Abortion

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

But the arguments have an arbirary basis, the moral atmosphere of the times during which they are concieved. Why should anyone have rights in the matter? Because of the sentiment of the current western mindset? That it has empirically been preferable to not having rights is true, and this is our basis for it. Provide a reason that anyone should have guaranteed to them a set of rights, otherwise you are acting as a hypocrite. I would be quite impressed if you can show me a totally objective truth and make a case from that with no assumptions that we should all have a set of guaranteed rights.

Why should I provide an objective truth? An argument you wouldn't disagree with should suffice.

I personally feel, (note that there is no appeal to objective truth in this argument) that all competent people deserve to be treated with a certain level of dignity that carries with it a basic set of rights.

I also believe that I can generally convince others of my argument.

Finally, I believe that no fetus has any reason to possess these rights, as it cannot employ them its own satisfaction.

Maybe not, but as long as a decision is based upon a compromise it cannot be final. The problem is that the arguments are so subjective, depending on shifitng moral stances. Whether it is made with any overt desire for celerity doesn't matter, it is still by the subjective whims of the public that the decision is made.

I tend to believe that our base moral codes are largely universal, and that most moral conflicts are caused by ignorance and or contradiction within and individuals own opinions.

Both can be corrected by argumentation.

A prenatal agreement? I am all for that. Maybe the male should be exonerated of any responsibility if the woman chooses to keep the baby without his agreement? After all, genetics favors the woman, as Aedes pointed out. Why give such responsibility to the male when he has such little say?

It is called a paper abortion. The man notifies the woman of his intention to not take care of the child allowing her sufficient time to act in accordance. I do support that.

Why not?

Because there is no reason to.

Only a little bit more than life, as it exists objectively rather than subjectively, but still not a whole lot, I'm open to any other arbitary scientific basis. You see, the basis might be scientific, but the mapping of your argument to it is very subjective. You would just be picking the most appealing set of facts or interpreting them all to how you see fit.

Consider what you find to be valuable about human life or your existence in particular.

Moral grounds are subjective, it would be difficult if not impossible to construct a perfect and totally rigorous argument that I should not murder, yet most people agree to hold the same stance on the act.

Murder is universally held to be wrong across cultures.

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Why should I provide an objective truth? An argument you wouldn't disagree with should suffice..

You mean an argument no one would or could disagree with,right? Lets keep this in perspective! This isn't you or me, if it were we wouldn't have the opportunity to even consider this circumstance unless we had quite wildly vivid imaginations. Why wont you agree that all homosexuals are evil? The klu klux klan agrees..why can't you? If we all just agreed, including the homosexuals, we would have a self concieved solution to a self concieved problem!

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I personally feel, (note that there is no appeal to objective truth in this argument) that all competent people deserve to be treated with a certain level of dignity that carries with it a basic set of rights.

I also believe that I can generally convince others of my argument.

Finally, I believe that no fetus has any reason to possess these rights, as it cannot employ them its own satisfaction.

You believe, eh? Well, I believe that god told me otherwise, in fact he is telling me it right now, yep, the fetus shall be exhulted as highly as any king of the ages.

If you can generally convince others of your argument, I suggest you go do that, you got this one finished off, meanwhile, why not convince generally all of the religious folks of the truth in weak agnosticism?

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I tend to believe that our base moral codes are largely universal, and that most moral conflicts are caused by ignorance and or contradiction within and individuals own opinions.

Both can be corrected by argumentation..

Good luck with such a task, we have done quite a good job thus far in our creation of a utopic moral structure, surely the perfect world is just around the corner! If only those other guys could see the light! I just know my set of rules is the right one! I can argue them into a state of eternal submission to my set of dogmatisms! Just like we did with them indians! Them indians was ignorant of the superior christian moral structurem but we showed em right quick!

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Consider what you find to be valuable about human life or your existence in particular..

The two things which actually exist:Experience and fellowship in my joyus sisyphusian existence(a part of the experience). I am quite sincere in that response.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Murder is universally held to be wrong across cultures.

But that doesn't make it wrong. Now, here is my attempt at a pseudo-objective argument against it:
In commiting an act of murder, one allows for the same act to be commited to oneself. If all people were to not commit murder, it would guarantee that they would not themselfs be mudered, which is preferable due to the basis anamalistic instinct for survival. Thus no one should murder, as it is in ideological contradiction with their natural instincts. Maybe not the best justification for its illegality,but a valid one as any.

Know how to cut it wide open? Why should we act in accordance to our instinct in this circumstance? I might feel the urge to take a woman against her will, I might feel the urge to murder, why is the urge to survive the one I should pick? What if I don't care if I live or die? Why is whats best for man the course of action to take? What about what is best for the earth? How many species have we destroyed, look at the weapons we have made, maybe we should all die off for the good of the world.

One might say, well, the urge to survive is the strongest!
One might counter, this is not objective! How does one even measure this? One might say that there is no good without humans, so to self destruct would be due to our own confused agenda, we destroy good when we go out the door. But that is not what I meant! I meant that it is best to preserve the...Ah! But it is only best according to human will anyway! It goes on and on!

There are people who think the zygote is a seperate person due to its genetic identity as one. They do exist, I am not making it up. Do not be totally dismissive of that idea.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

To Aedes, the genetic identity of the baby is not physically manifest until conception though.

No, the genetic identity of the conceptus exists at conception. A very large proportion of these will never go on to become a baby, largely because of non-viable genetic errors. In most of these cases the pregnancy spontaneously aborts and the mother never even misses a period -- she never knew she was pregnant. In the majority of the remainder the pregnancy is lost during the first trimester. So you CANNOT use the word "baby" to refer to all genetic products of conception, because a baby isn't the only end result. So while it's technically true that the genetic identity of the resultant baby is determined at conception, we don't know at that point which ones will become a baby and which ones won't.

But my point, which I made somewhat obliquely, is it makes no sense at all to use the genetic identity of the conceptus as a modern proxy for "the soul". And this is what I think you're trying to do here. All of the potential genetic identities are known and knowable before conception based on the parental genetics, and the huge but finite number of genetic possibilities for the baby can be predicted on a computer. So why does one become morally significant simply because it happens to be the one that results from conception? (and also knowing that some of these genetic products are non-viable)

It doesn't, but you'll find that your argument really doesn't boil down to genetics in the end. After all, a fertilized egg is a lot more than chromosomes. It's got a whole slew of structural and chemical components and physiologic processes that we could list if we so chose. If your argument is that the critical point is when the genetic identity of the conceptus is determined by fertilization, then in your mind the moral importance is NOT applied to the genetics but rather the physiologic, growing, zygote - embryo - fetus - baby, and much of this early process happens based on maternal physiology, not the embryo's genetics.

You do make a good point, the genetic balance does favor the woman, however the social balance is even, both parties assume similar responsibility.

Until a man carries a baby in his uterus, until a man suffers from eclampsia or HELLP syndrome or Sheehan's syndrome, until a man's personal and professional life is compromised by the physical changes of pregnancy, until a man is restricted from a job because he plans to have children, and until a man pushes a baby out of his vagina, the social balance is not quite even.

Several female classmates of mine in medical school were (illegally) asked if they were planning on having babies when they were interviewing for residency positions. The program directors of competitive residency programs did not want to have to deal with the maternity leaves of their trainees. Even though it's patently illegal to discriminate based on this (and it's illegal to even ask during a job interview), it happens all the time. So here we have some highly capable, very bright physicians who are losing access to jobs simply because they might become pregnant. So how is the social balance even close to equal?

I know this myself as the father of a 4-month old baby now. My wife, who has the same job I do, had a FAR harder time doing her job while she was pregnant -- she did the job, but she did it while exhausted, with swelling feet and a 50% increase in her baseline body weight. And now she has to do her job while trying to pump / store milk several times a day. I don't have to do this. I go to work and I come home. It's far from equal.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

You mean an argument no one would or could disagree with,right? Lets keep this in perspective! This isn't you or me, if it were we wouldn't have the opportunity to even consider this circumstance unless we had quite wildly vivid imaginations. Why wont you agree that all homosexuals are evil? The klu klux klan agrees..why can't you? If we all just agreed, including the homosexuals, we would have a self concieved solution to a self concieved problem!

I am not concerned with the opinion of unreasonable bigots.

There are few discussions where one side of a conflict is not easily shown to be a hypocrite or ignorant.

Abortion can be one of those discussions due to our limited understanding of neurology and fetal/child development. What makes a human a human, and when do they reach this status is a very, very difficult question to answer. I do, however, feel that this conflict is only reasonable within the realm of partial birth abortion and infanticide.

You believe, eh? Well, I believe that god told me otherwise, in fact he is telling me it right now, yep, the fetus shall be exhulted as highly as any king of the ages.

If you can rely on such subjective evidence, then you have absolutely no grounds on which to argue. Unless you can provide evidence that is meaningful to me, you are not arguing, you are preaching.

I may not be able to convince you, but you also cannot cast your ethical standards on to everyone else.

If you can generally convince others of your argument, I suggest you go do that, you got this one finished off, meanwhile, why not convince generally all of the religious folks of the truth in weak agnosticism?

I hate weak agnosticism. It consists of theists and atheists who won't shed those titles but look to distance themselves from the idiocy of their position.

With that said, I don't argue religion. It's pointless.

Not that any of that is on topic.

The two things which actually exist:Experience and fellowship in my joyus sisyphusian existence(a part of the experience). I am quite sincere in that response.

Would it be worth existing if you did not have this?

But that doesn't make it wrong.

Very true, but I am not a moral realist. I am closer to a nihilist.

Now, here is my attempt at a pseudo-objective argument against it:
In commiting an act of murder, one allows for the same act to be commited to oneself. If all people were to not commit murder, it would guarantee that they would not themselfs be mudered, which is preferable due to the basis anamalistic instinct for survival. Thus no one should murder, as it is in ideological contradiction with their natural instincts. Maybe not the best justification for its illegality,but a valid one as any.

There is nothing about committing an act that grants another permission to the original transgressor.

Many moral frameworks (Kant's being a conspicuous example) fail because of the assumption of universality.

There are people who think the zygote is a seperate person due to its genetic identity as one. They do exist, I am not making it up. Do not be totally dismissive of that idea.

I am totally dismissive of the idea regardless of whether they exist.

[Zetetic11235]

Wll, you don't seem to be much of a sport, so ill go ahead and speak frankly about my position. Unfortunately most of our grounds for argument will be lost.=-(

Good argument as well Aedes, pretty much what I expected, the first half was pretty informative, second half was predictable yet true.

Im done with the devil's advocate(I'm just not that great at it and it gets to be counter productive, but you learn a bit about the people you question), I'm going to play socrates later on though, once some new opinions surface.

Two side points:

1) You seem to be looking at weak agnosticism from a very limited vantage point,e.g. those who do not wish to totally let go of their dogmatic convictions. I am a weak agnostic, but I come from a different vantage point, namely that; Even agnosticism makes a dogmatic claim pertaining to metahphysics, namely that one which dispells the possibility of knowing metaphysical truths. I cannot prove this, I cannot show this, it is in no way tied into my view of reality, thus I must remain silent and essentially ignore the question as I cannot argue either side. To remain a skeptic or a validationalist, one cannot simultaneously make such definite metaphysical/mystical claims.

2)In no way does commiting an act grant permission and that was not the point. Commiting an act admits a possibility, and gives an instance of defiance to the social contract. This is distinct from permission, and I am well aware of why this does not work.

Now, in consideration of abortion, I say that the line should be drawn when the baby could live independently of the mother's womb with the exception of premature birth which should be considered as live birth under any and every circumstance, so that even though it might not be capable of sustaining itself independent of life support ect, it is still of course protected as a person.

I don't see any real problem with first term/early second term abortion(not sure where the point is when th baby could be self sustaining), and the argument from potentiality is weak and susceptible to a quick recductio ad absurdum argument.

"Would it be worth existing if you did not have this?" I would not exist in any tangible form without it, asking me if it would be worth existing doesn't make sense. I would not be able to tell you as such an abstaction of existence is totally inaccessible. It is akin to:"If you were a tesseract, how would that make you feel?" Loopy?(light laughter,looking around)

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I don't see any real problem with first term/early second term abortion(not sure where the point is when th baby could be self sustaining)

The problem is that you have to make an argument that bases morals on medical technology. Normal gestation is 40 weeks long. Full term is considered anything beyond 37 weeks. The youngest preemies to survive are 23 weeks, with a few survivors that were 22 weeks and 5 or 6 days.

But this at minimum requires intubating the infant, administering surfactant to their lungs (a chemical that the lungs normally make, but is absent in extreme preemies), giving supportive ventilation (almost always on a mechanical ventilator), giving IV fluids, giving tube feedings through a tube that goes down the esophagus into the stomach, often giving preventative antibiotics and antifungals, etc, etc.

In other words, if "viability" means "viable with the full armamentarium of modern medicine", then viability is halfway through the second trimester (i.e. about 23 weeks, below which very few neonatologists will even attempt to resuscitate an infant). If to you "viability" is a biological and not a technological phenomenon, then in reality ~ 30 weeks is where you can expect consistent survival.

[Holiday20310401]

What about this.

A fetus is a separate being yes, with a separate genetic identity as Zetetic brought up, and so, is treated differently.

The reason why I see it ok for a fetus to be aborted is because it is not part of the 'will' system of society, so to speak.

Nobody is directly using their will in purpose of virtue for the fetus. And if care is being given to the fetus then it is probably meaning that the abortion won't take place anyways, being that care is given.

When a baby is separated from the mother is has (however limited it may be) a will upon other people. It can carry out processes to have responses from people around the baby to carry out their wills to care and give virtue for the baby.

Since a baby can't have reason or will itself to an end that he/she has great control over it is a greater crime to kill a innocent baby.

But a fetus has no connection to people's influence, nor can it have influence for its own means in order to be considered living. Living requires interaction with the environment and when the potential is not beyond the influence of an embryo then there's little difference with or without the fetus.

It may seem heartless but that is why we help each other survive and why in lacking such, humans kill each other.

[Zetetic11235]

I meant viability without modern medicine, because depending upon a shifting thing such as technology is iffy. What if an artificial womb were created at some point and it was a viable possibility that a zygote could be extracted and incubated until birth in this machine(not sure if this is totally impossible, I am not a bio guy, but I'm sure aedes can clear this up). This would be a loophole in the law.

As for holiday, argument from will is iffy, its too subjective. Its not a new argument in form or intention either.

[Holiday20310401]

Oh really, I thought it was original, though I haven't read the whole thread, your argument with fight the power I didn't read.

But I thought you were just saying that there was no such thing as objective truth.

Whats wrong with subjective? It seems everything I say is that way. What makes it weak?

Actually, is it out of subjection or objection that we give, and care?

And isn't it through caring and compassion that makes somebody important to someone else. Because that person has applied themselves to another. Making somebody 'worthy' sort to speak.

This opinion is purely on the basis of treating an embryo differently than a living being. It is not about the situation, which I'm sure we've cleared up already in the 19 pages, I hope.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I meant viability without modern medicine, because depending upon a shifting thing such as technology is iffy.

But this would place the age of viability WAY later than most people would be comfortable allowing elective abortion, well into the third trimester.

It's also problematic because medicine tends to be a constitutional "equalizer" -- (I refer here to medical constitution). In other words, there is a lot more variable in which babies will survive at gestational age X or Y in the absence of modern medicine. A baby born at 30 weeks whose mother had bacterial chorioamnionitis is, plain and simple, going to die without modern medicine. But a baby born at 30 weeks whose mother had an incompetent cervix (this is a medical diagnosis) stands a reasonable chance of surviving.

This bears itself out in global infant mortality statistics. In developing countries, roughly 25% of all deaths in children under the age of 12 months occur in the perinatal period. In other words, infant survival even at full term is not guaranteed in the absence of technology!

On the other hand, with modern technology -- antibiotics, vasopressors, ventilators, surfactant, parenteral nutrition, etc, etc, etc, you can take the vast majority of infants even at 24 weeks gestation and they'll survive absent some catastrophic complication or some devastating underlying disease.

So you can't just pick an age of viability excluding all medical interventions, because, frankly, it depends on a lot of case-by-cse variables.