"Right to Privacy" Abortion Analogy

[Omega]

How moral is it to continue the life of something you know will only suffer until it eventually dies on its own? You can pretend that it was a wise and correct decision to let someone live but is it not even acceptable when their only life experience will involve suffering and hardship? To me that is an incredibly cruel and unfair fate.

Are you talking about the scenario of a baby who is destined to die in a matter of hours after birth due to complications, given if the baby survives the birth?

Are you saying that we might as well apportion abortions to women of low income or poor life whose babies you believe would be destined to live a less-than-ideal life should they be allowed to be born? Deciding which people should be born on the basis of an individual's uncertain opinion on what their future may or may not be is the epitome of presumption. If one supports this with unborn people, then one could reasonably end another human being's life without discretion or consent merely for believing that their death would be preferable to their hypothetically miserable life (as in euthenizing homeless, mad amputees in the name of delivering them from what one thinks is their "miserable" life).

[the Catfishman]

eh.. who is saying anything about other people making the decision whether a woman get's an abortion or not.

[Omega]

Emma

This example is based on the story of a friend of mine from high school. We will call her Emma.

Emma was a competent student, got fine grades, and was admitted to a fine college. However, a few months before her graduation, she became pregnant with twins. Her options were two: to carry the twins to term and devote the next few decades of her life to being a parent, or to abort and continue her life as planned. We should keep in mind that Emma, like the vast majority of people who get abortions, does not really have the resources to raise one child, let alone two.

For Emma, abortion is a choice of no difference. The babies will not be born, not having ever experienced life, and Emma will continue with her life as planned. If she chooses to birth the babies, they will live, but the quality of life of everyone involved -- Emma, her children, her boyfriend, her parents -- will be significantly diminished. The fact of the matter is that if we forced all the people who are considering abortion not to get them, practically every child will be raised in less-than-ideal conditions. We return to the real-life Emma: she did give birth to two healthy children. However, she doesn't work and her boyfriend just lost his job. These two children would be suffering right now if Emma's parents chose not to help with the children (they fortunately did). Is it really ethical to force Emma to raise children if she will ultimately be unable to provide decent living conditions for them? There wouldn't be abortions if everyone who got pregnant was able to raise a child, and you can't justify forcing those unable to raise children to do so.

Emma sounds like a commonsensical girl. I'm sure that she very well knew that having sex, even if "protected", always carried the possibility, in principle, of leading to impregnation. By having sex, Emma invited the possibility of getting pregnant. She wasn't raped, nor was she forced to become pregnant. She understood, then, that by having sex, she risked putting all of her future plans -- however admirable they would be -- into jeopardy. Why think, then, that Emma is in any way justified in ending two lives which she herself invited into existence?

if we forced all the people who are considering abortion not to get them, practically every child will be raised in less-than-ideal conditions

So is one justified in ending a life based on one's own subjective judgment of what a less-than-ideal life would be? Imagine what that would entail: one would be justified in ending another's life if they ever come to decide that another's life is less-than-ideal or that their death would be preferable to their continued existence. Suppose you wake up one day in the slums of Mumbai (or wherever) without a house, without food, without clothes, and without any of the possessions you own now. Pretend that in the days that come, your life is reduced to the most dirty, poor and arduous existence imaginable as every day becomes a battle to find enough food to survive. Regardless of whether you would like to continue living, which I'd bet you'd still want to in some way, wouldn't it be extremely presumptuous of me to decide to end your life because I deem it too "less-than-ideal" or if I deem that you would prefer death rather than the life you live now?

Let's modify Emma's situation a bit. Let's say she got pregnant as a result of rape. She should be able to abort the children, shouldn't she? If abortion is outlawed, the government is now forcing her to carry children she did not ask for to term, which is grueling in and of itself. Is that ethical? If Emma does not have the resources to raise the children, she can either attempt to raise them anyway or give them up, and, considering that adoption isn't always successful, neither option is very good.

Before anything, it should be mentioned that pregnancies that result from rape tend to be low due to the inherent violent nature of rape. That said, why should she be justified in ending the life of a child who is not responsible for the crime that has been perpetrated against her? Why not put the child up for abortion? Sure, she's in a terrible situation, but one can only add to the immorality of the situation by ending a life. And, again, isn't it preposterously presumptuous to abort a child because of one's subjective beliefs regarding its possible future?

Perhaps Emma's boyfriend chose not to stick around to father the children. Is it ethical to force children into life if they are not going to have a capable family? What if her life is in danger by the pregnancy? Can we really justify bringing two children into the world without parents, when we could have chosen the life of a competent adult who doesn't need anyone taking care of her?

Unfortunate, again, but Emma knew what she was risking when she decided to have sex. And, again, adoption is an option. Perhaps only if her life is in extreme and legitimate danger would the use of abortion be considered permissible at the mother's thoughtful request.

Post-Abolition

Let's say you succeeded in your endeavor. Abortion is now criminalized. What does this world look like?

First of all, there are more children. As mentioned above, more children are now being raised under less-than-ideal conditions.

No reason to justify abortion as explained.

However, we'll find that there are still abortions. Obviously, some people will still believe that they are entitled to an abortion, and they will go ahead and do it themselves. In the best-case scenario, the abortion will be successful and the woman comes out unscathed. This is ideal and unrealistic. It is more likely that the woman will cripple herself or her child. In a world without safe abortion, more women and children are being hurt than before, even though this was the opposite of our intent.

I'm not completely opposed to abortion as long as it used as a method of last resort to save the life of a woman who faces critical and legitimate danger in giving birth. To use it as birth control is nothing but a selfish and immeasurably cruel action of "convenience" to escape the responsibility of an action that was consented to in knowledge of its potential results.

Let's say Julia lives in the post-abolition world, got pregnant, and aborted her child. If the government finds out about this, what are they supposed to do? Does a fine or jail time really make sense here, when the woman has already been through the psychological torment of unplanned pregnancy and abortion? If abortion is a crime, attempted abortion is also a crime. Maybe Julia tried to abort her child and failed, and the government found out about it. What's the proper punishment here? A fine doesn't make much sense -- that's just hurting the child unnecessarily. Imprisonment would also hurt the child. How on earth do we ethically punish the attempted aborter?

As I have said, I haven't considered what authoritative or legal action, if any, should be taken if an abortion occurs in a country which has criminalized / banned it. I'll reserve judgment in the meanwhile here.

I conclude with the words of Bill Clinton: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare".

With over 1.3 million abortions per year in the US, I'd say that it has unfortunately become the opposite of rare these days.

[Omega]

Also, I'd just like to say that (in my opinion) the "abortion debate" is something manufactured by politicians to rile up the bases/divide people.  Similar to the "gun control" debate.  I don't believe that there will ever be (in my lifetime anyway) a president/administration that overturns Roe v. Wade, just as I don't believe that we'll ever see the second amendment abolished.  Those things are just thrown around, especially during election seasons, to scare people into voting.  Pro-life people need deal with the fact that legal abortion is here to stay in this country, just as anti-gun people need to deal with the fact that people walking around strapped all of the time is here to stay in this county.  All my opinion, of course (but I'm pretty sure I'm right). 

I'm not sure how the "debate" is being fabricated by politicians. I'd be happy to agree with you that politicians often use touchy subjects like abortion and gun rights to their favor, but that doesn't mean that such "debates", if we must call them that, don't exist.

Just because you think that overturning court cases or disbarring amendments is impossible doesn't mean either that
1.) people shouldn't try
2.) that because they're "here to stay" they should

[Sigz]

It's not that they're 'fabricated' per se, but it's a way for parties who, in action, have almost identical economic and security policies to distinguish themselves.

[theseoafs]

So is one justified in ending a life based on one's own subjective judgment of what a less-than-ideal life would be? Imagine what that would entail: one would be justified in ending another's life if they ever come to decide that another's life is less-than-ideal or that their death would be preferable to their continued existence. Suppose you wake up one day in the slums of Mumbai (or wherever) without a house, without food, without clothes, and without any of the possessions you own now. Pretend that in the days that come, your life is reduced to the most dirty, poor and arduous existence imaginable as every day becomes a battle to find enough food to survive. Regardless of whether you would like to continue living, which I'd bet you'd still want to in some way, wouldn't it be extremely presumptuous of me to decide to end your life because I deem it too "less-than-ideal" or if I deem that you would prefer death rather than the life you live now?

You are 100% correct; these are the moral implications of abortion if and only if abortion is the same thing as murder. And this is the debate. People have different opinions about this (which is why we're having a discussion about this, after all). If you ask me -- and my opinion is certainly not the correct one, or one representative of that of all pro-choice people -- I'd say that a human in the embryonic or early fetal stages of development, not having consciousness, sensation (including pain), or any higher-level organ operation whatsoever, isn't necessarily entitled to the rights that come with personhood, and could conceivably be morally terminated in that respect. You obviously feel differently, as does a substantial portion of the American population.

I'm not completely opposed to abortion as long as it used as a method of last resort to save the life of a woman who faces critical and legitimate danger in giving birth. To use it as birth control is nothing but a selfish and immeasurably cruel action of "convenience" to escape the responsibility of an action that was consented to in knowledge of its potential results.

This, however, I do disagree with. Surely there are people who have abortions for selfish reasons, but if abortion can be morally justified, it being the prevention of life rather than murder, it's far from selfish to not have children if you know you won't be able to take care of them.

As I have said, I haven't considered what authoritative or legal action, if any, should be taken if an abortion occurs in a country which has criminalized / banned it. I'll reserve judgment in the meanwhile here.

Sure, but this is the whole point, isn't it? It's one thing to suggest that abortion should never happen and should in fact be made a crime, but how do we enforce that law without running into the problems I enumerated?

I conclude with the words of Bill Clinton: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare".

With over 1.3 million abortions per year in the US, I'd say that it has unfortunately become the opposite of rare these days.

It is far from rare. This is regrettable.

Also, just to make it clear: I'm not arguing that abortions are things that should be done with any regularity. I don't think anybody has ever argued that. We should try to minimize abortions. Outlawing abortion outright, however, is just not the way to go about doing this.

[j]

yes, maybe switch the word 'life' for 'human' or something in that line, because if we give a lump of cells and humans the same rights we can't even kill tumours.

Terrible science dude, there is a world of difference between a human embryo and a tissue neoplasm.

Again, there are plenty of sound arguments to be made in favor of legal abortion, it just blows my mind that the shitty ones persist.

-J

[the Catfishman]

yes, maybe switch the word 'life' for 'human' or something in that line, because if we give a lump of cells and humans the same rights we can't even kill tumours.

Terrible science dude, there is a world of difference between a human embryo and a tissue neoplasm.

Again, there are plenty of sound arguments to be made in favor of legal abortion, it just blows my mind that the shitty ones persist.

-J

lol yes, that was just a response to people equating growing cells with an embryo.

[7thHanyou]

yes, maybe switch the word 'life' for 'human' or something in that line, because if we give a lump of cells and humans the same rights we can't even kill tumours.

Terrible science dude, there is a world of difference between a human embryo and a tissue neoplasm.

Again, there are plenty of sound arguments to be made in favor of legal abortion, it just blows my mind that the shitty ones persist.

-J

I'm anti-abortion and have always found property rights arguments very persuasive for the pro-choice position.  It's staggering, really, how strong the position can be, even if one presumes that the embryo is a full-fledged human being with a full set of rights.

Instead, we're usually treated to fruitless utilitarian arguments about how the child is unwanted and may lead a less than ideal life--arguments which logically justify infanticide and even euthanasia.  Or we're treated to vague references to the woman's personal sovereignty without much worthwhile development of the idea.  Many of these arguments would only function if one already presumed the pro-choice position that either fetuses are not human beings or that, even if they are, the mother's rights override theirs.  None address the core issues on which the abortion question turns.

It's nice to read posts like theseoafs' latest one every once in a while.

I don't believe that there will ever be (in my lifetime anyway) a president/administration that overturns Roe v. Wade, just as I don't believe that we'll ever see the second amendment abolished.

Maybe not, but it's still worth debating.

The abortion debate is grossly oversimplified.  At this point, I wonder whether overturning Roe v. Wade would result in any full-fledged abortion bans anywhere in the country, even if it were achieved.  More likely, it would result in diversity across state lines, with some unquestionably restrictive policies and some that are fully tolerant towards abortion.

Roe v. Wade was a poorly-crafted decision in any case.

[hefdaddy42]

I am personally anti-abortion, in that I cannot conceive of a situation happening in my life where I would want one to be performed (which I realize is easy to say until you get into such a situation).  However, I am strongly against Roe V. Wade being overturned.

Besides other reasons for keeping it, to me it is settled law, and there are other, better things on which to spend one's time, where progress can actually be made.

[7thHanyou]

I am personally anti-abortion, in that I cannot conceive of a situation happening in my life where I would want one to be performed (which I realize is easy to say until you get into such a situation).  However, I am strongly against Roe V. Wade being overturned.

Besides other reasons for keeping it, to me it is settled law, and there are other, better things on which to spend one's time, where progress can actually be made.

  The implications of the court overturning Roe v. Wade would be severe.  It is settled law, and it has created precedent.

Fortunately, the court has overturned settled law before, so if they ever chose to, I'm sure everyone could manage just fine.

I will say that abortion isn't an issue that has any influence on anything I can vote for.  There are far more vital issues to me at the federal level with much more dire implications.  This may just be because I can't bring myself to be very emotionally invested in it, regardless of my belief in the ethics of abortion.

[Scheavo]

Besides other reasons for keeping it, to me it is settled law, and there are other, better things on which to spend one's time, where progress can actually be made.

But you can't score cheap political points this way.

That, and pro-lifers generally abhor the idea of letting gay couples adopt, even though letting gay couples adopt (and marry) could do a lot.

[orcus116]

How moral is it to continue the life of something you know will only suffer until it eventually dies on its own? You can pretend that it was a wise and correct decision to let someone live but is it not even acceptable when their only life experience will involve suffering and hardship? To me that is an incredibly cruel and unfair fate.

Are you talking about the scenario of a baby who is destined to die in a matter of hours after birth due to complications, given if the baby survives the birth?

Are you saying that we might as well apportion abortions to women of low income or poor life whose babies you believe would be destined to live a less-than-ideal life should they be allowed to be born? Deciding which people should be born on the basis of an individual's uncertain opinion on what their future may or may not be is the epitome of presumption. If one supports this with unborn people, then one could reasonably end another human being's life without discretion or consent merely for believing that their death would be preferable to their hypothetically miserable life (as in euthenizing homeless, mad amputees in the name of delivering them from what one thinks is their "miserable" life).

The first one.

[rumborak]

There is also the aspect that if one were to completely outlaw abortions, the percentage of women who would still choose to do it would be forced to get it in foreign countstandard (e.g. Mexico) with questionable medical standards. It would be naive to think that outlawing it would stop all abortions, so there's that tradeoff where saving potential people will kill actual ones.

rumborak

[7thHanyou]

There is also the aspect that if one were to completely outlaw abortions, the percentage of women who would still choose to do it would be forced to get it in foreign countstandard (e.g. Mexico) with questionable medical standards. It would be naive to think that outlawing it would stop all abortions, so there's that tradeoff where saving potential people will kill actual ones.

rumborak

Of course, the general pro-life argument isn't that fetuses are potential people, but that they're people, and their right to life overrides the woman's property right over her own body.

The question of whether women would go to great lengths to get an abortion even if there were a law against it is ultimately irrelevant if abortion is the moral equivalent to the murder of a child.

[rumborak]

The problem is that driving such a hard stance is eventually nonsensical. If an unborn child is a person like anybody else, one would have to curtail pregnant women's behavior to extreme levels, to protect them from harm. What if the mother is an alcoholic chain smoker? It is massive and direct harm towards that person inside her.
No, an unborn child is *not* a full person and can not be treated as such. It is also a property of the mother, and thus the mother has certain leeway.

rumborak

[Omega]

I suppose that a pertinent question to the discussion is whether the right to privacy supersedes the right to life.

Does it?

[j]

The problem is that driving such a hard stance is eventually nonsensical. If an unborn child is a person like anybody else, one would have to curtail pregnant women's behavior to extreme levels, to protect them from harm. What if the mother is an alcoholic chain smoker? It is massive and direct harm towards that person inside her.

That stuff all applies in some capacity to young children as well.  At some point--whether because it infringes on the parents' rights or because it's simply not feasible to do so--our society has opted not to overly micromanage every decision of a parent, allowing them the freedom to do things that bring harm to their children.  Such as smoking, poor nutrition, neglect, verbal abuse...the list is a mile long.

The nature of a fetus's existence are not what is unique: it is the *conditions* of its existence which are.  That's what makes the discussion interesting, because it could be argued that an unborn child SHOULD be afforded some unique protections, particularly if the mother intends to have the baby.  Just because a premise could lead to something undesirable like more cumbersome legislation is not a logical basis for which to reject it.

The other thing I find fascinating about this topic is that almost the entire discourse is spent addressing the rare situations at the fringe extremes: pregnancy by rape, mother's and child's life in grave danger if proceeding with delivery, willingly pregnant mothers who abuse narcotics or other drugs while pregnant, sexually promiscuous women who allegedly rely on abortions for birth control, etc.  Sometimes the intent is to demonstrate a logical fallacy, but I'd say that it just as often muddles rational discussion, much like the rhetoric that's always being thrown around by both sides.

-J

[Scheavo]

I suppose that a pertinent question to the discussion is whether the right to privacy supersedes the right to life.

Does it?

No, the right to privacy protects us from searches into our person, without due cause. You don't know why a woman get's an abortion, that reason is between a doctor and the woman involved. To step in, via the government, and say what can and cannot happen between a woman and her doctor, bypasses the line of what we consider acceptable behavior by the government, and behaves as a search of our person, and of our record.

The right to privacy argument is an argument for abortions legality - it is not necessarily an argument for an individual abortions morality. Basically, it's immoral to do with is necessarily to make immoral abortions illegal, and a side effect is that more woman are harmed, and the effect you desire doesn't happen. We throw our convicting evidence in court all the time, because the proper process wasn't respected. Even if the evidence tells us 100% for sure that person A murdered person B, it can be thrown out, and even if that means we let a murderer walk free. Abortion, under the presumption that a embyro/fetus is a human, and thus deserving of human rights, specifically life, is analogous to letting a murderer go because the evidence is improperly obtained.

[rumborak]

I suppose that a pertinent question to the discussion is whether the right to privacy supersedes the right to life.

Does it?

The question is rather, how "alive" is an embryo? Many things in this world are alive but we don't give them any, or only minimal, protection. So clearly, there are differentiations of "aliveness". That's where I really get mostly my stance from, i.e. that a few weeks old embryo is too "barely alive" to deprive the mother of her right of self-determination. That equation of course tips over to the other side once the embryo becomes a fetus.

rumborak

[soundgarden]

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

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).

The same people who decides when the threat is "real and extreme" are the same people who best knows when human life begins.  Both scenarios are based on observations and educated assumptions by an expert.  You would trust their opinion in the first scenario, but not the second?

[Omega]

The same people who decides when the threat is "real and extreme" are the same people who best knows when human life begins.  Both scenarios are based on observations and educated assumptions by an expert.  You would trust their opinion in the first scenario, but not the second?

If you assert that human life does not begin when an egg is fertilized, then you're simply forced to make an arbitrary, subjective and unjustifiable choice as to when a human (or a fertilized egg) becomes "human" (whatever that's even supposed to mean).

There is no room for debate as to when a human being begins to exist and form, namely, at the moment of conception.

[Scheavo]

The same people who decides when the threat is "real and extreme" are the same people who best knows when human life begins.  Both scenarios are based on observations and educated assumptions by an expert.  You would trust their opinion in the first scenario, but not the second?

If you assert that human life does not begin when an egg is fertilized, then you're simply forced to make an arbitrary, subjective and unjustifiable choice as to when a human (or a fertilized egg) becomes "human" (whatever that's even supposed to mean).

There is no room for debate as to when a human being begins to exist and form, namely, at the moment of conception.

So should we let 5 year old vote and drive cars? Those are rights we expect as adults, but we don't give them to kids. I mean, there's a shitload of other examples like this.

Basically, we draw "arbitrary" lines all the time. There are several biological reasons involved in differentiating an embryo and a fetus, and there are reasons given for why the line should be drawn where it is. So really, it's not arbitrary at all. It's just different than yours.

[soundgarden]

The same people who decides when the threat is "real and extreme" are the same people who best knows when human life begins.  Both scenarios are based on observations and educated assumptions by an expert.  You would trust their opinion in the first scenario, but not the second?

If you assert that human life does not begin when an egg is fertilized, then you're simply forced to make an arbitrary, subjective and unjustifiable choice as to when a human (or a fertilized egg) becomes "human" (whatever that's even supposed to mean).

Your argument would hold more sway if you are against abortion in absolutely 100% of the cases.
There is no room for debate as to when a human being begins to exist and form, namely, at the moment of conception.

Then you cannot assert that a fetus will kill the mother, until you see a dead mother.  Nor can you assert it will die due to terminal condition outside the womb until you see it dead, which of course is impossible..  Again, both scenarios are ultimately based on the educated guesses of doctors and scientists.

Your argument is more sound, if you were to agree that abortion is unacceptable in absolutely all cases.  Because then you will be ignoring scientific study equally.

[Omega]

Your argument is more sound, if you were to agree that abortion is unacceptable in absolutely all cases.  Because then you will be ignoring scientific study equally.

But I do agree that abortion is unacceptable in all cases. There are simply some possible situations which can be imagined in which my personal emotions would supersede my moral reasoning and would lead me to make a patently unacceptable and immoral choice.