[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Of course, then they would die. And that is something that you would have to weigh.

Women having an abortion generally do consider that. Women who get an abortion don't skip into the clinic singing "Hooray! Hooray! It's an abortion day!". But they look at the severity of their situation: the risk to their life, to their health, the risk to the foetus, the precariousness of their family situation, their abusive relationship and how having a child could trap them, the rape that made them pregnant and how they cannot bear the thought of carrying the pregnancy and they make it. But that is their choice to make.

As the homeowner can decide that the person is putting them under intolerable, health-damaging stress and make their choice.

I’m not saying they do. Just in your argument you said they could evict people and problem solved, but it did not seem to acknowledge the possible moral dilemma.
But I now see how it can be interpreted so it did.

[The New California Republic]

Women having an abortion generally do consider that. Women who get an abortion don't skip into the clinic singing "Hooray! Hooray! It's an abortion day!". But they look at the severity of their situation: the risk to their life, to their health, the risk to the foetus, the precariousness of their family situation, their abusive relationship and how having a child could trap them, the rape that made them pregnant and how they cannot bear the thought of carrying the pregnancy and they make it. But that is their choice to make.

As the homeowner can decide that the person is putting them under intolerable, health-damaging stress and make their choice.

I’m not saying they do. Just in your argument you said they could evict people and problem solved, but it did not seem to acknowledge the possible moral dilemma.

What "moral dilemma"? There isn't one at all. Someone is in the house against the will of the occupier, the occupier has no moral obligation whatsoever.

[The Free Joy State]

Women having an abortion generally do consider that. Women who get an abortion don't skip into the clinic singing "Hooray! Hooray! It's an abortion day!". But they look at the severity of their situation: the risk to their life, to their health, the risk to the foetus, the precariousness of their family situation, their abusive relationship and how having a child could trap them, the rape that made them pregnant and how they cannot bear the thought of carrying the pregnancy and they make it. But that is their choice to make.

As the homeowner can decide that the person is putting them under intolerable, health-damaging stress and make their choice.

I’m not saying they do. Just in your argument you said they could evict people and problem solved, but it did not seem to acknowledge the possible moral dilemma.

Moral dilemmas are for individuals. But, I was regarding your original question:

But of course, that takes us to our second question.
If we assume the fetus is alive. Then, should the state take some of your liberty, or otherwise burden you, to save a life ? (And if so, to what extent?).

Which is not a question for the state with regards to abortion. And your other questions have already been decided by the state, and the answer is "no".

If you don't defend bodily sovereignty as paramount, the state could just as easily take one of your kidneys saying "Well, you can live with one, and that person hasn't got any working kidneys" to save a life (that's a better analogy than any of yours, by the way -- closer, but not perfect). Would that be worth it to save a life? That forced invasion of your physical body, subjecting you to surgery and risks and pain and a recovery that you did not choose?

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

I’m not saying they do. Just in your argument you said they could evict people and problem solved, but it did not seem to acknowledge the possible moral dilemma.

What "moral dilemma"? There isn't one at all. Someone is in the house against the will of the occupier, the occupier has no moral obligation whatsoever.

But if you remove them, then they die.
And it’s less like a break-in and more like if don’t accept them they will die.
That would be the dilemma.

If you think there is no dilemma in not accepting them out and letting them die, (for whatever reason), then you should think that abortion is fine also.

[Page]

Ok, how about this.
How far up do you believe bodily autonomy is in liberty.
Do you believe that letting some stranger crash at your house for 9 months, putting prune juice in your food, and causing you stress, would be worth it if you could save a life through that act ?

Not the most pertinent example to a foetus in your body, using your nutrients and your circulatory system and your filtration system and putting your health at risk, but you can have that stranger evicted, you know. Or call the police and have them thrown out. If they refuse to leave, you can even use all means at your disposal to kick them out of your home.

If you want to use that comparison, you could consider an abortion a forcible eviction.

It's better to compare abortion to putting out a fire. Because a forcible eviction involves a stakeholder with their own feelings and interests, a fire doesn't.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

I’m not saying they do. Just in your argument you said they could evict people and problem solved, but it did not seem to acknowledge the possible moral dilemma.

Moral dilemmas are for individuals. But, I was regarding your original question:

But of course, that takes us to our second question.
If we assume the fetus is alive. Then, should the state take some of your liberty, or otherwise burden you, to save a life ? (And if so, to what extent?).

Which is not a question for the state with regards to abortion.

If you don't defend bodily sovereignty as paramount, the state could just as easily take one of your kidneys saying "Well, you can live with one, and that person hasn't got any working kidneys" to save a life (that's a better analogy than any of yours, by the way -- closer, but not perfect). Would that be worth it to save a life? That forced invasion of your physical body, subjecting you to surgery and risks and pain and a recovery that you did not choose?

I agree with you 100%, this would be a very slippery slope, but I’m trying to ask an as unbiased and open ended question as possible. (And yes that was a better example )

[The Free Joy State]

Moral dilemmas are for individuals. But, I was regarding your original question:
Which is not a question for the state with regards to abortion.

If you don't defend bodily sovereignty as paramount, the state could just as easily take one of your kidneys saying "Well, you can live with one, and that person hasn't got any working kidneys" to save a life (that's a better analogy than any of yours, by the way -- closer, but not perfect). Would that be worth it to save a life? That forced invasion of your physical body, subjecting you to surgery and risks and pain and a recovery that you did not choose?

I agree with you 100%, this would be a very slippery slope, but I’m trying to ask an as unbiased and open ended question as possible. (Yes yes that was a better example )

I wanted an answer to that question, by the way.

And my answer to the current poll that I prioritise preventing suffering.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Not the most pertinent example to a foetus in your body, using your nutrients and your circulatory system and your filtration system and putting your health at risk, but you can have that stranger evicted, you know. Or call the police and have them thrown out. If they refuse to leave, you can even use all means at your disposal to kick them out of your home.

If you want to use that comparison, you could consider an abortion a forcible eviction.

It's better to compare abortion to putting out a fire. Because a forcible eviction involves a stakeholder with their own feelings and interests, a fire doesn't.

Well you have to assume to fetus is alive (as many people do) in order to get to the next part. If fetus is alive, is it right to kill fetus to protect bodily autonomy.

[The New California Republic]

What "moral dilemma"? There isn't one at all. Someone is in the house against the will of the occupier, the occupier has no moral obligation whatsoever.

But if you remove them, then they die.
And it’s less like a break-in and more like if don’t accept them they will die.
That would be the dilemma.

No. No moral dilemma exists, as in the first instance a wrong has been committed by this person being present against the will of the occupier. No moral dilemma exists to correct a wrong in this case.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

I agree with you 100%, this would be a very slippery slope, but I’m trying to ask an as unbiased and open ended question as possible. (Yes yes that was a better example )

I wanted an answer to that question, by the way.

And my answer to the current poll that I prioritise preventing suffering.

My answer to the poll is that there is a possible compromise,

And obviously it would be wrong to sacrifice one person to save 5. And it would also be wrong to sacrifice one to save one.
But in most cases, abortion is not about trading lives. It is about trading many losses of liberty, and many burdens, which is lesser than sacrificing a life. I believe situations like this to be moral grey zone.
(Assuming of course, that the fetus is alive, which it may not be)

It’s the degrees, not the absolutes, where I find it more difficult to come to a 100% certain answer.

Pay 50$ save a life ?
Cut off a pinky, save a life ?
Become blind, save a life ?

[The New California Republic]

It's better to compare abortion to putting out a fire. Because a forcible eviction involves a stakeholder with their own feelings and interests, a fire doesn't.

Well you have to assume to fetus is alive (as many people do) in order to get to the next part. If fetus is alive, is it right to kill fetus to protect bodily autonomy.

Fetuses don't have feelings and interests.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Well you have to assume to fetus is alive (as many people do) in order to get to the next part. If fetus is alive, is it right to kill fetus to protect bodily autonomy.

Fetuses don't have feelings and interests.

That is the assumption, otherwise you are talking about contraception. Many people argue on the belief that the fetus is alive, so I believe it is productive to talk about at that level.
If you can prove the fetus is not alive, the abortion argument goes away. If not, the next thing to argue over is sacrificing liberty/burden to save a life.

[The Free Joy State]

I wanted an answer to that question, by the way.

And my answer to the current poll that I prioritise preventing suffering.

My answer to the poll is that there is a possible compromise,

You know the question I mean. Would you think it acceptable to have a kidney forcibly removed (which may not kill, but can cause risks due to surgery -- forced in this case -- and pain and a long recovery) to save a life?

[The New California Republic]

Fetuses don't have feelings and interests.

That is the assumption

It's not just an assumption, it's got a scientific basis.

otherwise you are talking about contraception.

...what.

Many people argue on the belief that the fetus is alive, so I believe it is productive to talk about at that level.

Mere merit of being alive is irrelevant and infers no special privileges in this case, as the most relevant concern is that a person cannot have their bodily sovereignty taken away from them to support another, even if it means the death of the other.

[The Free Joy State]

Fetuses don't have feelings and interests.

That is the assumption, otherwise you are talking about contraception. Many people argue on the belief that the fetus is alive, so I believe it is productive to talk about at that level.
If you can prove the fetus is not alive, the abortion argument goes away. If not, the next thing to argue over is sacrificing liberty/burden to save a life.

No-one disputes the foetus is alive.

It is not sentient, however. It will not be sentient until about 30 weeks -- long after the legal limit for abortion (notwithstanding emergencies) in most jurisdictions.

Many things are alive, but sentience makes the greatest difference.

Many people argue on the belief that the fetus is alive, so I believe it is productive to talk about at that level.

Mere merit of being alive is irrelevant and infers no special privileges in this case, as the most relevant concern is that a person cannot have their bodily sovereignty taken away from them to support another, even if it means the death of the other.

There is also this. No-one can use another human being's body to support them without their consent.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

My answer to the poll is that there is a possible compromise,

You know the question I mean. Would you think it acceptable to have a kidney forcibly removed (which may not kill, but can cause risks due to surgery -- forced in this case -- and pain and a long recovery) to save a life?

Oh,
That is part of what I would call the moral grey zone.
The answer is I’m not sure.
That’s why I’m asking questions instead of making statements.
(I would lean of course to not being acceptable, but I simply don’t feel I know)

To cause lesser suffering on one, to prevent greater suffering on another, is what I think the question boils down too.
I personally think no.
But I am not certain.


(Also as far as “alive” I meant “has a soul” as far as one can objectively say there is such a thing as a soul)

[The Free Joy State]

You know the question I mean. Would you think it acceptable to have a kidney forcibly removed (which may not kill, but can cause risks due to surgery -- forced in this case -- and pain and a long recovery) to save a life?

Oh,
That is part of what I would call the moral grey zone.
The answer is I’m not sure.
That’s why I’m asking questions instead of making statements.
(I would lean of course to not being acceptable, but I simply don’t feel I know)

To cause lesser suffering on one, to prevent greater suffering on another, is what I think the question boils down too.
I personally think no.
But I am not certain.

Well, pregnancy causes risks, including death (women in the US have more than double the maternal mortality risk of other high income countries). Serious complications can leave women with permanent damage to their kidneys or their heart. Infants can be born with severe complications that mean they have only a short time to live. Where there are abortion bans, rape victims forced to remain pregnant can commit suicide because they cannot bear the thought.

Is it possible to say, then, that abortion is not sometimes a more moral choice?

Many pro-choicers don't like abortion -- many wish there were fewer -- but sometimes, in the interests of preventing suffering, they are necessary.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

That is the assumption

It's not just an assumption, it's got a scientific basis.

otherwise you are talking about contraception.

...what.

Many people argue on the belief that the fetus is alive, so I believe it is productive to talk about at that level.

Mere merit of being alive is irrelevant and infers no special privileges in this case, as the most relevant concern is that a person cannot have their bodily sovereignty taken away from them to support another, even if it means the death of the other.

By the way, when I meant assumption, I meant the assumption that the fetus was “alive” for the sake of the argument, not the assumption that a fetus has no feelings or whatnot.

Oh,
That is part of what I would call the moral grey zone.
The answer is I’m not sure.
That’s why I’m asking questions instead of making statements.
(I would lean of course to not being acceptable, but I simply don’t feel I know)

To cause lesser suffering on one, to prevent greater suffering on another, is what I think the question boils down too.
I personally think no.
But I am not certain.

Well, pregnancy causes risks, including death (women in the US have more than double the maternal mortality risk of other high income countries). Serious complications can leave women with permanent damage to their kidneys or their heart. Infants can be born with severe complications that mean they have only a short time to live. Where there are abortion bans, rape victims forced to remain pregnant can commit suicide because they cannot bear the thought.

Is it possible to say, then, that abortion is not sometimes a more moral choice?

Many pro-choicers don't like abortion -- many wish there were fewer -- but sometimes, in the interests of preventing suffering, they are necessary.

I think at the end of the day generally you are right. But it is still difficult to accept you should not be forced to trade pennies for a life. (Then again, pregnancy is not pennies…)

[The New California Republic]

Well, pregnancy causes risks, including death (women in the US have more than double the maternal mortality risk of other high income countries). Serious complications can leave women with permanent damage to their kidneys or their heart. Infants can be born with severe complications that mean they have only a short time to live. Where there are abortion bans, rape victims forced to remain pregnant can commit suicide because they cannot bear the thought.

Is it possible to say, then, that abortion is not sometimes a more moral choice?

Many pro-choicers don't like abortion -- many wish there were fewer -- but sometimes, in the interests of preventing suffering, they are necessary.

I think at the end of the day generally you are right. But it is still difficult to accept you should not be forced to trade pennies for a life. (Then again, pregnancy is not pennies…)

"Forced" and "trade" are usually mutually exclusive, as trade implies free agreement/choice between parties. What you are talking about is more akin to usurping.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

I think at the end of the day generally you are right. But it is still difficult to accept you should not be forced to trade pennies for a life. (Then again, pregnancy is not pennies…)

"Forced" and "trade" are usually mutually exclusive, as trade implies free agreement/choice between parties. What you are talking about is more akin to usurping.

Sure, but I think you get what I mean.

[The New California Republic]

Mere merit of being alive is irrelevant and infers no special privileges in this case, as the most relevant concern is that a person cannot have their bodily sovereignty taken away from them to support another, even if it means the death of the other.

By the way, when I meant assumption, I meant the assumption that the fetus was “alive” for the sake of the argument, not the assumption that a fetus has no feelings or whatnot.

But again, as I said, mere merit of being alive is irrelevant and infers no special privileges in this case.

[Page]

It's better to compare abortion to putting out a fire. Because a forcible eviction involves a stakeholder with their own feelings and interests, a fire doesn't.

Well you have to assume to fetus is alive (as many people do) in order to get to the next part. If fetus is alive, is it right to kill fetus to protect bodily autonomy.

It is alive, no one is disputing that. Alive is meaningless, you sustain your own life by killing millions of living things. Every meal is a mass murder, even a vegan meal. Do we live in a world where people get their nutrition from minerals?

[Dogmeat]

Well you have to assume to fetus is alive (as many people do) in order to get to the next part. If fetus is alive, is it right to kill fetus to protect bodily autonomy.

It is alive, no one is disputing that. Alive is meaningless, you sustain your own life by killing millions of living things. Every meal is a mass murder, even a vegan meal. Do we live in a world where people get their nutrition from minerals?

That feeling when the Zerg are more ethical than you...

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Well you have to assume to fetus is alive (as many people do) in order to get to the next part. If fetus is alive, is it right to kill fetus to protect bodily autonomy.

It is alive, no one is disputing that. Alive is meaningless, you sustain your own life by killing millions of living things. Every meal is a mass murder, even a vegan meal. Do we live in a world where people get their nutrition from minerals?

By alive I meant sentient, has a soul, has consciousness.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

I was thinking this thread was gonna die off but I guess some people had to bring back the carnage