4 ms·

If we were debating at what term we should allow abortions until then I think there is room for discussion. But the extreme position of "no abortions at all at

by tensor 4y ago

If we were debating at what term we should allow abortions until then I think there is room for discussion. But the extreme position of "no abortions at all at any term" I'm simply uninterested in discussion. It's not that I don't understand their thinking. I simply do not agree and thus do not care to discuss or debate it. Here is the thing, the majority of people who actually reason and think about these topics have heard the same arguments now for 20 years or more. There is nothing new being said, there is no movement on the position of people on either side, and thus there is no more discussion. All you see is propaganda, which I don't care to engage with. So I vote and donate so that "my side" wins and that's that.

TimPC 4y ago
I think a sizeable percentage of pro-lifers have not heard a coherent argument for Evictionism and have never worked their way through the violinist example. I’m not saying it will change their deeply held ideological beliefs but I highly doubt anyone has heard all arguments under the sun on this issue. I agree there is too much low-grade propaganda and a lack of good debate that makes it tempting to check out of the discourse entirely. I think we need to learn how to improve the discourse though as democracy ceases to function if people check out of nearly every issue and turn almost everything tribal.
causi 4y ago
Well see that's the thing. What makes killing a human murder? I'm of the opinion that the human mind is what makes a human more valuable than a lower animal. Killing a cloned body with no cerebrum wouldn't be murder. I'm forced to concede, however, that that belief doesn't give me a reason that newborns should be more protected than fetuses as it takes months for infants to begin demonstrating consciousness and memory. If consciousness isn't the dividing line, then what is? You could say the ability to sustain life on one's own is the dividing line, but then that line is always moving. A one year old infant will die without care. A thousand years ago a six month old fetus would almost certainly die shortly after birth, but today the survival rate is nearly 100%. With today's technology a 24 week fetus has between a 60 and 70 percent chance of survival. Is killing a 24 week fetus murder? If murder is contingent on its ability to survive with modern technology, what happens as technology pushes that age smaller and smaller? Adopting a Least Convenient Possible World principle makes the questions even harder. If you could push a button to have a Star Trek style transporter instantly and painlessly teleport the fetus into an artificial womb, should you still be allowed to kill it instead?
- dotnet00 4y ago
  I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. It's so politically charged and yet impossible to clearly discuss in any significant detail, thus the situation we find ourselves in. I think it's better to just accept that abortion is prematurely terminating a life and thus the primary consideration should be the cost the parents and/or society can pay. Can society afford the cost of raising unwanted children and of the cycle of abuse that often comes along? and similarly, can society afford the cost of the lifestyle that makes people choose abortion to focus on other things? These things are much easier to discuss. As a 'bonus' this framework also handles the justification for countries which have legal abortion except with restrictions like barring abortions after sex determination. There seems to be a large agreement that abortion within the first trimester is acceptable, so I think that while it's terrible that it has to happen, society on average currently puts the line between the first and second trimesters for where the costs of both sides balance out, such that even if the fetus could be teleported into an artificial womb, an unconditional abortion should be acceptable. I think the artificial womb point only works if it also somehow erases society's burden of raising the child. I used to think that "abortion is rarely a happy decision but is still sometimes necessary" was the consensus position so it was pretty odd to me when I first became aware of the state of debate over it in the US.
  - _gabe_ 4y ago
    > I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. I guess since this is your opinion I can't say it's wrong, but I can strongly suggest that this opinion is wrong. Is abortion the killing of a child? If it is not then why does a state like California have laws written about double homicide that say: > defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. [0] If we already have laws like this in a state as liberal as California, then clearly the argument that an abortion is murder is reasonable. Put another way, would you tell a mother grieving for her miscarriage that she didn't actually lose a child? She just lost a fetus after all, so it's not like there's much to grieve about. Or would you say that a woman that had her unborn baby killed while having some sort of altercation or accident isn't entitled to prosecute the perpetrator? If she has the right to pursue legal action against somebody, then there is clearly some sort of "precedent" about an unborn child having rights. This is an argument that can and should be explored further instead of dismissed since it's a "touchy subject". The law is full of hard truths, and it's our responsibility to explore these to make sure we're not carrying out injustice. [0]: https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx#State%20Laws https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-la...

by tensor 4y ago

TimPC 4y ago

I think a sizeable percentage of pro-lifers have not heard a coherent argument for Evictionism and have never worked their way through the violinist example. I’m not saying it will change their deeply held ideological beliefs but I highly doubt anyone has heard all arguments under the sun on this issue. I agree there is too much low-grade propaganda and a lack of good debate that makes it tempting to check out of the discourse entirely. I think we need to learn how to improve the discourse though as democracy ceases to function if people check out of nearly every issue and turn almost everything tribal.

causi 4y ago

Well see that's the thing. What makes killing a human murder? I'm of the opinion that the human mind is what makes a human more valuable than a lower animal. Killing a cloned body with no cerebrum wouldn't be murder. I'm forced to concede, however, that that belief doesn't give me a reason that newborns should be more protected than fetuses as it takes months for infants to begin demonstrating consciousness and memory. If consciousness isn't the dividing line, then what is? You could say the ability to sustain life on one's own is the dividing line, but then that line is always moving. A one year old infant will die without care. A thousand years ago a six month old fetus would almost certainly die shortly after birth, but today the survival rate is nearly 100%. With today's technology a 24 week fetus has between a 60 and 70 percent chance of survival. Is killing a 24 week fetus murder? If murder is contingent on its ability to survive with modern technology, what happens as technology pushes that age smaller and smaller? Adopting a Least Convenient Possible World principle makes the questions even harder. If you could push a button to have a Star Trek style transporter instantly and painlessly teleport the fetus into an artificial womb, should you still be allowed to kill it instead?

dotnet00 4y ago
I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. It's so politically charged and yet impossible to clearly discuss in any significant detail, thus the situation we find ourselves in. I think it's better to just accept that abortion is prematurely terminating a life and thus the primary consideration should be the cost the parents and/or society can pay. Can society afford the cost of raising unwanted children and of the cycle of abuse that often comes along? and similarly, can society afford the cost of the lifestyle that makes people choose abortion to focus on other things? These things are much easier to discuss. As a 'bonus' this framework also handles the justification for countries which have legal abortion except with restrictions like barring abortions after sex determination. There seems to be a large agreement that abortion within the first trimester is acceptable, so I think that while it's terrible that it has to happen, society on average currently puts the line between the first and second trimesters for where the costs of both sides balance out, such that even if the fetus could be teleported into an artificial womb, an unconditional abortion should be acceptable. I think the artificial womb point only works if it also somehow erases society's burden of raising the child. I used to think that "abortion is rarely a happy decision but is still sometimes necessary" was the consensus position so it was pretty odd to me when I first became aware of the state of debate over it in the US.
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  > I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. I guess since this is your opinion I can't say it's wrong, but I can strongly suggest that this opinion is wrong. Is abortion the killing of a child? If it is not then why does a state like California have laws written about double homicide that say: > defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. [0] If we already have laws like this in a state as liberal as California, then clearly the argument that an abortion is murder is reasonable. Put another way, would you tell a mother grieving for her miscarriage that she didn't actually lose a child? She just lost a fetus after all, so it's not like there's much to grieve about. Or would you say that a woman that had her unborn baby killed while having some sort of altercation or accident isn't entitled to prosecute the perpetrator? If she has the right to pursue legal action against somebody, then there is clearly some sort of "precedent" about an unborn child having rights. This is an argument that can and should be explored further instead of dismissed since it's a "touchy subject". The law is full of hard truths, and it's our responsibility to explore these to make sure we're not carrying out injustice. [0]: https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx#State%20Laws https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-la...