But you understand that you are on the extreme side of abortion rights, correct? Do you draw the line anywhere? Do you think any abortion should be illegal?
Will, sure, but not currently. An acorn will be a tree, but if you toss it in the fire, you haven’t destroyed a tree. The world is full of overlapping possibilities. And ending a potential human isn’t killing a real, thinking one. I understand that some might have a quibble with that, but I’d say you have to agree that at the time of an early abortion, a fetus doesn’t possess what we typically value in human life. That is to say, conscious thinking and feeling.
The utterly mindless are human in nothing but shape.
I agree, which is part of why I think abortion should be legal. But I can’t really argue that my position is the clearly and decisively correct one and anyone who disagrees is just deluded, which is how I feel about, say, the scientific validity of evolution.
Our society tends to like dividing things with hard and fast laws: under 18, no voting. Over 18, voting. And one of the most fundamental divisions is human vs non-human. It’s not surprising that something like a 4-month-gestated embryo/fetus which straddles the line between human and not makes us uncomfortable, doesn’t neatly fit into our ethical or legal system, and provokes different responses from different people.
But a six day old human baby is relatively mindless compared to an adult. Do you think it is less immoral to kill the baby? equally? moreso? Surely there are other factors than their relative brain functions.
Sure. Bricker drew the line at doing anything that results in less money for him. Not sure why I should think such a person gives a fuck about other people at all, much less holds their lives in particularly high regard.
And he’s okay with torturing people. His argument, if I recall, was that it wasn’t torture because the people whose policy included torture said it wasn’t torture.
I was not convinced.
Then write your own post defending the guy.
So, we do agree that “any human who is alive is not worth killing” is not actually true. We just disagree on where to draw the line.
I believe that deadly force is justified to prevent the use of my organs being co-oped by another in order to maintain their life. You believe that the force of law should be brought to bear in order to force people to allow their organs to be used as life support for others (at least in the case of familial relationships).
Would you be willing to extend that generally? Perhaps put everyone on a list and randomly choose compatible donors from the general population for organs that can be live donated? Given the combined low odds of being chosen plus the low mortality rate of say a kidney transplant I would say that the odds for the donor of a satisfactory outcome are better than the odds for the pregnant woman giving birth and more lives would be saved.
Perhaps you might feel that goes too far. An alternate would be mandatory organ donation upon death. Zero chance of a bad outcome for the donor and life saving organs available for those who need it. Surely any discomfort felt by grieving relatives is overshadowed by the potential saving of sacred lives.
:dubious: I will, I’m their pimp, and they’re worth more the way they are now!
True. I support it as a general, aspirational statement; i agree that there are times it may be necessary to kill a given human being.
OK. But in a society, we surrender some of our rights to self-determine such questions. Edward may believe he has the right to use deadly force to protect his car stereo from being stolen; society may (or may not) agree.
So it’s not solely a question of what you believe – it’s which of your beliefs society is prepared to adopt as guidelines.
No. Part of the duty that a pregnant mother owes to her unborn child arises from that biological relationship.
I’d be in favor of that, yes.
The latter. Disconnecting someone from life support is a very close question, but when I see Kate Adamson, I shudder. Kate’s family was told that there was no hope for her following a stroke, and they eventually agreed to pull her feeding tube.
She began to starve – for eight days. Then her husband couldn’t stand it and demanded the tube be re-inserted.
Kate recovered. She was worse off than Terri Schiavo – she was ventilator dependant, for example; Schivao could breathe.
I am not persuaded that medical science can correctly determine that a patient is beyond hope, given the occasional “Oopsie!” in this regard.
Bricker, you might have missed this post from the end of the last page.
The problem with pain is that it’s hard to objectively quantify it. Even the classic “on a scale of 1 to 10,” does not guarantee that any two people’s scales are similarly calibrated.
But I’d be happy to accept an abortion law that forbid abortion except in cases of legitimate medical complications, and then I’d accept serious discomfort, and occasional terrible pain as a valid medical complication – not because I believe the fetus in this case is any less human, but because I would rather save the majority of unborn children who would no longer be aborted under this plan.
I’m okay with Bricker’s standards, if doctors have 100% discretion in the matter and the determination of the presence of legitimate medical complications (and thus clearance to obtain an abortion with no other regulatory procedural hoop-jumps) can be done over via phone or e-mail.
Okay, instant messaging, too.
I would submit that the answers that society would give to the questions I’ve asked you, as exemplified by my understanding of current law, would tend to favour my ideal more closely than yours.
I do respect your principled positions. You are much more consistent in the application of your premise than other pro-lifers that I’ve spoken with.
A rock or even a cockroach has no significant consciousness. A baby is a furiously recording blank slate that probably experiences reality in a way we can’t possibly imagine.
The line for me, at least, is at the mind. A rock or a fetus doesn’t have one. A baby does, perhaps as not as much as an adult, but it’s enough.
Needless to say, I was on Pullet’s machine. I beg forgiveness.
A reasonable position… but of course a mind isn’t something that clearly and unambiguously doesn’t exist at 100 days of pregnancy, and then clearly and unambiguously DOES exist at 101 days of pregnancy. So even if everyone agreed with your general principle, that wouldn’t necessarily let us all come to agreement on what the law should be 
I don’t know what kind of GOTCHA! you think you’ve uncovered, because the only thing you’ve revealed is your failure to grasp the difference between rational, informed people consensually undergoing medical procedures or biological processes according to their own unique biology – and the state mandating they do so against their will. Hint: only one of those situations involves a violation of body autonomy. You know, body autonomy the whole premise in the framing of the argument. Body autonomy, one of the core principles in Bioethics. So while I’m flattered you seem to think I came up with that argument all on my own will nilly, alas no, it’s the basis of many, many arguments in bioethics and abortion. Starting most notably over 40 years ago with Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion (1971). One of the most widely published essays on the topic.
***** emphasis mine
And many papers have been published since, using very similar analogies (Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate, by Margaret Olivia Little (1999) is another good one)
Nor was I the only one to pose such analogies in this thread. Now, I realize even reasonable people can disagree with such a position (and actually many papers have been published in response doing just that), but at least they can frame their disagreement in the actual logic of the argument, rather than just calling it “stupid” due to their own ignorance and inability to grasp the concepts being presented.
How the hell does a zygote have a ‘reaction to stimuli’??
I don’t want to answer this question.
But I will.
I would acknowledge that the law was a totally arbitrary and transparent attempt to limit abortion, and would admit that as such, the law was ripe for challenge.
But I’d probably support it being passed, understanding that I was supporting a cynical end-run around the system, but believing that the saving of lives was of enough value to justify the end-run.
I don’t say I’d do this without conflict. I hate it when my opponents do stuff like this – but quite frankly, I hate it mostly because they fail to admit that this is their goal. At least, thinks I, I’d be willing to admit the pretextual nature of the law even as I supported it.
And because I’m on the edge on this question, I suspect that a well-crafted argument could push me to the other side and make me withdraw such support.
Same general way a bacterium does.