a damn tadpole that grows into a human..... :?: :?:
We are agreeing. You think that a mother has some obligation with respect the child she has conceived, which is a totally defensible position, and that those obligations outweigh her right of body autonomy. I must say that I should not have written the previous message because I did not see that you have said "To me", I thought you were saying that the two situations were objectively indifferentiable, that's what I was objecting to.

The point is that in the second case you presented even if the mother has no obligations with respect that child, she cannot morally murder him, because that cannot be seen in any way as an application of body autonomy. She could abandon him, which in most cases would be almost equivalent to killing him, but once the baby is out of your body stabbing him is no different than stabbing the doctor.

esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by esquizofrenico » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:42 am

PsYcHo wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:33 am
carnap wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:24 am
PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:35 pm
If it is living in your body, and basically a parasite that you must feed, you have the right as an individual to remove the parasite. I don't like it morally, but that's your right as an individual. It's pretty clear to me though, that if it's able to survive without your uterus, you no longer have a right as an individual to remove it from existence.
Newborns are also "parasites" in this sense, the only reason you can separate them from their mother's today is due to technology. Namely the existence of infant formula. So prior to infant formula would it then be morally just for a mother to kill her breast feeding newborn or toddler because it is "basically a parasite" on her?
Do you think it is morally acceptable to kill an infant because it is unable to care for itself?

If that is your reasoning, I could argue that if you don't farm your own food, build your own house, and only rely on clothing and other "necessities" that you produce yourself, you are just as much of a parasite as the infant in question. :twisted:
This is a straw man, and given that you are a libertarian PsycHo, you already agree with the correct formulation of this idea. You think that the only moral way someone can get goods is through mutually agreed interchanges. You do not need to be able to make your own cloths in order to have cloths, but you do need to be able to produce something which someone is interested to interchange for some cloths. So the problem that carnap is presenting is what happens if the mother is not willing to give breast-milk to his child. The baby is not able to produce anything in order to get someone to agree to interchange it for milk.

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:39 am

PsYcHo wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:33 am
carnap wrote: Newborns are also "parasites" in this sense, the only reason you can separate them from their mother's today is due to technology. Namely the existence of infant formula. So prior to infant formula would it then be morally just for a mother to kill her breast feeding newborn or toddler because it is "basically a parasite" on her?
Do you think it is morally acceptable to kill an infant because it is unable to care for itself?

If that is your reasoning, I could argue that if you don't farm your own food, build your own house, and only rely on clothing and other "necessities" that you produce yourself, you are just as much of a parasite as the infant in question. :twisted:
I think you straw-manned carnap's argument.

If you claim that the distinction between an infant and a fetus is the ability to sustain itself, then this distinction crumbles pretty quickly under closer scrutiny.
PsYcHo wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:33 am
Once they decide to allow the fetus to exit their body, it is no longer a part of them. It is an individual capable of surviving without them (providing someone else is willing to provide for it, which many, many people would ). To kill it would be murder in the simplest terms.
This seems like a rather arbitrary benchmark to me, since the nature of the mother-child relationship remains constant immediately after brith. That is, the infant remains “parasitic” to the mother, feeding from her breasts anywhere from 2 to 4 years age, and isn’t capable of extracting nutrients from food. They also lack significant cognitive functions and motor-skills (carnap also pointed out) which puts them in immediate danger. How could a newborn infant in any way be defined as “self sustaining?”

If you argue that “self sustaining” means the infant is capable of surviving biologically outside of the womb, then it would logically follow that killing fetuses as young as 22 weeks (5 months) is morally impermissable. Many of whom are capable of surviving, biologically, outside of the womb. To remain consistent, you would concede that killing any child as young as 5 months is morally impermissible.

Also, in a world where fetuses can be grown and developed in an artificial womb (outside of any human female) would it morally permissible to kill the fetus? Why or why not? Are there things besides bodily autonomy that we should morally concern ourselves with?

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:52 am

esquizofrenico wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:42 am

This is a straw man, and given that you are a libertarian PsycHo, you already agree with the correct formulation of this idea. You think that the only moral way someone can get goods is through mutually agreed interchanges. You do not need to be able to make your own cloths in order to have cloths, but you do need to be able to produce something which someone is interested to interchange for some cloths. So the problem that carnap is presenting is what happens if the mother is not willing to give breast-milk to his child. The baby is not able to produce anything in order to get someone to agree to interchange it for milk.
sigh... I hate when people use the strawman argument because they don't get how analogies work. Trying to present an argument with a descriptive analogy isn't a "strawman" its an attempt to correlate two or more ideas by using terminology that lay folk can relate to. Those of us who debate regularly on forums can be held to a higher standard, but there could be the consideration that lay persons may also read these posts; are we just arguing amoungst ourselves, or are we trying to debate in a way that others (who aren't regular debators) can follow?

The baby cannot produce anything. It's helpless.

But it may surprise some people to know, that there are people, (even crazy minded Libertarian types) who will take care of a helpless child that was abandoned by its birth parents.

They don't even expect this helpless child to produce any services, they would be willing to take care of it because its the right thing to do.

If you'd like to start a debate about Libertarianism, start a new thread. Us Libertarians have this weird philosophy that each and every person ( much like Vegans feel about each and every animal) has the right to live free, and no one has the authority to take away our right to do so.

A small, underdeveloped being, living in someone's womb, has the right to live. If that being may cause harm to the mother, then she has the right to protect herself. But if that small being is just ...undesired... then removing it is... (whats the term for when you kill something that you don't have to?)
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:28 am

Lay Vegan wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:39 am

If you argue that “self sustaining” means the infant is capable of surviving biologically outside of the womb, then it would logically follow that killing fetuses as young as 22 weeks (5 months) is morally impermissable. Many of whom are capable of surviving, biologically, outside of the womb. To remain consistent, you would concede that killing any child as young as 5 months is morally impermissible.

Also, in a world where fetuses can be grown and developed in an artificial womb (outside of any human female) would it morally permissible to kill the fetus? Why or why not? Are there things besides bodily autonomy that we should morally concern ourselves with?
Forgive my ignorance, i drink, but I thought I made it clear that killing the child (except in cases of rape or incest) is wrong. Morally. (I still don't wish to have a law against it. I'm a biological male, so I'll never have to consider options if I became impregnated.)

I think body autonomy is pretty substantial when we consider killing a living creature.

The mother has her own rights, but there should also be the consideration that the fetus (at some point) also has it's right to live.

Many correlations have been made regarding older children (in an attempt to derail my argument), but does anyone who presented the "killing older children" argument really think that could be considered a positive moral action?
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by esquizofrenico » Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:04 am

My intention wasn't to say anything about Libertarianism PsYcHo, I could really have skipped mentioning it, I just thought that it would speed the conversation by showing your position with respect the argument carnap was doing.

About what you say about the straw man, I don't agree with what you say. Your analogy is not useful because it clearly does not resemble even remotely carnap's position. The quality that carnap's of babies that carnap is using to ask you if it qualifies new-born babies as parasites is not the fact that they are not perfect survivalist that can live alone in the woods, but that they are completely dependant and unable to provide for themselves in any way.

Finally, I don't think you believe that the right of a non-born baby to live is the determinant point in this discussion. If you did you would clearly not condone abortion because of rape, because clearly a rapist son has as much a right to live as a non-rapist's. So you believe that the mother has some kind of special duty with respect his son because of having conceived him or her through consensual sex. Don't you agree?

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:45 pm

esquizofrenico wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:04 am
About what you say about the straw man, I don't agree with what you say.
You're right on this point. I'm stressed about something non-relevant to the thread, and this is a serious topic, so I was more of an ass than I should have been. (I chose the name PsYcHo for a reason... :twisted: )

I'd like to continue this debate but I'm going to take a bit to re-read all the posts, and respond when I'm not as ...emotional. (I enjoy heated debates, but I think I was an ass, and didn't really respond appropriately. )
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:37 pm

carnap wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:24 am
PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:35 pm
If it is living in your body, and basically a parasite that you must feed, you have the right as an individual to remove the parasite. I don't like it morally, but that's your right as an individual. It's pretty clear to me though, that if it's able to survive without your uterus, you no longer have a right as an individual to remove it from existence.
Newborns are also "parasites" in this sense, the only reason you can separate them from their mother's today is due to technology. Namely the existence of infant formula. So prior to infant formula would it then be morally just for a mother to kill her breast feeding newborn or toddler because it is "basically a parasite" on her?

I'll try to avoid the strawman argument I used previously here.

The newborns are parasites, in the sense that you claim.

The point I am trying to make, is that there are many people who would be willing to provide for that newborn, despite it being a parasite.

Body autonomy is a serious point, but if the child is born, there are many people that would willing provide for this undesired infant, even though it is parasitic.

I don't think it is morally justified to kill an infant, if there is another option available.

To answer your question directly, if we are going back in time, prior to infant formula, there were women (wet nurses) who could provide sustenance for an infant if it's mother couldn't/wouldn't feed it. They did it because it was the right thing to do..

I'm all for freedom of personal autonomy, but in this situation, the consideration should be made that the fetus (though living in another person's body) also has rights. I'm a biological male, married to a biological female, and we haven't had to deal with pregnancy issues, because we use precautions. But our situation has made me consider the realistic implications of our...coupling.

I don't think it is morally just for anyone to kill a sentient being, if they have a choice.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:52 pm

PsYcHo wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:28 am
Forgive my ignorance, i drink, but I thought I made it clear that killing the child (except in cases of rape or incest) is wrong. Morally. (I still don't wish to have a law against it. I'm a biological male, so I'll never have to consider options if I became impregnated.)
I’m not discussing legality (that would be the topic of another conversation). Rather, the hypotheticals posed concern whether or not we view the abortion to be moral. I asked you where the distinction is drawn between an adult, child, infant, and fetus conceived of rape (in regard to moral consideration) and you stated:
PsYcHo wrote: If it is living in your body, and basically a parasite that you must feed, you have the right as an individual to remove the parasite. I don't like it morally, but that's your right as an individual. It's pretty clear to me though, that if it's able to survive without your uterus, you no longer have a right as an individual to remove it from existence.


Once they decide to allow the fetus to exit their body, it is no longer a part of them. It is an individual capable of surviving without them (providing someone else is willing to provide for it, which many, many people would ). To kill it would be murder in the simplest terms. They could give it up for adoption, or sell it to the highest bidder.

:twisted:

No reason to kill it.
Here’s why I’m skeptical of this particular argument:
Lay Vegan wrote: This seems like a rather arbitrary benchmark to me, since the nature of the mother-child relationship remains constant immediately after birth. That is, the infant remains “parasitic” to the mother, feeding from her breasts anywhere from 2 to 4 years age, and isn’t capable of extracting nutrients from food. They also lack significant cognitive functions and motor-skills (carnap also pointed out) which puts them in immediate danger. How could a newborn infant in any way be defined as “self sustaining?
Even after emerging from the womb, the child will continue to rely on his or her parent for food, shelter, and safety with little to no investment in return for up to 4 years. The relationship remains constant. If you claim that the distinction is “self-sustainability” or survival outside of the womb as the morally relevant factor, then it too would include 5 month old fetuses conceived in the act of rape (who are capable of survival outside of the womb).
PsYcHo wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:28 am
I thought I made it clear that killing the child (except in cases of rape or incest) is wrong
The argument can go against your position regarding newborn infants conceived of rape.

If:

It is moral to kill rape fetuses because they are incapable of survival on their own. Thus, my right to bodily autonomy overrides its right to life.

Then it would logically follow...

It is moral to kill rape infants because they are incapable of survival on their own, thus my right to bodily autonomy overrides its right to life.

The proposed distinction between a “rape fetus” and a “rape infant” crumbles quickly under scrutiny. If you would like to apply moral principles differently for newborn infants and fetuses, then you need to provide a consistent justification that permits this difference in treatment (besides the ability of survival on its own).

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:58 pm

esquizofrenico wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:04 am
Finally, I don't think you believe that the right of a non-born baby to live is the determinant point in this discussion. If you did you would clearly not condone abortion because of rape, because clearly a rapist son has as much a right to live as a non-rapist's.
I'm not the most "moral" person alive. But if someone is raped, and becomes pregnant, she had no choice in the conception of the child.

You do make a good point about the rapist's child's having rights, but the woman who was forcibly raped has rights as well, and I personally believe her rights supersede the child in her body. She was here first, and it wasn't a situation where she said "come inside me!/ the guy comes inside her", so she didn't engage in behavior that would reasonably impregnate her.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests