0
0

Abortion (self.samharris)

rmnfcbnyy が 投稿

So, many of us discussed abortion here a couple weeks ago in my last post. I ultimately was left unconvinced as to whether or not we can ethically defend this practice. After Ohio passing a bill outlawing abortion after 6 weeks I once again did some thinking and reading about this.

I cam across Sam's thoughts, which are basically that once the fetus could be viable outside the womb we would be wrong to abort it. He says that the line appears to be arbitrary between what is an abortion and what is more akin to the killing of an infant human being. Although he admits to being ignorant of the neurological and developmental literature so this could change his views as to where that line is drawn.

I don't take particular issue with this view except that we are still ignoring the future capacity of the fetus to live and experience well-being. And, again, we don't know the fetus' capacity to suffer. Well, the fetus develops its own organs and nervous system very early on in its development in the womb - just 16 days after conception the spinal cord begins to grow; 6-7 weeks the brain has begun to develop. This really is more than just a clump of cells as some have argued.

Sense of touch comes around 8 weeks with the baby able to move its limbs and appendages. Sucking and swallowing amniotic fluid begin by 16 weeks - sense of taste comes with this. By 18 weeks the baby is kicking. By the end of the second trimester the baby has REM cycles and reacts to noises outside the womb. This fetus is basically a human being.

For me, the "arbitrary line" isn't obvious at all. I could understand the case being made for as early as 6-7 weeks being the cut-off line. I am, however, confident that 16 weeks is unacceptable.

If none of what I've said is persuasive to you, then watch this former abortion doctor give testimony to Congress about a typical 2nd trimester abortion - brutal doesn't begin to describe this stuff. If this doesn't push your intuitions around then I don't know what will.

全 36 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Beerwithjimmbo 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you confer personhood on fetus then you can't ethically force another person to sacrifice body autonomy to keep another person alive. It's why we don't kill one healthy person to save 5 sick ones (organ donation). Do we make some sort of concession to pregnant women that suspends their body autonomy while they are pregnant? Perhaps thats fair, afterall they knew what could happen when they had sex. What about the men, let's say a pregnant lady is going to die unless the father is forced to give some of his bodily tissue to support the mother, or the baby. Is it right to force the father to give up his body autonomy and if it's wrong why is it wrong in the father's case but not the mothers?

Do we assume that all people know what can come from unprotected sex and therefore have no sympathy when the inevitable happens? When millions/billions of years of evolution comes calling it's hard to say no... You could almost make an argument that the human capacity for reason and responsibility goes out yhe window when presented wkh the opportunity for a good shag and this, is in a way like being forced... It's a silly argument for sure but there is something compelling.

What about women who were raped and got pregnant? They definitely didn't want any part of it. I think there is a fair enough case there for abortion.

Ultimately I'm no fan, I don't think any Pro choicers are lovers of the deaths of unborn babies. My preferred number of abortions ever would be 0. Just like my preferred number of civilian casualties in war would be 0.

We don't call collateral damage murder, even though that's exactly what it is, perhaps there's a similar concession to be made in the situation of abortion while the root cause is actually addressed rather than idiotic abstinence only sexual education.

[–]Joplinpicasso 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This might be circular, non-philosophical logic, but even at 16 weeks, if a couple or mother are strongly contemplating abortion, it's a good indicator that the baby will not be healthily raised and should be carried to term and put up for adoption in a more suitable home or aborted for pragmatic, utilitarian reasons.

[–]rmnfcbnyy[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Myself and others might say: You and I don't get to decide who lives and who dies based on what we think might happen in the future.

But, if you don't draw the line at 16 weeks, where do you? 2nd trimester? 3rd? One day prior to birth? There must be some point in the pregnancy where you see it as killing an infant in some sense.

[–]beastclergy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's really an interesting issue, and it's easy to see how both sides have become utterly polarized to their moral standpoints. One way or another, if you cast aside the "life is sacred from conception" viewpoint, then we have to admit that there is a threshold that will be crossed at some point where it becomes morally unacceptable to terminate. To a significant number of the pro-life crowd, the mere existence of this threshold is a moral indictment on the pro-choice side. Likewise, pro-choice arguments will tend to obfuscate the ethical arguments against late-term abortions by standing firmly on the line of a universal "right to choose". Everyone needs to set aside dogmatic thinking, and consider things pragmatically.

Personally, I fall in the late-term abortion is ethically distasteful camp, and I feel a significant portion of pro-life and pro-choice arguments overlap there, so it seems like a good place to start to me. As always, I think it boils down to a consequentialist argument where we balance the obvious social benefits of self-determined reproductive rights alongside a recognition of a fetal capacity for suffering.

[–]TheAJx -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Everyone needs to set aside dogmatic thinking, and consider things pragmatically.

The majority of people here who will comment on this subject will never have an abortion, will never be personally involved in an abortion, and probably do not feel any sort of sadness for aborted fetuses. I'm going to assume you fall into that camp. it's very to preach about approaching the issue "pragmatically' when you have no personal concern to the issue at all.

[–]beastclergy 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because remaining morally entrenched and refusing to consider opposing arguments will help resolve divisive issues? If that's what you think, keep on.

If you need the personal qualifier, members of my close family have had abortions and suffered miscarriages. The moral significance of a fetus is not some vacuous point I'm making, it's had a tangible presence in my life. It has no bearing on the philosophical discussion as to the ethical situation of abortion. Thanks for doing some preaching of your own, though.

[–]TheAJx 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because remaining morally entrenched and refusing to consider opposing arguments will help resolve divisive issues? If that's what you think, keep on.

Its just a divisive issue where both parties hold very passionate positions. Both sides consider themselves "pro" in this debate, because they are coming from very different perspectives. One side is adamently on choice, and does not think they are pro-murder. The other side is firmly fixated on life, and does not think they are anti choice.

No, I don't think this is the kind of issue that will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I don't see why we have to pretend every major issue has a common acceptable middle ground.

[–]TheAJx 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Abortion is one of those issues that is very polarized because of the very nature of the issue. One side sees it as murder and the other side does not. There is very little wiggle room there, and its very difficult to come to a compromise that would be agreeable for all parties. And that's okay. Sometimes life is like that.

[–]rmnfcbnyy[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, I'm not here to convince anyone one way or the other; but I spent my entire adult life being pro-choice without ever really thinking deeply about it.

What is described in that OBGYN's testimony before Congress is honestly sickening though. People like to talk about abortion and, especially 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion, without ever really understanding just what that process looks like.

Dismemberment, disembowelment, and crushing of the skull of what is ostensibly a premature baby... When you familiarize yourself with the procedure it becomes a much less palatable position.

[–]TheAJx 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What is described in that OBGYN's testimony before Congress is honestly sickening though. People like to talk about abortion and, especially 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion, without ever really understanding just what that process looks like.

Only 10% of abortions occur in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. And barely 1% after 20 weeks. So when people are talking about abortion, they are primarily talking about 1st trimester abortion, not late-term abortion. For the most part, people do not talk about "2nd and 3rd" trimester abortion except generally in recognizing that these are the situations with way more complicating circumstances behind them.

Dismemberment, disembowelment, and crushing of the skull of what is ostensibly a premature baby... When you familiarize yourself with the procedure it becomes a much less palatable position.

The doctor describes the procedure using explicit and detailed terminology, to induce cringe, but nothing more. A doctor can make any medical procedure sound absolutely horrifying if he wants to. Notice that he was high on descriptions of the tools employed but did not mention anything about fetal pain capacity. Ironically, his argument centers completely on stoking emotions rather than using reason.

[–]rmnfcbnyy[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The number of 2nd trimester abortions from CDC numbers indicates roughly 15%. It is good that these numbers are relatively low, but it still leaves me wondering how this is allowed to go on in our country.

Thankfully most abortions take place pretty early in the pregnancy, with 30% taking place under 6 weeks and an additional 30% at weeks 7-8.

That's probably pushing the limit for me. Anything after that seems seriously questionable.

As for the doctor: Obviously the intent is to invoke an emotional reaction. But that is essential because how else can you get people to understand just how sick a procedure like that is?

A doctor can make any medical procedure sound absolutely horrifying if he wants to.

I don't mean to nitpick, but the procedure is horrifying. The doctor is ripping limbs off a child and removing them from the woman. He crushes the skull and then suctions the brain tissue from the uterus... That is absolutely horrifying.

[–]TheAJx 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The majority of abortions in 2013 took place early in gestation: 91.6% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.1%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2013, 22.2% of all abortions were early medical abortions. The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 5% from 2012 to 2013. Source: MMWR. 2015;64(10)

Not sure where you are getting your 15% number from.

That's probably pushing the limit for me. Anything after that seems seriously questionable.

Maybe you should put some thought into understanding why abortions happen at later stages. For example, down syndrome is not detected until the end of the 1st trimester.

I don't mean to nitpick, but the procedure is horrifying. The doctor is ripping limbs off a child and removing them from the woman. He crushes the skull and then suctions the brain tissue from the uterus... That is absolutely horrifying.

Yeah, and a lot of surgical procedures are absolutely horrifying too. Doesn't mean they are not necessary.

[–]citrus_sugar 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I would logically think a woman had the mental capacity to decide since it's her body.

[–]rmnfcbnyy[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sense of touch comes around 8 weeks with the baby able to move its limbs and appendages. Sucking and swallowing amniotic fluid begin by 16 weeks - sense of taste comes with this. By 18 weeks the baby is kicking. By the end of the second trimester the baby has REM cycles and reacts to noises outside the womb. This fetus is basically a human being.

It's really not at all obviously her body. The fetus is viable outside the womb by ~20 weeks.

Where would you draw the line? When would you say the fetus is its own being and worthy of consideration on its own?

[–]gayfatcunt 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where would you draw the line? When would you say the fetus is its own being and worthy of consideration on its own?

When it's out of the woman's body.

I'm a man but if I had a person living inside of me I would like the right to kill that person at any time.

You can argue the ethics of the woman's choice all you want but I don't see how the broad ethics don't begin and end at the woman's choice since it is HER FUCKING BODY.

[–]citrus_sugar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're so obviously emotional about the subject it's not worth further comment honestly.

[–]rmnfcbnyy[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

... lmao

What?

All I asked was if you think there is a point where the woman no longer can terminate the child's life.

[–]wupting 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lack of abortive options leads to poverty in a society. What is the collateral damage of not allowing abortions after 16 weeks. Downs syndrome communities. Are you going to come up with the support systems to cover that?

[–]thekingace 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm going to get a lot of flak for this as people are very emotional about this, but I never understood why this is even a debate. Abortion should be allowed until even shortly after birth in the case of a major defect or if the parents aren't fit to raise the child. I don't understand why anyone would oppose this. So little resources have been invested in the infant and studies have shown it is impossible to form memories before roughly 3 years of age (not that I would suggest going this far).

[–]TenshiKyoko 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't have cared if I got aborted.

[–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]assenderp 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Abortion is something I think about a lot. I like Ben Shapiro but didn't like him at the start, because he clearly was against abortion on any level. At that point, I hadn't given it much thought. So I've been thinking about it occasionally for several months now and a few weeks ago 2 news articles were discussed at work. I'd like to share that briefly.

So one article was briefly about being against abortion. There were around 6 people discussing it, all of them agreed on that abortion should be allowed. A few hours later a news article arrived about a woman giving birth in an airport bathroom, throwing the baby in the trash right after giving birth. The same people thought this was horrific and that she should go to jail for murder.

This story is summed up, but I think this is interesting and I realised that it's about what people consider 'life' or 'living'. If the airport-woman did an abortion 2 weeks prior, my colleagues wouldn't be bothered by it at all. They consider something a 'living' creature the moment it's out of the womb.

I will not argue whether abortion is ethically defendable. What strikes me as odd is how abortion isn't considered killing until it is done outside the womb. If a person doesn't consider abortion as killing, that person probably doesn't consider the fetus a living human being. What strikes me as odd is why people instantly consider it living the moment it is outside the womb. I can see why, of course, but the moment you're against infanticide, like my colleagues are, it strikes me as odd. I'm babbling on and losing grip on my point, but I'd like to state the following:

"Whether something is a living creature has become subjective. Only personal lines can be drawn."

For me, if you're against abortion, you should be against infanticide. If you're pro-abortion, you draw the line at the birth part. I think it could be argued that living starts the moment someone becomes conscious, but the question is: when does a living creature become conscious?

[–]walk_the_spank 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you're pro-abortion, you draw the line at the birth part.

No, this isn't the only way to frame this issue. You're framing the goal of abortion to termination of life, but in fact its the termination of pregnancy. This is an important distinction. The mother is choosing to stop something happening in her body, and the side effect is the death of the fetus.

Let me frame this another way, suppose a child is going to die unless it gets a kidney transplant, and the only viable match is it's mother. Is it infanticide if the mother choose not to donate her kidney, even though she knows unless she does her child will die? Should the law compel her to do so against her wishes?

In both the case of forcing a women to give up a kidney and forcing her to maintain a pregnancy, you're overriding the woman's choices about her own body, and justifying it because of some other life. If you actually believe that, then why stop at the mother/child relationship? Should you be forced to give up your kidney to me? What if it's not just a kidney, what if it's part of your liver? You don't really need both arms, do you? How much of you body belongs to you, and how much of it belongs to the state?

To be clear, I'm not a libertarian, but there is a strong libertarian argument in favor of abortion rights. Ben Shapiro, who is super libertarian, doesn't see it, though, because he's also super religious, and his religion poisons his rationality.

[–]rmnfcbnyy[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is there any point during the pregnancy where you recognize the baby's life as distinct from the mother?

Do you see any point during the pregnancy where the mother cannot abort the child? Are you okay with abortion up until the moment before birth?

[–]assenderp 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The way you reframe it, is interesting. Although at a certain point, the termination of pregnancy is a termination of life. You consider it a side effect, but actually terminating that life is what causes the termination of pregnancy. You had me off for a second though, because the termination of life was framed as 'choosing to stop something'. It may be considered a side effect, but both are inherently linked. Terminating the pregnancy is terminating that life, and terminating that life is terminating the pregnancy.

The kidney argument is very interesting though. Just to be clear, I'm not against abortion. I'm really curious on your thoughts on infanticide. Not just the "you can kill your newborn part", but let's say a very ill kid who has a life expectancy of 5 years.

And I also wonder this. Do you draw the line at the woman's choices of her own body? Her choice of what to do with the life of her kid instantly go away after birth?

[–]TheAJx 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

For me, if you're against abortion, you should be against infanticide.

What kind of people do you know that are not against infanticide?

[–]SubmitToSubscribe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Peter Singer.

[–]ilikehillaryclinton 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The mod here is pretty morally okay with infanticide, as am I.

I'm not totally sure, but I think Sam would be reasonably okay with that too. I'm basing this off of him saying "if everyone went to sleep tonight and just died, there wouldn't be much wrong with that" or something.

Morally, I mostly only really care about suffering. If things that don't have the capacity to suffer just die, I don't care that much. I am most repulsed by the mother's/family's reaction to infanticide than I am on behalf of the baby.

[–]assenderp 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you associate suffering with happiness? As in: If someone suffers, that person is unhappy?

I mention this because I recently saw a documentary on reddit that interviewed 2 north koreans that fled the country and they were asked many questions, one which was: "How happy are North Koreans?" - The response was: "In my opinion, even if people are starving and having a tough time, they are always laughing... I think, the more well off a country, the more stressed the people are because they think too much. North Korea may be a poor country but North Koreans have more warmth and really care for one another. I think they are generally very happy."

I think North Koreans in general suffer a lot compared to other country's citizens. Yet they are happy. We have the knowledge to know whats right and wrong, whats better and whats worse, but if we didnt know this, would we suffer if we know what should cause us to suffer?

For instance, in the same documentary it was mentioned they lost 2/3rd of the people they knew through starvation (i think this was the cause of death, not 100% sure). Yet these people live in a world-concept where North Korea is a paradise and the rest of the world is terrible. They are under the impression that 2/3d of the death is better than what's out there. Them thinking that it could be worse, makes the suffering less. The mindset/knowledge of a person can make suffering subjective, although we would all argue it is suffering.

In general I agree with you on the things you say, but from different perspectives. I wonder what you consider suffering. The problem I have with 'being okay to reduce suffering with death' (weird way to describe it, I'm not trying to describe your opinion in any way with this) is that, if it was applied to a different area of time, we wouldn't exist. What we might consider not-suffering right now, hundreds of years from now, they might consider it suffering.

How would you deal with that issue?

[–]ilikehillaryclinton 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you associate suffering with happiness? As in: If someone suffers, that person is unhappy?

They are obviously related, but clearly not mutually exclusive, as you laid out.

If someone said to me that I had a choice between dying right now, or getting mind-bendingly disgustingly tortured for 10 minutes a day but could live an otherwise fun and fulfilling life (full of family and friends and boats and lemonade), I would probably go with the latter. I might consider myself overall very happy.

That does very little to make the suffering part in any way "okay". They are two nearly orthogonal parts of my life, and don't cancel each other out.

The problem I have with 'being okay to reduce suffering with death' (weird way to describe it, I'm not trying to describe your opinion in any way with this)

Right, and as you mention that's not my opinion. I am more saying that killing an (for all intents and purposes) unconscious nonsuffering mind is close to morally neutral (as an action, which is distinct from how I judge the murderer) compared to making an actual human feel bad.

I'm not sure if I answered the question. I think the human condition will always make almost everyone pretty happy sometimes and pretty upset at other times in a way almost unrelated to their actual circumstances, and this (if true) is an important result if we are trying to maximize "utility". People have insanely more wealth and comfort compared to 500 years ago, but I don't think our brains are wired to appreciate that.

[–]SubmitToSubscribe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you only care about suffering, would you have a problem with me killing someone, supposing they don't notice it, and no one will miss them?

[–]ilikehillaryclinton 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't "only" care about suffering, I "only mostly really" care about suffering.

So needless murder is bad. For sure. I just don't feel, like, sick and horrible about it.

I feel sick and horrible about starvation and torture and pain, but if you killed someone without them noticing I'd be like "aw that's shitty and it's too bad they aren't able to live life now".

Oh, there's also like, a few different kinds of totally valid ways of looking at morality. There's the sort of consequential way in which I don't care that much, and then there's the judgmental way of thinking about it. If you killed someone without them noticing for basically no reason, that makes you a sick fucked up individual that I hate. The consequence itself wasn't that bad (again though, if they have family, their sadness is really horrible, so I guess we're assuming this is also someone you killed and no one cared and was around to suffer for it?), but the murderer is terrible.

[–]factuallinkage 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm basing this off of him saying "if everyone went to sleep tonight and just died, there wouldn't be much wrong with that" or something.

Following that, he says: "...ethically speaking, the only problem there—and it's a huge one—is that it forecloses all of the possible happy futures most of us or all of us, or at least some us, were going to have..."

(Joe Rogan Experience #804) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ5_hAEsLkU&t=27m1s

[–]assenderp -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

None in reallife, that's for sure. But maybe I should've been more clear. If you're pro-abortion, in a way your reasoning becomes inconsistent when you're against infanticide.

[–]dvelsadvocate 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you're pro-abortion, in a way your reasoning becomes inconsistent when you're against infanticide

That doesn't have to be the case. While you're pregnant, you are a life support machine for the organism that is growing inside you. There's no way to opt out of being the host without killing the organism. Once it is born, you can easily opt out of being the host for the baby. Someone else will gladly take it if you don't want it. Killing it would be going out of your way to destroy it when there's no need to.