"Right to Privacy" Abortion Analogy

[Omega]

One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body."

Here's an analogy I thought of:

Bill and Adam were sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill suddenly began to fall, so he put his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling. However, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a decent man?

[theseoafs]

Does Adam sound like a descent man?

No, Bill is the one who's descending here.

[Omega]

Does Adam sound like a descent man?

No, Bill is the one who's descending here.

  Fixed

[the Catfishman]

That would work if Bill was a lump of cells.

(or in other words.. I think most of the discussion is whether/when you considerer a lump of cells 'life').

[theseoafs]

The right to privacy & body defenses for abortion were never convincing to me, by the by. It's unclear what these rights mean, whether we even have them (as they're not enumerated specifically anywhere), how a pregnancy would infringe on these rights -- it just doesn't work. Other defenses for abortion can be spectacularly more convincing.

[lordxizor]

One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body."

Here's an analogy I thought of:

Bill and Adam are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill suddenly starts to fall, so he puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling. However, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a decent man?

An imprefect analagy since Adam had nothing to do with Bill grabbing him. In the abortion scenario, the mother has made a choice to perform an act that could result in pregnancy (other than in instances of rape of course) thus it might be a better analagy for Adam to invite Bill to grab on and then later push him off. Not perfect either, but closer.

Edit: And really Adam would have had to invite Bill to sit on the edge of the cliff with him too to make it a better analagy (the baby wouldn't be there to abort if the mother hadn't made a conscious choice to have sex, other than rape again of course).

[Sigz]

All of these analogies people try to use for abortion are horribly contrived and do nothing to adequately convey the physical relationship between a mother and zygote/embryo/fetus or the state of both things involved.

[Omega]

An imperfect analogy since Adam had nothing to do with Bill grabbing him. In the abortion scenario, the mother has made a choice to perform an act that could result in pregnancy (other than in instances of rape of course) thus it might be a better analogy for Adam to invite Bill to grab on and then later push him off. Not perfect either, but closer.

Edit: And really Adam would have had to invite Bill to sit on the edge of the cliff with him too to make it a better analogy (the baby wouldn't be there to abort if the mother hadn't made a conscious choice to have sex, other than rape again of course).

I have to agree. The analogy is too mildly formulated.

[rumborak]

That would work if Bill was a lump of cells.

(or in other words.. I think most of the discussion is whether/when you considerer a lump of cells 'life').

This, yeah. This all comes down to at which point a "human" starts. There's essentially two schools of thought: The "Substancist" who says a human life starts when the first substance to it is there (i.e. a fertilized egg), and the "Symptomist" who says a human life starts when it becomes human, i.e. when it starts exhibiting the things that makes humans human. I find myself in the latter camp.

rumborak

[Omega]

the "Symptomist" who says a human life starts when it becomes human, i.e. when it starts exhibiting the things that makes humans human. I find myself in the latter camp.

rumborak

Besides it being a tautology (when a human is human) isn't that rather arbitrary and subjective? Couldn't some people have different opinions on when a fertilized egg is considered "human" or when it begins to exhibit "human" characteristics?

[Scheavo]

the "Symptomist" who says a human life starts when it becomes human, i.e. when it starts exhibiting the things that makes humans human. I find myself in the latter camp.

rumborak

Besides it being a tautology (when a human is human) isn't that rather arbitrary and subjective? Couldn't some people have different opinions on when a fertilized egg is considered "human" or when it begins to exhibit "human" characteristics?

Yep, and welcome to the debate that's been raging for 40 years. If it was an easy answer, it would have been answered.

Here's a question for you, then... woman get's pregnant, doesn't know it, couple weeks later, has a miscarriage. Is that then manslaughter? If we define human life as the embryo, then it gotta at least be involuntary manslaughter. Now, the kicker is, that happens all the time, something like 20% of pregnancies end up in a miscarriage, and often times against the wishes of the mother.

If we define human life as beginning at conception, as you seem to want to do, then every time a woman has a miscarriage, then the state would have to investigate the matter, to determine if a crime has been committed. That is invasive, that takes away a woman privacy, because you start to monitor the activities of her womb, and her body.

[comment]

One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body."

Here's an analogy I thought of:

Bill and Adam were sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill suddenly began to fall, so he put his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling. However, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a decent man?

"Adam where art thou?"     I don't think letting Bill descend was a decent thing to do.  I like your analogy and that Bill could at least choose to reach out to Adam in it. 

I'm glad my mom was decent enough to give birth to me instead of letting me descend into a doctors abortion.  I'm not John Petrucci, but I'm glad I get to enjoy him now.  Or another way of saying it is...   

I'm glad the female homosapien that carried me to term allowed me to fully form instead of choosing my termination when I was a  _____(enter scientific term).  The thing that became "me" isn't John Petrucci, but I appreciate his LIFE.
 

[comment]

 

[theseoafs]

*ramble*
Sorry, in my post I forgot to quote.

Two things:
1) You can edit your posts.
2) ... What?

[comment]

*ramble*
Sorry, in my post I forgot to quote.

Two things:
1) You can edit your posts.
2) ... What?

Thanks, was working on that when you wrote this.

[rumborak]

the "Symptomist" who says a human life starts when it becomes human, i.e. when it starts exhibiting the things that makes humans human. I find myself in the latter camp.

rumborak

Besides it being a tautology (when a human is human) isn't that rather arbitrary and subjective? Couldn't some people have different opinions on when a fertilized egg is considered "human" or when it begins to exhibit "human" characteristics?

Isn't the other definition equally as arbitrary? No matter how you slice it, a lump of cells is not particularly different from any other dividing cell cluster. It can't survive on its own, it doesn't respond in any meaningful way to its surroundings... The only real difference is one is mitosis, the other meiosis. That seems an awfully arbitrary distinction to me.
It should also be noted that for a long time there is essentially no difference between human and other mammal embryos.

rumborak

[Omega]

Yep, and welcome to the debate that's been raging for 40 years. If it was an easy answer, it would have been answered.

Here's a question for you, then... woman get's pregnant, doesn't know it, couple weeks later, has a miscarriage. Is that then manslaughter? If we define human life as the embryo, then it gotta at least be involuntary manslaughter. Now, the kicker is, that happens all the time, something like 20% of pregnancies end up in a miscarriage, and often times against the wishes of the mother.

I'm not interested with discussing legal jargon or legal proceedings in such an occurrence. Consult lawyers, if you must. If a pregnant woman has an accidental miscarriage, then no immorality has been perpetrated. However, if a woman deliberately forces a miscarriage, that woman has perpetrated an immoral action (as you may or may not agree).

If we define human life as beginning at conception, as you seem to want to do, then every time a woman has a miscarriage, then the state would have to investigate the matter, to determine if a crime has been committed. That is invasive, that takes away a woman privacy, because you start to monitor the activities of her womb, and her body.

I want no such thing (governing authorities monitoring women's wombs, I mean). I'd merely want to see abortion criminalized in all but dire circumstances. I'm not contemplating discussing nor do I want to discuss what legal actions should be taken by what authority when or how or in what cirumstance. I'm more interested in the ethics, justification and morality of abortion.

[snapple]

Wait,

how can something dead become living? If the cells are reproducing, aren't they living?

[Omega]

Isn't the other definition equally as arbitrary? No matter how you slice it, a lump of cells is not particularly different from any other dividing cell cluster. It can't survive on its own, it doesn't respond in any meaningful way to its surroundings... The only real difference is one is mitosis, the other meiosis. That seems an awfully arbitrary distinction to me.
It should also be noted that for a long time there is essentially no difference between human and other mammal embryos.

rumborak

I would say that it doesn't appear to be arbitrary to me. A human organism begins to form at the moment when sperm fertilizes an egg. This is the only and logical starting-point for a human life. There doesn't seem to be any room for opinion as to when a human organism begins to be or to form, namely, the moment of conception. Perhaps human embryos bare great resemblance to embryos of other mammals. But is that important to the morality of abortion? I don't see why. Human embryos, in principle, always result in the formation a human, likewise chimpanzee embryos always result in the formation of chimpanzees. If not, humans would, by manner of a genetic mishap or birth complication, give birth to chimpanzees and other mammalian analogues.

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure how you want to talk about ethics, but not justice. They're intertwined.

Cause here's the deal. If abortion is illegal, more woman would intentionally miscarry, or get illegal/black alley abortions - which achieves the same end for the kid, but can be worse on the woman. So in reality, criminalizing abortion ends up hurting woman more, and probably doesn't end saving any lives. The only thing you can do, is try to reduce the need for abortions. Sex and contraceptive education, good adoption networking (including letting gay couples adopt - I rather like how this ties in), and hope for the best. Have abortions legal for first and most of second trimester, and then the people who get abortions will be people who need it. Which is still usually the case now.

Wait,

how can something dead become living? If the cells are reproducing, aren't they living?

Then life never begins or ends, and this whole discussion becomes meaningless, and sperm become protected.

So it's more when does the embryo become human life, and when does it merit human rights? We don't have rights for all life, and we kill life all the time, so that can't be the issue.

[j]

the "Symptomist" who says a human life starts when it becomes human, i.e. when it starts exhibiting the things that makes humans human. I find myself in the latter camp.

rumborak

Besides it being a tautology (when a human is human) isn't that rather arbitrary and subjective? Couldn't some people have different opinions on when a fertilized egg is considered "human" or when it begins to exhibit "human" characteristics?

Isn't the other definition equally as arbitrary? No matter how you slice it, a lump of cells is not particularly different from any other dividing cell cluster. It can't survive on its own, it doesn't respond in any meaningful way to its surroundings... The only real difference is one is mitosis, the other meiosis. That seems an awfully arbitrary distinction to me.
It should also be noted that for a long time there is essentially no difference between human and other mammal embryos.

rumborak

The difference lies in the genetic makeup of the cells, and in their differentiation, not just the mechanism by which they divide.  The "lump of cells," in spite of your ability or inability to relate to it, is a developing human.  A mammal, yes, but also a human.  It cannot survive on its own, nor will it be able to for several years after it's born.  It begins to "respond to its surroundings" at a markedly early stage.  The reality of nature has provided a simple answer to this question, whereas assigning a point of some nebulous "humanity" beginning post-conception is completely arbitrary.

The best arguments in favor of abortion are the ones that don't try to do semantic gymnastics with the biology or reroute the discussion to some irrelevant discussion of "telling a woman what to do with her body," and rather address the socioeconomic consequences, which are a very legitimate concern.

-J

[snapple]

I'm not sure how you want to talk about ethics, but not justice. They're intertwined.

Cause here's the deal. If abortion is illegal, more woman would intentionally miscarry, or get illegal/black alley abortions - which achieves the same end for the kid, but can be worse on the woman. So in reality, criminalizing abortion ends up hurting woman more, and probably doesn't end saving any lives. The only thing you can do, is try to reduce the need for abortions. Sex and contraceptive education, good adoption networking (including letting gay couples adopt - I rather like how this ties in), and hope for the best. Have abortions legal for first and most of second trimester, and then the people who get abortions will be people who need it. Which is still usually the case now.

Wait,

how can something dead become living? If the cells are reproducing, aren't they living?

Then life never begins or ends, and this whole discussion becomes meaningless, and sperm become protected.

So it's more when does the embryo become human life, and when does it merit human rights? We don't have rights for all life, and we kill life all the time, so that can't be the issue.

Ah, okay. I was just thinking that rumborak's initial definition seemed a little too simplistic for this kind of conversation. I'll just say I'm against abortion, except under extreme circumstances.

[theseoafs]

Isn't the other definition equally as arbitrary? No matter how you slice it, a lump of cells is not particularly different from any other dividing cell cluster. It can't survive on its own, it doesn't respond in any meaningful way to its surroundings... The only real difference is one is mitosis, the other meiosis. That seems an awfully arbitrary distinction to me.
It should also be noted that for a long time there is essentially no difference between human and other mammal embryos.

rumborak

I would say that it doesn't appear to be arbitrary to me. A human organism begins to form at the moment when sperm fertilizes an egg. This is the only and logical starting-point for a human life. There doesn't seem to be any room for opinion as to when a human organism begins to be or to form, namely, the moment of conception. Perhaps human embryos bare great resemblance to embryos of other mammals. But is that important to the morality of abortion? I don't see why. Human embryos, in principle, always result in the formation a human, likewise chimpanzee embryos always result in the formation of chimpanzees. If not, humans would, by manner of a genetic mishap or birth complication, give birth to chimpanzees and other mammalian analogues.

I'll have more to say on this later, but I'll point out that the debate over whether abortions are ethical has more to do with "personhood" than "life". If we all agreed that fetuses were living, that would be fine, but it wouldn't make a difference because we kill all sorts of life everywhere. The debate is whether fetuses and embryos are people, and what consequences their personhood, or lack thereof, has.

[Omega]

I'm not sure how you want to talk about ethics, but not justice. They're intertwined.

Philosophical justice, yes, but not legal justice.

Cause here's the deal. If abortion is illegal, more woman would intentionally miscarry, or get illegal/black alley abortions - which achieves the same end for the kid, but can be worse on the woman. So in reality, criminalizing abortion ends up hurting woman more, and probably doesn't end saving any lives. The only thing you can do, is try to reduce the need for abortions. Sex and contraceptive education, good adoption networking (including letting gay couples adopt - I rather like how this ties in), and hope for the best. Have abortions legal for first and most of second trimester, and then the people who get abortions will be people who need it. Which is still usually the case now.

Yet that does nothing to change the underlying issue that abortion is immoral. Why should society or government be obligated to aid women in participating in a morally abhorrent action? Why should there exist services that are intended to kill a developing human and why should they be sanctioned by the government? I think the solution to abortion, in principle, is quite clear and commonsensical: don't have sex if you do not wish to have a baby. By having sex, a woman is, in principle, consciously and clearly inviting the possibility -- however unlikely it may be thought to be -- of conceiving a child. Sex directly leads to impregnation (or at least, in principle, the chance of pregnancy occurring is always there) just as certainly as throwing yourself off the Taipei 101 without any "protection" will result in your death.

[eric42434224]

Yet that does nothing to change the underlying issue that abortion is immoral.

Only if you think it is immoral.  Some obviously think that abortion isn't immoral.

Is this just the beginning of another objective/subjective morals thread?

[Omega]

Yet that does nothing to change the underlying issue that abortion is immoral.

Only if you think it is immoral.  Some obviously think that abortion isn't immoral.

Is this just the beginning of another objective/subjective morals thread?

I'm sure that even you think it is immoral; do you, Eric, think that late-term abortions are wrong?

[eric42434224]

Yet that does nothing to change the underlying issue that abortion is immoral.

Only if you think it is immoral.  Some obviously think that abortion isn't immoral.

Is this just the beginning of another objective/subjective morals thread?

I'm sure that even you think it is immoral; do you, Eric, think that late-term abortions are wrong?

Depends.
Took me less than a second to think of a scenario where I would be perfectly fine with it morally.

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure how you want to talk about ethics, but not justice. They're intertwined.

Philosophical justice, yes, but not legal justice.

Then I'll have to ask why you're talking about a "right to privacy." That's a legal right, so I'm telling you why and where that legal right get's used, and how it pertains to this case.

Yet that does nothing to change the underlying issue that abortion is immoral. Why should society or government be obligated to aid women in participating in a morally abhorrent action? Why should there exist services that are intended to kill a developing human and why should they be sanctioned by the government? I think the solution to abortion, in principle, is quite clear and commonsensical: don't have sex if you do not wish to have a baby. By having sex, a woman is, in principle, consciously and clearly inviting the possibility -- however unlikely it may be thought to be -- of conceiving a child. Sex directly leads to impregnation (or at least, in principle, the chance of pregnancy occurring is always there) just as certainly as throwing yourself off the Taipei 101 without any "protection" will result in your death.

Because there's principle and ideology, and then there's pragmatic reality. The reason why women get abortions is various; so you can bring up some cases where I'm going to agree that it's pretty immoral to get an abortion. But how immoral? That becomes tricky. Just classifying something as immoral doesn't mean much. There are many other cases, though, where abortions are moral, and for you to step in and tell a woman what can or cannot happen to her body, via the government, is immoral. It violates certain rights we uphold in our society, and these ends do not justify these means. A lot of abortions occur due to health complications - either the baby will die, or the mother will die, or both. It's not as if you have irresponsible people getting pregnant, and then having an abortion. You're example is but one, a very small minority of examples, and to use it to unilaterally ban abortions actually ends up harming everyone, including society in general, more.

[Sigz]

Yet that does nothing to change the underlying issue that abortion is immoral.

Only if you think it is immoral.  Some obviously think that abortion isn't immoral.

Is this just the beginning of another objective/subjective morals thread?

And either way, just because you think something's immorral doesn't mean it should be illegal. I think adultery's immoral but I'm not gonna say we should start prosecuting people who cheat.

[Omega]

Then I'll have to ask why you're talking about a "right to privacy." That's a legal right, so I'm telling you why and where that legal right get's used, and how it pertains to this case.

This is true, Scheavo, yet idea of "rights" of any kind rest on various layers of philosophical underpinnings. Legal proceedings and laws are the mere authoritative manifestation of established meta-ethical principles employed by a competent body of authority to impose a moral order upon its populace. That said, though, the right to privacy isn't even expressly outlined in the Constitution.

Because there's principle and ideology, and then there's pragmatic reality. The reason why women get abortions is various; so you can bring up some cases where I'm going to agree that it's pretty immoral to get an abortion. But how immoral? That becomes tricky. Just classifying something as immoral doesn't mean much. There are many other cases, though, where abortions are moral

When might an abortion be considered moral?

For you to step in and tell a woman what can or cannot happen to her body, via the government, is immoral. It violates certain rights we uphold in our society, and these ends do not justify these means.

I suppose a problem here is that if you believe that morality is not objective, then there's literally no reason to continue this discussion. If so, we are both equally right and wrong. In fact, if morality is not objective then there is no actual "right to privacy" and there is nothing objectively wrong with the government forcing a women to have a child. Not that I'm dying to get into that discussion again.

A lot of abortions occur due to health complications - either the baby will die, or the mother will die, or both. It's not as if you have irresponsible people getting pregnant, and then having an abortion. You're example is but one, a very small minority of examples, and to use it to unilaterally ban abortions actually ends up harming everyone, including society in general, more.

In most cases, I'd argue that abortion is nothing but a selfish and immeasurably cruel action of "convenience" perpetrated by people who use abortion perversely as a simple birth-control procedure.

[eric42434224]

Omega;
Is there any instance where it is not immoral to have an abortion?

[Omega]

And either way, just because you think something's immorral doesn't mean it should be illegal. I think adultery's immoral but I'm not gonna say we should start prosecuting people who cheat.

I agree. Yet abortion is the willful killing of an unborn child. I think it is sufficiently different from other immoral actions to warrant treating it differently under the law. With abortion, you are directly and intentionally depriving the future life of a child while adultery may only cause indirect harm and its purpose is not the end the life of another human being.

[Omega]

Omega;
Is there any instance where it is not immoral to have an abortion?

I would say no. Abortion is an inherently immoral action. The only circumstance where I would see abortion as tolerable yet still morally abhorrent would be if a woman faces a legitimate, real, and extreme threat to lose her life in the process of delivering a sickly or deathly child who faces abysmal chances of living (say, if the still-alive child had a brain tumor and whose delivery could legitimately result in the death of the mother). It would still be an immoral action, as is the unjustified killing of any human life, yet less so than in other circumstances (abortion as birth control, etc).

[eric42434224]

Omega;
Is there any instance where it is not immoral to have an abortion?

I would say no. Abortion is an inherently immoral action. The only circumstance where I would see abortion as tolerable yet still morally abhorrent would be if a woman faces a legitimate, real, and extreme threat to lose her life in the process of delivering a sickly or deathly child who faces abysmal chances of living (say, if the still-alive child had a brain tumor and whose delivery could legitimately result in the death of the mother). It would still be an immoral action, as is the unjustified killing of any human life, yet less so than in other circumstances (abortion as birth control, etc).

How is it tolerable and immoral?  Are you working on a sliding scale here? 

[Omega]

How is it tolerable and immoral?  Are you working on a sliding scale here?

Perhaps I worded it inappropriately. "Tolerable" in the sense that I would be in troubled approval of seeking an abortion should such an astronomical scenario manifest itself in an actual event and "immoral" because it is still the unjustified ending of a human life.

Mortal birth complications in developed countries, though, are nigh negligible.