3 ms·

I'm 44 years old; and found a article recently that completely transformed my perspective: FORGET when life begins. It's a red herring. A distraction causing u

I'm 44 years old; and found a article recently that completely transformed my perspective: FORGET when life begins. It's a red herring. A distraction causing us to diverge rather than agree. Right now, today, there are countless people needing blood transfusions; but I'm not legally forced to donate my blood to them (I should; it would be great; it would be the right thing to do; but I'm not legally forced to do so). Right now, today, there are people needing bone marrow or organs; or would like eggs or sperm so they can have a child; or long hair for wigs for cancer-struck; but I'm not legally forced to donate them to these clearly worthy causes. Lest somebody tries to muddle the issue, I'm also not required to donate blood or organs to my two children, or my sibling, or my spouse; I should, and I likely would, but I'm not legally forced. .... So even IF we grant that a gamete or zygote or 4 cells or 6 weeks old fetus or whatever are live beings based on whatever definition we agree or fail to agree on; what rational differentiator would cause us to force a woman to donate blood and organs, sacrifice and risk their health for them? I may have come to this point late, this may be an old perspective to others, but it helped me shortcut a tremendous number of complex and relative arguments, and go back to - "it's a woman's body; where do we get off forcing her to donate it to anybody else?" At the same time, I must admit I now find it harder to understand and condone the opposing perspective; I see it as forced organ donation for a select subgroup of humanity, and while I'm a moral relativist, that doesn't mean that I don't find some things morally wrong :-/

rayiner 4y ago
> .... So even IF we grant that a gamete or zygote or 4 cells or 6 weeks old fetus or whatever are live beings based on whatever definition we agree or fail to agree on; what rational differentiator would cause us to force a woman to donate blood and organs, sacrifice and risk their health for them? Because the moral obligations of mothers (and parents generally) to their children are different than the moral obligations surrounding blood donations or anything else. If you said that fathers have a moral obligation to sacrifice their bodies and lives for their kids, either in providing for them or in war, most of the people who oppose abortions would agree with you.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  I feel I've addressed this a priori: "Lest somebody tries to muddle the issue, I'm also not required to donate blood or organs to my two children, or my sibling, or my spouse; I should, and I likely would, but I'm not legally forced." I get this is uncomfortable; I understand it's unpalatable; most people don't like to get into nitty gritty dilemmas. But we do not, repeat do not, require parents to donate blood or organs to their children... at least, not after they're born. Some countries do try to require it before their children are born though. Through this perspective, this feels at least backwards and misguided, and plays into the pro-choice (unfair and dishonest) stereotype meme about caring more about unborn children than born ones :-/
pyuser583 4y ago
If this is true, any restriction on abortion is forced organ donation. Yet almost all countries restrict abortion, especially in the later trimesters. Is forced organ donation really an international norm?
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  >>"If this is true, any restriction on abortion is slavery." This is currently my personal perspective; I mean not in those words, but yes, today I am that thoroughly pro-choice. This hasn't always been my exact position, I understand it to be extreme, and I am open and even (genuinely!) eager to be persuaded otherwise in the future; but yes - I have yet to see (and it may well exist!) a rational, non-contradictory argument or moral justification to force organ & blood donation before birth, when we don't enforce it after birth.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
ars 4y ago
There's an unbridgeable difference between taking an action to save someone, and taking an action to kill them. You are not required to get pregnant, and you are not required to donate blood. Once you are pregnant, or once you did donate blood, you can't take it back.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  I feel that's a worthwhile distinction to explore, but I really really place priority on honest discussions. If you are putting forward "You are not required to get pregnant", I feel that's empathically not a honest discussion point. We can discuss rape, incest, non-consensual sex; and we can discuss consensual sex where precaution was taken against pregnancy that failed; but that sentence is patently and trivially and demonstrably not universally true, so immediately I feel we are not discussing from point of mutual honesty and charity. Put it differently if that helps: what percentage of people that willingly tried hard to get pregnant, are undertaking abortions? And when they are, why? (we happen to be a couple that had to spend a lot of time money and hardship to get pregnant; but there would still exist scenarios where abortion would feel like a possible scenario, depending on outcome of tests, viability, health issues, etc!). Similarly, what is "Action to kill"? If I take a morning-after pill, I am preventing a cell from implanting into my body. Somebody can present that as "action taken to kill", but somebody else can take that as "refusal to donate my body". We can take opposing positions on that, but I think understanding that both positions exist is required for honest discussion.
  - ars 4y ago
    Leaving aside (for the moment) the moral question of abortion after rape, the issue is this: Once it happens, can you take action to reverse it? If someone stole blood from you, and if you take it back the person will die, are you permitted to take it back? I don't think you are. Of course most people permit abortion after rape, so you need some other kind of justification for that, but on an intellectual level, this one will not work. You need a different argument. > We can take opposing positions on that, but I think understanding that both positions exist is required for honest discussion. That is definitely a very interesting question. I feel you would have to distinguish between a pill taken before implantation (birth control) and a pill taken afterward (plan B). One prevents it from ever happening, the other destroys something that did happen. To me they are different. Also, I must point out that none of this discussion informs my position on early abortion (although it does inform my opinion on abortion later on). So this discussion is more intellectual than practical. I say this to argue with your position that this line of reasoning transformed your opinion - I strongly disagree that this is a good line of argument.
scarmig 4y ago
Suppose you have two adult conjoined twins, Liz and Cat. A procedure exists that would remove Cat from Liz's body but would result in the death of Cat. Not performing the procedure results in a significantly lower quality of life for Liz. Is it okay for Liz to knock Cat out, take herself to a hospital, and have the surgeon remove Cat from her body? Or should society force Liz to share her body with Cat? The opposing perspective would map this closer to the abortion debate than the blood transfusion scenario. I wonder myself which is more relevant and why I have such different responses to the two scenarios.
pyuser583 4y ago
I can come up with an argument against this. You have no major premise. All you have are two minors premises and two conclusions: * X actions ought not to be done, forced organ donation is a type of X action, therefore forced organ donations ought not to be done. * X actions ought not to be done, forbidding abortion (like forced organ donation is an X action) is a type of X action, therefore forbidding abortion ought not to be done. But what is X category of actions!?! Is it: * Violations of autonomy? * Deprivations of moral agency? * Distracting the proletariat from organizing against the capitalist class (why abortion was first legalized!)? * Causing greater pain and suffering than it relieves? You never actually take a position on why forcing organ donation is bad. It simply sounds bad, and scares people, so it must be bad. Why is forced organ donation wrong?

rayiner 4y ago

> .... So even IF we grant that a gamete or zygote or 4 cells or 6 weeks old fetus or whatever are live beings based on whatever definition we agree or fail to agree on; what rational differentiator would cause us to force a woman to donate blood and organs, sacrifice and risk their health for them? Because the moral obligations of mothers (and parents generally) to their children are different than the moral obligations surrounding blood donations or anything else. If you said that fathers have a moral obligation to sacrifice their bodies and lives for their kids, either in providing for them or in war, most of the people who oppose abortions would agree with you.

NikolaNovak 4y ago
I feel I've addressed this a priori: "Lest somebody tries to muddle the issue, I'm also not required to donate blood or organs to my two children, or my sibling, or my spouse; I should, and I likely would, but I'm not legally forced." I get this is uncomfortable; I understand it's unpalatable; most people don't like to get into nitty gritty dilemmas. But we do not, repeat do not, require parents to donate blood or organs to their children... at least, not after they're born. Some countries do try to require it before their children are born though. Through this perspective, this feels at least backwards and misguided, and plays into the pro-choice (unfair and dishonest) stereotype meme about caring more about unborn children than born ones :-/

pyuser583 4y ago

If this is true, any restriction on abortion is forced organ donation. Yet almost all countries restrict abortion, especially in the later trimesters. Is forced organ donation really an international norm?

NikolaNovak 4y ago
>>"If this is true, any restriction on abortion is slavery." This is currently my personal perspective; I mean not in those words, but yes, today I am that thoroughly pro-choice. This hasn't always been my exact position, I understand it to be extreme, and I am open and even (genuinely!) eager to be persuaded otherwise in the future; but yes - I have yet to see (and it may well exist!) a rational, non-contradictory argument or moral justification to force organ & blood donation before birth, when we don't enforce it after birth.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

ars 4y ago

There's an unbridgeable difference between taking an action to save someone, and taking an action to kill them. You are not required to get pregnant, and you are not required to donate blood. Once you are pregnant, or once you did donate blood, you can't take it back.

NikolaNovak 4y ago
I feel that's a worthwhile distinction to explore, but I really really place priority on honest discussions. If you are putting forward "You are not required to get pregnant", I feel that's empathically not a honest discussion point. We can discuss rape, incest, non-consensual sex; and we can discuss consensual sex where precaution was taken against pregnancy that failed; but that sentence is patently and trivially and demonstrably not universally true, so immediately I feel we are not discussing from point of mutual honesty and charity. Put it differently if that helps: what percentage of people that willingly tried hard to get pregnant, are undertaking abortions? And when they are, why? (we happen to be a couple that had to spend a lot of time money and hardship to get pregnant; but there would still exist scenarios where abortion would feel like a possible scenario, depending on outcome of tests, viability, health issues, etc!). Similarly, what is "Action to kill"? If I take a morning-after pill, I am preventing a cell from implanting into my body. Somebody can present that as "action taken to kill", but somebody else can take that as "refusal to donate my body". We can take opposing positions on that, but I think understanding that both positions exist is required for honest discussion.
- ars 4y ago
  Leaving aside (for the moment) the moral question of abortion after rape, the issue is this: Once it happens, can you take action to reverse it? If someone stole blood from you, and if you take it back the person will die, are you permitted to take it back? I don't think you are. Of course most people permit abortion after rape, so you need some other kind of justification for that, but on an intellectual level, this one will not work. You need a different argument. > We can take opposing positions on that, but I think understanding that both positions exist is required for honest discussion. That is definitely a very interesting question. I feel you would have to distinguish between a pill taken before implantation (birth control) and a pill taken afterward (plan B). One prevents it from ever happening, the other destroys something that did happen. To me they are different. Also, I must point out that none of this discussion informs my position on early abortion (although it does inform my opinion on abortion later on). So this discussion is more intellectual than practical. I say this to argue with your position that this line of reasoning transformed your opinion - I strongly disagree that this is a good line of argument.

scarmig 4y ago

Suppose you have two adult conjoined twins, Liz and Cat. A procedure exists that would remove Cat from Liz's body but would result in the death of Cat. Not performing the procedure results in a significantly lower quality of life for Liz. Is it okay for Liz to knock Cat out, take herself to a hospital, and have the surgeon remove Cat from her body? Or should society force Liz to share her body with Cat? The opposing perspective would map this closer to the abortion debate than the blood transfusion scenario. I wonder myself which is more relevant and why I have such different responses to the two scenarios.

pyuser583 4y ago

I can come up with an argument against this. You have no major premise. All you have are two minors premises and two conclusions: * X actions ought not to be done, forced organ donation is a type of X action, therefore forced organ donations ought not to be done. * X actions ought not to be done, forbidding abortion (like forced organ donation is an X action) is a type of X action, therefore forbidding abortion ought not to be done. But what is X category of actions!?! Is it: * Violations of autonomy? * Deprivations of moral agency? * Distracting the proletariat from organizing against the capitalist class (why abortion was first legalized!)? * Causing greater pain and suffering than it relieves? You never actually take a position on why forcing organ donation is bad. It simply sounds bad, and scares people, so it must be bad. Why is forced organ donation wrong?