abortion classic or dud?

"Very often"? No. That it happens? Yes. It happened to someone I know quite well actually: a kind of angry resentment from friends and family that she did feel bad and didnt 'get over it'. I wasn't trying to be funny, Alex, and no I don't think it happens often at all and yes I think the general rhetorical climate/automatic assumptions around abortion is much worse which is why I put it as point #1 agreeing with you in my list.

Look, from my p.o.v. it's simple. Hand in hand with the absolute right a woman has to determine what happens in her pregnancy is an absolute right to feel however the hell she likes about it and not be told how she should or should not feel. Your uncharacteristically super-aggressive tone seemed to me (and maybe I overreacted cos I'm sensitive on this point too, see para above) to be suggesting that women who do feel traumatised are dismissable or suffering from some kind of false consciousness or irritating hindrances to the righteous pro-choice cause. Apologies if I misrepresented you on that.

You write:

"El Catracho doesn't get at what Gareth is pointing to..."

Nabisco, I do get what Gareth is "pointing to." I was simply answering his question that "pointed to" something else. He had a misconception. I addressed his misconception. I'm not going to pretend I know what he is thinking. I just kept it simple and answered his question.

Alan responds to me:

" it is not that people are connecting personhood with consciousness (however you like to think about that word), but I think most people here (unlike yourself) would not identify a grown person with the earlier fetus/embryo/egg that they developed from. at some point most people would say, OK, they are not the same person."

Alan, I wouldn't be able to identify close friends in their childhood pictures. Does this mean that they are "not the same person?" And if so, who were they back then? Is this more pro-choice wisdom: the fetus/child is an entirely distinct person? The fetus that developed into "Alan Trewartha": was that someone else? The logic is dizzying.

Back to Nabisco who writes:

"I think this issue comes down even more to religion than people like to think -- which is to say, I don't think it's so much a matter of asking at what point a fertilized cell becomes a murderable "person" as it is about a lot of people who have a sort of non-biological idea of "souls" lurking behind their thinking. (See El Catracho's questions to Tom.)"

I might agree with you that this can be seen as a "religious question." I think that there's a blurry line between fields like law, philosophy and religion--they all overlap one-another. To me, every attempt to impose temporal power is a morality issue. Every law, right down to speed limits, is an attempt to impose one person's beliefs on another. Every law is a "restriction of choice"--a imposition of "anti-choice" beliefs. I guess some die-hard pro-choice people will try to argue away this statement; but I leave it for everyone to consider on his/her own.

Mystery writes:

"I don't want your opinion of me or what I've done, the only opinions that matter to me are those of the people I love, but I feel some of you are looking only at the moral question and not the reality of what you would do should it happen to you."

Mystery, I respect your wishes and won't comment on your story. Separate from your personal experiences, I will say that you should not presume to know what is going on in another persons mind and judge them based on your "feelings." I know what choices I have made in my life, and I don't need someone chiding me as if this is all hypothetical to me.

All my best,

"clearer way to put it: it takes time and work to make a person, it doesn't happen in a magical mystical instant"

OK, Mark...so is there a point at which you were 1/2 a "person"? Or is there a "magical mystical instant" when you transform from "blob of tissue" into "legal person" at birth. Is that the instant you're talking about? I'd better take a few deep breaths...

if person [x] dies, are you entitled to back-argue from their corpse nature that since they were always going to be dead, being dead is part of their personhood so it doesn't matter when it occurs (some strands of martyr-friendly xtianity — arguing from the eternal nature of the soul i spose — have argued something not unlike this btw)?

I'm afraid you'll only be getting insight into my position. To me, the material loss would be equal. One life lost. Emotionally, I'd be affected by the relationship I had to the loss. If my wife and I had lost a child due to miscarriage, we would most certainly be affected by the loss, even more than the pain of the loss of life due to 9/11 (I'm trying to give something more contrasting than the child who dies of leukemia). Does that mean that roughly 3000 people are less important than the life of the fetus that was lost due to miscarriage? One of my co-workers is going through the emotional impact of his wife's miscarriage--I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It's a terrible loss.

Now, may I get some insight into your position: would you get more, less, or equally upset if your mother had died from colon cancer when you had a strong bond with her, versus when you had little or no relationship with her? In this case (as most), the emotional effects don't determine the value of the life.

Is an unknown homeless person's life "less valuable" than a rich person's? This reflects something truly American: "All men are created equal." Plenty of people have argued that economic classes determine the value of life, or that race determines the value of life, or that gender determines the value of life. I'm sure there were plenty of emotions backing up their arguments, too. But emotions can mislead.

Enjoy,

"erm the instant i'm "talking about" i'm saying doesn't exist, that's what the word "doesn't" is doing in that thread"

OK, Mark, so you're trying to demonstrate the absurdity of the pro-choice position? Now I get it...that's what "'doesn't' is doing in that thread." 8^)

No, one person's subjective emotional response to a death is not a good guide to morality (though I wonder whether that if you aggregate/draw patterns from these responses, it is ultimately what all these matters rest on, for the non-religious) and I don't mean that if you say 'yes, obviously I'd be more upset by a child dying than a foetus' your argument is undermined. It was just of interest, that's all.

In answer to your question, yes, obviously it would make a huge difference how strong my mother bond was.

personhood is a social manifestation of biology: but so is death, so rather, so it ought to be => one of the deep problems in this particular debate is that it's actually a face-off between two completely different (possibly incommensurable) versions of a refusal to believe in the existence of death

(v.loosely speaking, xtians — and/or kantian universalists — say it's just a bodily thing, but there's this eternal monad whose status remains unchanged; "secular humanists" think of it as condition which can be deferred, meliorated, somehow technologically or culturally dissolved, which is to say shuffled equably into a calculus abt general quality of life...)

The discussion about trauma resulting from abortion has mostly been contributed to by guys - and despite having covered many logical reasons why some women may feel trauma one very important reason was missed: Hormones.

Whether a woman is going to feel emotions of guilt, regret, relief, pleasure, or whatever from an abortion, she is definitly going to suffer from major hormonal upheaval when her body discovers it is not pregnant any more. She is also going suffer pain, lots of bleeding, perhaps some side effects from anaesthetics & antibiotics, and maybe skin changes, breast changes, hair-loss and depression from the hormonal changes. This means that a woman who feels not guilt/regret/social disapproval can still be quite traumatised.

The "child's 5th birthday" thing strikes me as something far more likely to be healthy reflection (of the this is where I am now, this is where I might have been, let's keep life in perspective and make judgements about what I where I want to be in the future variety) than guilt inducing regret.

It was me who said earlier that a woman should not be allowed to carry a foetus to full term if the father does not want the baby born. Some people may argue that if a man doesn't want his baby born then he shouldn't go around porking women. I don't have any objection to women having sex and deciding that they want the resulting foetus aborted and I consider men to have the right. I don't believe that anyone has the right to take another persons genes/gametes/whatever and use them to reproduce with against that persons will. Obviously forcing women to have abortions is a pretty horrendous thing to do but so is using someone else's genes to make a baby against their will. I doubt (I hope, I could be wrong) that many men would go this far if options such as having no financial or other responsibility for the child were available.

The tragedy in "losing a life" through abortion, miscarriage, childhood leukemia etc. is not the tragedy of losing a life, it's the tragedy of losing hope. For those who have invested all their hope in a maybe-potential life, then it's loss is a horrible thing.

"If the loss of a loved one would be equal to the loss of potential loved one"

Plinky, I don't know exactly what you mean here when you say potential. Do you mean that the fetus has a potential for a relationship with me, or do you mean that the fetus has a potential for life?

You've given an interesting hypothetical. I'm sure there are plenty of variables like the month of pregnancy, etc. I'll try to be general.

1) I'd get a second opinion! This assumes that she doesn't need surgery immediately. That's a natural response to any serious diagnosis from a doctor. I'm here to tell you: doctors make mistakes.

2) If the second opinion confirmed a high risk to my wife's health, we would protect both lives while not actively killing either life. I would guess that this often results in premature, induced deliveries. The hospitals' NICUs work miracles each day. Chances are, some premie-babies will die, and others will live.

If you're so inclined, feel free to read this document regarding the ethics of your hypothetical. I'm sure that many others on the web will argue the details of this commonly discussed hypothetical better than I.

--------------------------

Nick writes:

"I thought the 'all other things being equal' was assumed."

Well, I may sound callous, but I'm not all that bothered that each day thousands of people whom I don't know die around the world. I just don't think about it...I don't see the point. Death is part of nature. Is there a difference between death and murder? Yes. Is there a difference between my emotional reaction to the death of a loved-one versus my reaction to the death of a stranger? Yes.

The fact that we don't "see" the preborn babies might take away some of the feeling of loss. The same thing happened to the Jews in Germany. Enough Germans didn't like Jewish people that they started killing them. And the deaths were hidden from view of the general public. One thing that the Allies did at the end of the war was get images out to show the atrocity. The images spoke for themselves. We don't need philosophers to explain to us that the concentration camps were immoral. Similarly, we don't need to ponder the minutiae of philosophical arguments to see the injustice.

Toraneko writes:

"The tragedy in "losing a life" through abortion, miscarriage, childhood leukemia etc. is not the tragedy of losing a life, it's the tragedy of losing hope. For those who have invested all their hope in a maybe-potential life, then it's loss is a horrible thing."

I'm sorry; I just want you to run this by me again. You believe that children who die from leukemia are not alive, but merely potential lives? Wow. When do we become "alive"? Is it when we get our driver's license? I know I was alive then!

Enjoy.

"el catracho why are so you much more concerned with the feelings of the dead than the living?"

Mark, are you feeling left out because I didn't respond to you? I'm so sorry! I promise I'll pay more attention to you in the future! LOL.

It's like when two good-looking, 18 yr old, footy-playing guys die in a car crash. Everyone considers it such a tragedy because of their "potential". Not their potential to be wife-beating rapists though. Their potential to live out other people's fantasy lives. I suspect many people don't gain this potential until they have died.

Who do you rely on to "invest in you" and what would happen if they all closed their accounts? Do you cease to exist? :-)

"The hope is invested in the imagined potential, not in the life.

It's like when two good-looking, 18 yr old, footy-playing guys die in a car crash. Everyone considers it such a tragedy because of their "potential". Not their potential to be wife-beating rapists though. Their potential to live out other people's fantasy lives. I suspect many people don't gain this potential until they have died."

Reflecting on your thoughts, I'd say this is a bit of a self-centered way to mourn others. Are we mourning that lost benefit that we could receive from the dead person had he/she lived? If so, does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?

The equations for this stuff become confusing fast: let's say I live comfortably on a small island with my beautiful wife. We have everything we need to live long lives. I value her; therefore her life has value. She values me; therefore I have value. But, if I had no value before she "gave" me my value, what is the "value" of my value for her?!?!? OK, I'm making myself dizzy... OK, so what happens if I stop valuing her? Does her life cease being valuable?

Well, Christians (or as Mark says, xtians :-) ) believe that life is inherently valuable. The US Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Without arguing about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, our government is saying that none of us need another person to "invest hope" in order to be valuable. No investment of hope for potential...life is unalienable right that no one else can give or take from us.

Enjoy.

That's ridiculous, right? But can you find a way to tell me it's ridiculous without acknowledging that there's a very close interplay of dependency involved there, a period during which this "potential life" is in fact not a separate entity but rather very much a body's work-in-progress (on which work can be suspended)?

Value means value to someone (sing or plur). This can include value to one's self obv (so does the self continue after death, cz if YES then why is death treated as a social problem?) or value to He Who Died for Us All or other deity (if you decide you need a super-being to ground inherent-value-for-no one-living). Erm there's a whole LOTTA dizzying stuff in this. The condition of possibility of either framework, to establish "inherent value", ends up valorising the unbiddable but also unreadable opinions of the non-living (also known as the ever-living) over the living, unfortunately: ppl who will die turn out to be second-calss citizens in this Eternal Polity.

Work from your assumption that a cell cluster is in fact a viable individual human being: what obligates the first human being -- the mother -- to have it in her body without her consent?

Work from your assumption that non-"viable individual human beings" don't have rights. Why can't I just run around intensive care units and pull the plugs of all the patients? Why can't I argue for my government to kill all those terminally ill (mentally or physically) who are draining our tax dollars for their medical treatment? Many people aren't "viable." If we could reduce the tax burden (ie. give citizens more "freedom of choice" with their money), why shouldn't we do this? Even more extreme: what if we could just kill ~10% of the least productive members of society? Despite the "graphically ridiculous" arguments, these ideas have all been championed at one time or another.

If society doesn't "consent" to these burdens (elderly, mentally ill, sick), is it still morally bound to care for them, or may it kill them? I think the situation is the same for both the mother and society.

For what it's worth, both the law and society often reprimand parents who fail to fulfill their obligation to protect and care for their children. What happened with the young mother who slapped her child under the watch of Big Brother? Maybe this mother didn't want to accept the responsibility of being a mother. Yet despite her daily problems, society sees it as her responsibility to care for her child.

Nabisco writes:

"El Catracho let me put the question this sort of graphically ridiculous-sounding way. (If it's really an "individal" what makes this not rape?)"

Are you really convinced that an unwanted baby is "raping" its mother? That's pretty weird. Well, OK it's ridiculous too. :-)

Mark writes:

"In order to say yes to this, you have to argue that there's this big person-who-isn't-a-person outside time and history, in whom the recognition of value can reside."

Actually, there's a big "person-who-isn't-a-human." A "person-who-isn't-a-person" would not be a person.

Well, there's a bunch of questions that science hasn't the slightest idea of how to answer. All the big questions of the Universe are pretty interesting to me. Theists and atheists come from different starting points; but I'm always interested in hearing the views on these questions from diverse points of view.

Enjoy.

The new Christian strategy, though, is to pretend that their ridiculous claims would still be true in the absence of God. They wouldn't, though, and no amount of slumming down here with the godless intellectuals will change that.

[mandatory self-outing: I am in fact religious though not Christian]

ie it's not *my* contradiction

Hello. How are you doing today?

You write:

"The new Christian strategy, though, is to pretend that their ridiculous claims [hahaha, which claims have I made here?] would still be true in the absence of God. They wouldn't, though, and no amount of slumming down here with the godless intellectuals will change that."

OK, J0hn, I've spent most of my time here trying to figure out if non-Christians (atheists?) really think that any life has a provable value. If you review my posts, I'm not talking making many claims, let alone what you refer to as "ridiculous claims." I'm asking questions.

I haven't heard a reasoned argument yet that supports that any life is worth more than a hill of beans. Help me understand this, please. I'm coming here with questions that you seem afraid to answer. Is it that your arguments fall apart when you face these questions? Well, if your arguments answer my questions, why are you holding back?

Considering that you want us all to "ID" ourselves, why does Christianity matter if it's not part of the discussion? Why does your "mandatory self-outing" matter if it's not germane?

Despite your stance, most people here are interested in having a dialogue. If you're not, then why bother posting?

-------------

I wrote:

"does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?"

Mark responds:

"assuming you want your answer to be YES..."

Mark, I don't "want" you to answer yes or no. I just am interested in your answer. BTW, aside from your conjecture about my intentions, you didn't answer the question. Would you care to give me your answer?

Enjoy

It is utterly germane if it's the sole informing ideology behind your reasoning, which is clearly the case here.

I am fine, thanks for asking :)

i don't think you know what you mean by "value" and i don't think you know what you mean by "life"

"It is utterly germane if it's the sole informing ideology behind your reasoning, which is clearly the case here."

Is this some kind of a litmus test that you use on people? Should I believe that atheists' beliefs are their "sole informing ideology" behind their reasoning?

I'm just here asking some questions. Some people have chosen to answer and give their views. Others have chosen to skirt my question and focus on my intentions.

My intentions are to think about and discuss the questions that I ask. That's why I ask questions. I want to learn. I'm sorry if you think that I've got some kind of defect in my ability to reason because my beliefs don't match yours. Is my "rhetoric loaded"? Well, yes, just like everyone else here! Others have asked me to answer hypothetical questions. Would you argue that these questions weren't "loaded"? I guess if the questions weren't loaded they'd be empty, right? :-)

Could I turn the tables for a second? Let's say that an atheist posts a bunch of questions to a group of mostly Christian contributors. When the atheist asks hard questions, the Christians avoid the question and say, "Why should we waste our time with you, you are blinded by your atheism. If you were a Christian like us, you'd understand." Doesn't that sound like a cop-out? Well, it works both ways...it's still a cop-out when the tables are turned.

Either you have thought about the questions that I ask or you haven't. Either way, it's your opportunity to shine and show that atheists aren't afraid of these questions.

Maybe you believe that my questions are uninteresting. Well, in that case, no one's forcing you to answer. I personally wouldn't ask the questions if they didn't mean anything to me. I hope you would respect that.

Enjoy.

PS--I guess this thread proves the point--the abortion debate is a classic.

As I've pointed out, I'm not an atheist at all. As to whether atheism creates an ideological superstructure for the atheist in the way that Christianity does for the Christian: clearly not! Though Christians are fond of claiming that atheists are as reliant on faith in their daily lives as are Christians, it's not so. Atheists, for example, can believe that Christ rose from the dead if they like -- nothing in their atheism prevents them from believing that. A Christian, however, can't believe that Christ died & was buried & did not rise. From this example it's clear that atheism per se isn't a governing ideology in the way Christianity is. That's why I think you should be honest and begin your argument by saying "As a Christian, abortion seems wrong to me & here's why" rather than attempting to construct a sort of Socratics-for-Christ style of interrogation.

Your analogy to the terminally ill, by the way, supports my point entirely: as soon as a person is dependent on someone's providing life support to maintain life -- life support paid for and thus "provided" by family -- it's quite normal for the family to cease providing that support. (The strict analogy here is: if it's only through your actions -- above and beyond the provision of basic care, as with a child -- that a particular life can continue to exist, you're in no way obligated to continue providing that support.)

Another important question, just for informational purposes: are you arguing this on a moral or a legal level? Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief? (These are simple questions that you can't spend three paragraphs carefully avoiding, I hope.)

"That's why I think you should be honest and begin your argument by saying, 'As a Christian, abortion seems wrong to me & here's why" rather than attempting to construct a sort of Socratics-for-Christ style of interrogation.'"

With all due respect to Socrates and Christ, my intent hasn't been to ask questions in order to push my position. Maybe my position's not too difficult to imagine. But I'm asking (not interrogating) people why they believe what they believe--I'm genuinely interested. I am not telling people what to believe. I am not attempting to ridicule others for their beliefs, even though others may want to Christian-bash here. I'm just asking questions. Don't get so defensive.

I wonder why you aren't faulting those who have presented totally loaded hypothetical questions to me. Is this something that I should be upset about? Are they "interrogating" me like a police officer? Do I care? No.

J0hn writes:

"it's clear that atheism per se isn't a governing ideology in the way Christianity is."

OK, so if atheism "isn't a governing ideology," don't you think it would be much more interesting to learn about the diversity of opinions of those free from a "governing ideology?" I ask myself questions and I have some answers. I'm curious how other people approach the same questions. Yet, you have expressed that it's better not to discuss these things. Sounds like thought police. Is that the part you need to play? Officer? :-)

All my best,

Officer Catracho.

Incidentally, I haven't opined -- not once -- that it's better not to discuss things. I've pointed out that you aren't entering the discussion in good faith. I don't think that a discussion rooted in dishonesty can produce much more than a lot of words. I have always been eager to hear a variety of opinions; I'd just prefer to actually hear them, rather than having to root them out from "questions" that are actually arguments.

"I don't anticipate your ever properly responding to anything anyone asks you..."

Yet I already have responded to questions directly. The facts are against you.

Nabisco writes:

"Note that one doesn't even have such an obligation for the care of a born infant!"

Laws and penalties exist for those who do not care for infants. And they are pretty severe.

Nabisco writes:

"Your analogy to the terminally ill, by the way, supports my point entirely: as soon as a person is dependent on someone's providing life support to maintain life -- life support paid for and thus "provided" by family -- it's quite normal for the family to cease providing that support. (The strict analogy here is: if it's only through your actions -- above and beyond the provision of basic care, as with a child -- that a particular life can continue to exist, you're in no way obligated to continue providing that support.)"

If the family ceases to provide support, may the state cease to provide support? May the state terminate the life of the "useless eater"? I don't think many people would want to live in a country whose government acted in that way.

Nabisco writes:

"Another important question, just for informational purposes: are you arguing this on a moral or a legal level? Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief? (These are simple questions that you can't spend three paragraphs carefully avoiding, I hope.)"

Which questions do you claim that I have avoided?

1) Am I arguing on a moral or legal level?

I am asking questions which I myself face. I am curious to learn how others answer these questions. I suppose I'm asking the questions on a moral level. Basically, I'm trying to understand how other people form their personal morality. I've stated my motivations repeatedly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though.

2) Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief?

No, I'm just here asking questions. I promise I won't push my beliefs on anyone here; but I will state my position if anyone is curious. Is my morality influenced by my religious beliefs? Yes...I would suggest that everyone's religious beliefs (because they are so fundamental) have an important impact on their entire belief system.

Thanks

PS--J0hn, if you believe that I'm avoiding questions after this post, please support your claim with concrete examples.

"I have always been eager to hear a variety of opinions; I'd just prefer to actually hear them, rather than having to root them out from "questions" that are actually arguments."

Though you claim to be "eager to hear a variety of opinions," I'm actually acting on my interest to hear a variety of opinions.

Here's my question, J0hn:

"Does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?"

What "argument" do you have to root out? The question is there. It's an honest question. There's three possible answers: yes, no, or maybe. Which one do you believe and why?

Why do you need to keep avoiding the actual discussion and focus on personal attacks? The personal attacks don't matter to me. They aren't germane. :-)

Why are you afraid of such a simple question?

Enjoy

2) Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief?

No, I'm just here asking questions. I promise I won't push my beliefs on anyone here; but I will state my position if anyone is curious. Is my morality influenced by my religious beliefs? Yes...I would suggest that everyone's religious beliefs (because they are so fundamental) have an important impact on their entire belief system.

This is anything but a straight answer. (It certainly isn't the kind of straight talk favored by the historical personage of Christ as we know him.) No-one asked if your morality was influenced by your religious beliefs. You re-cast the question to suit your own ends. Your questions aren't questions! At all! They're positions! If you want to have it out, then do so honestly, like Paul of Tarsus used to, for example.

The preceding has been a concrete example, or as concrete as we can get at the level of language, of how you haven't answered any of the questions people on this board have asked you.

I'd rather avoid the rest of the thread (i.e. the subject), but I have to say I don't agree with this at all -- the choice is not binary, God vs. social construction/"consensus": there are other alternatives. That's pretty much been one of the core issues that philosophy has been confronting since the Enlightenment, and even if you don't agree with them, it would be unwise to lightly dismiss the attempts that have been made to locate ethics in reason -- in other words, to say that (for one) valuing/having respect for human life is an inevitable consequence of the survival instinct/pleasure principle/etc. that should be present in a sentient, conscious, sane, non-omnipotent being who wants to continue to exist. Yeah, "proven by science", all the attendant dangers, etc., but it beats the hell out of the alternatives.