Can we just cut this hijack short if I agree that *some *pro-choice people are unwilling to call a fetus a baby? Will you in turn admit that *some *pro-choice people are willing to call it a baby, based on the evidence in this thread?
I mean, really, *some *pro-life people are against abortion even in the case of a rape when the pregnancy will certainly kill the mother. But not *every *pro-life person believes that.
You do realize that it’s only a contradiction if the same person says it? That is, one person might say that they’re pro choice and it’s just a clump of cells, and another person might say they’re pro choice and it’s a baby, and there’s no contradiction if those are two different people?
Like, how some people who believe in God think God has a white beard and lives on Mt Olympus and flings thunderbolts and is named Zeus, and some people who believe in God think God was a carpenter who was born in Bethlehem and turned water into wine and was named Jesus, and while it would be contradictory for one person to hold both beliefs, it is not contradictory if two people hold different beliefs?
For what it’s worth, I believe an unborn baby is a baby, and since I think making abortion illegal would do more harm than good, I guess that makes me pro-choice. If we want to stop abortion there are about a dozen things we should be doing that would be more effective at preventing abortions before we start passing laws making abortion illegal.
It make much sense to only argue with people you make up in your head. This is what’s known as a straw-man argument, where you decide what your opponents believe and attack them for what you imagine they believe rather than for what they actually believe, because it’s much easier to defeat a man made of straw than it is to defeat a real person.
I say yes. The key is me thinking a fetus is a baby (or something with a moral right to not be aborted at a certain point) but not knowing it. Pro-choice means exactly that. If I think a fetus is a baby, but do not know it, then I don’t have the right to enforce my thoughts on other people. There are certainly people who are personally deadset against abortion for them who think that other people may have other thoughts and should be allowed to act on them.
In other words, this is a matter of philosophy, not science, and given that anti-choicers had better keep them cotton-picking hands away from my daughters and their rights. If, on the other hand, you think God gave this instruction, you are free to produce God to testify personally.
Well, I can only suggest you do away with all this labeling crap and think of it as a rights issue, where a decision must be made whose rights have priority.
I personally side with the woman right up to the moment of birth, because I don’t see any real value in not doing so, and I prepared to trust the ethics of doctors with the issue rather than the short-term goals of elected officials.
A fetus in the third trimester is looking like a baby. An embryo at the time of implantation is demonstrably a clump of cells with no brain.
…and when you see a different argument, you just ignore it and keep repeating and repeating and repeating…
I think she’s come to the wrong conclusion. The distinction, for me, is not “right to life”/“right to sustain life” but “family”/“not family.”
Let me explain: A fetus needs it’s mother to survive. A two-month-old baby is reliant on it’s mother (or someone, at least) in order for it to survive. In fact, as a society, we have decided that parents have the moral imperative to provide for their children until they reach maturity.
If someone shoves a baby (or, hypothetically, a fetus-sans-mother) at you, would you feel morally obligated to take care of that child until it’s able to take care of itself? I think most people would not feel that way. But we generally agree that a biological mother or father does have this obligation.
So, yes, we let these two concepts (right to life vs right to sustain life) “run together,” but it’s because we, as a society, have decided that they go together. In the circumstances of abortion, there’s no benefit in separating them; it’s only in situations like the violinist hypothetical where it matters.
Because that’s an effective way to argue with pro-life people who get all tied up in irrational, emotional arguments about how “you’re killing a human being”, “it’s a baby, how can you want to kill a cute little baby”, and so forth.
In my opinion it’s very simple. What’s unique and special about humanity is the human mind. Self-awareness, and the capacity to think, and plan, and learn, almost without limit. That is what defines a person. A fetus has none of those qualities, no matter what you call it - a baby or a clump of cells. Its brain is still not operating beyond an animal level.
It is the fact that murder involves the termination of the existence of a human mind that makes murder abhorrent to me, not the termination of the functioning of a bunch of other biological systems.
A fetus does not have a mind. It can’t think, it can’t reason, it isn’t aware of its own existence. I really don’t care if its respiratory and circulatory systems, and other plumbing, are well-developed enough to survive on their own.
What I value is the human mind. If you want to terminate a pregnancy before the baby’s mind has had a chance to develop, go ahead and kill it. It’s worthless to anyone but the parents, and if they don’t want it, kill it.
The “potential” for developing into a person has no value to me. Am I supposed to feel guilty about all the sperm cells whom I have robbed of the potential to develop into a person by not having sex in the past week? Am I murdering countless innocents every time I use a condom? No.
And I don’t want to hear anecdotes of how someone’s baby learned to play Vivaldi on the uterine wall at 24 weeks. Even when they’re newborn, babies have an enormous amount of brain development still ahead of them before they reach mental parity with dogs. And we euthanize dogs on a regular basis when they’re unwanted.
Murdering people is bad. Unborn babies are proto-people of some sort, but not people yet. And in my opinion valuing unborn babies with no minds simply because they exist (sometimes valuing them more than people with fully-developed minds) is the result of a gross failure to recognize what it is that actually makes human life special, valuable, and worth protecting.
This is precisely the argument that crystallized my thinking. I have no problem thinking of the unborn as people, even as having rights - but that doesn’t negate the woman’s right to dominion over her own body. It may be the moral, correct, kind choice to allow another person to live off/in your body, but I can’t feel it’s right to compel that choice, especially for the state to compel it.
Yes, but not even this strong imperative goes to the extent of requiring parents to sacrifice their bodily sovereignty.
If a child needs a bone marrow transplant to survive, for example, and her mother is the only person in the world who had compatible bone marrow, could we force the mother to donate it to her daughter?
The subject of a pregnacy becomes a ‘baby’ the moment the object decides so. So your friend with the Peanut is a mother.
However, those movements do not necessarily denote sentience. Motion is caused by triggers from nerve cells in response to stimuli. There is no sentience involved when your foot responds to your doctor’s little hammer (or when your hand withdraws from heat or extreme cold).
Your friend whose heart drops when the stick changes is not a mother.
There are lots of reason to not have a child; most involve whether or not the child can be adequately cared for. Poverty, illness, or (in my opinion) even ‘selfishness’ are adequate reasons to doubt a child will be cared for.
There are two sides to choice - every child has the right to be chosen.
While I understand and respect this point of view, I heartily disagree with it. I point this out, not to start an argument with you, but to demonstrate to the classy ladies of the world that there are diverse reasons for being pro-choice way beyond the clump-of-cells argument.
I think of that collection of cells as a *baby and its death is of moral and emotional consequence to me, mind or no mind.
In my opinion, too, it’s very simple. It’s not my place to decide - neither is it appropriate for a politician. Mother and doctor. Pro choice.
Oh, sure, I agree with you. I guess it’s that the hypothetical only addresses one of the many issues surrounding abortion. You can’t say abortion is OK or not just by extrapolating from it.
This suggests that you agree with Peter Singer that infanticide can be morally justified just as abortion can. I tend to agree with that, too, but it’s not exactly a mainstream pro-choice opinion.
I’m glad to see Judith Jarvis Thompson’s argument getting some play here. I don’t think it’s a perfect argument, but I think it has a lot of merit. And it’s so disappointing to see people constantly arguing over what qualifies as “human” or “person” and assuming that’s the end of the discussion.
(bolding added)
I think this is where I fall, and I am relieved to see that other people are here also. It makes me sad to think about abortions happening, but I can’t in any sense justify a world or situation where MY feelings should influence or control someone else’s ability to exercise control of their own person (as well as whatever is inside of it.)
I’m pro-choice but believe personhood is a matter of self-sustainment. A one week old embryo can’t possibly survive without the mother and so is tissue and the issue is about the mothers body. At 39 weeks the child can survive outside the womb by itself making killing it equivalent to murder.
I don’t know that I agree totally with your argument. Take a just-born infant instead of a fetus. If someone shoves one at me and says “take this!” I’m going to take it and walk straight over to a hospital or police station, and give it to someone else. I am not capable of dealing with an infant, and more importantly, I’m not the only one in the universe who can, so I don’t have to.
Likewise, just because someone has a baby themselves, I don’t think that *they *should feel morally obligated to care for and raise that baby, and I think there is a pretty good portion of society that agrees with me, based on the rise in “no fault abandonment location” laws that are getting passed.
If we as a society agree that an actual infant (legally a person) can be abandoned by it’s family because they feel unable to care for it, then I don’t think the family argument holds as true as it otherwise might.
As far as the benefit of separating ‘right to life’ and ‘right to sustain life,’ the benefit exists for the pregnant woman, which isn’t insubstantial.
So am I the only one who thinks, that in the Violinist argument, I do have a moral duty to stay hooked up to the violinist? Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t be happy that this happened to me. I wouldn’t want it to happen, and I wouldn’t volunteer to hook myself up to the violinist. I can’t even guarantee I would stay hooked up to the violinist. But it seems to me that if I am hooked up to the violinist, I have a kind of moral obligation to stay hooked up, if I know unhooking myself will kill him.
The Violinist argument pretty much covers it for me.
Yes, the fetus is human. It’s a baby. It’s a person. I believe this.
It also needs the continuing permission of the pregnant person until it’s born.
I have no problem with other people deciding the right choice for them is to not provide life support for the Violinist. Or if they decide the right choice for them is to provide that life support. It’s their body after all, so their choice to provide or not provide that life support.
I can’t think of anything more fundamental than being able to allow or disallow another person the use of your body.
Go ahead Captain Amazing and keep yourself hooked up to the Violinist. That is a very giving and generous gift of your body.
Do you think your opinions on your own moral duty should be forced on others? If not, we have no argument and I wish you all the best for your future efforts of incubating musicians 