ABORTION HELL YEAH!!!

[Larry Flyntz]

I think it's time for this argument again.  We haven't had it in a few years, and we're all wiser and hopefully have more interesting arguments.  Plus, there are new people to join in!

Whenever we talk about abortion, we necessarily talk about killing.  So, we have to first answer why killing is wrong.  Killing is wrong for one of two (maybe both) reasons: first, because it violates a rational being's free will.  I, as a rational being, have a right to free will.  If you kill me (without my permission, that is), you violate my free will.  Second, killing causes harm to society, whether it be to a grieving mother or to an employer who suddenly finds himself without a dishwasher.  Neither of these apply to aborted fetuses.  First, fetuses do not have the capacity for rational self-reflection, a prerequisite for free will (that is, one must be able to contemplate his or her situation and imagine change in order to possess free will in the full moral sense [example: if you give a dog a choice between bacon and corn meal and he chooses the bacon, he did not exercise free will in the full moral sense]).  Second, aborted fetuses do not cause harm to society, given that the only people who might care (i.e. the parents) have presumably consented to the fetus's death.  However, the killing of a fetus can cause harm if the parents do not consent.  In other words, a fetus's moral worth is entirely dependent on its parents.  If its parents do not want to give it moral shelter, so to speak, then it does not deserve the full protection of human rights. 

[Pube Truth]

I think that was the best stated argument for abortion there ever was. I probably couldn't poke holes in it if I wanted to, which i don't, because I agree.

[Larry Flyntz]

Come on! Ethan, Dave?  You guys used to argue the pro-life side.

[Rhino......................]

Switched sides since then. Sorry Charley.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

Yeah, I've always been pro-choice, so y'know, no argument here.

[Pube Truth]

Welcome!

[oatmeal fetish....]

Yeah sorry man, on the winnin team now.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Though I suppose I will challenge you on this point -

First, fetuses do not have the capacity for rational self-reflection, a prerequisite for free will (that is, one must be able to contemplate his or her situation and imagine change in order to possess free will in the full moral sense [example: if you give a dog a choice between bacon and corn meal and he chooses the bacon, he did not exercise free will in the full moral sense]).  Second, aborted fetuses do not cause harm to society, given that the only people who might care (i.e. the parents) have presumably consented to the fetus's death.  However, the killing of a fetus can cause harm if the parents do not consent.  In other words, a fetus's moral worth is entirely dependent on its parents.  If its parents do not want to give it moral shelter, so to speak, then it does not deserve the full protection of human rights. 

You can use this same logic to justify killing a newborn baby. Can you make more of a distinction between that and abortion? Or alternatively, in your mind IS there a distinction?

[Larry Flyntz]

in your mind IS there a distinction?

Nope.  The only reason one might want to create a moral distinction is for practical reasons.  It's much easier to separate fetuses from newborns than to separate newborns from "morally alive babies."  It isn't clear when babies develop the prerequisites for moral life, so it's just easier to say "when you're born, you're alive, and that's that."

But, anyway, you're right to draw out that implication.  The argument may well be flawed because of it's necessary implications.  I think it also allows for the killing of certain mentally handicapped people.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

Well, I don't know about killing babies. I mean, besides the moral aspects of the matter, when someone is born they are issued certain legal identifiers to prove that they are a member of a nation's populace and so on. I think it's more like, if you want to get rid of a baby that has already been born, adoption is a good alternative to just killing a newborn child.

[TheOfficer]

I think the best way to determine when a fetus should be considered a baby, and not just a fetus, is the ol' "when it can survive without its mothers warm providing womb" test. And I don't mean with modern day technology, I mean if that baby was forced out of that blamblorg would it be able to live without the aid of some super baby-saving machine. (just looked it up, seems around week 30 is a good milestone for newborn survival, but even that may need some medical aid, so into the third trimester which is what I assumed)
When it stops being a parasite, it should have human rights.

I am severely pro-choice though, and very liberally let everyone around me know how I'd be running to the abortion clinic within 30 minutes of finding out I was pregnant. I really can't wrap my head around why anyone would have a child that they did not want or without the means or maturity to support it.

And fuck knows I am neither mature or financially stable enough for a baby.

[TheOfficer]

And just in case there is somebody here who has not seen this, it is one of my favorite things ever:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/flash-tub/big-big-m.php

[oatmeal fetish....]

That thing creeps me out because I don't know if its serious or not and Shmorky has never commented on it 

[Larry Flyntz]

Seth: Agreed - in a legal respect, as soon as babies are born, they become citizens and are therefore entitled to all rights of citizens.  But, the law isn't necessarily right from an ethical/philosophical point of view. 

Officer: I think in reality I agree with the viability argument (just because killing a really late term fetus or a newborn seems kind of skeevy to me).  But, I don't think it holds up to scrutiny very well.  It sets the threshold for moral humanity at simply having human DNA and being able to survive in a scientific sense.  This sort of understanding of humanity is, well, low.  There's more to being human than having human DNA and being physically alive.  At that point, it seems like an arbitrary separation between humans and animals: "We have human DNA; they have animal DNA."  That's why I favor (philosophically, at least, if not in reality) the rational self-reflection argument.  That seems to be the most important thing that separates humans from animals.  In essence, the capacity for rational self-reflection is what makes us morally "human."  The reason we give ourselves human rights is not that we have human DNA - but that we have this capacity.  And human rights only extend as far as that capacity extends (we don't give human rights to dogs, for instance [although, Spain has awarded limited human rights to the higher apes, but that's another debate entirely]).  So, I'm not convinced that human rights ought to extend to members of the human species that do not have this capacity.  I'm curious why you think they should.

[TheOfficer]

I don't think its an argument of human rights or even self-awareness in my mind. Its more that I wouldn't kill a dog, cat, bird or ape if I felt it to be a living, self-sustaining thing either. Unless it was horribly sick or harming a person.

For me its not that a baby is suddenly granted human rights or free will when it is born, its more just that you shouldn't kill something that is alive on its own and that is not suffering or innately evil (such as cockroaches). I suppose my reasoning for not wanting to kill probably is simply because society has told me that it is wrong so this argument may be thwarted already by your initial statement, but I guess for some reason if I had to kill a baby/fetus/whatever that wasn't living inside and off of me I'd have a lot more of a hang up.
A fetus, in my mind, is part of the mother until it reaches life outside of the womb, and she should therefore be able to do what she wants with it. If that makes sense.

[Larry Flyntz]

Its more that I wouldn't kill a dog, cat, bird or ape if I felt it to be a living, self-sustaining thing either.

This makes more sense to me than...

When it stops being a parasite, it should have human rights.

Now, you're simply saying that killing living things (or perhaps living things that can feel pain, to be more precise) is objectionable, as opposed to trying to distinguish between a morally immature (so to speak) human being and an animal.  Really, I think I equate newborns with animals.  They don't yet have that special something that separates humans from animals.

And yes, your last point makes complete sense.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

A fetus, in my mind, is part of the mother until it reaches life outside of the womb, and she should therefore be able to do what she wants with it. If that makes sense.

Well put.

[TheOfficer]

Its more that I wouldn't kill a dog, cat, bird or ape if I felt it to be a living, self-sustaining thing either.

This makes more sense to me than...

When it stops being a parasite, it should have human rights.

Now, you're simply saying that killing living things (or perhaps living things that can feel pain, to be more precise) is objectionable, as opposed to trying to distinguish between a morally immature (so to speak) human being and an animal.  Really, I think I equate newborns with animals.  They don't yet have that special something that separates humans from animals.

And yes, your last point makes complete sense.

yeah, I don't think I worded the parasite thing correctly. I guess I meant to say, When it stops being a parasite I'd feel bad for killing it. Not necessarily because its a baby or has rights or anything, simply because I don't want to kill a living thing.