Abortion and Antisocial Ethics

[Martin Hyde]

A foundation of ethics and moral reasoning is that certain basic moral issues are never "mind your own business" situations.

A common assault on the anti-abortion argument is, "It is none of your business what goes on between a woman and a doctor." Now, this exact argument in large part is what enshrined abortion right's as protected under judicial decisions (and by relation the Constitution.)

But that is the legal aspects of the matter. To simply assert a legal fact and say "that ends all debate" is antisocial and goes against what allows societies to coexist. We are more than receptive to arguments for drug legalization even though the legality of drugs is without question. Certain drugs are illegal or they are not, and for recreational drugs that are illegal there has been no successful constitutional test made that has given the courts any inclination to make them legal in opposition to the legislative course of action.

So to get back to the abortion argument, I'm not making a legal argument or anything along those grounds. The legal matter is settled, obviously. That is as of right now it is settled, a few months from now it could change, but for right now the law is what it is. Abortion is in general a legal action in the United States. So I ask that no one assert legal principles in response to this thread. Legal principles are fine and good but what I want to hit at is a more basic question of ethics, that is below the law, so to speak, or above the law whichever phraseology you wish to employ.

My argument is that abortion is indeed a basic moral issue. And under standard conventions of ethics, a basic moral issue matters to all of society, no matter how personal it may be.

Theoretically it is "none of your business" if I molest my own children within my own home. It does not affect you in any way directly. But obviously this argument is ludicrous, because we recognize things like that as basic moral issues. We don't want to live in a society where that happens, whether it happens in the park, in our homes, or in the private homes of others.

So the argument "abortion is a private matter and you have no say unless you are the woman's doctor or the woman" is invalid. If abortions are performed, even in private, then we live in a society with abortion.

So that means everyone has a valid right to have an opinion on the issue of abortion. It is quite frankly inappropriate for it to be confined to a patient-doctor confidentiality as far as the discussion goes. Abortion is seen as something that encompasses some of the very fabrics that make up our collective societies.

So I outright reject the argument that abortion is a private issue, it is not. Personally I wonder if anyone here agrees with that? Now, I have not actually stated my opinions on how I feel about the legal status of abortion, or even how I feel about the moral status of abortion. I am simply saying I think it's an issue that concerns all of us and is a valid issue for *all* of us to be concerned about if we so choose.

Now the problem with any thread like this is dogmatism. In general abortion tends to separate people very strongly for (for can mean for choice, for abortion, for whatever, don't get too specific on this terminology), or people strongly against. Obviously there are people who are indifferent on the matter of abortion, but in my experience the number of persons who are indifferent on this matter that are also people who discuss and observe politics is very small, almost miniscule.

So to avoid this dogmatism I ask that we withhold from actually getting into an abortion/anti-abortion argument. We have had other threads for that, we've had threads discussing the legal status of abortion and we've had threads discussing the morals of abortion itself. This purpose of this thread is to more or less poll or incite response from the Straight Dope community. It's to get a general feel for how we as a forum feel about the *arguments* behind abortion, and specifically the one that "it's not your business."

[Martin Hyde]

Eh, above coexist should be exist. Assume corrections for any other grammatical errata.

[Marley23]

In my experience this argument is almost always made, as it should be, with the caveat "as long as everybody consents nobody is being hurt." That's why child molestation is not "none of society's business," and (if you're pro-choice) abortion is nobody else's business.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Marley23

In my experience this argument is almost always made, as it should be, with the caveat "as long as everybody consents nobody is being hurt." That's why child molestation is not "none of society's business," and (if you're pro-choice) abortion is nobody else's business.

This just restates an antisocial argument. You assume that society is made up of completely independent individuals, it is not. Society, as much as individualists want to claim it is made up of independently acting individuals (or as much as non-individualists want to claim it is when they suit their purposes) is made up of all of us, you and me (to paraphrase a great man.)

This "it's none of your business" response is just a way to avoid thinking. If you feel that you can create a singular phrase that trumps all cards then you don't have to worry about questioning your own standings on the issue, your standings are unassailable and cannot be questioned. It is a fallacy to practice such antisocial dogmatism.

And it also refuses to acknowledge that we as a society have to work together on certain issues to come to an understanding. And the proof is in the pudding that abortion is an issue on which we desperately need dialogue and understanding.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

This "it's none of your business" response is just a way to avoid thinking. If you feel that you can create a singular phrase that trumps all cards then you don't have to worry about questioning your own standings on the issue, your standings are unassailable and cannot be questioned. It is a fallacy to practice such antisocial dogmatism.

It's not a way to avoid thinking, it's a result of thinking. Your implication that this is a lazy cheat is insulting. You raised a good point earlier: the argument that any given thing that happens in private is none of society's business is obviously false. I agree with you about that. Now, can you prove that something that happens in private and does not cause harm is still society's business?

[Whack-a-Mole]

I do not think anyone suggests that abortion, once it was made legal, should disappear from public discussion on the topic. Clearly it is a powerful issue that evokes strong passion on all sides. Certainly I have never seen someone try to kill a thread in GD on abortion by suggesting the legality of it has been established so stop talking about it. On a deeper level the laws of a society should evolve and change as the society itself evolves and changes.

As for hanging your hat on the "privacy" issue of abortion that is the legal aspect. Pro-choice people can make other arguments such as it is not anyone else's right or place to make decisions that dramatically impact the individual in question while the person(s) trying to influence the woman are at great remove from the issue. Should I be allowed to prevent you from eating a Big Mac if you have a weight problem (just an example...not suggesting you do or do not) as you add to the insurance costs I have to bear? You'd probably tell me where I could stick that opinion and rightly so.

Ultimately the debate on abortion boils down to the rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus and which should take precedence. As it happens who gets precedence is a compromise between the two which absent absolute clarity in the morals/ethics of the issue one way or another seems reasonable enough.

That the discussion continues is all well and good although at this point it is hard to think of any argument anyone hasn't already brought to the table and hashed out a hundred times. I think this is why you see polarization on the issue as no one has the "ultimate" point to make that only the terminally stupid couldn't see and agree with that would resolve this topic once and for all. Those who pay attention to this have heard the bulk of the arguments and picked a side then the two camps yell at each other a lot to little effect.

[Paladud]

The problem with the whole argument is that there is no completely objective basis - on either side of the debate - for the degree of protection that a fetus should require from its mother.

[Marley23]

Since we're supposed to be arguing about an argument, let me try something different:

I think it's better if laws are based on issues like "Is consent being violated?" or "Is anyone being harmed?" instead of being based on morality. Moral standards can change and can differ very widely between people, such as between two Presidential candidates. Because this is something so personal and non-objective, in general I think it's better for the law to be based on something more concrete where possible.

[Enola Straight]

Originally Posted by Marley23

In my experience this argument is almost always made, as it should be, with the caveat "as long as everybody consents nobody is being hurt." That's why child molestation is not "none of society's business," and (if you're pro-choice) abortion is nobody else's business.

Abortion works IF "nobody's being hurt".

This means a fetus is "nobody" and is incapable of "being hurt".

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Enola Straight

This means a fetus is "nobody" and is incapable of "being hurt".

Yes. As I said, this is an argument that only works if you're pro-choice.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Conversely. Martin's analogy only works if you are operating under a purely faith-based belief that a fetus is a "person" who can suffer or deserves rights.

If you don't think a fetus is a victim then the child molestation analogy is meaningless. If they accept the analogy then they're already pro-life.

[chaparralv8]

Hmm. Seems like you're barking up the wrong tree.

The question is not whether we'll have abortion or not, any more than it's about whether we'll have cocaine or not, or for that matter armed robbery or not. It's a question of whether abortion should be legal, safe for the mother, performed in open channels, and legitimately accepted as a last resort when the bottom drops out of the barrel.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

My argument is that abortion is indeed a basic moral issue. And under standard conventions of ethics, a basic moral issue matters to all of society, no matter how personal it may be.

Point taken. I'm a pro-choice extremist. I agree with your statement. I'm almost incoherently angry with the pro-choice leadership for basing our public relations of the last two decades on "it's legal and that makes it OK". I think it is indeed a moral issue, one of paramount importance.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

My argument is that abortion is indeed a basic moral issue. And under standard conventions of ethics, a basic moral issue matters to all of society, no matter how personal it may be.

Theoretically it is "none of your business" if I molest my own children within my own home. It does not affect you in any way directly. But obviously this argument is ludicrous, because we recognize things like that as basic moral issues. We don't want to live in a society where that happens, whether it happens in the park, in our homes, or in the private homes of others.

I don't want child molestation illegal becuase it reflects poorly on society. I want it illegal becuase it harms children. In a more broad sense I don't support forcing an individual to conform to any sort of standard societal moral code. As long as an activity is between consenting adults and does not harm an unwilling party it should remain legal. In my opinion society can cram their moral code up their respective asses. Without getting too much into the abortion debate the fetus does not count as a party and therefore can not get harmed. With no other party (unless you count the father but thats a whole 'nother debate) being harmed by the abortion society can take their moral code and shove it up its ass. Society has no right to impose its moral code through laws on individuals who do not conform to said code.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Martin's analogy only works if you are operating under a purely faith-based belief that a fetus is a "person" who can suffer or deserves rights.

A fetus being a person is not a soley faith-based belief. In this Dopers humble opinion everyone decides at what point a fetus becomes worthy of protection and then try to use logic to validate that position. The fact is that any milestone you use is essentially arbitrary and logically is no more valid than any other but thats a debate for another thread.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Marley23

It's not a way to avoid thinking, it's a result of thinking. Your implication that this is a lazy cheat is insulting. You raised a good point earlier: the argument that any given thing that happens in private is none of society's business is obviously false. I agree with you about that. Now, can you prove that something that happens in private and does not cause harm is still society's business?

Obviously the "it's none of your business" argument is a result of thinking. *Everything* is a result of thinking. But just because you've thought up an idea or an argument that you especially like doesn't mean you should use it to "trump" everything else. In my experience if you are relying on a one pronged attack something is wrong with your argument. There's *never* a belief that you should be so sure about that you consider it "unassailable."

And the thing is, harm is subjective. Just because it only involves a woman and a fetus (who we can't even assume isn't a party, because obviously there is tons of dialogue in that direction) doesn't mean it can't have ripple effects throughout.

And for some people living in a society where abortions occur *is* harmful to them, to their moral compass and to what they view as right. You may be dismissive of this, but since abortion, again, is a *basic moral issue* everyone should have and needs to have an opinion and a stance on it, and that shouldn't be infringed by dogmatic "none of your business" carpet statements.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

And the thing is, harm is subjective. Just because it only involves a woman and a fetus (who we can't even assume isn't a party, because obviously there is tons of dialogue in that directon) doesn't mean it can't have ripple effects throughout.

Yes it does. What I do in my home that is in privacy has no affect on you. You (not specifc you a general you) may think that you are harmed but you are not. You cannot make a prostitution/drug argument that it brings more crime to an area or exposes children to harmful behavior becuase abortion does none of these things. In fact unless I specifically tell you that I had an abortion (and if I did I would becuase that would be one sweet book deal) you don't know about it.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

And for some people living in a society where abortions occur *is* harmful to them, to their moral compass and to what they view as right. You may be dismissive of this, but since abortion, again, is a *basic moral issue* everyone should have and needs to have an opinion and a stance on it, and that shouldn't be infringed by dogmatic "none of your business" carpet statements.

They are more then welcome to think its wrong by their moral compass but they are welcome to take that moral compass and shove it up their ass. They have no business taking that moral compass and forcing it to be mine.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by treis

I don't want child molestation illegal becuase it reflects poorly on society. I want it illegal becuase it harms children. In a more broad sense I don't support forcing an individual to conform to any sort of standard societal moral code. As long as an activity is between consenting adults and does not harm an unwilling party it should remain legal. In my opinion society can cram their moral code up their respective asses. Without getting too much into the abortion debate the fetus does not count as a party and therefore can not get harmed. With no other party (unless you count the father but thats a whole 'nother debate) being harmed by the abortion society can take their moral code and shove it up its ass. Society has no right to impose its moral code through laws on individuals who do not conform to said code.

Here you have taken ethical relativism to a dogmatic extreme. You present your opinion and then say "you can take yours and shove it up "its" ass."

You can't self-justify something like that.

You're assuming that moral codes, your opinions, the general pro-choice opinion, et cetera all exist on an empty field, and that you can cherry pick from this field what is valid or invalid.

You say your opinion is valid, the general pro-choice opinion is valid. Moral codes are not valid.

Why do you feel comfortable saying that?

Moral codes are repressive? Moral codes violate privacy? But who says privacy is superior to everything else? You are aware that moral codes are the basis for virtually *all* societies. Too many people think "morals" is not cheating on your wife, reading the bible, not drinking/smoking, no morals are what a society decides is normal or correct. Morals and morality have been almost hopelessly misdefined, the recent U.S. election was polled on "moral issues" and the definition of said moral issues was a very small and narrow minded use of the term. Morals are a lot more than what most people seem to instantly assume.

The fact is there is a strong validity to the argument that abortion violates the morals of society. There's also strong validity that abortion *is* moral.

*Everything* is moral or immoral, period. There's nothing outside the scope of morality. And so you can't "shove morals" if you shove morals then you are being *immoral* and ethically being immoral can *never* be correct.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by treis

Yes it does. What I do in my home that is in privacy has no affect on you. You (not specifc you a general you) may think that you are harmed but you are not. You cannot make a prostitution/drug argument that it brings more crime to an area or exposes children to harmful behavior becuase abortion does none of these things. In fact unless I specifically tell you that I had an abortion (and if I did I would becuase that would be one sweet book deal) you don't know about it.

They are more then welcome to think its wrong by their moral compass but they are welcome to take that moral compass and shove it up their ass. They have no business taking that moral compass and forcing it to be mine.

Again, antisocial arguments have no place in an ethical discussion. You may need to study on what I mean when I say ethics. Your argument is valid under certain contexts but if we're looking at the matter ethically you have not made a valid argument.

You are just saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and that isn't an argument.

For some people the very fact that they have to *stand* for abortion, that they have to allow abortion, to their minds makes *themselves* immoral.

You view, I'm hopefully assuming, rape as wrong. That's your opinion and pretty much everyone I know follows that opinion.

Obviously some people do not feel this way. You are correct that just because someone has a different morality doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. Just because a rapist thinks it is moral to rape doesn't mean we're going to be okay with that. That's why moral values and opinions have to be reconciled *across* society.

It's *because* of the diversity of moral compasses and moral values that we have to engage in ethical discussions.

You find it very invalid that someone should find abortion immoral. So you can't even recognize the validity of their argument (now in your defense they behave much the same way, but that's not an excuse.)

But again, to *some* people abortion is the same as murder, or nearly the same as murder. So you can *see* how then it becomes very difficult for a person who feels this way to exist comfortably in a society where (in their opinion) murder is being sanctioned and carried out by doctors en masse.

Obviously we have a moral dilemma in that two sides have very differing views. But that is why there has to be an attempt at understanding, or at least reconciliation.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with anti-abortion types to avoid antisocial ethics. But we as a group cannot just engage in extreme relativist dismissals like "it's none of your business." A lot of people have made some very valid arguments in support of abortion in this thread (there were even some in your post.) I haven't addressed those too much because that just bogs us down in the abortion v. anti abortion thing I was hoping we wouldn't engage in.

I was hoping for more of thread where we examine the dynamics of the argument.

Why won't someone examine the antiscoial tendencies of the anti-abortion crowd? Until antisocial bickering and dogmatism is broken down I don't feel either side can gain a better understanding of the other.

Now, I don't necessarily think either side will ever reconcile, but if there's a basic level of understanding then I think more productive discussions can be had, and we won't see people resorting to violence as much (clinic bombings.)

To hit more at the home point I started this thread about the "none of your business" argument because I feel that is the primary argument used to create dogmatism on the pro-choice side of the argument.

Even if both sides *never* change their stances much good would be done intellectually if everyone could admit that "it is not impossible I can be convinced otherwise." I've yet to make my stance on abortion known, but I'll say right now that I certainly won't say it's impossible for me to be convinced that my stance is wrong.

It would be very difficult, but most people hold abortion as though it is an asbolute, you can't be argued away from your stance. That's dogmatism, and people should avoid dogmatism like the plague.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Again, antisocial arguments have no place in an ethical discussion. You may need to study on what I mean when I say ethics. Your argument is valid under certain contexts but if we're looking at the matter ethically you have not made a valid argument.

I suppose I am confused as to what exactly you are arguing. What I am gathering is that ethically society has a compelling interest in abortion. I guess I made the extension that these ethics permit society to excercise their interest in abortion? I think clarification is in order.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

It's *because* of the diversity of moral compasses and moral values that we have to engage in ethical discussions.

You find it very invalid that someone should find abortion immoral. So you can't even recognize the validity of their argument (now in your defense they behave much the same way, but that's not an excuse.)

Now wait a second I do find abortion to be immoral but I also find it legally and morally wrong to impose a moral system on someone else.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

But again, to *some* people abortion is the same as murder, or nearly the same as murder. So you can *see* how then it becomes very difficult for a person who feels this way to exist comfortably in a society where (in their opinion) murder is being sanctioned and carried out by doctors en masse.

Obviously we have a moral dilemma in that two sides have very differing views. But that is why there has to be an attempt at understanding, or at least reconciliation.

I think I am getting your argument now. In my opinion the pro-life side is just going to have to deal with it. If they find it too morally uncomfortable then they can leave.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

I'm not saying that you have to agree with anti-abortion types to avoid antisocial ethics. But we as a group cannot just engage in extreme relativist dismissals like "it's none of your business."

Morally speaking though it is none of your business what I do with my body. You apply your Morals to yourself and I will apply my morals to myself.

I think I am missing what your argument is. What exactly are you looking for here?

[SallyCan'tDance]

AFAIK, the Roe v Wade decision on which your (i.e. Americans') legal right to abortion in certain circumstances is based on your right to privacy - the 4th Amendment, is it?. That is, that a woman has right to not have the State interfere in her private medical business. Some legal writers regard this as a badly reasoned decision - they argue that the legal right to abortion should be founded on something less roundabout than privacy.

I can't quite see how you can argue that legal abortion is "antisocial." The majority obviously thinks it is for the good of society.

The problem with the whole argument is that there is no completely objective basis - on either side of the debate - for the degree of protection that a fetus should require from its mother.

I agree with this.

[SentientMeat]

I'd agree with Martin that everything is ultimately 'moral' insofar as it has consequences for the well-being and liberty of an organism capable of suffering.

A child subject to abuse is such an organism. A foetus is not.

Conception is just as arbitrary a threshold of 'personhood' as, say, 18 weeks since 2 cells each being life and having 100% human DNA (sperm and ovum) meet, then split leaving 2 other cells each being life and having 100% human DNA (daughter nuclei after meiosis). Both pairs of cells are potential people.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

But just because you've thought up an idea or an argument that you especially like doesn't mean you should use it to "trump" everything else.

Where did you get this exactly? I don't have any argument that I rely on to beat every other argument.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

In my experience if you are relying on a one pronged attack something is wrong with your argument.

I'm not relying on a one-pronged attack at all. And you're in no position to judge what kind of attack I use since we're not even arguing the freaking issue. When we actually do argue abortion, I prefer to use scientific and legal grounds instead of privacy precisely because of what you say in the OP. People never butt out when they feel they have a moral obligation to butt in, so it's no use telling them to mind their own business.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

There's *never* a belief that you should be so sure about that you consider it "unassailable."

Seems we've wandered into an Advice Column.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

And for some people living in a society where abortions occur *is* harmful to them, to their moral compass and to what they view as right. You may be dismissive of this, but since abortion, again, is a *basic moral issue* everyone should have and needs to have an opinion and a stance on it, and that shouldn't be infringed by dogmatic "none of your business" carpet statements.

So my saying that something is "none of their business" infringes on their right to make it their business? Tough. And show me where anybody is guaranteed that right. In any case your comments make no sense. I'm not infringing on anybody's rights, I'm stating my opinion. Have whatever opinion you want, that doesn't mean the law should reflect your opinion. How is your stance any less dogmatic? If anything, I'm trying to take a position not based on any individual or group dogma.

For some people, living in a society where evil gay sex happens is wrong and a basic moral issue. Or masturbation. So what? They absolutely have the right to have an opinion about it and I'm not taking that away. But I don't think it's any of their business, and I feel pretty sure that if a given action does not affect anyone else in any way, it's not society's business. "We're all connected" sells telephones.

As I said earlier, I think morality alone is a crappy basis for the law. Just because somebody - including me - decides that a particular behavior is wrong does not grant me a compelling interest in getting rid of it, nor does it make banning it the right or sensible thing to do. (Look at the War on Drugs.)

I think people's impulse is to try and get rid of anything they don't like. Since we all dislike different things, this ends up with a majority-morality situation and everyone is always campaigning to ban something someone else does. Everybody has fun voicing their outrage, but I think it's a waste of time. So I think harm to other people is a much more sensible criterion, and I think it might lead to more stability in the law. Anybody can claim something is wrong and should be banned. To me, that makes it pretty useless.

Obviously harm is not totally ironclad. I do think a standard of actual harm it's better than "this harms me because it violates my moral code." If you can give me some convincing argument that some thing I think is a private matter and not society's business is in fact dangerous and harmful to others, you can change my mind. I'm not immune to arguments despite what you say. I do think that society needs a good reason to horn in on people's privacy.

[Steve MB]

The argument that the unborn should be treated (at least in some ways) as a person with rights that the state has a prerogative or even obligation to defend is a legitimate one. I don't buy it for the early (pre cerebral cortex) stages of pregnancy, but I don't dismiss it out of hand.

Your foggy generalized communitarianism, on the other hand, I do reject out of hand.

By framing your argument in terms of "it happens in the society in which I live; therefore, it is my business", you are laying the groundwork for totalitarianism. This argument leaves no principled basis for placing any sphere of life outside the scope of government control -- at most, one might defend the existence of private life on the pragmatic basis that it's too difficult for the government to control everything (at least today -- tomorrow is another day with other economic, technological, etc circumstances).

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

This "it's none of your business" response is just a way to avoid thinking.

On the contrary, it is a way to stick to principles.

I automatically pay my mortgage each month, not because I want to "avoid thinking" about my budget, but because I have assumed an obligation to do so and reject "thinking" up some way to weasel out of it. Similarly, rejection out of hand of unwarranted* government intrusion is a matter of conscience, not intellectual laziness.

*As I noted earlier, those who disagree with the position that it is unwarranted have a legitimate argument (the personhood of the fetus) with which to support their view.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

And for some people living in a society where abortions occur *is* harmful to them, to their moral compass and to what they view as right. You may be dismissive of this, but since abortion, again, is a *basic moral issue* everyone should have and needs to have an opinion and a stance on it, and that shouldn't be infringed by dogmatic "none of your business" carpet statements.

Never have I seen a more perfect lead-in for one of my favorite quotes:

Originally Posted by L. Sprague deCamp, "Lest Darkness Fall"

"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

For some people the very fact that they have to *stand* for abortion, that they have to allow abortion, to their minds makes *themselves* immoral.

I should have waited; that would have been an even better lead-in for the quote.

[emacknight]

Martin Hyde,

I think to clear things up you should be aware of the following issue:

You likened abortion to child molestation, an act that is unarguably wrong. When you make that comparison its easy to reject the "none of your business" idea because society needs to protect that child. Abusive parents cannot assume a right to privacy when they are hurting their children.

The problem with your OP is that some people see the abortion issue as state-sponsored slavery/torture of the MOTHER.

Try for just a second to view the abortion issue that way--from the mother's perspective. Such that in your society, when a woman becomes pregnant the Government steps in and assumes control of her body, turning her into an incubator for your society. Is this what you consider to be moral? Do your morals extend to pregnant women, or are they some how left out of your society?

When this view point is used it becomes society's moral imperative to protect the mother from enslavement.

Surely you're against slavery...

To protect women from a society that would enslave them, we say that being pregnant is *their* business and what they choose to do with that pregnancy is also their business, not the government's business, or your business. It HAS to be kept private to protect women.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by treis

A fetus being a person is not a soley faith-based belief. In this Dopers humble opinion everyone decides at what point a fetus becomes worthy of protection and then try to use logic to validate that position. The fact is that any milestone you use is essentially arbitrary and logically is no more valid than any other but thats a debate for another thread.

And to back up as bit, the ethical principle I see is that when there is no society-wide consensus, then the right of the individual should be paramount. There is a society wide consensus that a five year old is a person, so the right of the family is trumped by the right of society to protect the child (which has not always been true - consider the spare the rod faction.)

There is no such consensus that the fetus is a person: if there was, there would be no issue, and abortion would be very rare.

Martin, some think animals have ethical rights, and they feel as strongly as some anti-abortionists do. Do you feel that their opinion should be enforced as required vegetarianism? I don't hold this position myself, but I could probably argue for it, but please consider it as an example of a greater principle.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Conversely. Martin's analogy only works if you are operating under a purely faith-based belief that a fetus is a "person" who can suffer or deserves rights.

No, because even atheists can adopt that view. One such notable example was Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL. At the time that he abandoned the pro-choice view and denounced NARAL's lies, he was an atheist.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by SallyCan'tDance

I can't quite see how you can argue that legal abortion is "antisocial." The majority obviously thinks it is for the good of society.

Slavery is anti-social, and yet there was a time when the majority of people in the South thought it was good for society.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Voyager

And to back up as bit, the ethical principle I see is that when there is no society-wide consensus, then the right of the individual should be paramount.

Unless, of course, that individual is small and still within someone's womb.

[SentientMeat]

Unless, of course, that individual is small and still within someone's womb.

Or, indeed, testicles and ovaries.

[infamousmom]

Ever notice that the most vehement, prone-to-violence anti-abortionists are almost all males who have never fathered children of their own?

I really think that serious research should be done into those guys' real motivation.

[SallyCan'tDance]

Originally Posted by JThunder

Slavery is anti-social, and yet there was a time when the majority of people in the South thought it was good for society.

You misunderstand the meaning of the word "anti-social." Anti-social does NOT equal immoral or unethical. Anti-social means going against the mores of society. These mores are not necessarily going to be enlightened mores. And I don't think comparing abortion to slavery is particularly accurate or compassionate.

[Kimstu]

DtC: Conversely. Martin's analogy only works if you are operating under a purely faith-based belief that a fetus is a "person" who can suffer or deserves rights.

JT: No, because even atheists can adopt that view.

I think that in this case "faith-based" doesn't necessarily mean "based on religious faith". It just means that, as other posters have pointed out, deciding whether or when a fetus counts as a person is an arbitrary choice based on one's individual beliefs, not on some unambiguous scientifically established definition of "personhood".

im: Ever notice that the most vehement, prone-to-violence anti-abortionists are almost all males who have never fathered children of their own?

Well, I can't say that I have, actually. I'd be willing to believe that the most prone-to-violence anti-abortionists are males, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with abortion; the most prone-to-violence anybodys tend to be males, after all. Hormones 'n socialization 'n all that.