Abortion rights. When does consciousness begin?

[Adrasteia]

I'm going to quickly weigh into this discussion as someone who probably has more experience than others on this forum. I'm currently 29 weeks pregnant and I'm pro-choice. Prior to this pregnancy I've had a miscarriage (which I got out of the way faster by having the already dead fetus vacuumed from my uterus in hospital), and I have taken the morning after pill when a condom failed (and got to experience the joyful condescension of the pharmacist as though I didn't know what contraception was - psyduck you, buddy).

There are many different reasons why someone may choose to abort, many of which have already been raised (e.g. just not wanting a baby). There seems to be a common thread of members being pro-life, but accepting abortion if continued pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. However, there are also non-life threatening medical reasons where the fetus is still technically alive (as defined by heartbeat) but has a fatal defect (e.g. a type of neural development defect that may prevent its brain from forming). Is it okay in this situation for a woman to bring a fetus to term, go through the trauma of childbirth just so the baby can die with a couple hours? No. The answer you're looking for is no. Unfortunately, if abortion is limited this sort of thing may become a reality for some would-be parents.

On the point of non-fatal defects, I think there should still always remain a choice to abort. If I got positive results for down-sydrome back at my 16 week appointment, I would have aborted and I am glad I have the freedom to have made that choice.

I do believe that there should be limits on the age of the pregnancy for abortion for non-medical reasons. If I went into premature labour right now, there is a good chance that my baby would survive outside the womb. I think viability is considered to be around 26 weeks. I think this is a better argument for when abortions should no longer be allowed than trying to determine when consciousness begins.

Also, pregnancy sucks. I wouldn't wish this on someone who didn't want the baby at the end of it. I can't even sit on the couch comfortably anymore because my damn uterus is pushing against my ribcage and it huuurts! Not to mention getting winded by a short flight of stairs, not being able to eat and drink things I would normally (I have not had a caffienated coffee in over 6 months), dealing with the crapiness of maternity wear, I can go on...

It's brilliant to have the opinion of someone going through pregnancy now and by the way, I never cared about being pregnant but after your last paragraph, I know I'm never having a baby, it sounds aweful and I'm completely in awe of you for going through it, but your going through it because you want to and I believe this is the most important part, you don't mind being uncomfortable, tired and suffering, because you want that child. Forcing a teenager through that because you think they 'made the mistake and now they have to live with it' is almost cruel.

 

[Silais]

I just had to say, I love this entire reply. It's concise, logical and doesn't disrespect the party it's against.
The pro-life argument is inherently based purely on emotion and disdain for the procedure and I don't think that's what makes a good or logical argument. I respect every individual's right to an opinion, but I'm only willing to discuss it in depth if they can make a reasonable argument for there cause and not fall back on 'it's bad because it's bad' or 'because God says so'.

Thank you for the blanket stereotype of pro-lifers. It's wonderful to see someone try to shut someone else's opinions of beliefs down by using the insult of "emotional". Because we all know that emotions never factor into anything human beings do, and being emotional on a topic is unreasonable and means we should discredit their opinions. Don't even worry about their actual knowledge on the topic, just ignore them for having an emotional response.

Like someone else posted above, it's hard to convince someone who already is set in their ways to look at someone else's argument and acknowledge they make any good points whatsoever. If you are bound and determined to have absolutely no visceral response to any topic, you might as well not discuss anything with anyone.

 

[Adrasteia]

Thank you for the blanket stereotype of pro-lifers. It's wonderful to see someone try to shut someone else's opinions of beliefs down by using the insult of "emotional". Because we all know that emotions never factor into anything human beings do, and being emotional on a topic is unreasonable and means we should discredit their opinions. Don't even worry about their actual knowledge on the topic, just ignore them for having an emotional response.

Like someone else posted above, it's hard to convince someone who already is set in their ways to look at someone else's argument and acknowledge they make any good points whatsoever. If you are bound and determined to have absolutely no visceral response to any topic, you might as well not discuss anything with anyone.

I'm not stero-typing Pro-Life Supporters, I'm saying from my experience of the discussion the general argument is based purely on emotion, I'm more than thrilled to discuss this topic with someone who will put across a concise argument based on facts or finding. I'd happily change my mind if someone put across an argument that proved my views were wrong.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm not stero-typing Pro-Life Supporters, I'm saying from my experience of the discussion the general argument is based purely on emotion, I'm more than thrilled to discuss this topic with someone who will put across a concise argument based on facts or finding. I'd happily change my mind if someone put across an argument that proved my views were wrong.

Pretty sure what I did, just saying.

Honestly though this is an ethical debate, nobody should come in here expecting anybody's views to be changed. Rather it is better to just learn from and about other people's views through debate.

 

[Adrasteia]

Pretty sure what I did, just saying.

Honestly though this is an ethical debate, nobody should come in here expecting anybody's views to be changed. Rather it is better to just learn from and about other people's views through debate.

No sorry, it wasn't aimed at you, just in general the argument are a tad unfounded.

 

[gimmepie]

No sorry, it wasn't aimed at you, just in general the argument are a tad unfounded.

That's sort of my point though, people's thoughts and feelings are going to come into this simply because it is a debate on ethics. No apology needed, not as far as I'm concerned certainly.

 

[Adrasteia]

That's sort of my point though, people's thoughts and feelings are going to come into this simply because it is a debate on ethics. No apology needed, not as far as I'm concerned certainly.

I gusse your right, but I don't see the point in bringing emotion into an argument. Emotions are only relivant the to the person feeling them and play no real role in convincing a person of your point of view.

 

[gimmepie]

I gusse your right, but I don't see the point in bringing emotion into an argument. Emotions are only relivant the to the person feeling them and play no real role in convincing a person of your point of view.

All ethics debates are routed in emotion, there's no point trying to separate the two. Hence I just look at it as a learning experience xD

If I convince someone of my point of view and they decide not to abort, that's brilliant, but I'm not going to expect some words on a forum to change anybody's minds.

 

[Her]

Thank you for the blanket stereotype of pro-lifers. It's wonderful to see someone try to shut someone else's opinions of beliefs down by using the insult of "emotional". Because we all know that emotions never factor into anything human beings do, and being emotional on a topic is unreasonable and means we should discredit their opinions. Don't even worry about their actual knowledge on the topic, just ignore them for having an emotional response.

Like someone else posted above, it's hard to convince someone who already is set in their ways to look at someone else's argument and acknowledge they make any good points whatsoever. If you are bound and determined to have absolutely no visceral response to any topic, you might as well not discuss anything with anyone.

He wasn't saying emotional as in irrational, unbalanced, etc. He said your argument was based off emotion, which it is - both of the two main camps on abortion thought are driven by their emotional response to the topic. It's a highly emotionally involved topic to discuss regardless of where a person sits, because of all the lives being considered here. The main difference is where or who our ethics, our emotions, direct our support for and what we consider life. Being influenced by emotions is not a bad things as after all, ethics are ultimately are our emotional responses to situations, after all. Hell, getting 'emotional' over a topic such as this is hardly uncommon, or unexpected, or to be judged. As I said, there are plenty of lives being considered here.

 

[twocows]

Being influenced by emotions is not a bad things as after all, ethics are ultimately are our emotional responses to situations, after all.

I dissent on this point. Without going into too much detail... ethics has its origins in emotional response, but I see it more as a science wherein we construct rationally what we feel intuitively. At its most basic, I personally believe ethics to be about protecting the things we value: life, dignity, happiness, freedom, etc.

Moreover, my beliefs re this specific debate have little to do with emotion and are logically consistent with other ethical stances I have taken on issues with related themes. The core ethical principles guiding my beliefs on this topic certainly inspire emotion in me, but I would argue that those principles are not inspired solely by emotion. Additionally, this specific debate is not a particularly emotional one for me as I have very little personal stake in it.

 

[Adrasteia]

He wasn't saying emotional as in irrational, unbalanced, etc. He said your argument was based off emotion, which it is - both of the two main camps on abortion thought are driven by their emotional response to the topic. It's a highly emotionally involved topic to discuss regardless of where a person sits, because of all the lives being considered here. The main difference is where or who our ethics, our emotions, direct our support for and what we consider life. Being influenced by emotions is not a bad things as after all, ethics are ultimately are our emotional responses to situations, after all. Hell, getting 'emotional' over a topic such as this is hardly uncommon, or unexpected, or to be judged. As I said, there are plenty of lives being considered here.

Of course emotions play a role in why you feel a need to argue your cause and I have no issue with that, but the argument itself shouldn't rely purely on emotion and shock imagery to get its point across. A clear concise argument highlighting your points with empirical data will always be more convincing than an overly emotional person shouting obscenitys in front of an abortion center. Again I'm not saying all pro-life supporters are like this, it's just and example iv seen. (Also why does people keep saying I'm a man -_- )

 

[an illegible mess.]

i'm very pro-choice, for obvious reasons. i believe it's the woman's choice to abort, however the man can give his two cents if he so desires, but ultimately it's the woman's decision.

to me, it doesn't matter what the reason is. if a woman doesn't want the baby, she doesn't want the baby. end of discussion. let her abort whatever the reason.

 

[Livewire]

Emotions make us human and differentiate us from the average calculator. That being said, if your overall objective is to construct an ethical/empirical/logical argument based on several emotional assumptions, you're going to have a bad time. Abortion is not murder, in a legal or a biological sense, and the choice with what to do with one's own body is their choice alone and it ought to be unimpeded, etc.

 

[Kanzler]

Emotions make us human and differentiate us from the average calculator. That being said, if your overall objective is to construct an ethical/empirical/logical argument based on several emotional assumptions, you're going to have a bad time. Abortion is not murder, in a legal or a biological sense, and the choice with what to do with one's own body is their choice alone and it ought to be unimpeded, etc.

I disagree with your argument on the basis that it reduces the opinion you disagree with to a mere emotional appeal and marginalizing its logical content. The content I address is bolded.

Abortion would be murder if fetuses were persons. Currently that isn't the case. But fetuses' non-person status does not reduce the pro-life position that abortion is murder to be an emotional one. There was a time in the colonial United States when the personhood of blacks was contested, when the killing of a slave did not constitute murder.

"All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resist his master...correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."

Statement by the Virginia General Assembly in 1705.

We can see how our opposing opinion should not be rendered "emotional", even if we take it back to a day and age where it was not reflected in the legal system. The personhood of fetuses is a contested issue, and just because one opinion is not reflected in the legal system does not necessitate that it is emotional (with all of the negative connotations, such as it being devoid of argumentative value).

I don't believe that murder has any meaning in a biological sense, but I don't think anybody would disagree that abortion involves death (which does have biological meaning). Hence the primary issue is that of fetus personhood.

I'd like to say again: contested idea. Both sides come with their own criteria for personhood, which are remaining assumed instead of being discussed. There are others too (the beginning of individuality for example), that aren't part of the mainstream discussion but are quite interesting from a philosophical perspective.

The pro-choice side claims that a fetus is not a person. How is this justified? I feel that this is often claimed but rarely explored in these threads. Until it is addressed and supported, it remains an unjustified assumption.

Claiming that any one side's argument is inherently based on emotion, at least in the abortion debate, is really doing everybody a disservice because everybody's arguments are more sophisticated than a simple appeal to emotion. Instead of brushing off assumptions as being "emotional", it would be more productive to logically attack the validity of holding such assumptions. Of course, the latter is harder to do.

One last thing: I strongly believe that a fetus' "humanhood" is not controversial at all. If I lopped off the tip of my thumb, that hunk of meat would be human. "Human" means "of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people" and the fetuses in question are certainly human fetuses and are undoubtedly human. The issue in contention is that of personhood, which is a separate concept that has legal meaning and consequences.

 

[Livewire]

I disagree with your argument on the basis that it reduces the opinion you disagree with to a mere emotional appeal and marginalizing its logical content. The content I address is bolded.

Abortion would be murder if fetuses were persons. Currently that isn't the case. But fetuses' non-person status does not reduce the pro-life position that abortion is murder to be an emotional one. There was a time in the colonial United States when the personhood of blacks was contested, when the killing of a slave did not constitute murder.

Alas but as you said, fetuses are not persons, and do not enjoy legal protection because they aren't, in fact, persons. if the crux of the argument is that "Abortion is murder because it's killing innocent babies!!11", then what else is it but an emotional appeal, preying on notions of adorable little newborn babies being cruelly disposed of? There's a bit of a difference between a zygote and and an infant, and how better to win people over to your premise than to use the imagery of a beautiful newborn child than a rudimentary organism the size of a kidney bean, because people would care more, and that itself is rooted in an "emotional" response.

 

[Kanzler]

Alas but as you said, fetuses are not persons, and do not enjoy legal protection because they aren't, in fact, persons. if the crux of the argument is that "Abortion is murder because it's killing innocent babies!!11", then what else is it but an emotional appeal, preying on notions of adorable little newborn babies being cruelly disposed of? There's a bit of a difference between a zygote and and an infant, and how better to win people over to your premise than to use the imagery of a beautiful newborn child than a rudimentary organism the size of a kidney bean, because people would care more, and that itself is rooted in an "emotional" response.

It's not simply an emotional response because those who argue abortion is murder/homicide/killing of human assume (and sometimes justify) that a fetus is a person, and in addition argue that even though fetuses are not persons, they ought to be legally recognized as persons. Like with my example with black slaves in the U.S., just because part of an opinion is not based in legal fact does not mean the argument is logically invalid (and consequently merely emotional). Would we decry a champion of slave rights to have a merely emotional argument because in 1705 slaves were not persons and therefore you can't murder them?

To get straight to the point, even if the crux of the argument is that "Abortion is murder because it's killing innocent babies", it would be logically consistent if we hold that 1) zygotes/fetuses are innocent, 2) the killing of innocent persons is murder, and 3) zygotes/fetuses are/ought to be considered persons. Nobody questions the first two. The last is controversial. But the argument is still valid because the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Therefore, it's unfair to address that argument as but an emotional appeal.