Turn on thread page Beta

Term Limit for Abortion watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    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
    Well, like I asked someone before, why 12? Why 12 over 20 weeks? At both dates, a baby cannot survive.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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.
    Yes, and in one situation, that overriding can be justifiable in the interests of the rights of another, and in the other it can not be. The analogy doesn't work. Seriously, this isn't difficult.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Yes, and in one situation, that overriding can be justifiable in the interests of the rights of another, and in the other it can not be. The analogy doesn't work. Seriously, this isn't difficult.
    That is the point of the analogy. If you support overriding bodily autonomy in one then you can support overriding bodily autonomy in another.

    Another person could quite easily claim that forcibly taking away a kidney to save another life is "justifiable in the interests of the rights of another".

    Simply stating "it can not be" is just opinion.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    That is the point of the analogy. If you support overriding bodily autonomy in one then you can support overriding bodily autonomy in another.

    Another person could quite easily claim that forcibly taking away a kidney to save another life is "justifiable in the interests of the rights of another".

    Simply stating "it can not be" is just opinion.
    Yes you are right, if the analogy wasn't completely fallacious, then perhaps we could use the violinist scenario to justify abortion. Since the analogy is completely fallacious, the argument doesn't hold any weight. Which is the point that you have been repeatedly trying to dodge for the last few pages.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    She gives no sound justification for it anywhere, I know it, you know it, it's an insultingly stupid analogy that has been repeatedly torn apart by scholars on both sides of the abortion debate. Forced organ donation is not analogous to voluntary intercourse and pregnancy, a random stranger is not analogous to one's own child, the withholding of support is not analogous to the direct act of killing, so on and so forth.
    It's apparent you haven't read the paper, as it deals with cases of consent. Stop replying to an argument you clearly haven't read.

    Feminists attempting to frame this whole debate as an issue of womens' rights, when it is rather an issue of the fetus and it's claim to personhood, is probably the most laughable and regrettable aspect of the pro-choice movement. This coming from someone who is by most definitions, pro-choice.
    Yet again, the argument by JJT assumes that the fetus has rights and is a person for the sake of argument.

    Stop responding until you've actually read the paper.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    I don't think the argument is about rejecting bodily autonomy, it's about restricting people's choices to do things when such a choice will lead to harm (in this case death) of another life.
    I'm allowed to act in self-defense and kill another human being in an act of defending myself and my bodily autonomy. Just because someone else has a right to life and their own right to bodily autonomy, it doesn't follow that I have an obligation to ensure that they live.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    It's apparent you haven't read the paper, as it deals with cases of consent. Stop replying to an argument you clearly haven't read.


    Yet again, the argument by JJT assumes that the fetus has rights and is a person for the sake of argument.

    Stop responding until you've actually read the paper.
    You've contributed nothing to the thread other than post a widely discredited piece of supposedly philosophical rubbish which isn't what abortion ethics or laws are based on, anywhere in the world. GG
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Society has always limited bodily autonomy for the good of others.
    Not in this way. This is a claim that a fetus's right to life is an obligation on the mother, such that she has to not only respect that right to life, she has to ensure that the fetus lives. This claim overrides her right to bodily autonomy.

    In no other realm is such an overriding claim like this presented or accepted.

    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.
    Sure it does. It says that the right is contingent on same fact about the fetus. Somehow the fetus's life stage constitutes a new claim of rights for the fetus; one that overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother.

    How does the stage of life suddenly override the woman's right to bodily autonomy? Either she has a right to bodily autonomy that the fetus's right to life cannot override; or she doesn't.

    Any claim saying that she ought to be restricted from obtaining an abortion after any X number of weeks is somehow saying 'before X weeks she has bodily autonomy, but after X weeks she does not.' Yet, this argument doesn't make any sense - any argument about bodily autonomy assumes that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception. Nothing about rights changes because of life stages.

    The only way to make an argument to the effect that life stages of the fetus impact when an abortion is obtainable is to reject a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    What paper?
    The one linked to in my first post. It's hyperlinked under 'This'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Yes you are right, if the analogy wasn't completely fallacious, then perhaps we could use the violinist scenario to justify abortion..
    Again, this has nothing to do with what I said.

    Using your argument, you can justify forced organ donation. You don't even dispute that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    You've contributed nothing to the thread other than post a widely discredited piece of supposedly philosophical rubbish which isn't what abortion ethics or laws are based on, anywhere in the world. GG
    (1) It's not a widely discredited piece.
    (2) You haven't even read it, so you're not aware of the arguments presented - evidenced by the fact that you're presenting objections that are dealt with in the paper itself.
    (3) Abortion ethics and laws are based on rights to bodily autonomy. If you're ignorant of the law and its justifications, you shouldn't be making commentary on it. See: Roe v Wade which very clearly established that a woman's right to obtain an abortion is premised on her right to bodily autonomy, which the Supreme Court found enshrined in the US Constitution. The US is not the only country to have this justification either.

    If you aren't familiar with the actual arguments, either legal or philosophical, and all you can post are uniformed or patently incorrect rebuttals, you should stop posting until you've familiarized yourself with the subject.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Yes you are right, if the analogy wasn't completely fallacious, then perhaps we could use the violinist scenario to justify abortion. Since the analogy is completely fallacious, the argument doesn't hold any weight. Which is the point that you have been repeatedly trying to dodge for the last few pages.
    Please identify for me, by giving the formal name of the fallacy, under which fallacy you're attempting to claim the analogy is fallacious.

    In fact, the point being made gets straight to the heart of the matter. And, it appears that, as you don't understand how philosophical hypotheticals function, you're instead claiming that it's not the same, so it doesn't matter. In philosophy, we intentionally use extreme cases to show that your rule doesn't work - in some case it leads to a bad outcome that we don't desire. As such, we must therefore reject the rule. This is how philosophical argument works. In moral philosophy we want a rule that identifies for us when it is morally permissible to do some X and when it is not, and we want the rule to cover all hypothetical examples.

    What's being asked of you here is "if we can override bodily autonomy of the mother in the interests of the fetus, why can we not do so in other cases?" You have failed to provide a rule which prevents us from doing so in other cases; so, as it stands now, your argument simply tells us that "we can override bodily autonomy in the interests of anyone".
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    (1) It's not a widely discredited piece.(2) You haven't even read it, so you're not aware of the arguments presented - evidenced by the fact that you're presenting objections that are dealt with in the paper itself.(3) Abortion ethics and laws are based on rights to bodily autonomy. If you're ignorant of the law and its justifications, you shouldn't be making commentary on it. See: Roe v Wade which very clearly established that a woman's right to obtain an abortion is premised on her right to bodily autonomy, which the Supreme Court found enshrined in the US Constitution. The US is not the only country to have this justification either.If you aren't familiar with the actual arguments, either legal or philosophical, and all you can post are uniformed or patently incorrect rebuttals, you should stop posting until you've familiarized yourself with the subject.
    The linchpin of the paper is a horrendously flawed analogy. It doesn't even get off the ground. It's been torn apart by pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike.

    The laws on abortion in every country are entirely based around the developmental status of the fetus and it's right to life, not the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Some countries deem this to be after the first trimester, others at the point of viability, but ultimately these considerations are what the legislation is based on. Can you enlighten us on the countries of the world where a baby can be aborted up until the moment of birth, in respect of the woman's bodily autonomy?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    The linchpin of the paper is a horrendously flawed analogy. It doesn't even get off the ground. It's been torn apart by pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike.
    If you haven't read the paper, this claim is vacuous. You don't know what the 'linchpin' of the paper is, as you claimed that the paper is using forced organ donation as its premise. Clearly demonstrating that you haven't read the paper, or else you've failed to understand the argument.

    The laws on abortion in every country are entirely based around the developmental status of the fetus and it's right to life, not the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Some countries deem this to be after the first trimester, others at the point of viability, but ultimately these considerations are what the legislation is based on. Can you enlighten us on the countries of the world can a baby be aborted up until the moment of birth, in respect of the woman's bodily autonomy?
    This is poor logical reasoning. The proof you demand be found for the argument to be as I claim doesn't follow.

    Just because, for example, the US doesn't permit abortion after X amount of time (it varies by state) doesn't mean that the argument in support of abortion does not proceed on the grounds of bodily autonomy. As I stated, see Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court very clearly based abortion on a mother's right to bodily autonomy. You seem to think that because the justification is there, that this means that human actors are all perfectly r.ational actors and will necessarily follow through with the logic of the argument in its entirety - this assumption is evidentially unsupported for you to be making. In almost no case are humans fully rationally agents.

    Women's right to abortion is premised on a right to bodily autonomy, but the argument hasn't been followed through in it entirety; or other arguments of a contractual nature have been accepted for some reason, even though perhaps inconsistent with the acceptance of the bodily autonomy argument.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Not in this way. This is a claim that a fetus's right to life is an obligation on the mother, such that she has to not only respect that right to life, she has to ensure that the fetus lives. This claim overrides her right to bodily autonomy.

    In no other realm is such an overriding claim like this presented or accepted.
    Well hang on. I think the argument the OP is making is that if a foetus is viable (i.e. could survive without remaining in the mother's uterus) then it is morally wrong to abort that foetus. So I don't see how this is a claim that the mother is obligated to ensure that the foetus lives. One way or another the mother could get the foetus out of her uterus, it's simply that once the foetus has reached a viable stage it would be wrong to kill it unnecessarily.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Sure it does. It says that the right is contingent on same fact about the fetus. Somehow the fetus's life stage constitutes a new claim of rights for the fetus; one that overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother.
    That is the position which underpins the current law. Proposals to move the cut-off point are simply made on the basis of improvements in medicine.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    How does the stage of life suddenly override the woman's right to bodily autonomy? Either she has a right to bodily autonomy that the fetus's right to life cannot override; or she doesn't.
    Well supporters of the existing legal position (no right to abort after a certain point in time) would say that the mother does not have a right to autonomy that the foetus' life cannot override. The difference which the foetus' viability makes is that it could be extracted from the womb without necessarily killing it, so an abortion would not be necessary for the mother to exercise her bodily autonomy.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Any claim saying that she ought to be restricted from obtaining an abortion after any X number of weeks is somehow saying 'before X weeks she has bodily autonomy, but after X weeks she does not.' Yet, this argument doesn't make any sense - any argument about bodily autonomy assumes that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception. Nothing about rights changes because of life stages.
    Does it? This needs to be argued, because the entire difference between our positions rests on that point. Rights flow from personhood, so the question becomes what constitutes a person and when a foetus becomes one.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    The only way to make an argument to the effect that life stages of the fetus impact when an abortion is obtainable is to reject a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
    I don't think it's as black and white as that. As somebody wiser than me once said, my freedom to swing my arm ends at your face. That doesn't mean that I don't have bodily autonomy.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    If you haven't read the paper, this claim is vacuous. You don't know what the 'linchpin' of the paper is, as you claimed that the paper is using forced organ donation as its premise. Clearly demonstrating that you haven't read the paper, or else you've failed to understand the argument.This is poor logical reasoning. The proof you demand be found for the argument to be as I claim doesn't follow.Just because, for example, the US doesn't permit abortion after X amount of time (it varies by state) doesn't mean that the argument in support of abortion proceeds on the grounds of bodily autonomy. As I stated, see Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court very clearly based abortion on a mother's right to bodily autonomy. You seem to think that because the justification is there, that this means that human actors are all perfectly r.ational actors and will necessarily follow through with the logic of the argument in its entirety - this assumption is evidentially unsupported for you to be making. In almost no case are humans fully rationally agents.Women's right to abortion is premised on a right to bodily autonomy, but the argument hasn't been followed through in it entirety; or other arguments of a contractual nature have been accepted for some reason, even though perhaps inconsistent with the acceptance of the bodily autonomy argument.
    You can keep positing that everyone hasn't read this paper you've posted, but the more likely scenario is that it has been read and none of the arguments have been remotely convincing, as countless published critics of the paper have also noted. Given the piss poor analogy which the paper's entire argument is based on, this shouldn't be surprising to you. A scenario which is actually analogous to pregnancy might be:

    A woman intentionally inflicts a fatal kidney impairment on her own child, then connects herself up to him in order to prolong his life, then makes the decision to actively kill him by cutting up his body/crushing his skull so she no longer has to sustain him.

    Now, suddenly, we are faced with a very different scenario indeed, one which does not logically conclude with justifying abortion based on the mother's autonomy. And so, since the linchpin of the paper is a hilariously bad analogy, its argument does not succeed. "Forced organ donation" is just a shorthand reference to the violinist scenario, because forced-fatal-kidney-impariment-circulatory-system-linkup is long to type. Being this pedantic on an internet forum just seems to indicate your feigned e-intellect is all you've got going.

    Secondly, the only poor reasoning here is yours my friend. The primary concern of lawmakers regarding this issue is when the fetus accrues the rights of a person. That is the debate being had and that is what separates different countries with differing consensuses on what developmental stage this occurs at. As you yourself said, if life stages impact abortion laws, then a woman's right to bodily autonomy has been rejected. If that is the case, then bodily autonomy has not, in practice, been followed through at all, and the state of the fetus has instead been the primary concern of abortion ethics. When it is not considered a person, it can be aborted, and when it is considered a person, it cannot be aborted, end of story. JJT's argument is massively flawed and has not been taken as a given, anywhere, and there are far more pressing considerations which drive legislation in this debate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)

    That is the position which underpins the current law. Proposals to move the cut-off point are simply made on the basis of improvements in medicine.


    .
    Well, there has not been that much improvement in medicine. The babies survive for longer but their outcomes are almost as poor as 20 years ago.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    If you actually bothered to the read the paper linked to, the idea of the fetus having a right to bodily autonomy is assumed; yet abortion is still permissible as the fetus's right to bodily autonomy does not override the mother's right to bodily autonomy.
    The point I'm making is that the mother's right to bodily autonomy wouldn't even come into play, because the fetus doesn't even need to reside within the mother at that stage for its survival to be viable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The key word is cannot: a person under anaesthetic could reason if he was not under anaesthetic.
    Neither an anaesthetised person nor a foetus can reason. Both of them will be able to reason at some time in the future.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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
    A capacity that neither an anaesthetised person nor a foetus possess at that moment in time.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    Good, so you agree they cannot be universalised.

    And so back to the problem than an anaesthetised person is not sentient and cannot express preferences.

    Additionally, individuals with permanent impaired capacity through cognitive impairment (either through learning disability or dementia) seem to potentially fare pretty badly in this set up, mainly because they may not be able to express a preference (and are therefore 'nothing' and easily disposable/expendable)

    Additionally individuals with transient impaired capacity through severe depression of psychosis may express a preference not to live (even though it is likely to be transient and reverse with treatment), in which case incidental murder of these people could not be considered murder at all

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    And that is relevant why?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    What about if the mother just wanted to watch the baby die as part of her enjoyment? Would that be acceptable infanticide? Or that the baby turned out to be too dark and she only wanted a white child?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    So killing a baby by lethal injection does no harm?

    Poisoning somebody subtly does no harm? (after all they have not objected to the action)

    And we could resurrect the issue of the anaesthetised person, who again cannot object to any action.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    Your absolute utilitarianism doesn't work in real life, since it can only be implemented through totalitarian means

    Also I assume you approve of abortion based on the gender of the foetus (with this invariably leading to abortion of female foetuses in the overwhelming majority of cases where gender based abortion is carried out)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    The linchpin of the paper is a horrendously flawed analogy. It doesn't even get off the ground. It's been torn apart by pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike.

    The laws on abortion in every country are entirely based around the developmental status of the fetus and it's right to life, not the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Some countries deem this to be after the first trimester, others at the point of viability, but ultimately these considerations are what the legislation is based on. Can you enlighten us on the countries of the world where a baby can be aborted up until the moment of birth, in respect of the woman's bodily autonomy?
    Isn't this the case in the Canada?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.