Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Again, you choose to ignore the fact that in both cases, bodily autonomy is overridden.You are just choosing ignore the subject completely.We can talk about abortion being allow at birth and etc once this basic concept is agreed upon.
    You're failing to see the gaping error in your reasoning. Bodily autonomy is NOT absolute, and can conceivably be outweighed by the rights of another, such as in the case of late term abortion. The author of that essay is trying to make an argument for the mother's bodily autonomy outweighing the rights of the child, she is not taking bodily autonomy as an absolute. In order to make her case, she uses analogies and draws parallels to hypothetical scenarios. Those analogies are flawed, and so the argument fails. Hope this helps.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    So you would ban abortion ?
    I wouldn't ban it completely, just reduce the time limit to 12 weeks.

    The ONLY reason I wouldn't ban it is because women would probably still get unsafe illegal abortions. It is the lesser of two evils to provide safe access to abortion. At least then only one life is lost.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    So it's okay to destroy a life because of you've found a disability in it? Wow! I thought people learnt from the Nazis that life destroying eugenics was a really bad thing. Clearly not.
    Wow! You clearly can't read because that is nowhere near what I said. Carrying a baby to term so it can die a few minutes later because it wasn't viable in the first place, whilst possibly risking the life of the mother at the same time isn't even pro life - it's pro birth, nothing else.

    Please read and understand next time before you start quoting and talking about Nazis and other nonsense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    This is the most famous defense of abortion in philosophy.

    Just glancing at what limited reasoning you've presented here, you've prima facie reject the right to bodily autonomy. Not only can a woman not exercise a right of bodily autonomy, but society gets to make such choices for her.

    Would you be okay if society got to decide questions of bodily autonomy for you? Can we [society] lop off your arm because we feel its in your best interest, even if you disagree? Why not? Because you have a belief in a right to bodily autonomy? If so, then your belief as presented here is incoherent or inconsistent.
    Society has always limited bodily autonomy for the good of others.

    I don't think OP was arguing that women should be denied abortion rights, simply that it's inconsistent to kill off a foetus of the same stage of development at which others have become viable. Simply talking about the cut-off point doesn't change the position on bodily autonomy.

    I feel as though I must have misunderstood what you're saying.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alba2013)
    Babies don't get aborted at 24 weeks because they are unwanted, but because they are found in scans to have severe disabilities or cause a deadly risk to the mother. It is 24 weeks because that is when those scans are carried out.

    There is no point carrying on with another 3 months of pregnancy to deliver a baby that won't survive on its own or with a quality of life so diminished it would be cruel to bring them into the world.

    It's definitely not to give a woman 6 months to decide if she wants to keep the baby or not, get real.
    I just want to quote and reiterate this post to the dozen or so posters who just blanked it to continue an argument about if the foetus is viable or not. The reason we have late term abortions is to ensure quality of life, not because some nimby couldnt make up there mind for almost 6 months as this is a small irrelevant minority of late term abortions.

    Besides even after exiting the womb foetus's arnt self aware! Hell babies are unable to understand their own existance until 2 or 3 years, so the foetus, regardless of how far along is a non-person. So I say again, even in the minority of late term abortions where the foetus is perfectly healthy, the pregnant mother has taken months to make the conscious decision that she doesnt want that child. So forcing an unloved child into the world is not only unfair on the mother (and father; a group frequently ignored in cases like this) but is also cruel to the child being forced into the world where nobody wants to care for it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CAElite)
    I just want to quote and reiterate this post to the dozen or so posters who just blanked it to continue an argument about if the foetus is viable or not. The reason we have late term abortions is to ensure quality of life, not because some nimby couldnt make up there mind for almost 6 months as this is a small irrelevant minority of late term abortions.

    Besides even after exiting the womb foetus's arnt self aware! Hell babies are unable to understand their own existance until 2 or 3 years, so the foetus, regardless of how far along is a non-person. So I say again, even in the minority of late term abortions where the foetus is perfectly healthy, the pregnant mother has taken months to make the conscious decision that she doesnt want that child. So forcing an unloved child into the world is not only unfair on the mother (and father; a group frequently ignored in cases like this) but is also cruel to the child being forced into the world where nobody wants to care for it.
    Do you have any evidence for this...?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    I would say limit to 12 weeks, unless factors that pose severe health risk to the mother or child, or tests reveal severe disabilities in the baby.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Do you have any evidence for this...?
    Yeah,

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http:...bzK82VKII21YfA

    Its an extremely dry read, scroll down to section 2.3, after rereading I found I missquoted slightly. Its actually 18months (1.5 years) onwards where self recognition occurs (what some define as self awareness) whilst continued development with true emotional self awareness occuring around 24 months (2 years) with continued emotional development into adolescence (~13 years).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    So you would support the termination of an anaesthetised person (if someone wanted it to happen) because they are not self-aware, cannot reason, and has not interest in continuing to live?
    No, because they'll still have had a preference to continue to live, and technically still do. Preferences are the basis for morality, and they can be universalised: if I wouldn't want my preference to be violated when anaesthetised, then violating this preference of other people is also wrong.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Likewise you would support the termination of a newly born (if the mother wanted it to happen), because again, it is not self-aware, cannot reason and therefore has no interest in continuing to live?
    Yes, infanticide is morally permissible in certain circumstances, because a newborn baby is not self-aware, cannot reason and therefore has no interest in continuing to live, and never has done. Unless, of course, the baby could be adopted by someone close to the mother, who would gain preference-satisfaction from the adoption.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    So at 9 months? And how about a few days post birth? Is it okay then based on your above reasoning?
    Yes. Yes. Yes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CAElite)
    Yeah,

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http:...bzK82VKII21YfA

    Its an extremely dry read, scroll down to section 2.3, after rereading I found I missquoted slightly. Its actually 18months (1.5 years) onwards where self recognition occurs (what some define as self awareness) whilst continued development with true emotional self awareness occuring around 24 months (2 years) with continued emotional development into adolescence (~13 years).
    Dont worry, I've read some pretty dry things (previously a law student). Although I'm not very knowledgeable about psychology, the paper does say that up until about 18 months infants don't pass the generally accepted litmus test for self-awareness.

    Taking this at face value, what conclusion do we draw that's relevant to the thread? Is it okay to kill off young babies?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    You're failing to see the gaping error in your reasoning. Bodily autonomy is NOT absolute, s.
    Where did I say it was absolute? I didn't.

    The point was that both forced organ donation and forced pregnancy require the overriding of bodily autonomy. That was the point of the analogy. It was not that bodily autonomy is absolute.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    I would say limit to 12 weeks, unless factors that pose severe health risk to the mother or child, or tests reveal severe disabilities in the baby.
    Why 12? You may as well set lower.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Dont worry, I've read some pretty dry things (previously a law student). Although I'm not very knowledgeable about psychology, the paper does say that up until about 18 months infants don't pass the generally accepted litmus test for self-awareness.

    Taking this at face value, what conclusion do we draw that's relevant to the thread? Is it okay to kill off young babies?
    No. I wouldnt want to move the argument in that direction as its... sketchy and there is a lot of factors involved.

    I was merely pointing out that arguing for the human rights of a foetus is similar to arguing for the human rights of a potted plant, or somewhat intelligent crustacean as a foetus is at the same mental level as these things.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Why 12? You may as well set lower.
    12 sounded like a reasonable number.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    If you had bothered to read the paper provided, you would know why it is a question of bodily autonomy.
    What paper?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    No, because they'll still have had a preference to continue to live, and technically still do.
    This does seem like shifting the goal posts on your part, since it is different to what you wrote earlier saying that a foetus is "not self-aware, and cannot reason, and therefore has no interest in continuing to live" and "It's not, however, possible to inflict cruelty on a foetus by aborting it, because it is not sentient: it simply cannot object to being aborted"

    None of this actually lay down the elicitation of a positive preference to live.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Preferences are the basis for morality, and they can be universalised: if I wouldn't want my preference to be violated when anaesthetised, then violating this preference of other people is also wrong.
    Preference are subjective and vary between (and even within) individuals, so I don't see how they can be universalised to determine morality in the way you are talking. Since I would not have wanted my preferences violated as a foetus, does that mean other people should not undergo that violation as a foetus, and therefore abortion should be illegal? [Forgive me, I may not be fully understanding what you wrote, so please clarify]

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Yes, infanticide is morally permissible in certain circumstances, because a newborn baby is not self-aware, cannot reason and therefore has no interest in continuing to live, and never has done. Unless, of course, the baby could be adopted by someone close to the mother, who would gain preference-satisfaction from the adoption.
    Just to raise a few issues from the bold.

    In what circumstances is such infanticide permissible? Why not on demand/without reason as you claim it should be with foeticide? After all, all your criteria for allowing abortion (lack of sentience, lack of self awareness, lack of preference to live) are there, and indeed would continue to be there until at least 18 months, if not older (since awareness of the concept of life takes a long time to develop, and thus obviously one cannot hold a preference for it if one doesn't understand it)

    Is the reference to "never has [held an interest in continuing to live]" another new criteria? Why is it relevant?

    By the, I think your position is absolutely abhorrent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Dont worry, I've read some pretty dry things (previously a law student). Although I'm not very knowledgeable about psychology, the paper does say that up until about 18 months infants don't pass the generally accepted litmus test for self-awareness.

    Taking this at face value, what conclusion do we draw that's relevant to the thread? Is it okay to kill off young babies?
    @viddy9 seems to think it's just fine according to his post here
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    This does seem like shifting the goal posts on your part, since it is different to what you wrote earlier saying that a foetus is "not self-aware, and cannot reason, and therefore has no interest in continuing to live" and "It's not, however, possible to inflict cruelty on a foetus by aborting it, because it is not sentient: it simply cannot object to being aborted"
    The key word is cannot: a person under anaesthetic could reason if he was not under anaesthetic.

    I am not shifting the goalposts, but I may be communicating my position poorly. To be clear, I'm talking about the capacity for self-awareness and rational thought.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Preference are subjective and vary between (and even within) individuals, so I don't see how they can be universalised to determine morality in the way you are talking.
    Preferences may be subjective, but satisfying them is objectively good. Every sentient being aims to maximise its preference-satisfaction, but there's no logical justification for putting one's own preferences above those of others'. Thus, if we are to satisfy our own preferences, which it is impossible not to do, it follows that we must maximise the preference-satisfaction of every sentient being; that is, every being that is able to have any preferences at all.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Since I would not have wanted my preferences violated as a foetus, does that mean other people should not undergo that violation as a foetus, and therefore abortion should be illegal?
    The key point is that you couldn't have had any preferences in the first place as a foetus, and whilst you cannot go back to being a foetus, you can be anaesthetised.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    In what circumstances is such infanticide permissible? Why not on demand/without reason as you claim it should be with foeticide?
    Once a baby has been born, the mother has been through the excruciating pain and the stress of being pregnant, so it's much easier, say, to give the baby up for adoption. Depending on the demand for adoptive children (insofar as I'm aware, there's a lack of demand at the moment), the permissibility of infanticide in everyday life may be in a state of flux. (This is because the adoptive family will have their preferences satisfied when they adopt the child).

    There are some clear-cut examples of where infanticide would be permissible, though. If three people - two parents and a newborn infant - are stranded on an island and there's only enough food for two of them, it would be permissible to kill the infant.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    By the, I think your position is absolutely abhorrent.
    I do not see how anyone can be harmed by this; harm requires a being to object to an action. Our emotions and intuitions are notoriously bad at helping us to engage in logical, ethical decision-making.

    Our moral intuitions also lead to more money being donated to a charity when people are shown a picture of a single victim of poverty as opposed to data on how many people are in poverty; it leads to people being more concerned about people closer to them rather than people suffering a lot more further away from them. It leads people to generally object to pushing the Fat Man off a footbridge to stop a trolley from hitting five people tied to a track, but to be fine with pulling a lever which opens a trapdoor through which the Fat Man falls into the track to stop the trolley.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    12 sounded like a reasonable number.
    Well, why? A baby cannot survive at 12 weeks, like at 20 weeks.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, why? A baby cannot survive at 12 weeks, like at 20 weeks.
    Well no, I was merely making a guess at what would be a suitable time period to make the decision.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.