Question for the Author of the Question for the arborist Thread

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
So you are saying it's morally wrong for women to have babies,
Only in the context of excessive population growth.
and that does not relate to the subject of abortion?
Aborting is not my preferred method of population control.
Reducing the number of conceptions is.
Oh it is only a step away from culling,
Says you.
A slippery slope fallacy, I might add.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Only in the context of excessive population growth.

Aborting is not my preferred method of population control.
Reducing the number of conceptions is.

Says you.
A slippery slope fallacy, I might add.
A common sense conclusion to the mentality of someone who would embrace antinatalism.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Not by its choice and the woman acted to put it there.
People hit by cars while crossing the road did not act to be hit by a car.
Taking Action X with Possible Consequence Y is not "acting to achieve Consequence Y".
Why are you willing to grant the woman the right to kill the fetus but the fetus no right to live in the woman?
You are correct - it's a clash of rights.
But considering that one can eject intruders from one's home - no matter what consequences subsequently befall the intruder - I think the same should apply to one's body.
The fetus has litely no choice in these matters, its use is temporary.
Irrelevant - I wouldn't want a law that let squatters live in my house because "it's only temporary".
If you are willing to grant the e fetus human status, you must balance ethical considerations: your solution is lopsided.
I do grant is human status.
The fact that it is human does not confer upon it the extra right to use another human.
 

Algor

Well-known member
People hit by cars while crossing the road did not act to be hit by a car.
Taking Action X with Possible Consequence Y is not "acting to achieve Consequence Y".
Im afraid that in common law, if someone takes a risk and knows the consequences, they are responsible for the consequences, especially if those consequences result in the injury of another.
You are correct - it's a clash of rights.
But considering that one can eject intruders from one's home - no matter what consequences subsequently befall the intruder - I think the same should apply to one's body.
In point of fact you are wrong. You may not eject someone without regards to consequences. If you ejected a completely helpless person from your home knowing that they would inevitably die, that would be criminal negligence. You may not deliberately murder in order to simply assert property rights.
Irrelevant - I wouldn't want a law that let squatters live in my house because "it's only temporary".
Not irrelevant: you would not be allowed to kill them. You are advocating for deliberate murder in order to assert property rights.
I do grant is human status.
The fact that it is human does not confer upon it the extra right to use another human.
It is only using the other human because it was compelled to by the very person who wants to kill it. The fetus did not choose to come into existence and did not choose to use the other person’s body: it was compelled to do so by the same person who wants to kill it.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
In point of fact you are wrong. You may not eject someone without regards to consequences. If you ejected a completely helpless person from your home knowing that they would inevitably die, that would be criminal negligence.
If that's true, I am opposed to that law as well.
Not irrelevant: you would not be allowed to kill them.
And if there were a way to remove a pregnancy without killing it, that would be infinitely preferable.
But there isn't.

I know this will make little difference to you, but I do not see the goal of abortion as doing something to the pregnancy, but for the woman. Appealing to the innocence and ignorance of the unborn baby is, therefore, pointless with me.
It is only using the other human because it was compelled to by the very person who wants to kill it.
But not by said person's choice.
The foetus did not choose to come into existence and did not choose to use the other person’s body: it was compelled to do so by the same person who wants to kill it.
As I said above, this line of argument will not work with me.
 

Algor

Well-known member
If that's true, I am opposed to that law as well.
So a person who finds a helpless, incapacitated child in their home in the middle of winter should be able to turn the child naked out into a snowstorm, and not be held criminally liable? Seriously?
And if there were a way to remove a pregnancy without killing it, that would be infinitely preferable.
But there isn't.
That isn’t the question. The question is the balance of harms and benefits. And in point of fact, there is another way to end tge pregnancy: wait until low risk viability and deliver. In the same way, if one has squatters on the property, the law always gives them a chance to evacuate and arrange alternate accommodations. You can’t simply kill people to get them off your property.
I know this will make little difference to you, but I do not see the goal of abortion as doing something to the pregnancy, but for the woman. Appealing to the innocence and ignorance of the unborn baby is, therefore, pointless with me.
Its doing both. One is opposed to the other: you are saying that the woman’s desires completely override any obligation, but other than saying that you think they do, you haven’t provided a rationale.
But not by said person's choice.
It does’t matter to the consideration ation of fetal rights and maternal obligations whether or not the woman deliberately chose: it only matters that the woman has compelled it. You have yet to demonstrate why it should bear the burden of consequences of the woman's choices and why her desires override its rights. If it is human, it has rights too. Ethics is a balancing, almost never a simple decision of one harm over another.

Im not concerned whether an argument will work with you. Im only interested in a rational defense. If you are not interested in giving one, OK.
 
Last edited:

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Its doing both.
But only one of them is the intent/goal.
One is opposed to the other: you are saying that the woman’s desires completely override any obligation, but other than saying that you think they do, you haven’t provided a rationale.
My rationale is empathy - I wouldn't want to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.
Im only interested in a rational defense.
This is the thing - it's only ever going to be opinion vs opinion.
In the face of all the facts cited about abortion, each of us still thinks we're right - I doubt anything will convince you to hold the woman's bodily rights over the life of the unborn baby, and I doubt anything will convince me to do the opposite.
Ethics is a balancing, almost never a simple decision of one harm over another.
I agree completely. But please don't mistake my pro-choice adamancy as a sign that I consider it a simple matter.
I have heard and considered many objections, but they just don't overturn my bodily rights viewpoint.
 

Algor

Well-known member
But only one of them is the intent/goal.
If the outcome is inevitable death of one party, the goal is not relevant to the rights of that party. You have a situation where one party may be harming another unintentionally, but the other is killing it. That is not a balance of rights and obligations.
My rationale is empathy - I wouldn't want to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.
Presumably you wouldn’t want to be killed either. Empathy is only one consideration, and if empathy for one party, why not others? Empathy is not a valid ethical consideration if it is arbitrarily selective.
This is the thing - it's only ever going to be opinion vs opinion.
Not if basic premises are agreed on.
In the face of all the facts cited about abortion, each of us still thinks we're right - I doubt anything will convince you to hold the woman's bodily rights over the life of the unborn baby, and I doubt anything will convince me to do the opposite.
That may be the outcome, but may not be. If one holds to rationality as the basis of ethics, then once premises are agreed on some positions will be untenable.
I agree completely. But please don't mistake my pro-choice adamancy as a sign that I consider it a simple matter.
I have heard and considered many objections, but they just don't overturn my bodily rights viewpoint.
Why? Bodily rights are in no sense absolute in our society.
 
Last edited:

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Presumably you wouldn’t want to be killed either.
True. But neither do people on death row. The fact that people don't want the consequences doesn't mean we don't carry them out.
(Yes - I know the foetus is not a "criminal", and hasn't done anything wrong.)

I will say this, though: if it were possible for me to consider a universe where I had been aborted (it's not, but go with it), I would not be outraged at my (no-longer) mother; I would respect her right to choose.
Not if basic premises are agreed on.
But they won't be - my viewpoint drills down to the rights of the mother, and yours to the rights of the unborn baby.
And I doubt either of us will convince the other to change decks - there's just no way for me to see forcing a woman to carry to term as more acceptable than allowing her to abort.
Why? Bodily rights are in no sense absolute in our society.
Can you give a(nother) example of them being suspended, or not applying?

Another hypothetical: would you consider it moral to remove non-vital organs against the "donor"'s will if it will save another life?
Just trying to find your "line".
 

Algor

Well-known member
True. But neither do people on death row. The fact that people don't want the consequences doesn't mean we don't carry them out.
Right: we have institutions and laws, and these must be formed and regulated rationally and transparently.
(Yes - I know the foetus is not a "criminal", and hasn't done anything wrong.)

I will say this, though: if it were possible for me to consider a universe where I had been aborted (it's not, but go with it), I would not be outraged at my (no-longer) mother; I would respect her right to choose.
OK. Not sure what that means, because a lot of things might lead to that non- outraged state.
But they won't be - my viewpoint drills down to the rights of the mother, and yours to the rights of the unborn baby.
No: mine drills down to evaluating what the rights and obligations of the mother vs those of the fetus. There are two parties involved in a hazardous undertaking. Sometimes the rights of the mother over-ride her obligations, sometimes not. If the fetus places the mother in immanent danger she is allowed to save herself, for instance.
And I doubt either of us will convince the other to change decks - there's just no way for me to see forcing a woman to carry to term as more acceptable than allowing her to abort.
OK, but given that the fetus has rights why not? In no area of law or practice does ethics allow the more powerful party to simply kill the weaker in a non-lethal conflict of rights.
Can you give a(nother) example of them being suspended, or not applying?
We put people in prison (and even prolonged solitary confinement), execute them, order paternity testing, we can force feed and hydrate them for limited periods of time, administer drugs, compel vaccination....in minors we can compel surgery and blood transfusion. None of these are directly analagous to pregnancy, but the point is that no single right is absolute.
Another hypothetical: would you consider it moral to remove non-vital organs against the "donor"'s will if it will save another life?
No. Why would this be analagous to pregnancy? In pregnancy the mother and the fetus are compelling each other by nature of their biology. The law is constraining the independent actions of the mother against the fetal compulsions, because the fetus has no power to act independently and no choice.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
No: mine drills down to evaluating what the rights and obligations of the mother vs those of the fetus.
Well... so does mine.
It's just that in my view, the mother's are priortized.
OK, but given that the fetus has rights why not?
Like most empathetic reactions, I can't really explain it - it's a feeling.
And the foetus rights, IMO, do not trump those of the mother - "the foetus's right to swing its arm ends at its mother's face", if you will.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Well... so does mine.
It's just that in my view, the mother's are priortized.
Not prioritized: wholly deterministic. So no, your view doesn’t actually consider fetal rights at all. They may as well not exist if they can be dismissed on the basis of highly selective empathy.

Have you ever read Singers book on ethics?
Like most empathetic reactions, I can't really explain it - it's a feeling.
And the foetus rights, IMO, do not trump those of the mother -
Right: to save her life, or to prevent irreparable harm to herself, the mother may need to abort. She may get the baby adopted once born, etc.

"the foetus's right to swing its arm ends at its mother's face", if you will.
But the mother can swing away at the fetus? Again, double standard.

Although I accept your intentions are benign, an ethic based primarily in selective empathy for one sort of human over another is highly problematic, for reasons I think you can probably see.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I told my son there was no god and he burst into flames on the spot...

If your son believed your lie he will spend eternity separated from the truth and reality. God sends no-one to the abyss, rather unbelievers choose it for themselves. It's a shame that unbelievers are willing to drag their own children down with them.

... and I'm still going to tell my daughter the same thing.

We can only pray that she desires the truth and reality over pride.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
So you haven't read the Bible then? God destroys a whole lot of people.

No. God chose a people to reveal Himself to and He protected His people by revealing His truth and reality.
But pagans tried to oppose and destroy God's reality and His people. And when you oppose the truth and reality; IT just runs over you and destroys you; if you don't stop opposing IT.

You don't know what other people want. Maybe they do want to know truth and reality but just disagree with you on what that is.

Well if I know how and why the truth and reality is known to me and others like yourself don't, then that's your problem. But I am still going to tell you the truth anyway.

What makes you think unbelievers say this to their children? Any evidence, or are you just assuming it?
I told my son there was no god and he burst into flames on the spot...

... and I'm still going to tell my daughter the same thing.

Yet you keep choosing unbelief in the face of the truths we present you with.

What "truths" are those?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
But the mother can swing away at the fetus?
Yes.
Each of us has one swinging at the other.
Although I accept your intentions are benign, an ethic based primarily in selective empathy for one sort of human over another is highly problematic, for reasons I think you can probably see.
If you have exactly equal empathy for both, I think it is literally impossible to make a decision on abortion.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
If your son believed your lie he will spend eternity separated from the truth and reality.
I haven't got any children - I was being sarcastic.

There is zero, squat, no evidence whatsoever that dying in unbelief has any eternal consequences.

NONE. WHATSOEVER.
 

Furion

Well-known member
If you have exactly equal empathy for both, I think it is literally impossible to make a decision on abortion.
You don't have children do you.

Every sane mother knows you do anything for your children, so the mother makes the sacrifice for the child and has a baby.

The other way is a different type of sacrifice. The mother in that case will not sacrifice some months of her life for the baby, so she kills it.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
You don't have children do you.
No.
Every sane mother knows you do anything for your children,
Those mothers wanted to have those children.
"Every sane husband knows you do anything for your wife" - even a man married off against his will to a wife he never asked for?
so the mother makes the sacrifice for the child and has a baby.
You're not a mother until your child is born.
Until then, you are a pregnant woman.
The other way is a different type of sacrifice. The mother in that case will not sacrifice some months of her life for the baby, so she kills it.
Who are you to tell a woman that she must carry a baby to term?

(Not a rhetorical question - thanks to the law, you are no-one.)
 
Last edited:

Algor

Well-known member
Yes.
Each of us has one swinging at the other.
Well, no. For you maternal desires always trump fetal rights. For me, they sometimes do and sometimes do not. My position is based on multiple considerations, yours apparently only on empathy for the mother only. Our approaches are not similar.

The reason I asked above about Singer is that I have encountered a few people with views similar to yours who were highly influenced by Singer.

If you have exactly equal empathy for both, I think it is literally impossible to make a decision on abortion.
Only if your ethos is based wholly on personal empathy, which is a highly problematic stance.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
No. God chose a people to reveal Himself to and He protected His people by revealing His truth and reality. But pagans tried to oppose and destroy God's reality and His people. And when you oppose the truth and reality; IT just runs over you and destroys you; if you don't stop opposing IT.
Have you not read the old testament? Let me know when you get to the parts where God destroys a whole lot of people. Such as when he sent a flood for the express purpose of wiping out nearly all of humanity.

Well if I know how and why the truth and reality is known to me and others like yourself don't, then that's your problem. But I am still going to tell you the truth anyway.
You don't know that, nor is it relevant to what I said. You've yet to say anything true, but keep trying I guess?

What "truths" are those?
The many truths you keep rejecting in favor of unbelief. Such as that knowledge is justified true belief. That belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge. That fiction is not knowledge. That knowledge is not a form of existence. That reality need not exist in a mind. And that your God is purely imaginary.
 
Top