tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post513177414441843574..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Abortion: A Question of Women’s Rights, Morality – or Both?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81161803501918853242010-04-11T13:21:35.347-04:002010-04-11T13:21:35.347-04:00It is interesting that the issue of competing inte...It is interesting that the issue of competing interests was not better developed in the paper or in the comments.<br /><br />One way to think about this is in terms of competing interests. To follow up on Michael's notes, it seems clear that before say 13 weeks, the fetus doesn't have "interests" that can be in competition with the woman's -- her interests in having control of her own body, or more precisely, in not having to carry an unwanted child to term, therefore 'win' because there isn't anything for those interests to be in competition with.<br /><br />We might quibble about the 13-26 zone, but for those of us who are broadly in favor of permitting women to decide to terminate their pregnancies, it seems clear that the interests of the woman in, again, not having to carry an unwanted baby to term very likely trump whatever minimal kinds of interests the fetus might have.<br /><br />The case is trickier at 26+ weeks, because the fetus begins to have more interests, and other people (might) begin to have a legitimate interest in the outcome as well. Here I think we would need to have a discussion, as a society, about how to balance these competing interests, and under what conditions which set of interests should 'win.' Certainly, I would suggest that anytime the woman's life or health is endangered by continuing the pregnancy, she ought to have the legal right to terminate it, because, again, her interests in not being harmed outweigh any interests either the fetus or others' might have in the outcome...<br /><br />Just some thoughts. <br /><br />JonathanJonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364316598293820961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85258750576019394182010-04-08T03:47:17.124-04:002010-04-08T03:47:17.124-04:00Its unclear to me what your argument is.
Just as ...<i>Its unclear to me what your argument is.</i><br /><br />Just as well. After mulling it over some more, I don't much care for it.I.Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689899019458033716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18202546755641001202010-04-08T03:45:39.212-04:002010-04-08T03:45:39.212-04:00You must be using "entail" in some way I...<i>You must be using "entail" in some way I don't quite get. I understand that personhood entails having been a fetus, but not the other way around.</i><br /><br />It's a biconditional relation. A not-aborted fetus is sufficient condition for an advanced fetus, a newborn, (a tree!) because it grows into such. So, whenever personhood is thought to begin, it's entailed. Yes, there are error bars on that sufficiency and a host of external influences, but that's always the case when looking forward.<br /><br /><br /><i>The certainty, to me, of a fertilized egg becoming a person is, numerically, surprisingly low, as I recall from the last time I looked it up.</i><br /><br />I don't doubt it, but the decision in question is aborting/not-aborting. What is the conditional probability given not-abortion, i.e. at the development stage when the abortion is/is not performed?<br /><br /><br /><i>Morally it's equivalent to whether or not you introduce two people who could eventually reproduce, but will not if you don't introduce them.</i><br /><br />I don't know. The difference with abortion (as opposed to introducing two people, deciding to conceive, using a condom, what have you) is that there's an actual <i>thing</i> under consideration. In programmer's parlance, you have johnSmith, an instantiated object of class HumanBeing, with many null attributes and method stubs. What's morally permissible, then, will depend on one's views. Does johnSmith have a soul? Does it have capacity to suffer? Does it have telos? Does it have autonomy? Does it evoke moral instinct? Does it capitalized Live? That's a different kind of discussion with a possibly different conclusion. One can argue moral equivalence if they find abortion similarly permissible. Not the other way around though, which is how this style of argument is frequently misused.I.Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689899019458033716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42433823174170918402010-04-07T20:40:41.913-04:002010-04-07T20:40:41.913-04:00Morality is tightly bound with efficacy... a weigh...<i>Morality is tightly bound with efficacy... a weighing of expected outcomes.</i><br /><br />Statistically, the expected outcome is that a zygote will not survive. The odds that a particular zygote will survive become greater as it succeeds in correctly traversing each stage of development, until near birth there is less than a 1% chance it won't make it. That fits well with the trimester model of advancing societal interest set in Roe v Wade. While individually we find it inconceivable that the universe could have gotten along without us, that may be because we are not aware of the two or three sibling zygotes who likely would have been quite similiar to us and who didn't navigate the process till birth. Any of them might have been a perfectly acceptable substitute.croweppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04455851514519989241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25455553049105439402010-04-07T12:26:56.399-04:002010-04-07T12:26:56.399-04:00I.Strange,
No, it's still a weighing of expec...I.Strange,<br /><br /><i>No, it's still a weighing of expected outcomes: E(aborting) vs. E(carrying rapist's child to term). Appraise as you will. I'm trying to explore a different angle, not prove a conclusion.</i><br /><br />Rape is not an expected outcome (at least for the victim). The conception which was a product of that rape may lead to an expected outcome, but the scale on which that is being weighed is already broken, if you get my meaning (which I think you do).<br /><br /><i>Regardless, my argument doesn't hinge on "certainty after conception."</i><br /><br />Its unclear to me what your argument is.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51846975703571564252010-04-06T22:51:22.682-04:002010-04-06T22:51:22.682-04:00I.Strange:
You must be using "entail" i...I.Strange:<br /><br />You must be using "entail" in some way I don't quite get. I understand that personhood entails having been a fetus, but not the other way around.<br /><br />The certainty, to me, of a fertilized egg becoming a person is, numerically, surprisingly low, as I recall from the last time I looked it up. Morally it's equivalent to whether or not you introduce two people who could eventually reproduce, but will not if you don't introduce them.BubbaRichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10334093723773620510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61731663941108800482010-04-06T21:05:29.815-04:002010-04-06T21:05:29.815-04:00(Bah, that's not how expected value notation i...(Bah, that's not how expected value notation is used! Stupid stats.)I.Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689899019458033716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66599032049415236772010-04-06T19:49:37.058-04:002010-04-06T19:49:37.058-04:00Darek W,
If a woman who has been raped decides to...Darek W,<br /><br /><i>If a woman who has been raped decides to rid herself of the 'eventual' person, the idea of efficacy has been rendered moot.</i><br /><br />No, it's still a weighing of expected outcomes: E(aborting) vs. E(carrying rapist's child to term). Appraise as you will. I'm trying to explore a different angle, not prove a conclusion.<br /><br /><br /><i>I place eventual within quotations, as NEBob rightfully notes, there is no certainty after conception.</i><br /><br />I was unaware of how prevalent early miscarriage is. Regardless, my argument doesn't hinge on "certainty after conception."<br />..<br /><br />BubbaRich,<br /><br /><i>In no way does a fetus entail personhood, at least not for any definition I understand for "fetus," "entail," or "personhood."</i><br /><br />So... people come from storks?<br /><br />-- Ian.I.Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689899019458033716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13023966261201186022010-04-06T19:06:38.307-04:002010-04-06T19:06:38.307-04:00Ian,
In no way does a fetus entail personhood, at...Ian,<br /><br />In no way does a fetus entail personhood, at least not for any definition I understand for "fetus," "entail," or "personhood."BubbaRichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10334093723773620510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66689647779246052652010-04-06T12:08:52.342-04:002010-04-06T12:08:52.342-04:00"Morality is tightly bound with efficacy... a...<i>"Morality is tightly bound with efficacy... a weighing of expected outcomes."</i><br /><br />If a woman who has been raped decides to rid herself of the 'eventual' person, the idea of efficacy has been rendered moot.<br /><br />I place eventual within quotations, as NEBob rightfully notes, there is no certainty after conception.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34820133571923399812010-04-06T04:28:02.828-04:002010-04-06T04:28:02.828-04:00Just to be clear, I'm not saying a fetus has p...Just to be clear, I'm not saying a fetus has personhood. I'm saying a fetus entails personhood (whatever the definition or when it begins). Morality is tightly bound with efficacy... a weighing of expected outcomes.I.Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689899019458033716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38129404335443522662010-04-05T17:41:38.419-04:002010-04-05T17:41:38.419-04:00Well said N.E.Bob, Ian has assumed the social/cons...Well said N.E.Bob, Ian has assumed the social/conscious entity John Smith is analagous to the fetus formed after conception, which is what I was trying to go through. <br /><br />Under the contractarian idea, does it really make sense for me to worry about the two month old fetus that I once was, to claim that that fetus should have an invokable right to continue until it becomes the environmentally or situationally influenced entity of "me," John Smith. I see the entity of "me" to assume existence only under the arising of a certain kind of consciousness, one that I personally have placed above even that of the kind of consciousness that most adult, non-human mammals (and others) attain. The claim that anything after conception is equal to "John Smith" the subject or individual, is to make a claim that there is an essence or continuity of that subject from conception, and this claim only makes sense if we ignore our best understandings from psychology, biology, philosophy, etc., and instead place a "soul" like conception upon our understanding of the individual. <br /><br />I am fine with the contractarian analysis, but such an analysis still has to thoroughly examine the question of what we mean by "John Smith," what such a being consists of, what determines or makes up this undeniable essence that should not be violated. <br /><br />To me, rationalizing out from consciousness to political policy is a dangerous step because I do not know how to rationalize or why we "should" protect the rights to life of even new born infants. (And I have conceded, to myself, that new borns that have been found to have a fraction of brain capacity, or other extreme, serious, and grave detriment that makes for a less than decent life (a dangerous measurement, admittedly) should be humanely killed, if that is possible.) At last, I do think there is a very good reason to end such a slippery slope at birth, practicality.Lyndon Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02628514330681989555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25120794779607254732010-04-05T16:54:48.662-04:002010-04-05T16:54:48.662-04:00Thanks for the thoughtful refutation, NewEnglandBo...Thanks for the thoughtful refutation, NewEnglandBob, but perhaps you could elaborate... <br /><br />If a baby wasn't the expected outcome (the person that is John Smith), then abortion would be unnecessary.I.Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689899019458033716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6663680982761695492010-04-05T16:34:43.601-04:002010-04-05T16:34:43.601-04:00"But after conception, John Smith is all but ..."But after conception, John Smith is all but certain..."<br /><br />This initial premise is not correct. It is not even close to being certain.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31082852593970853722010-04-05T16:18:27.586-04:002010-04-05T16:18:27.586-04:00Not committing to a pro-life position, but is ther...Not committing to a pro-life position, but is there maybe a contractarian argument to be made? <br /><br />Prior to conception, you're dealing with a morass of hypotheticals, with "John Smith," in particular, being an infinitesimal possibility (given the number of possible partners, sperm cells, opportunities for copulation, etc.). But after conception, John Smith is all but certain, and the expected consequence of an abortion clear--to be or not to be. One might ask, then, if John Smith would consent to his abortion. <br /><br />Sounds absurd, but what's *your* answer? Do you wish you'd never been born? Does any rational agent prefer non-existence? <br /><br />Bear in mind that moral evaluation is often based on hypothetical consent, e.g. of the would-be victims of reckless endangerment; of the future generation who would have to live with global warming’s ravages. And with suicide and murder, too, the preference is between existence vs. non-existence. It is immoral, for example, to randomly euthanize a hobo, not because this increases suffering (there is none), but because it’s a violation of consent.<br /><br />Food for thought. Y'all will thank me when we discover time travel.<br /><br />-- Ian.I.Strangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689899019458033716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54993987425446166972010-04-05T16:10:18.330-04:002010-04-05T16:10:18.330-04:00Caliana, you have an awful outlook on life. Are yo...Caliana, you have an awful outlook on life. Are you giving up on it or do you have suggestions?NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75186700057612996232010-04-05T13:23:49.135-04:002010-04-05T13:23:49.135-04:00"With all that stated, we should have a respe..."With all that stated, we should have a respect for all life, including third trimester festuses, but it should not be taken out of the context of what our best understanding of what that fetus is and how it compares to that that we hold in greater respect."<br /><br />The presumed rights of the parents - That's what we hold in greater respect culturally. <br /><br />In the last 25 -30 years, those of all economic classes and education levels have 'evolved' themselves around to being in competition with their offspring for resources. We use to have the mentality by in large that we feed and care for our children first and serve ourselves last. That is no longer the case. It's a terrifying shift in morals and values but no one cares just as long as they can get what they need for the day. What devastatingly lonely, selfish life that all our time and resources are to be better spent on our collective selves. What a lie.<br /><br />There are virtually no "good" (if you have no concept of what is GOOD, that's going to be a problem for you on the onset), reasons for abortion. Most abortions are for convenience. <br /><br />I ALSO HAVE NO DOUBT whatsoever that our so called civilization is going d-o-w-n for all these reasons. You cannot have parents who all too happily TAX THEIR CHILDREN'S future, suck up every bit of life and fun they can get and then when a woman/girl turns up PG, take the lil bugger out. <br /><br />Very Frankensteinien if you ask me. ONE plainly cannot take PARTS out of PERSON HOOD and expect to have a WHOLE PERSON.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62083884357917564082010-04-05T03:06:11.256-04:002010-04-05T03:06:11.256-04:00Mintman,
The unfounded and arbitrary demarcation ...Mintman,<br /><br />The unfounded and arbitrary demarcation point is not new for Islam or any other religion. Catholicism believed at one time that the fetus gained a soul around the time of quickening (when you can feel the fetus moved).<br /><br />Michael,<br /><br />You have pointed towards one of my favored debates in Philosophy. It is one of the things that drew me to study Philosophy, and the lack of interest in the field is one of the things that is going to draw me away from Philosophy.<br /><br />You have pointed to the problem of the discussion of abortion in our country. Most philosophical papers will avoid the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" except to attack the notion that the debate should be taken in these forms. The question about rights and moral permissibility is how the debate should be structured. Sadly, this view is hardly ever taken in discussion outside of academia.jermoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12260256232935630988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8273348835860068392010-04-04T23:03:27.614-04:002010-04-04T23:03:27.614-04:00Mintman, I had the EXACT same experience with peop...Mintman, I had the EXACT same experience with people who have decided that the life or death of a fetus is purely the mother's decision, up until the fetus has left the woman's womb BY HER DECISION TO GIVE BIRTH.<br /><br />There was nothing to change their mind (I don't recall if it was at Pharyngula or Skepchick, but I've had similar experiences at both). In fact, there was nothing to convince the vast majority of people that anyone who questioned this position was a sane human being. It wasn't just the default position at both places, it was the ONLY acceptable position. Completely unwilling to discuss any moral and cognitive issues for late-term fetuses. Most discussions with people who admit to being religious have been much more rational.BubbaRichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10334093723773620510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24460464369176085422010-04-04T06:14:58.904-04:002010-04-04T06:14:58.904-04:00Boohay. I just hope you do not seriously believe t...Boohay. I just hope you do not seriously believe that any of this reasoning will somehow influence a discussion with religious believers. Once the other side has decided that god puts a soul into the zygote at conception (how do they <i>know</i>?), the discussion is essentially over for them, and all you say will be just "blahblah" from their perspective. Maybe it is time to accept that some people cannot be reached with reasonable arguments at all, no matter what you try.<br /><br />Interestingly, the majority opinion in Islam seems to be that the soul is added after four months. Just as unfounded and arbitrary (how do <i>they</i> know?), but should make the abortion debate easier in practice.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76736716354563707052010-04-03T21:18:41.484-04:002010-04-03T21:18:41.484-04:00How about the one-child policy in China? Abortion...How about the one-child policy in China? Abortion is legal in China. The society has decided the number of children that a woman can have. Is the policy morally correct?jrhshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074853182840350306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36877684961295268242010-04-03T14:47:04.554-04:002010-04-03T14:47:04.554-04:00I agree with The Monkey, sort of. That demarcation...I agree with The Monkey, sort of. That demarcation point, especially as it involves pain and consciousness, may be tricky to establish. But like with setting the voting age, we can aim for a generalization, informed by other developments, such as brain growth in the embryo, that can be more easily examined (for those trained to do such things, i.e. someone other than me).<br /><br />Also, my comments earlier were made under naked intuition, for example, that a mature dog has a greater consciousness (awareness) than a third trimester embryo. Although, it is informed by my interaction with dogs and newborns.Lyndon Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02628514330681989555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17224155335426963802010-04-03T13:27:19.080-04:002010-04-03T13:27:19.080-04:00I think one of the problems with finding an accept...I think one of the problems with finding an acceptable compromise position on this issue is that there aren't a whole lot of natural divisions in the development of an embryo, no matter which property you choose to use to base abortion acceptability threshold on, whether it's the ability to feel pain, consciousness, or whatever.<br /><br />These properties don't develop at discrete intervals (if my rudimentary knowledge of this subject doesn't fail me). You can't say, oh, yesterday the fetus didn't feel pain but today it does. <br /><br />Roe v. Wade was a political compromise, but the first trimester is a gerrymandered demarcation point like voting age or draft eligibilty age.Oyster Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09936291209976465040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12205446316987460802010-04-03T11:38:42.479-04:002010-04-03T11:38:42.479-04:00Excellent post Michael.
I will take it to the nex...Excellent post Michael.<br /><br />I will take it to the next dangerous level, the third trimester. <br /><br />I think consciousness is important. If not then you get into the basic point of simply protecting potential human life for the sake of potential human life itself, and clearly we do not care about discarding sperm, etc.<br /><br />As for as what makes a human life viable and worth protecting with an inviolable clause, such as an inviolable right to life, then we must look into where a human being becomes a human being. For me, that has to be consciousness, and even more than a basic consciousness of self-awareness or some other basic form of consciousness. For instance, I do not believe that a new born human has a significantly different (of kind) consciousness than a newborn dog or monkey, and certainly nothing higher or more special than a full grown mammal.<br /><br />With that stated, given what a fetus/human is during the third trimester, although perhaps conscious on some basic level, it does not seem plausible that it is conscious or special to the degree that makes humans conscious in the degree that we hold to great esteem.<br /><br />With all that stated, we should have a respect for all life, including third trimester festuses, but it should not be taken out of the context of what our best understanding of what that fetus is and how it compares to that that we hold in greater respect.Lyndon Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02628514330681989555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77424062789594320152010-04-03T11:27:37.027-04:002010-04-03T11:27:37.027-04:00Consciousness, Location, Visibility.
The locati...Consciousness, Location, Visibility. <br /><br />The location of the child or if one can verify that a child feels, thinks or exists is no measure of whether a baby ought to be saved from an abortion or not. The rights to life have to stand outside of those considerations. <br /><br />UNBORN CHILDREN are conscience because they can learn in the womb. That's already been proven. Its irrefutable actually. Location. Well, if being in a disadvantageous place at the wrong time is the only way that we determine what each individuals rights are to be, make sure to never find yourself alone in a dark alley. You may become the victim of a mugging or worse. Based on such so called "logic" there is no one to be blamed but yourself. Placed in a vulnerable, indefensible position? Too bad for you! Ridiculous argument entirely. <br /><br />If you cannot SEE a particular thing, does it rightfully exist? <br /><br />Your brain for instance. How many of us will ever see our brains? Likely zero. Yet we all believe for some strange reason that we have one. Does seeing something make it real? Absolutely not!<br /><br />Ultimately we all know none of these are the real issue.<br /><br />Feel better Sheldon? I guess you missed me.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.com