Human Development and Abortion Laws

[EatatJoes]

I think maybe EatAtJoes has a more nuanced position than I previously thought. I think EatAtJoes is saying that it is morally wrong to commit late term abortions, but that it is not something morally wrong enough that the state should make laws against it.

Correct (which is why I waited until I thought you had read through my more recent replies before replying). I know this seems very odd. However, as we have discussed, drawing the line at when moral consideration should be legally protected isn't without its exceptions. Who is to decide when the exceptions are "good enough"? It would depend on the person making the decision (and when we're talking about a legality, we are talking about the government making the decision, not the woman, family nor the doctor. Not that the gov't can't take those opinions into consideration but ultimately the choice lands with the gov't). I trust the woman, family and the doctor MORE than I would a gov't official to make the right decision. And, quite frankly, handing the gov't that kind of decision making power and stripping it from the woman (all the while also ignoring the woman's doctor) makes me sick. You either trust the woman to make the decision or you don't. I trust that women will make the best (better?) decision.

If so, I think the question you and I are getting at is, why isn't as morally wrong as other crimes? We certainly don't give a woman the benefit of the doubt if she shoplifts, for example. It's illegal because it's morally wrong. While the two realms are different, there is a LOT of overlap. Morality evolved by natural selection to provide for better functioning human social groups, and you could consider the law to be our intelligently-designed attempt to formalize morality for the exact same end: a better functioning society.

To your example...Shoplifting is a crime because it infringes on someone else's property. You don't have the right to take what does not legally belong to you. Property rights are considered sacred in this country (although not near as much as I would like). Now, as Neally has pointed out, life is considered more sacred. You cannot legally end the life of someone else just because they are infringing on your right to your own property. Life trumps property. I will agree, except when it comes to abortion. A woman's right to decide medical decisions trumps the life that is inside of her. The "property" in question is her body and I suppose I'm arguing that the life inside of her is more "property" than "life". That child is literally a part of her. It's a temporary situation but for me, it's key to this discussion. As I have stated before, aborting a late-term fetus for no other reason besides "just because" is repugnant but telling a woman that she can't abort is even more repugnant. I place a woman's right to autonomy over the right the child's "right" to life.

Abortion laws, no matter how well meaning, only cause problems. I see them as problematic both in a pragmatic sense (they aren't needed) and morally (the woman has a right to her body). We don't need to restrict abortion to help shape a better society.

One aspect of justice is looking out for the rights of those who aren't strong enough to protect their own rights. It's not merely a matter of reciprocity (we treat weak people well in case one day we ourselves may be the weak person) but something connected, I think, with our evolved mental capacity for morality. (I think of mirror neurons and the selective benefits of altruism.)

Absolutely. But pregnancy has no other parallel except for the twin example and I was clear on my opinion on that.

 

[Drachasor]

To your example...Shoplifting is a crime because it infringes on someone else's property. You don't have the right to take what does not legally belong to you. Property rights are considered sacred in this country (although not near as much as I would like). Now, as Neally has pointed out, life is considered more sacred. You cannot legally end the life of someone else just because they are infringing on your right to your own property. Life trumps property. I will agree, except when it comes to abortion. A woman's right to decide medical decisions trumps the life that is inside of her. The "property" in question is her body and I suppose I'm arguing that the life inside of her is more "property" than "life". That child is literally a part of her. It's a temporary situation but for me, it's key to this discussion. As I have stated before, aborting a late-term fetus for no other reason besides "just because" is repugnant but telling a woman that she can't abort is even more repugnant. I place a woman's right to autonomy over the right the child's "right" to life.

Life trumps property, period. Sensible abortion limits still give women plenty of time to decide to have one before a fetus develops any sort of brain activity that would justify considering it a more or less functioning human being. Proposing that a temporary inconvenience (because we all agree on an exception if the mother's life is in danger) is more important THAN A LIFE is, quite frankly, crazy.

Temporary inconvenience goes away and leaves no one harmed. End a life destroys an entire future for someone that you can never get back. All the hopes, joys, and dreams that person would have had, snuffed out.

To put it another way, you're saying temporary inconvenience for the mother is more important than a permanent and 100% debilitating inconvenience for the child.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You either trust the woman to make the decision or you don't. I trust that women will make the best (better?) decision.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect you're wrong. There are a great many shades in between the two most extreme positions (yours--that the woman should have the right to an abortion for any or no reason up until birth with the state having no say whatsoever and the extreme of the religious right--that anything that stops pregnancy from fertilization onward should be treated as the moral equivalent of murder). In fact, our current law as I've explained several times does just that. It says that the woman can have a first trimester abortion for any or no reason, but that after that, in a normal pregnancy, the state recognizes the fetus/baby as something with a growing interest. Even then, it doesn't propose a hard and fast, black-and-white rule, but simply a growing interest which echoes the moral position you've said: as you get later and later, the woman should have a stronger and stronger reason for the abortion.

To your example...Shoplifting is a crime because it infringes on someone else's property. You don't have the right to take what does not legally belong to you. Property rights are considered sacred in this country (although not near as much as I would like). Now, as Neally has pointed out, life is considered more sacred. You cannot legally end the life of someone else just because they are infringing on your right to your own property. Life trumps property. I will agree, except when it comes to abortion.

This is special pleading. Earlier you said your position on abortion is based on the principle that we should trust a woman to make the right decision. Why should our trust extend to every case of abortion but not to things like shoplifting?

As I have stated before, aborting a late-term fetus for no other reason besides "just because" is repugnant but telling a woman that she can't abort is even more repugnant. I place a woman's right to autonomy over the right the child's "right" to life.

But why? Why isn't the woman's right to autonomy more important than our petty concern over shoplifting? Again, your logic is an example of special pleading. You claimed you derive your conclusion from a general rule (a premise) yet you reject that premise for everything but abortion.

Also, going back to the OP's request, the standard you are offering is just as arbitrary as the most extreme "pro-life" standards. About all you're doing is asserting a position and not arguing in support of it. The one thing you offer as support (that the state should trust the woman, give her the benefit of the doubt; that her autonomy is more important than any other concern) is something you reject when it comes to even a small property misdemeanor like shoplifting.

On the other hand, the rationale I've offered I think accurately reflects the kind of mental processes we have evolved when it comes to moral reasoning, and it covers a broad range of situations (it covers terminating human life in the womb and out, and brain-dead adults, also it helps with moral questions about killing animals, and so on). Also, the approach I've suggested also fits with our societal convention (you have at least admitted that yours does not) and is very close to our legal approach (with the exception that I don't think viability is the best measure of that thing we recognize as correlating to the growing interests of the fetus/baby).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Absolutely. But pregnancy has no other parallel except for the twin example and I was clear on my opinion on that.

Again, I disagree. The state's recognition of the growing interest of a fetus is comparable to its recognition of a waning interest in a brain-dead (or dying) person. Morally, it also is comparable to figuring out why we don't want our pets mistreated, but conventionally are all right with killing many kinds of animals for food.

[Full disclosure: I'm a vegetarian exactly because I think especially other mammals do have the capacity to have desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled, and that I think the conventional position on eating animals is at least a little bit inconsistent. However, I'm a pro-choice vegetarian, and I don't go around telling other people they're wrong, because I recognize that my personal decision isn't conventional.]

And in a very late term normal pregnancy, the situation is very comparable to the situation of an already born baby. In making moral and legal decisions we have to weigh or balance between the interests of two people. Your notion that physical separation automatically changes things isn't supported by any human conventions. (That's why I brought up the conjoined twins analogy.)

 

[EatatJoes]

I will reply, probably tomorrow. =)

 

[EatatJoes]

Bump - tonight I think.

But, just to throw something out there...JTJ, when you state that we should carefully review the decision to abort when the child may have "desires", how do you define "desires"?

 

[EatatJoes]

This is special pleading. Earlier you said your position on abortion is based on the principle that we should trust a woman to make the right decision. Why should our trust extend to every case of abortion but not to things like shoplifting?

I just don't understand why you are making this comparison/analogy. When a woman shoplifts is she making a medical decision?

But why? Why isn't the woman's right to autonomy more important than our petty concern over shoplifting? Again, your logic is an example of special pleading. You claimed you derive your conclusion from a general rule (a premise) yet you reject that premise for everything but abortion.

Is it special pleading when in the case of abortion no other comparison exists except for the conjoined twin example? A person should have the right to do what they wish with their person (even ending their own life, but that, too, is illegal). If you are going to have the right to anything, shouldn't one have the right to do what they want to their body?

Also, going back to the OP's request, the standard you are offering is just as arbitrary as the most extreme "pro-life" standards. About all you're doing is asserting a position and not arguing in support of it. The one thing you offer as support (that the state should trust the woman, give her the benefit of the doubt; that her autonomy is more important than any other concern) is something you reject when it comes to even a small property misdemeanor like shoplifting.

It's hardly arbitrary, until the child exists the womb it shouldn't be granted rights. The woman was here first, she was granted the right to autonomy, she did nothing wrong but as soon as she gets pregnant she loses that right. She now doesn't have the right to abortion but is simply allowed to do so based on the development of the child inside of her. In the eyes of the laws, she is not only a woman but is now an incubator.

On the other hand, the rationale I've offered I think accurately reflects the kind of mental processes we have evolved when it comes to moral reasoning, and it covers a broad range of situations (it covers terminating human life in the womb and out, and brain-dead adults, also it helps with moral questions about killing animals, and so on). Also, the approach I've suggested also fits with our societal convention (you have at least admitted that yours does not) and is very close to our legal approach (with the exception that I don't think viability is the best measure of that thing we recognize as correlating to the growing interests of the fetus/baby).

When the child is inside of the womb, it's part of the woman. It's up to the woman what to do what she wishes with her body, even at the expense of the child, because the child is inside of her. I have stated before that the moral consideration we grant to fetuses is inconsistent. We grant the woman the right to drink, smoke, go white water rafting, take medications that could lead to malformations and death of the child inside of the womb, but we don't grant the woman the right to terminate the child that is inside of her body. Why this inconsistency? Why don't we legally limit what a pregnant can do with her body? What do we see as necessary to grant the woman but for some reason we can't grant her full access to do what she wishes to her body? Also and I am repeating myself again, pragmatically the laws regarding late-term abortion are unnecessary. Women do not, for "no reason" abort their late term fetus. The reasons they give are what is right for them, their families and and almost always with the guidance of their doctor. Woman do not need to be legislated in this respect. We would do just fine without those laws.

I'm not sure what I should state beyond this. Pregnancy is a condition in which nothing else can truly equal. It just so happens that only women can get pregnant, it's a condition that can be harmful to the woman and it's a condition that only a woman should own and be responsible for.

 

[Neally]

I'm not sure what I should state beyond this. Pregnancy is a condition in which nothing else can truly equal. It just so happens that only women can get pregnant, it's a condition that can be harmful to the woman and it's a condition that only a woman should own and be responsible for.

The law places limits on that ownership, since the law rightly morally recognizes that once the fetus is recognized as human, the woman no longer "owns" it in the sense that she can do to it whatever she wishes, no more than a mother can do to her child anything she wishes.