Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
#26

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-22-2024, 08:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:
(01-22-2024, 07:06 PM)SteveII Wrote: I answered this and several related just above. Please respond to one of my paragraphs.

No, you didn't.

Feel free to quote where you answered and why it applies.

Your assumption of human morality being unique is wrong.

You have never once explained why a human has more rights as a foetus than at any time in it's life. Nor why a non-, or semi- sentient unborn's rights trumps a woman's bodily autonomy,

OK I've found your argument in the wall of text.

(01-22-2024, 07:00 PM)SteveII Wrote: Pro-life advocates argue that the right to life of the unborn child should take precedence, as the right to life is a fundamental right from which all other rights emanate. Without life, no subsequent rights can exist, making it a primary right that should be protected.


A human is living a human life. A foetus is not. Living is more than merely existing.

Without life no rights are required. We need human rights so we can have agency. A foetus will never have agency.


(01-22-2024, 07:00 PM)SteveII Wrote: Furthermore, the argument for bodily autonomy often overlooks the inherent responsibility that comes with the capacity to create life. The pro-life perspective emphasizes that engaging in actions that can result in creating a new human life carries with it a responsibility to that life.

That would be more believable were forced birthers pro- contraception or were willing to make exemptions where avoiding pregnancy was not in the woman's power.
The following 4 users Like Mathilda's post:
  • Alan V, epronovost, pattylt, Chas
Reply
#27

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
As the saying goes:

Religion is like a penis. 
It's fine if you have one.
It is even fine if you're proud of it.
Just don't shove it down my throat.

However, the little stevieboi bitches of world, consistently whip out their apparent super micropenis, and demand everyone to admire it, and tell them it's the biggest, and best looking one that they've ever seen.

They bitch and moan about abortion being a sin, yet they happily give their worthless, cowardly godiboi a pass for killing every single unborn creature on the planet.

They ignore the fact that not only is their godiboi a fucking gutless coward, it is also remarkably fucking stupid.

Easily the most cowardly moronic imbecile in the history of everything.
The following 1 user Likes no one's post:
  • Full Circle
Reply
#28

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Forced-birthers condone slavery in principle.

They advocate that women should be forced into motherhood and therefore forced to perform work to look after a child.

If you don't believe in body autonomy in principle as a fundamental human right then you are saying that there are classes of people who should not have it. You may argue that's not the same as advocating for slavery but you'd be assuming that who shouldn't have full body autonomy won't change.

It will always change.

Whether it's forced labour for mothers, prisoners or slaves, or limitations on how you look after your own health, or being harvested for your internal organs.

How sure are you that it won't later also include you?

None of us are free until all of us are free.
The following 3 users Like Mathilda's post:
  • Szuchow, pattylt, Unsapien
Reply
#29

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
The way I see it, there's only one reason why any governing body would want to impose itself on women's reproduction:
- The country desperately needs to increase its population.

And that one reason is true for most developped countries, nowadays, where both the US and the EU are well bellow the "Replacement Rate" of 2.1:
[Image: fertility-rate-us-1800-2020.jpg]
[Image: Trends-in-total-fertility-rate-in-the-EU-1970-2008.png]

Not even going to show how Japan and South Korea are doing...

Of course, it's always very welcome by the governments to have people attribute some morality to this imposition... with a little help from the religion side.


But why do people not want to have children in these countries?
{I'll break apart all these from the main text to make it easier to read}
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/ Wrote:There are several factors such as:
- lifestyle factors,
- an increase in sexually transmitted diseases,
- rise in obesity and
- {rise in} environmental factors involved in urbanisation and urban lifestyle that are affecting fertility and have led to rise in male and female subfertility.
In addition there are
- socio-economic factors that have led to women and couples delaying having children.
- Lack of affordable housing,
- flexible and part-time career posts for women and
- affordable and publicly funded (free) child care
have contributed to the current low fertility/birth rates.

- Couples/women are delaying starting a family which has led to a true decline in their fertility levels due to ovarian ageing and related reasons leading to reduced chance of conception.

How do you fix these?
- By prohibiting abortion, you effectively force a number of people to start a family earlier in life. Not the ideal solution, but it would help.
In the paper, they propose other options:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/ Wrote:It is necessary for governments to provide adequate publicly funded reproductive health and social care in order to achieve required birth rates and have a younger population to contribute to nation’s and global progress. It can be argued that women now contribute more to the total workforce and social welfare agenda (tax and national insurance) than ever before and deserve to get reproductive benefits from the public purse.

In parallel, it is also necessary to have a national and an international initiative for the prevention of infertility and protection of fertility. The projects will need to be focussed at the specific needs of the local population. It is necessary for governments to work in close partnership with the voluntary sector to achieve the maximum effect.
[...]
Since healthcare has several priorities such as cancer, care of elderly and acute medicine, fertility care is not high on the agenda. This has led to inadequate funding and concerns about inequity. The need for private assisted conception due to lack of public funding may eventually lead to only the rich benefiting from fertility treatment.
[...]
In summary, in order to address declining birth rates:
  1. There is an urgent need to initiate strategies at local/national and international level to prevent infertility and protect human fertility.
  2. Early and cost-effective assessment of fertility problems and assisted reproduction should be provided as part of public health care. For example: a) There should be a strong emphasis on protection of reproductive health in the secondary school curriculum. b) Specially designed “pre-conception care” clinics must be established within the Public Health Service to educate men and women on factors affecting their fertility and to help them help themselves to natural conception. c) An ongoing fertility awareness programme should be set up for communities funded by local governments in conjunction with the local voluntary sector. A tailored and sensitive programme could enhance the effect in a multicultural population. d) A long-term plan for affordable housing for young couples should continue. This could help couples plan an early parenthood. e) Provision of affordable and high quality child care facilities should be available. f) Flexible, part-time career posts for women should be a priority.
  3. The government should prioritise the provision of safe, mild and cost-effective assisted reproduction treatments (ART) with single embryo transfer (SET) so that more treatment cycles could be offered within the available health budget. This would save costs associated with drugs, hospital admissions for OHSS and multiple pregnancies.
  4. The role of immigration trends in improving birth rates and its long-term effect need to be evaluated.
  5. “Strategy for Reproduction and Family life” should replace “Fertility treatment” as a government policy and it should be dealt with across many departments as indicated in Figure 1 to boost the birth rate and national economy, employment, family life and societal growth. A separate department must be established to promote family life.

Given that this paper is written from the UK point of view, the treatment of women in the workplace isn't that much addressed, but one should also include regulations over how women need to be integrated in the workforce, along with childcare by both parents, especially around the times when the kids get ill.

In parallel, in order for families to start earlier, people should feel financially comfortable earlier in life. This pases through having affordable housing. But housing has been seen as an investment and those in charge also hold some real estate that they want to see inflated, so they've had an incentive to prevent the building of enough houses to keep their prices down and everyone happy. How to solve the issue of having a conflict of interests in the government? Good luck to anyone who has the answer. I've asked ChatGPT about the possibliity of having an AI government because of this sort of thing, that was fun: https://chat.openai.com/share/aaab9a71-9...f5cd0979f8

Giving birth should be a part of healthcare. In Europe, that's practically free. In the US, not so. Free birthing isn't making people have more babies in the EU which hints that this cannot be fixed by this one single point.

Also, it's very useful for parents to have the support structure, mainly as affordable childcare. Childcare is a service provided by some people, typically as an enterprise. They need to take care of kids, feed them and whatnot. It's not a simple job, so it needs to be a job that delivers financially to those who do it. How to have daycare workers be paid properly, while making it affordable to the parents? Government funding. I don't agree it should be completely free for the parents, just affordable, something that requires, say, 10 to 20% of their income.

Affordable schools and schools near where people live. Affordable school supplies, etc. are also a part of the accountancy that parents (or wannabe parents) will do in their heads.


Immigration takes care of all the problems by having an influx of healthy workers... but possibly at the cost of taking over the social tapestry that makes up the country. This is the fear that xenophobia brings up. People want their home countries to continue having the same culture as they had growing up, so it's natural for there to be some resistance to an immigration level that can tip the culture scales towards the newcomers.



To sum up, prohibiting abortion is a forceful method to make people have more babies. Can we, as a society, afford to incentivize people to have babies without having to force them into it?
The following 4 users Like pocaracas's post:
  • Mathilda, Deesse23, pattylt, Chas
Reply
#30

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-22-2024, 08:11 PM)Dānu Wrote: I believe it's already been pointed out to you that as you define the terms, premise 1 is not necessarily true.  Thus your syllogism is inconclusive.  

Inconclusive? While I agree that without religion, intrinsic value is not necessary, we can still reason into a contingent truth. It seems to me that to deny P1 is a heavy price to pay to undercut the anti-abortion argument.

Quote:And no, it's not been determined scientifically that human life begins at conception as there is no consensus on the definition of life, much less human life.  It has been scientifically proven that post-conception the organism is human life as you have chosen to define it, but that's a non-sequitur as it involves both arbitrary choices and equivocation.

There is plenty of consensus about the science and I outlined some of that in my support for Premise 2.

At the moment of conception, a unique genetic identity is formed, combining DNA from both the egg and sperm, creating a distinct human organism with its own individual and unrepeatable genetic code, separate from both the mother and father. Scientifically, conception marks the beginning of a continuous developmental process; the zygote, the earliest stage of human development, fulfills the basic biological criteria for life, including the ability to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, and reproduce cells. The zygote, formed at conception, is the initial stage of a human being's life cycle, initiating a complex process of development that, if uninterrupted by natural or external factors, will lead to the birth of a human child.

In the fields of biology, developmental biology and embryology, the consensus is pretty firm. The denial that this describes life is more ideologically based than scientific.

First, the embryo is a) growing, b) metabolizing, c) responding to stimuli, and d)reproducing cells. It seems to me that this is a basic definition of something living. Further, you can't confuse the mother's function with the embryos because we can develop viable embryo artificially outside the womb for weeks. What you seem to want to do is layer additional requirements for life in this case and that seems more than a little ad hoc don't you think?

Second, to deny this is life on a ideological basis entails proposing an alternative. Obviously at some point within the gestational window, the unborn human has basically all the traits of a new born. No one denies a newborn is alive so the viable fetus must be alive. Going backwards, what particular cell division would put it over the line? Every point going back is needlessly arbitrary made purely to further some agenda.
Reply
#31

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Hey @SteveII , would you support a pro-forced birther/pro-choice registry where pro-forced birther (18 years and older) are in a data base and at anytime will get notifications in 8-8.5 months they will have the next forced birth baby. They will be responsible for this child for the next 18 years and they will be eligible for an additional child every 5 years for a max of 4 children per proforcedbirther.

Doesn’t matter if married or not.

Doesn’t matter if male or female

What say you?
The following 1 user Likes 1Sam15's post:
  • Mathilda
Reply
#32

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
[duplicate post]
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#33

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 02:54 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-22-2024, 08:11 PM)Dānu Wrote: I believe it's already been pointed out to you that as you define the terms, premise 1 is not necessarily true.  Thus your syllogism is inconclusive.  

Inconclusive? While I agree that without religion, intrinsic value is not necessary, we can still reason into a contingent truth. It seems to me that to deny P1 is a heavy price to pay to undercut the anti-abortion argument.

That's likely because you don't understand what is being denied.  Your P1 can be interpreted one of two ways.  Either it is referring to all points in a human's existence from conception until death, in which there is considerable consensus that such is true at points past birth, but not at points as early as a few minutes after conception.  Since there is no consensus on it at that point, it isn't necessarily true at that point.  If I were arguing that it were never true, that is what you think would be significant to give up.  But I am not arguing that.  Alternatively, it could be interpreted in the usual sense as referring to the life of a human who has already been born.  There is reasonable consensus on that, but then the terms you are using don't match those used in premise two and the syllogism falls apart.

So the only reason that you think I am arguing to pay a heavy price is because you have fallen for your own sophistry, conflating giving up the idea of specific rights attaching at a specific period as giving up rights for all periods.  But this is the fundamental equivocation that pro-life arguments depend upon. Confusing the denial that humans in specific phases of their development have certain rights with denying that humans have those rights at all stages of development. They don't, and whether they should or have is a question for debate. You have confused yourself with the confusion with which you intended to ensnare others.

(01-23-2024, 02:54 PM)SteveII Wrote:
Quote:And no, it's not been determined scientifically that human life begins at conception as there is no consensus on the definition of life, much less human life.  It has been scientifically proven that post-conception the organism is human life as you have chosen to define it, but that's a non-sequitur as it involves both arbitrary choices and equivocation.

There is plenty of consensus about the science and I outlined some of that in my support for Premise 2.

At the moment of conception, a unique genetic identity is formed, combining DNA from both the egg and sperm, creating a distinct human organism with its own individual and unrepeatable genetic code, separate from both the mother and father. Scientifically, conception marks the beginning of a continuous developmental process; the zygote, the earliest stage of human development, fulfills the basic biological criteria for life, including the ability to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, and reproduce cells. The zygote, formed at conception, is the initial stage of a human being's life cycle, initiating a complex process of development that, if uninterrupted by natural or external factors, will lead to the birth of a human child.

In the fields of biology, developmental biology and embryology, the consensus is pretty firm. The denial that this describes life is more ideologically based than scientific.

First, the embryo is a) growing, b) metabolizing, c) responding to stimuli, and d)reproducing cells. It seems to me that this is a basic definition of something living. Further, you can't confuse the mother's function with the embryos because we can develop viable embryo artificially outside the womb for weeks. What you seem to want to do is layer additional requirements for life in this case and that seems more than a little ad hoc don't you think?

Second, to deny this is life on a ideological basis entails proposing an alternative. Obviously at some point within the gestational window, the unborn human has basically all the traits of a new born. No one denies a newborn is alive so the viable fetus must be alive. Going backwards, what particular cell division would put it over the line? Every point going back is needlessly arbitrary made purely to further some agenda.

"A human's life" and a human life are not necessarily synonymous terms. Regardless, the support you have provided here is a survey of opinions. Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of their opinion, it is not itself scientific evidence, but rather a sociological result. I'm not going to dive any deeper into your result because it isn't particularly relevant. A human's life can be broken at many points. A survey doesn't establish what breaking points correspond to what. Even you acknowledge that the question is more than just when does life occur but when in that life they acquire rights. Prior to the acquisition of rights, a human's life is human in name only. It is not human in the sense of being a human being possessed of the dignity and rights that we accord a human being. Until it does, referring to it with the terms "human life" and "human being" is just a cheap bit of word games. Again, you're trying to conflate the terms of human life and human being as they are applied at other points in the organism's development with applying them at this point, which is a bit of sophistry.

As to the alternative, I think Roe had the right idea, though I think many would be amenable to a conservative estimate of when viability begins, provided suitable exceptions and means of enabling those exceptions apply. In fact, I can present a counter-argument as to why this applies. Prior to viability and prior to birth, the organism enjoys no real personal autonomy, as it is tied to it's mother. After such time, though the organism may still be dependent on others, it can get what it needs from multiple others and so for the first time in its life enjoys some measure of personal autonomy. It is at this point that the organism attains the ability to exercise its will, something it didn't have before. Free will and the significance of choice are what define human life more than any other. We do not afford other animals the same right as humans because they lack this fundamental ability. If natural law has any validity, then it makes just as much sense to mark the origin of rights as the point at which the organism attains the necessary conditions for such.

I will add as an addendum that what constitutes life, what it means for something to be alive, is unsettled, but it generally includes a number of functional traits such as the ability to sustain itself and to reproduce. You point out that a fertilized embryo possesses some of these traits, but in doing so you ignore that it does not possess others. If you want to go down this road, you will need to show why certain functions are essential to life but not others that it does not possess at conception, such as the ability for reproduction. Until you provide an adequate definition of life and human being that is satisfactory for all life, you are using terms that are not well enough defined to be used in this context at all. They become little more than buzzwords, designed to provoke emotions. Propaganda, essentially.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 3 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Mathilda, Deesse23, pattylt
Reply
#34

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-22-2024, 08:54 PM)epronovost Wrote: While I hate syllogism because they are so complex and difficult to make here is my half assed attempt at establishing an argument for the morality of abortion and the immorality of it's prohibition.

The "No Harm" and principle of human worth (AKA the Golden Rule)

P1: Human life has special value because of it's sentient nature. Humans have emotions, desires, senses, thoughts, etc.
P2: Human life has special value to other humans because humans are gregarious by nature and need one another to thrive.
P3: To cause harm to humans is to directly provoke negative emotions, sensations and thoughts in other humans and going against their most important desires.
P4: Humans coming into conflict cause harm to one another and often to themselves.
P5: Conflict between humans due to opposed desires, emotions and thoughts is inevitable.
P6: Some harms are greater than others
C1: Humans should seek to minimize harm against one another to maintain gregarious predisposition and maximize their happiness.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premises because of the "is-ought" problem all such moral theories have.

The "is-ought" problem, (al la Hume), highlights the fundamental challenge in deriving prescriptive moral principles (what ought to be) from descriptive statements (what is). Your syllogism attempts to bridge factual statements about human nature and behavior with normative conclusions about how humans ought to act.

P1 (human life has special value due to its sentient nature) and P5 (conflict between humans due to opposed desires, emotions, and thoughts is inevitable) are descriptive. They state facts about human life and behavior. However, the conclusion (C1) that humans should seek to minimize harm to maintain happiness and social cohesion is prescriptive, suggesting a moral imperative. Your argument not bridge the gap between the factual state of human nature and the ethical imperative to minimize harm. It assumes that the characteristics and tendencies of human beings necessarily lead to specific moral obligations.

In other words, what if my goal is not your happiness?

Lastly, note that you defined harm (P3) specifically to make your case further below. Typically, 'harm' in moral and legal contexts include physical, emotional, psychological, social, and even potential or future harm (more on that in a second...).

Quote:The "Unconscious argument".

P1: To cause harm to humans is to directly provoke negative emotions, sensations and thoughts in other humans and going against their most important desires.
P2: Fetuses prior to the 24 week of gestation do not have desires nor emotions as other humans can perceive them.
C2: Fetuses prior the the 24th week of gestation cannot be harmed only damaged or destroyed

P1, your definition of harm was specifically designed for your argument. Harm is much wider than that and any basic idea of it would include concepts of impacting one's potential, eliminating one's future, death.

C2 is a non-sequitur because you switched from emotional harm of your premises to just plain harm. All you showed is that you can't cause a fetus emotional harm. Related to that sleight-of-hand, the second problem with this conclusion is that it conflates the absence of perceivable harm with the absence of harm itself. If you can't perceive harm you can't be harmed? That does not seem to be comport with the way the world works.

Quote:The argument "For the Morality of Abortion and the Immorality of it's Denial'.

P1: An unwanted pregnancy can cause tremendous physical, psychological, financial and social harm to a woman.
P2: Fetuses prior the the 24th week of gestation cannot be harmed
P3: Humans should seek to minimize harm against one another to maintain gregarious predispositions and maximize their happiness.
C3: Women should be able to choose to carry pregnancy to term or not.

P2, they most certainly can. Notice again, all you showed previously was that the fetus could not suffer 'emotional harm'. Yet here you only use only 'harm': conflating the ability to perceive harm with harm itself.

P3, again, why "ought" we do to that?

C3, Because you didn't make the case that the fetus cannot be harmed, you are simply prioritizing the well-being of the woman (P3) over that of the fetus. Then my "Bodily Autonomy" counterargument kicks in.
Reply
#35

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
If the christiboi warriors long for the old days, maybe we can feed them to the lions.
The following 1 user Likes no one's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#36

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
While philosophers and religitards may struggle with this concept, the LAW does not.

Quote:  1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Quote:(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”“human being”“child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

©
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 6 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Mathilda, epronovost, Deesse23, Alan V, Chas, Full Circle
Reply
#37

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 11:01 AM)Alan V Wrote:
(01-22-2024, 07:00 PM)SteveII Wrote: P2. Human life begins at conception (scientifically established)

Sorry, but the science says that human beings are complex composites developed over time.  We are systems with certain attributes.  Because of that developing complexity, assigning any specific point when a human being begins to exist is arbitrary, though it becomes less arbitrary as it approaches completion.

What you are trying to do is shoehorn the concept of a discrete and unified human soul into the scientific information.  Forced-birthers are therefore also trying to force their religious definition of what a human being is on other people who don't share that assumption.  That's why the religious should use their assumption to guide their own behaviors but not to try to control others who disagree with them.  

Religious freedom also means freedom from religion for individuals who choose it.

The premise clearly states "Human life begins at conception" -- which is scientifically established.

That is all I need for the argument.
Reply
#38

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 04:17 PM)SteveII Wrote: Your conclusion does not follow from the premises because of the "is-ought" problem all such moral theories have.

I am well aware of that. I bridge the gap of the is-ought problem by making the success of the conclusion contingent on the desire of humans to be happy. If humans want to be happy they have to follow the prescription of the conclusion. It doesn't mean that the conclusion is good since my prescription doesn't really delve into moral cognitivism thus the is-ought problem is not applicable. Note that ethical naturalism also reject the is-ought problem as being fallacious itself. My argument is a piece of ethical naturalism thus the is ought-problem is fallacious since morality is a goal-directed behavior and belief system.

Quote:In other words, what if my goal is not your happiness?

If your goal is not human happiness, why do you seek it? If you don't seek happiness for yourself nor others, then morality doesn't exist for you and no moral argument can have any effect or purchase on your mind since you do not engage in any moral reasoning. Morality is a social construct not a law of physic. It can be broken or ignored. Nothing can prevent you from being immoral.

What if your goal is not my happiness (or that of others)? Well that makes you a bit of a dick.

Quote:your definition of harm was specifically designed for your argument. Harm is much wider than that and any basic idea of it would include concepts of impacting one's potential, eliminating one's future, death.

This is included in the definition of harm I provided. You thinking that someone is destroying your future is harmful since it creates negative emotions, threats, dread and material impacts. It also goes against your expressed desires which was also included in the definition of harm I provided. I do not know how you could think this wasn't included. Note though that a fetus has no desire to live nor cognition of it since it doesn't have consciousness.

Quote:If you can't perceive harm you can't be harmed? That does not seem to be comport with the way the world works.

A rock cannot be harmed no. It can be damaged; it can be destroyed, but it cannot be harmed. Why can't it be harmed? Because it's not conscious. Harm implies being hurt, suffering, trauma, pain, etc. These are the words associated with harm. Harm is an emotional response not a condition. A fetus, having no consciousness, thus cannot be harmed. It has no capacity for desires, emotions or suffering. Killing a fetus doesn't hurt it or goes against its desires since it has neither of them thus ending it's development process is not harmful to it. It doesn't know nor feel being alive in the first place. Killing is harmful because it hurts and goes against our most intimate and important desire: being alive. Fetus don't have desires to live nor sensations. Killing them thus generates no harm, but forcing a woman to carry to term does generate harm.
The following 2 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Deesse23, pattylt
Reply
#39

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-22-2024, 08:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:
(01-22-2024, 07:06 PM)SteveII Wrote: I answered this and several related just above. Please respond to one of my paragraphs.

No, you didn't.

Feel free to quote where you answered and why it applies.

Your assumption of human morality being unique is wrong.

You have never once explained why a human has more rights as a foetus than at any time in it's life. Nor why a non-, or semi- sentient unborn's rights trumps a woman's bodily autonomy,

On the topic of "On the idea of the non-, or semi- sentient unborn's rights trumping the woman's bodily autonomy, how do you ground that exactly?" and "You have never once explained why a human has more rights as a foetus than at any time in it's life. Nor why a non-, or semi- sentient unborn's rights trumps a woman's bodily autonomy."

Bodily Autonomy
The argument of bodily autonomy (the woman has a right to control what happens or does not happen to her body), while significant in many areas of ethics and law, faces limitations when considered against the right to life of the unborn. One major contention is the uniqueness of pregnancy as it involves two interconnected lives - the mother and the unborn child. The principle of bodily autonomy asserts an individual’s right to self-governance over their own body without coercion or interference. However, this principle becomes complex when one's autonomous decisions directly impact another life. In the case of pregnancy, the unborn child is uniquely dependent on the mother's body, creating a scenario where the rights of two individuals are deeply intertwined. Unlike other situations where bodily autonomy is invoked, pregnancy represents a unique biological relationship where the decisions of one individual (the mother) directly affect the survival of another (the unborn child). Pro-life advocates argue that the right to life of the unborn child should take precedence, as the right to life is a fundamental right from which all other rights emanate. Without life, no subsequent rights can exist, making it a primary right that should be protected.

Furthermore, the argument for bodily autonomy often overlooks the inherent responsibility that comes with the capacity to create life. The pro-life perspective emphasizes that engaging in actions that can result in creating a new human life carries with it a responsibility to that life. This is particularly significant in the context of human reproduction, which inherently involves the potential for creating a dependent life that requires protection and care. The right to life argument suggests that once a new human life is conceived, it possesses its own rights, including the fundamental right to life. The contention is that the unborn child's right to life cannot be overridden by the mother's right to bodily autonomy because the right to life is more fundamental and should be given priority in ethical considerations, especially when the unborn child is considered an innocent and defenseless being. This line of reasoning sees the right to bodily autonomy as not absolute but rather as one that must be balanced against the rights of the unborn, particularly in situations where exercising bodily autonomy means ending a life.

I don't know which part you disagree with so I can't defend a particular point. If you disagree with all of it, then tell me where my reasoning has gone wrong (don't just assert your own opinion).
The following 1 user Likes SteveII's post:
  • Vorpal
Reply
#40

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 12:02 AM)pattylt Wrote: I’d also like to point out that assuming human life has more value than other animal life is only true to humans.  Religions like to argue how valuable we are because we are a higher level of intelligence.  I don’t agree…I think all life has value and it’s only our selfishness that places us on some arbitrary higher level.

We are literally the only one's that could abstractly contemplate relative ethical value so, yes, it is "only true to humans." The fact that we are all from different parts of the world and discussing the ethics of abortion suggests that there is something unique and valuable about us.

Quote:And honestly, except for the small percentage of infertile people, babies are easy to make and not in short supply.  Nature has her own system for dealing with overpopulation which I doubt any of us would prefer.

Again…conception isn’t a moment in time.  It’s approximately a three day process before the unique DNA is expressed and several months before true brain activity occurs.  

I understand that you consider the rights of the fetus takes precedence over the right to bodily autonomy.  I, and millions of others think the opposite.  I have no problem if you decide to carry a fetus whether you want it or not if you’ll grant me the right to decide my own fate.  Fix all the problems in society that make a child a detriment to the mother first and I’ll reconsider my position.

You mischaracterize the pro-life position. It is not a disagreement about rights or policy implementation. It is about stopping the killing of another human being. It is immoral not to say anything if you think it is immoral to kill unborn humans.

Take an example of what is happening in Ukraine. By your logic, I should be okay if people come out differently on the issue of genocide, bombing apartment buildings and malls, and imperialism in general. I should not insist that something be done about it. I should not attempt to galvanize support and actually stop Putin. I should respect the Russians for their view of things.
Reply
#41

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 04:37 PM)SteveII Wrote: The premise clearly states "Human life begins at conception" -- which is [url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/#:~:text=Biologists%20from%201%2C058%20academic%20institutions,5577)%20affirmed%20the%20fertilization%20view.][/url].

That is all I need for the argument.


At most that single paper claims a current scientific consensus exists of when a working definition (human life) is useful.

That's all a definition is, a useful way to describe something. All definitions are context specific. So a biologist will define human life differently from an ER medic switching off life support for someone who is brain dead for example. Or should they be charged with murder? A body with a dead brain cannot live a human life. Neither can a foetus.

It's not like we even have a scientific consensus on how to define life.
The following 4 users Like Mathilda's post:
  • epronovost, Deesse23, pattylt, Chas
Reply
#42

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 04:45 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-22-2024, 08:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote: No, you didn't.

Feel free to quote where you answered and why it applies.

Your assumption of human morality being unique is wrong.

You have never once explained why a human has more rights as a foetus than at any time in it's life. Nor why a non-, or semi- sentient unborn's rights trumps a woman's bodily autonomy,

[snip]

I don't know which part you disagree with so I can't defend a particular point. If you disagree with all of it, then tell me where my reasoning has gone wrong (don't just assert your own opinion).

Yeah sorry I missed your argument in the wall of text. I replied later here.
Reply
#43

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-22-2024, 07:14 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-20-2024, 02:16 AM)Aliza Wrote: I'm sorry, was that meant to elicit an emotional reaction from me other than contempt for people who think a woman chooses to be raped or chooses to carry a fetus with serious medical complications that will make it a burden on society?

I'm just confused here.

Maybe you think ovulation is a choice? Like uh... Like I consciously chose to ovulate that month, so I'm just asking to get knocked up? Or my spouse and I spend 10's of thousands of dollars on IVF only to learn that our baby will live it's life in a vegetative state and we'll have to sink every penny we make into its care and feed and change its diapers for the rest of ours days?

Like I said in my last point above, if I grant the exception in the case of rape or incest (and I'll add vegetative conditions), will you join me in opposing all other abortion? If no, then you are presenting a bit of a red herring there aren't you?

I won't join you because I take the position that we, as a society, must first address the objections pregnant women have to carrying their babies to term. That includes coming up with a way to gestate a fetus out of the womb, addressing the economic concerns of young mothers, establishing safe, reliable long-term care for unwanted babies, and ensuring that birth defects can never happen again -or if they do, a woman's fetus can be removed and gestated elsewhere and the would-be mother is relieved of parental obligation. 

When those things are in place, I can accept that abortion should be illegal.
The following 4 users Like Aliza's post:
  • Mathilda, pattylt, pocaracas, Vorpal
Reply
#44

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 04:59 PM)SteveII Wrote: You mischaracterize the pro-life position. It is not a disagreement about rights or policy implementation. It is about stopping the killing of another human being.

If that human being is outside my body and not harming me in any way, fine.  I'll advocate for its right to live.

If that human being (or any part thereof) is inside my body and I don't want it there, I claim an absolute right to remove it through any means necessary.

The difference:  The boundaries of my own body.  IMO, my body is sovereign territory and I am the arbiter of the "laws" insides its borders.

You want to save fetuses?  Find a way to incubate them outside a woman's body.
The following 10 users Like Astreja's post:
  • Aliza, Mathilda, Minimalist, epronovost, 1Sam15, pattylt, Chas, mordant, Szuchow, Gwaithmir
Reply
#45

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-22-2024, 08:54 PM)epronovost Wrote: Onto some of your pseudo refutations:

The argument for bodily autonomy: You don't address the fact that humans are not obliged to put themselves at risk to save one another. You are not obliged to give blood or organs nor to come at the rescue of someone (especially if this entail risks to yourself). You are simply obliged to provide some resources to help volunteers to such things and not endanger people. Considering this, it would be rather strange to oblige women to sacrifice themselves for another (if one was to accept that a fetus deprived of consciousness and emotions was equivalent in worth and dignity to a women).

You did not engage with any of the key points--all which illustrate your category error of thinking these circumstances are the same as conception.

Quote:Needed for Equality with Men: To make a long story short. Please actually read and listen to feminists discussing abortion, maternity and the women's condition instead of making an approximation of it. It shows that you have only a very cursory knowledge on the subject and on the argument of equality as well on feminism in general (classical feminism is not a thing btw; it describes neither a school of feminism nor a trend either). Your entire argument on motherhood as a source of strength for example completely ignores the fact that abortion rights actually strengthen this characteristic by putting women fully in control of it and making motherhood an actual vocation instead of a potentially accident. The idea that abortions imply that pregnancy can be an impediment is indeed correct because this is how some women experience it; a 13 years girl who fell pregnant during her first sexual intercourse with her boyfriend will most likely perceive a pregnancy as a disaster for herself. Of course, it's an impediment also because of how our society is structured too in other contexts. Some women also have no interest in motherhood and feminists of all stripes have long defended the idea that a woman without children and who doesn't want any is not any lesser for it. Pregnancy is not a silver bullet. It's not fundamentally good. It can be a moment of great joy or of great disaster in someone's life. What will affect this is choice and circumstances. Access to abortion insures there will always be a choice to make it a great joy and not a disaster.

I was addressing a specific concept (one that has come up even the discussion in the other thread) where a comparison to men (and their lack of consequences) was invoked as some sort of justification for abortion.  This suggest that the direction of change needed is to be more like men. This is definitely contrary to classical (first-wave) feminism.

The rest of your rebuttal here is justifying abortion for pragmatic reasons. A very slipper slope. The arguments that unborn can be sacrificed for pragmatic reasons can quickly apply to others. Just look at Canada. Do you not see the connection when life takes a back seat to pragmatism? I'm not talking about terminally ill people. I'm talking about the mindset that can't see intrinsic value over subjective ideas of utility (in the people that feel it, the people that make it legal, and the people that execute it).


Quote:Quality of Life: the quality of life argument is not only about the child, but also the mother's which you conveniently ignores. It also avoids the biggest problem with your own position. Anti-abortion laws and stances do not reduce the number of abortions. Countries with prohibition or extensive restriction on abortions do not have less abortions than country with some restrictions or no restrictions at all. What those countries have though is more women dying due to botched black market abortions, dying in childbirth due to more dangerous pregnancies being carried to term and more child poverty. The consequences of outlawing abortions is to damage the quality of life of women, families and children in such a ways that it increases the demand and need for abortions hence why despite being illegal and dangerous, abortions remain about as popular in countries where it's heavily restricted or forbidden then where it's not.

The question is then what do you truly value? If you truly value the life of fetuses and mothers, you will demand abortion services and find some scheme to make abortion less needed like better sex ed., easier access to contraceptives, better healthcare, better pay for women, welfare for children, better schools, healthier environment, lower workload for both parents, etc. But, if you value your personal righteousness more than the lives of fetus and women, you will continue to defend a prohibition of abortion, but then what is the worth of your argument for the dignity of human life if you are willing to sacrifice that dignity for your own personal ego? Denying abortions doesn't save lives (fetus or mothers). To refuse to engage with the idea of elective abortion is to commit to a nirvana fallacy; you cannot morally deny a good for the sake of an unachievable perfection.

Firstly, I cannot morally deny a good?! Who is to say it is a good? You elevate pragmatic concerns (certainly not a moral category) as good (a moral claim) and only the pragmatic concerns of the mother count. In other words, you think you are making a moral argument, but you are not.

Secondly, implicit in the pragmatic approach is a mother's knowledge of future events. Explicit in almost everything you have written on this is that the mother is in a position to know that it is better to kill than to deal with the unknown. HOW do we know that that outcome to be avoided is not in fact better than terminating a human life? How? The nature of reality is that you can not know the billions of moving parts that are life. The ONLY thing you can know for certain is that there is no future for those whom have had it taken from them. I was the perfect candidate for an abortion in 1970. My mother and father were 16 when I was conceived. My mother never finished high school until decades later. My parent's marriage, 30 years as serving as a pastor/wife team, my six siblings, my five children and all 14 grandchildren, and the myriads of relationships made in the intervening 54 years were contingent on that decision not to abort me. What are the exact mechanics of claiming an action that kills is a net-positive for society?

Thirdly, your pragmatic approach make no headway with those arguing from a philosophical or ethical point of view. You are offering a "yeah, but...convenience is important" to people who think the whole thing in fundamentally and thoroughly wrong.
The following 1 user Likes SteveII's post:
  • Vorpal
Reply
#46

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
A product of human egg and sperm/conception and is definitely not human life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_pregnancy
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#47

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 07:32 PM)SteveII Wrote: You did not engage with any of the key points--all which illustrate your category error of thinking these circumstances are the same as conception.

There is no difference between having to sacrifice oneself for someone in danger and having to sacrifice oneself for the survival of another. If I can't demand the first from one person, how can I demand the second?

Quote:I was addressing a specific concept (one that has come up even the discussion in the other thread) where a comparison to men (and their lack of consequences) was invoked as some sort of justification for abortion.  This suggest that the direction of change needed is to be more like men. This is definitely contrary to classical (first-wave) feminism.

First wave feminism was about legal rights specifically the right to vote, become politicians and have access to university and independant access and participation to the justice system. It had nothing to do with "being more like men" unless you consider political and judicial rights to be "more like men" which, at the time was the case. These were "men things" and by demanding them, many accused feminist of making women like men. Your poor understanding of feminist history and theory prevents you from making a cogent argument based on said theories and history.


Quote:Firstly, I cannot morally deny a good?! Who is to say it is a good?

You did. You said saving lives was important. That abortion is wrong because it kills fetuses. Legal elective abortions diminishes the number of abortions and lowers the number of women dying. These are things YOU called GOOD. Is it good that there is less abortions and death? If yes, then it's good. If what you want is less death, less abortions than you should be for legal elective abortions or at the very least be against a prohibition of abortion since it produces no positive effect of that nature.  

It matters not why women get abortions or think they need abortion. That you think they are wrong for doing so doesn't make them any less likely to do it either. People base their decisions on their situation and circumstances; your proclamation that they MUST take risks they find unconscionable is useless. They think they do need abortion; that they do not have the finance, skills, time or maturity to be mothers. So and do get abortion, illegaly if need be. Having a child is a too important decision to be left to accident for women in general. Prohibiting abortions doesn't decrease the number of abortions and increase deaths of women which is a thing you think is wrong. You can pontificate all you want; it doesn't save lives or preserve the dignity of humans (including that of the unborn). These are stone cold facts. You can wish people were drastically different; that they would be like you wish and imagine yourself to be and would do if you were them, but in the end this is simply vanity from your part. The only thing you can do is move toward your goal of less and less abortions until there is none and prohibition on abortion leads you nowhere close to that objective.

Quote:Thirdly, your pragmatic approach make no headway with those arguing from a philosophical or ethical point of view. You are offering a "yeah, but...convenience is important" to people who think the whole thing in fundamentally and thoroughly wrong.

SO you have chosen your own ego and sense of righteousness over the actual lives of the unborn and mothers. How do you square that if your defense of human dignity? Is human dignity and natural rights less important than your ego?

What moral and philosophical value is there is declaring grand principles of human worth and dignity all the while encouraging policies that produce the exact opposite effect? It's self refuting, hypocritical and vain not virtuous. It turns morality into an exercise in mental masturbation instead of a social construct with tangible result that drives actions and behavior to achieve specific results.

Don't you see the consequences of your lack of pragmatism? If doesn't save fetal lives and it kills more women. How can you support laws that destroy more lives on the ground that it's immoral to destroy lives? It's delusion; unless of course saving lives is just a fig leaf to hide another, more sinister agenda like the desire to punish women for "sexual irresponsability". In that case, such behavior is perfectly reasonable.
The following 4 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Mathilda, pattylt, Chas, Vorpal
Reply
#48

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Prohibition in the 20s wasn't just a failure it was a catastrophe.  It was finally abolished in 1933.

Likewise criminalizing abortion isn't just a failure it creates catastrophe.  Medical and other advances since Roe have magnified the unintended dangers of trying to outlaw abortion.

Attempting to criminalize behaviors only some purityrannical moral purists deem "sin" that most people indulge produces catastrophes far worse than the "sin".  It's like deeming the earth's spin "sinful" and working to arrest it - to the extent such attempts succeed the outcomes produce disasters far worse than whatever "evil" the earth's spin was imagined to make.
The following 3 users Like airportkid's post:
  • epronovost, pattylt, Deesse23
Reply
#49

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 07:27 PM)Astreja Wrote:
(01-23-2024, 04:59 PM)SteveII Wrote: You mischaracterize the pro-life position. It is not a disagreement about rights or policy implementation. It is about stopping the killing of another human being.

If that human being is outside my body and not harming me in any way, fine.  I'll advocate for its right to live.

If that human being (or any part thereof) is inside my body and I don't want it there, I claim an absolute right to remove it through any means necessary.

The difference:  The boundaries of my own body.  IMO, my body is sovereign territory and I am the arbiter of the "laws" insides its borders.

You want to save fetuses?  Find a way to incubate them outside a woman's body.

This is the thing about Christo-fascists.

No amount of premises, conclusions, conflation or arguing about definitions will change the fact they're trying to take away our agency and fundamental human rights.

They're doing this by constricting them to a stage of life where we have no use for them.
The following 8 users Like Mathilda's post:
  • epronovost, pattylt, Astreja, Aliza, Minimalist, mordant, Szuchow, Deesse23
Reply
#50

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(01-23-2024, 04:37 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(01-23-2024, 11:01 AM)Alan V Wrote: Sorry, but the science says that human beings are complex composites developed over time.  We are systems with certain attributes.  Because of that developing complexity, assigning any specific point when a human being begins to exist is arbitrary, though it becomes less arbitrary as it approaches completion.

What you are trying to do is shoehorn the concept of a discrete and unified human soul into the scientific information.  Forced-birthers are therefore also trying to force their religious definition of what a human being is on other people who don't share that assumption.  That's why the religious should use their assumption to guide their own behaviors but not to try to control others who disagree with them.  

Religious freedom also means freedom from religion for individuals who choose it.

The premise clearly states "Human life begins at conception" -- which is scientifically established.

That is all I need for the argument.

And human beings are different than "human life."  Human beings have legal rights, mere human life does not.  A scab which I pull off is human life.  So you are equivocating to make your argument, which is why it is not convincing to me and others on this forum.

You need to make an argument which encompasses human beings, and you can't do that without religious assumptions.
The following 8 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Mathilda, 1Sam15, epronovost, pattylt, airportkid, Minimalist, mordant, Deesse23
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)