The "Bad Kind" of Abortion

No, I don't have statistics, but I do have 1) a pro-life organization officially taking a stance on pro-abstinence and 2) statements from numerous pro-life activists as to why access to contraception is A Bad Thing. And isn't dismissing my argument purely on the grounds of "you can't dig up numbers, so you're automatically wrong" fallacious in itself, when I've provided other evidence?

My point is that pro-life activists like this (but not all pro-life activists, lest you bring up your "omg you're stereotyping!" argument again) are interested in decreasing the number of abortions simply by decreasing access to abortions, without actually tackling the issue of what causes women to get unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Prevention is a much better way to go, imo.

I think a Rights-based system of law is easily defensible from a Utilitarian standpoint, and simply too.

LAWS - things you are not allowed to do. These can be adapted for certain situations, but only within the framework of...

RIGHTS - meta-laws, things that you are not allowed to make laws against or for.

Then what are the Rights based on? For a (Straw) Deontologist, the Rights alone are enough, they need no further explanation.

For a Utilitarian, the Rights are to be based upon the principle of most preferences fulfilled, or most pleasure granted, or most pain avoided, or some combination thereof.

So you get another layer to the law, an objective good that your meta-laws can be based upon. Hooray!

There's a massive divide between Rule and Act Utilitarianism, but in general, Act Utilitarianism devolves into Rule Utilitarianism anyway.

That's what I think, anyway.

edited 31st Jan '11 4:30:35 PM by mmysqueeant

Good point with the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism (act utilitarianism is strictly consequentialist; rule utilitarianism is more of a hybrid), but I think the rest misses the point here. If you're any kind of utilitarian, the law (whether the effective law or the meta-laws you call rights) is at best a first approximation to ethical behavior: law for a utilitarian is a tool to enforce ethical behavior, but being legal or illegal does not in itself make an action ethical. And it's ethics, not legality, that we've been discussing in this context.

edited 31st Jan '11 4:36:34 PM by Nornagest

Simply put, I wasn't saying you were wrong or right.

But generalizing a stance by lumping the majority of people within that stance with people whose secondary objectives have nothing directly to do with that stance is bring an extra factor into the argument which has nothing to do with the original argument.

"My point is that pro-life activists like this (but not all pro-life activists, lest you bring up your "omg you're stereotyping!" argument again) are interested in decreasing the number of abortions simply by decreasing access to abortions, without actually tackling the issue of what causes women to get unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Prevention is a much better way to go, imo."

Agreed. I think abortion is morally wrong, but I'm not going to condemn women who do abortions or attack doctors who perform abortions or anything like that. Instead, I'm going to push for a) more contraception use (which also prevents disease, so it's doubly good) and b) better support for women with unexpected pregnancies if they choose to adopt or keep the child (which would also help the people who wouldn't have had an abortion anyway). And hope that someday, those alternate options will be so good that public opinion won't see abortion as necessary and we can abolish it (except in cases where carrying to term endangers the mother's health, of course).

The question is straightforward.

The woman owns her body. The status of the embryo depends entirely on her decision.

If the child is wanted, it's an honored guest.We can all be glad she's pregnant, yadda yadda, the usual stuff. If the child is unwanted, he's no more than a trespasser. She is entitled to evict him, using lethal force if neccessary.

It may be callous, but it's her call entirely. We have no duty not to be callous ;).

And it's no real loss. Worth is earned. A fetus has had no chance to earn any worth, so a fetus is worthless.

edited 27th Feb '11 10:42:50 AM by SavageHeathen

@Savage Heathen: Strong words, but I find myself agreeing.

The question is straightforward.

If it were that simple, we wouldn't be arguing about it.

The woman owns her body. The status of the embryo depends entirely on her decision.

That's great, but doesn't the fetus own its own body too? Or is it too immature to own its own body? In that case, wouldn't a baby be unable to own its own body? Unfortunate Implications ensue.

If the child is wanted, it's an honored guest.We can all be glad she's pregnant, yadda yadda, the usual stuff. If the child is unwanted, he's no more than a trespasser. She is entitled to evict him, using lethal force if neccessary.

With the exception of rape (which exceptions can be made for seeing as that only makes up, what? Less than 2% of these sorts of cases at most?), the woman has most likely chosen to have sex in the past and hasn't prepared sufficiently to avoid having the child. We've got pills now that reduce the chance to near 0%, and you're still told the probability of getting a child, so you better understand that there's still a chance.

To make this more blunt, is a trespasser really a trespasser if you gave that person the keys much earlier?

It may be callous, but it's her call entirely. We have no duty not to be callous ;).

And it's no real loss. Worth is earned. A fetus has had no chance to earn any worth, so a fetus is worthless.

You were once a fetus, have you done anything yet? Hopefully, if you're like most working men and women, you're either training to get a job or have a job supporting society. Your worth isn't negative, and that fetus is an investment as another person in society to help it grow.

edited 27th Feb '11 11:28:03 AM by Usht

That is how I feel about the subject as well.

I was not speaking about economic worth, but personal worth.

An unwanted fetus has no kinsmen to recognize him. He doesn't have friends to stand up for him. He doesn't have skills that make him valuable. He doesn't have a history that gives worth to his life. Essentially, the fetus is nothing.

The rights of the fetus collide irreversibly with those of the mother. However, the mother has worth, and the fetus has not. The mother's claim to bodily autonomy is way more relevant than the fetus's claim to life, were he able to make any.

Also, if the mother used BC, the fetus IS in fact a trespasser. She took measures to avoid his implantation. He implanted anyway. She proceeds to evict him. What's the problem?

edited 27th Feb '11 12:15:56 PM by SavageHeathen

An unwanted fetus has no kinsmen to recognize him. He doesn't have friends to stand up for him. He doesn't have skills that make him valuable. He doesn't have a history that gives worth to his life. Essentially, the fetus is nothing.

I hope this doesn't make a break a person, either, because it essentially means that you're nothing if you're not popular and talented.

Also, if the mother used BC, the fetus IS in fact a trespasser. She took measures to avoid his implantation. He implanted anyway. She proceeds to evict him. What's the problem?

Problem one: this assumes that she used contraceptive in the first place.

Problem two: the baby didn't enter by choice. This is essentially like setting up a bear trap in your store, inviting a million people inside, and then shooting the one who got caught in it.

edited 27th Feb '11 12:53:15 PM by KingZeal

I was not speaking about economic worth, but personal worth.

Define that before you decide to argue using that point next time.

An unwanted fetus has no kinsmen to recognize him. He doesn't have friends to stand up for him. He doesn't have skills that make him valuable. He doesn't have a history that gives worth to his life. Essentially, the fetus is nothing.

No offense to you, but you're coming off as a bigot. You're defining life based on two measurements:

1) How many friends you have.

2) How much you've done that's notable.

Well, let's look at it this way: There's a kid in middle school who's picked on. S/He really has no friends since that student is too shy to get some due to the constant bullying. That student also has not had sufficient time to learn the skills necessary to be productive member of society or become well known. By your logic, that student is now worthless. Do you agree with this?

The rights of the fetus collide irreversibly with those of the mother. However, the mother has worth, and the fetus has not. The mother's claim to bodily autonomy is way more relevant than the fetus's claim to life, were he able to make any.

Just like slaves' right to freedom collide irreversibly with their owners' right to own slaves. That's why we're debating this. However, the mother, I can't argue with the statement "The mother's claim to bodily autonomy is way more relevant than the fetus's claim to life, were he able to make any." since it's a nominal statement, one with no inherent logic and mainly a opinion. You should support your opinions with arguments, not the same opinion.

Also, if the mother used BC, the fetus IS in fact a trespasser. She took measures to avoid his implantation. He implanted anyway. She proceeds to evict him. What's the problem?

The fact that she was given the chance to know about the possibility of failure before hand. This goes for all medicine, there's a risk to gain ratio that's told on the box or available at the company's site. To not provide this information is a crime in the US as well as most countries where this debate is taking place. If the mother failed to realize that the method she used is not infallible, that's her mistake, not the fetus's. The only way to truly eliminate this chance is to twist her tubes (a rather safe surgery I might mention) or be abstinent. Sex does have side effects besides that good feeling you get during it, you should take responsibility for that after effect.

Let me put it this way in a genderless type of question: There are ST Ds out there, you use a condom or whatever, but you end up contracting that STD. Who's fault is that? Yours, you didn't do the research on the product, the disease, and most importantly, who you slept with. It's, quite literally, all a matter of responsibility.

edited 27th Feb '11 1:14:20 PM by Usht

Does that student think? Have ideas, projects, dreams?

Does he have family that love him at all? Is it true that he doesn't have ANY friends at all, or no skills at all?

Odds are, that kid has some worth. Mostly everyone has some worth. Completely worthless people are rare. Still, worth is something you EARN, not something that's given to you graciously just because you look humanoid.

A fetus can't have any worth, since he has no worthwile deeds at all.

Still, worth is something you EARN, not something that's given to you graciously just because you look humanoid.

This is an opinion, not a fact. An equally-valid opinion is that every living creature possesses certain inalienable rights which aren't determined by "worth".

The right to live would be right up there.

@Savage Heathen: You're avoiding my point about the responsibility of the mother to avoid having that child in the first place. Would you like to respond to that? And...

Does that student think? Have ideas, projects, dreams?

Does he have family that love him at all? Is it true that he doesn't have ANY friends at all, or no skills at all?

Odds are, that kid has some worth. Mostly everyone has some worth. Completely worthless people are rare. Still, worth is something you EARN, not something that's given to you graciously just because you look humanoid.

A fetus can't have any worth, since he has no worthwile deeds at all.

So basically, you're saying that a fetus has no worth since it hasn't earned any yet and because no one cares about it? Two problems there:

1) We wouldn't be having this debate if no one cared about those fetuses that were being aborted, right? I care about them and anyone arguing along my side also cares about them.

But more importantly:

2) You're stamping out something before it has a chance to earn worth. That's hypocritical. Something is only worth saving if it has had time to earn worth, but it can't, because it hasn't reached a stage where it can. That's paradoxical, it's much along the lines of the original law about slavery in the US, "A slave is only a slave if he or she is born a slave." But who were the first slaves? Same point here, the fetus doesn't have an opportunity to be anything in particular because you're stopping it before it has a chance to get to that stage.

If I get an STD, I knew the risk beforehand. If there's no way to get rid of the STD, tough luck. However, if the particular STD I get is curable, I get treatment and fix it.

A pregnancy is reversible, even if the procedure is sorta messy.

edited 27th Feb '11 2:24:20 PM by SavageHeathen

You're avoiding the point again. It's not whether or not the condition is reversible, it's about your responsibility in the first place. That mother got pregnant and now the rights of the fetus are in question. It's not a simple matter of "Get rid of the fetus because it's easy", it's a matter of does that fetus have the right to live and does the mother have the right to get rid of that fetus, and the point I'm making is that getting rid of a potential life is not reversible, that fetus, once gone, will not come back, that's unrepairable damage. Tough luck for that fetus, huh? If the mother had a choice in the matter and ended up with the result, it's her responsibility to at least birth that child unless it will have fatal results for either her or that fetus.

So then, how about covering my others points, you know, like the one about how the fetus is apparently worth nothing since it hasn't had a chance to do anything? Or that the mother failed to do the research? Does any of that factor in to your opinion?

The mother's right is to do with her own body and her own life as it suits her fancy. The fetus's "right" is to demand service from the mother. You cannot compel aid or service from others, it's either freely given or not given at all.

That's why I say the mother's right is superior, superior enough to trump any right the fetus might have.

edited 27th Feb '11 3:05:59 PM by SavageHeathen

The mother's right is to do with her own body and her own life as it suits her fancy. The fetus's "right" is to demand service from the mother. You cannot compel aid or service from others, it's either freely given or not given at all.

That's why I say the mother's right is superior, superior enough to trump any right the fetus might have.

Weeelllllll, as much as I enjoy reposting my opinion without any new arguments, here's another one:

When that mother has sex (and by extension, the father who should also be committed to the results, so don't give anything about feminism) she is signing a contract of sorts, saying that from this action, there is a chance of me having a kid.

If I had kid who I told I'd feed, that kid would trust me, and I would feed it. To go back on what I had told that kid would make me a hypocrite. The same goes for the fetus, it's reliant on that mother and that mother, by willingly having sex, is taking responsibility for that possible fetus. To not handle it would be hypocritical.

The only exception is rape, which once again, is such a rare occurrence in places where this is an option that it borderlines on being non-existent. For the mothers who do get effected by rape and do become pregnant, it was not their responsibility and should have the option of abortion because they didn't have a choice in the matter before hand.

It's all about choice. Pro-choice is great and all if you didn't already make that very choice earlier and failed to realize what would happen if you made the choice to have sex.

You can compel aid or service from others if their own actions led them to it. If I break your window, I can be ordered to pay you compensation or to replace it. In this case, your own actions are what led to the creation of a new life, thus you bear some responsibility for it.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Don't agree about the child by rape, though I'm sympathetic to the compromise.

edited 27th Feb '11 3:24:48 PM by KingZeal

The old "should have kept her legs shut" argument in a nutshell. We'll have to agree to disagree. That "argument" merits no response.

Still, you can't contract an obligation with someone that doesn't exist yet!

She had no agreement or covenant with the fetus. She simply agreed to have sex with a guy. The fetus is unwanted, a parasite inside her body. It's HER decision what makes the fetus a person-to-be or a parasite to be eliminated.

edited 27th Feb '11 3:43:13 PM by SavageHeathen

No, let's continue this.

What's wrong with the "Keeping her legs closed" argument? If people were to be more responsible about sex in general, we wouldn't have teen pregnancies, such a rampant growth in people who are infected by ST Ds, and yes, abortions. What's inherently flawed about the "Keeping her legs closed" argument? You've done nothing so far but stated your opinion, I want to see a solid, logical argument.

EDIT: No. That's like deciding to be paid to put a leech on your skin. It was a dumb move in the first place to take the money if you weren't ready for the leech.

edited 27th Feb '11 3:50:08 PM by Usht

Prudishness is contemptible.

Nobody's saying to be a prude. As has been mentioned, birth control is 99.9% effective nowadays, so go ahead and get buck wild. Just don't act shocked if that .1% crops up.

While I am pro choice for the reasons that you listed Savage heathen, Usht makes some valid points with your reasoning.

the embryo can just as easily been seen as a kidnap victim as a trespasser. It's mother (and father) brought it into existent for their own actions. while they may of taking precautions they did know the risks of having sex.

edited 27th Feb '11 4:00:06 PM by joeyjojo