Abortion and Antisocial Ethics

Great Debates
1

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.”

2

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

3

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.

4

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.

5

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?

6

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.

7

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.

8

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.

9

Abortion works IF “nobody’s being hurt”.

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

10

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

11

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.

12

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.

13

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.

14

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.

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.

15

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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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.

19

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.

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.

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.

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?

20

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.

I agree with this.