Author Topic: Pro-life hypocrisy  (Read 12571 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 12:51:42 PM »
A point was brought up in the Roe vs Wade thread about hypocrisy on the right, and this is a perennial observation by liberals about the one-sidedness of the pro-life position. Arguments of this type appear to range from being pro-life in certain social contexts (abortion) but arguably anti-life in others (military), to the fact of conservatives opposing social safety nets and even at times vilifying young mothers and even the poor in general for being failures.

So I would like to propose a discussion about what we all think are things that would need to be put in place in a society to make the pro-life position consistent and not hypocritical. So let's propose an axiomatic premise for the thread:

From the moment of conception the unborn are human beings with the full dignity of humanity, requiring the same protections and duty of care that other humans have.

Putting aside whether you think this is a reasonable proposition, just imagine it's true and go from there. Which steps in society would need to be taken to deal with this? If, for instance, abortion was banned, what social, political, or even moral changes would need to be undertaken to create what we might call a conscientious and caring society that does not run roughshod on the downtrodden and burden people who need help? In other words, if we take the above premise seriously, what would need to go along with it so that the pro-life position at minimum makes sense on a human level and doesn't come across as either disingenuous or contradictory?

I am talking about steel-manning the pro-life position to the limit. What is the best-case scenario we can come up with for a society where abortion is understood to be the killing of people? Note that this does not have to include a banning of abortion, but that any instantiation of abortion would have to come with the understanding that all involved recognize that a person is being killed.

Thoughts?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2021, 01:14:08 PM »
Strongly encourage (certainly funding with public money, but perhaps giving additional incentives as well) the implantation of contraceptive devices on all girls from a young age. They can be removed when the girls choose to, after reaching adulthood.

If conception creates a new person, then the risk of such conception is a huge responsibility which only adults should be able to make an informed decision to commit to.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2021, 01:35:42 PM »
Strongly encourage (certainly funding with public money, but perhaps giving additional incentives as well) the implantation of contraceptive devices on all girls from a young age. They can be removed when the girls choose to, after reaching adulthood.

Hormonal contraception can decrease likelihood of implantation (which is how the 'morning after' pill works).  So hormonal contraception would have to be outlawed.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2021, 01:54:17 PM »
Penalties would have to be consistent with all other persons. Murder, manslaughter, child abuse would be made inclusive. Likewise, calculations for taxes and benefits would allow the claim of an unborn child. Civil law might get somewhat confusing - can you establish a trust for the unborn and if so, what happens when they die in utero? I think the criminal part is probably the most dramatic, however.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2021, 02:01:47 PM »
Any medication, food, exercise, or drug or alcohol that reduced likelihood of implantation would subject the woman to manslaughter or murder charges.

So women would have to be prevented from essentially any strenous exercise or jobs,

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200526161115.htm

That would probably be any psychological medication, any heart/blood medication, and any medication that alters hormones would have to be made illegal for sexually active women to use - or we'd have to regularly file man-slaughter charges against them.  Same for alcohol and recreational drugs.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2021, 02:46:36 PM »
Strongly encourage (certainly funding with public money, but perhaps giving additional incentives as well) the implantation of contraceptive devices on all girls from a young age. They can be removed when the girls choose to, after reaching adulthood.

Hormonal contraception can decrease likelihood of implantation (which is how the 'morning after' pill works).  So hormonal contraception would have to be outlawed.

Got confused there for a moment because you used the same word "implantation" to mean the fertilized ovum's implantation in the uterus, but I'd used the word implantation in reference to the implantation of contraceptive devices. (IUDs and the like)

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2021, 02:52:11 PM »
Any medication, food, exercise, or drug or alcohol that reduced likelihood of implantation would subject the woman to manslaughter or murder charges.

So women would have to be prevented from essentially any strenous exercise or jobs,

Presumably only if these women also engaged in sex (or sex without a type of contraception that prevents conception altogether), not in general.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2021, 03:02:57 PM »
Presumably only if these women also engaged in sex (or sex without a type of contraception that prevents conception altogether), not in general.

Pretty much any heterosexual woman of child bearing age engages in sex with men at occasionally, and there aren't any 100% effective contraceptives.  Even tubal ligation isn't 100% effective.  About the only thing that is 100% effective is an ovarectomy.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2021, 03:21:36 PM »
Presumably only if these women also engaged in sex (or sex without a type of contraception that prevents conception altogether), not in general.

Pretty much any heterosexual woman of child bearing age engages in sex with men at occasionally, and there aren't any 100% effective contraceptives. 

"Pretty much any heterosexual woman of child bearing age engages in sex with men at occasionally"

That's not even true in our own world. And it would change more if they had to choose between sex and all these other things, which would by your law be made illegal for them.

That's like saying "People shouldn't drink and drive. But pretty everyone drives occassionally, so we should ban drinks for everyone, not just people who drive. And also everyone drinks occassionally, so we should ban driving for everyone." Your argument doesn't follow.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2021, 03:50:36 PM »
"Pretty much any heterosexual woman of child bearing age engages in sex with men at occasionally"

That's not even true in our own world. And it would change more if they had to choose between sex and all these other things, which would by your law be made illegal for them.

Only .3% of women are virgins by age 40.  In a given year only about 10% of adult women are 'sexually inactive'.

No doctor would be willing to prescribe such medications since they would potentially be on the hook for wreckless endangerment or worse.

IT doesn't matter if you don't make them 'illegal' - just making them so extraordinarily risky that no doctor or pharmacist could rationally prescribe them and no woman could rationally take them makes them essentially banned.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 03:52:50 PM by LetterRip »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2021, 04:27:51 PM »
Quote
Only .3% of women are virgins by age 40.

An American (and also self-reported) statistic.

In Japan as a counterexample, the number of women aged 39 reporting having had no vaginal heterosexual experience is 8.9%. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2019/04/07/a-quarter-of-japanese-adults-under-40-are-virgins-and-the-number-is-increasing/)


« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 04:30:25 PM by Aris Katsaris »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2021, 04:40:45 PM »
One thing I would expect is a huge increase in funding for preventing spontaneous abortions, especially early ones where the fertilized egg does not attach to the womb.  This one problem alone accounts for the death of millions babies each year, dwarfing any loss from medical abortions.  I still wonder why this is not a major concern for the pro-life movement.

I would also expect support for young children to increase dramatically, too.  If the mother is just the carrier of a unborn human being, with no choice in the matter, then how can we then further burden her with being solely responsible for caring and feeding the baby when she is born?

One would also expect any rape or incest exceptions to be eliminated for abortions, since the baby had no say in the matter.

Of course, there would still be abortion because of medical necessity.  Anyone who believes otherwise is living in la-la land.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2021, 04:54:35 PM »
Quote
This one problem alone accounts for the death of millions babies each year, dwarfing any loss from medical abortions.  I still wonder why this is not a major concern for the pro-life movement
  such 'deaths' would be Gods will -- opens the door to what could be troubling questions- does God abort life?


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2021, 04:55:08 PM »
Strongly encourage (certainly funding with public money, but perhaps giving additional incentives as well) the implantation of contraceptive devices on all girls from a young age. They can be removed when the girls choose to, after reaching adulthood.

Interesting idea. Some sci-fi has mentioned something like this, and as I recall Babylon 5 made a passing reference to optional male and female contraceptives that are presumably taken as a matter of course. I would have questions about the effects on hormones, and especially the body's development in younger people if they are put on contraceptives, however. Currently they produce effects that we probably don't understand very well. One of the positions Christians take about contraceptives (other than the moral issue) is that they are in some sense another method of controlling the bodies of women in ways that no one cares what happens to them. At minimum I would want to see serious study done to ensure that young women are not harmed by such methods.

Quote
If conception creates a new person, then the risk of such conception is a huge responsibility which only adults should be able to make an informed decision to commit to.

That makes sense. But are you sure it's, shall we say, legitimate to tell young people they are simply not allowed to have children? If so, what's the age cutoff?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2021, 05:04:19 PM »
Strongly encourage (certainly funding with public money, but perhaps giving additional incentives as well) the implantation of contraceptive devices on all girls from a young age. They can be removed when the girls choose to, after reaching adulthood.

Interesting idea. Some sci-fi has mentioned something like this, and as I recall Babylon 5 made a passing reference to optional male and female contraceptives that are presumably taken as a matter of course. I would have questions about the effects on hormones, and especially the body's development in younger people if they are put on contraceptives, however. Currently they produce effects that we probably don't understand very well. One of the positions Christians take about contraceptives (other than the moral issue) is that they are in some sense another method of controlling the bodies of women in ways that no one cares what happens to them. At minimum I would want to see serious study done to ensure that young women are not harmed by such methods.
Assuming in this future the implantation of contraception devices could be for men as well I would want to see serious studies done for men and woman :)
I wonder how laws might adjust if Men had to take on more responsibility

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2021, 05:11:28 PM »
Quote
Only .3% of women are virgins by age 40.

An American (and also self-reported) statistic.

In Japan as a counterexample, the number of women aged 39 reporting having had no vaginal heterosexual experience is 8.9%. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2019/04/07/a-quarter-of-japanese-adults-under-40-are-virgins-and-the-number-is-increasing/)

First off - that question was to all women, if you read further it clarifies that about half of that is lesbians.  Since a 'personhood from conception' law could only be enacted in the US, and it originated in a discussion of US law, presumably US is the relevant representative population.

Also, another comparison population -  has less than 3% being 'sexually inexperienced' by age 33 including all men and women in the study, a cohort of 20,000 people.

http://europepmc.org/article/PMC/3947171

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2021, 05:21:59 PM »
Quote
First off - that question was to all women, if you read further it clarifies that about half of that is lesbians.  Since a 'personhood from conception' law could only be enacted in the US, and it originated in a discussion of US law, presumably US is the relevant representative population.

An additional ramification of this presumably would be that foreign nationals visiting the US would also be subject to these penalties? I wonder what that would mean diplomatically for extradition and treatment as a human rights violator?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2021, 06:01:45 PM »
Any medication, food, exercise, or drug or alcohol that reduced likelihood of implantation would subject the woman to manslaughter or murder charges.

So women would have to be prevented from essentially any strenous exercise or jobs,

Just to be clear, is this the position you would advocate for if you believed that the unborn are persons? I ask because the thread questions is what measures you personally would like to see included in a pro-life position such that you would find them reasonable and humane.

As I mention this, I'll just throw in that at present, even among women who fully intend to bring their babies into the world, there is some measure of risk-taking which they see as part of life. This includes going to work, going in the car at all for that matter, even doing exercise such as they can later in the pregnancy. And no one reasonable believes that these risks somehow amount to criminal negligence, even though obviously they have a non-zero effect on the probability of bringing the pregnancy to term. And indeed it's currently not by any means illegal or criminal to take 'unnecessary risks', to drink too much caffeine, or even to drink alcohol and smoke while pregnant, notwithstanding that many people would give you the crook-eye for doing so. So at least the current wisdom is that doing stupid stuff that could very well terminate the pregnancy or cause developmental disorders should be treated as medically a bad idea, but no more than that. After all, even for post-birth babies and young children, taking risks with them (such as driving on a dangerous road, or being a smoker in the first place) is not considered to be criminal or having any legal implication, even though obviously doing dumb stuff could endanger your kids.

So I just wanted to mention these things in light of your proposition that the force of law should require that people must avoid dumb and hazardous behavior.

But I could see a case - and perhaps you were anticipating it - where if abortion was illegal people would "accidentally" drink a ton of alcohol or doing something else to try to act as a de facto natural abortion? But my answer to that would be that according to my premise those people would already be of the opinion that the pre-born are persons, so it would mean that they're knowingly trying to kill someone on purpose, and think of it in those terms. So So I suppose I didn't consider cases of people deliberately doing dangerous things. I was thinking more of systemic factors (social and legal), but it's fair play to bring personal acts into it I suppose.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2021, 06:15:04 PM »
Just to be clear, is this the position you would advocate for if you believed that the unborn are persons? I ask because the thread questions is what measures you personally would like to see included in a pro-life position such that you would find them reasonable and humane.

No, they aren't what I'd advocate -they are the legal implications of doing so.  If you take an absurd idea and make it law, then this is an implication of that absurd idea.

Either it is prosecuted as murder, or it isn't and women that need an abortion engage in behaviors that will cause spontaneous abortion.

Quote
As I mention this, I'll just throw in that at present, even among women who fully intend to bring their babies into the world, there is some measure of risk-taking which they see as part of life.

But if it is a person and it is child endangerment or murder.  A risk to a fetus doesn't matter in normal life because it isn't a person and the state has no interest in protecting it, and a woman can choose whether she will risk loss of her preganancy.  If it is a person then she is engaging in reckless endangerment or murder.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2021, 06:23:38 PM »
One thing I would expect is a huge increase in funding for preventing spontaneous abortions, especially early ones where the fertilized egg does not attach to the womb.  This one problem alone accounts for the death of millions babies each year, dwarfing any loss from medical abortions.  I still wonder why this is not a major concern for the pro-life movement.

It's not an unreasonable objection. I actually wonder why we aren't hearing this position put forward. Maybe it's too many steps removed from the reality to matter, in terms of practical expectations?

Quote
I would also expect support for young children to increase dramatically, too.  If the mother is just the carrier of a unborn human being, with no choice in the matter, then how can we then further burden her with being solely responsible for caring and feeding the baby when she is born?

I would agree with this completely. In fact I would propose that at present there is not enough support for parents in general, let alone single or young mothers. Are you already in favor of increased parental leave after birth, for example?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2021, 06:27:44 PM »
Also are women going to be prevented from travel?  Mandatory inspection of their uterus on returning from Canada, Mexico, Europe?

Also I don't see how you would avoid the widespread jury nullification that would occur.  In most states it would be impossible to get a conviction.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2021, 06:31:01 PM »
That makes sense. But are you sure it's, shall we say, legitimate to tell young people they are simply not allowed to have children? If so, what's the age cutoff?

Usually 18 is the Schelling point for when we consider people to be legal adults, so I'd just put 18 there as well. I understand that there are some bizarre deviations from that norm in USA (e.g. 21 being the legal drinking limit), but I don't really get those.

Theoretically in a super-advanced society I'd want competency and psychological tests to be passed before people are allowed to parenthood, but that's WAY too much power to give to any government in the foreseeable future. I'd have it as a feature of a post-singularity future (which however, almost by definition, is non-foreseeable).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2021, 06:35:13 PM »
If I were to accept the premise that a foetus were a person, then by definition I would have to treat it as a child and I would indeed advocate like that. So therefore, If a mother chose to drink or smoke while pregnant, then it follows that I would treat it as if someone had provided some amount of that substance to their one year old. Now, we still allow a certain amount of second hand smoke and don't bring charges against people smoking tobacco near children. (We meaning as a society currently). But nicotine provided internally has worse health effects to the foetus than smoking near children. I would think that if you were smoking enough to cause pre-natal conditions, that would need to be treated somewhat seriously. Even more so with alcohol, and yet worse with legal and illegal drugs.

If a woman were regularly giving alcohol to a very young child, I'm pretty sure the state would intervene. And I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would assert that the state has that obligation to prevent it happening.

As far as LR describing the avoidance of risky physical behavior, I'm not sure I fully buy that one. A parent isn't going to get charged for letting their child run near a swimming pool, for instance.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2021, 06:47:18 PM »
Quote
Are you already in favor of increased parental leave after birth, for example?

I would ask, increased from what?  Is there a national standard for parental leave?

But I have no objections to parental leave in general, nor for support of all parents regardless of working status.  Parenting is hard but necessary work.  It is only reasonable to support it.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2021, 06:58:24 PM »
I would ask, increased from what?  Is there a national standard for parental leave?

Well, increased from what it typically is in America. I've heard many times it's quite common to get only a few scant weeks, and that's occasionally seen as the optimistic case. Contrast with Canada and the more developed European countries, where upwards of a year is standard and mandated by law across the board. So I guess my question would be whether you think there should be a national standard, or whether it should go state by state? If the latter I could imagine a lot of migration across states depending on the policy. And that goes for daycare costs as well.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2021, 07:54:12 PM »
Also are women going to be prevented from travel?

Mandatory inspection of their uterus on returning from Canada, Mexico, Europe?

Also I don't see how you would avoid the widespread jury nullification that would occur.  In most states it would be impossible to get a conviction.

These seem to be logistical problems involving people who have the law forced on them but don't agree that the fetus is a person (i.e. they are dissenters). But just imagine for a moment that the population came to believe the axiom: would there be a major problem involving people fleeing the country for abortions? Is there a problem at present with people fleeing America to murder their children in countries with little to no rule of law?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2021, 07:57:08 PM »
Either it is prosecuted as murder, or it isn't and women that need an abortion engage in behaviors that will cause spontaneous abortion.
endangerment or murder.

I would need to ask what it means to say there are women that will need an abortion. Where does this need come from, and why can the fetus not be taken to term?

But more generally, is the rule you're suggesting (or predicting) something you actually think pro-life people should advocate for, i.e. is this a steel-man of their position? Would you consider their position more reasonable if they did?

Ouija Nightmare

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2021, 03:19:24 PM »
Either it is prosecuted as murder, or it isn't and women that need an abortion engage in behaviors that will cause spontaneous abortion.
endangerment or murder.

I would need to ask what it means to say there are women that will need an abortion. Where does this need come from, and why can the fetus not be taken to term?

But more generally, is the rule you're suggesting (or predicting) something you actually think pro-life people should advocate for, i.e. is this a steel-man of their position? Would you consider their position more reasonable if they did?

Ectopic pregnancies comes to mind. Rape comes to mind. There’s many others as well.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2021, 03:54:57 PM »
Either it is prosecuted as murder, or it isn't and women that need an abortion engage in behaviors that will cause spontaneous abortion.
endangerment or murder.

I would need to ask what it means to say there are women that will need an abortion. Where does this need come from, and why can the fetus not be taken to term?

But more generally, is the rule you're suggesting (or predicting) something you actually think pro-life people should advocate for, i.e. is this a steel-man of their position? Would you consider their position more reasonable if they did?

Ectopic pregnancies comes to mind. Rape comes to mind. There’s many others as well.

I agree that there are hard cases like this to address in any ethical system. But I'll take a page out of Ayn Rand's book on this point and suggest that the framework for a moral and ethical system cannot begin with extreme or fringe cases. The understandings should stem from first principles, and once a moral framework is established then you can look at hard cases and see how to deal with them. As Rand put it, you can't begin with a scenario of your mother and wife drowning and you can save only one, and derive a system of ethics from that. It is just a bad place to begin, but I agree with you that it would no doubt be a difficult issue requiring much discussion. My first instinct, at least, would be to defer to the safety of the mother if she so chooses, so that a procedure designed to save her life might well be moral even assuming our axiom above (ectopic pregnancy). So for instance if by definition an abortion is needed as LR put it then it would presumably not be illegal. If the operation is elective, even on the grounds of its inception being traumatic, then I'm not sure there's a good case for it being needed.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2021, 04:12:44 PM »
I'm not sure health of the mother passes the litmus test under the premise. Assuming a mother's life could be saved, but only through the death of a one-year-old, then I think that's an obvious choice. Now, there is a complication of "what if it was also pretty clear the mother couldn't carry to term?"

Are we exploring edge cases? Sure. But the ethical system isn't being derived from them. The ethical premise for this thought experiment has been decided for us. A fetus is a person. Everything discussed here is being examined in the light of what is ethical or not ethical for other persons.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2021, 04:57:25 PM »
Either it is prosecuted as murder, or it isn't and women that need an abortion engage in behaviors that will cause spontaneous abortion.
endangerment or murder.

I would need to ask what it means to say there are women that will need an abortion. Where does this need come from, and why can the fetus not be taken to term?

But more generally, is the rule you're suggesting (or predicting) something you actually think pro-life people should advocate for, i.e. is this a steel-man of their position? Would you consider their position more reasonable if they did?

Ectopic pregnancies comes to mind. Rape comes to mind. There’s many others as well.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy the mother can choose to remove the defective fallopian tube in order to save herself, and we can see that in all likelihood the child will lose his life as a result of this life-saving procedure on the mother. The mother can elect to have the tube removed in this way, but she cannot not kill the child directly in order to save her life and her fallopian tube. This is parallel to the case where the mother has cancer and urgently needs chemotherapy to save her own life. Yes, the chemo may kill the child. No, the purpose of the chemo is not to kill the child, but rather to save the mother. Given that the unintended negative result and the positive result are proportional, it is permissible.

In the case of rape, the mother cannot kill the child. If she were my friend, I would help her to try to see this horrible assault she suffered resulted in miracle, and she should try to find joy in raising that child. If not, maybe I'd offer to adopt that child for her. Or she could choose to give it up for a adoption to an unknown family.  She cannot kill the innocent child because the father did something terrible to her.

It's really simple: don't intentionally kill innocent people. Ever.

The principle of double effect is the right idea:

1. the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
2. the agent intends the good effect and does not intend the bad effect either as a means to the good or as an end in itself;
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 04:59:56 PM by JoshuaD »

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2021, 05:12:05 PM »
Strongly encourage (certainly funding with public money, but perhaps giving additional incentives as well) the implantation of contraceptive devices on all girls from a young age. They can be removed when the girls choose to, after reaching adulthood.

If conception creates a new person, then the risk of such conception is a huge responsibility which only adults should be able to make an informed decision to commit to.

We shouldn't be pumping our children full of chemicals that fundamentally transform the way their bodies operate. That's horrible.

We should transform society such that our children are not barraged with sexual imagery from when they are 5 years old, so that they are not sex crazed by the time they are 15, and can instead be children for as long as they are children, and do not have to face the difficulties of a teen pregnancy.

When a teen pregnancy happens, and the goal is to make it rare, then we should encourage that boy and girl to get married and join their lives together and raise their child together. Will they lose some of the joy of youth? Yes. Will they get something in return? absolutely.

We shouldn't aim towards that result, but we also shouldn't be so afraid of it that we poison our children.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2021, 05:19:28 PM »
One thing I would expect is a huge increase in funding for preventing spontaneous abortions, especially early ones where the fertilized egg does not attach to the womb.  This one problem alone accounts for the death of millions babies each year, dwarfing any loss from medical abortions.  I still wonder why this is not a major concern for the pro-life movement.

I would also expect support for young children to increase dramatically, too.  If the mother is just the carrier of a unborn human being, with no choice in the matter, then how can we then further burden her with being solely responsible for caring and feeding the baby when she is born?

One would also expect any rape or incest exceptions to be eliminated for abortions, since the baby had no say in the matter.

Of course, there would still be abortion because of medical necessity.  Anyone who believes otherwise is living in la-la land.

I would not support this, at least not in any extreme way.

The body has a natural order to it. We should certainly use our scientific knowledge to make our pregnancies less risky and more healthy, for both the child and the mother. However, I have a good deal of deference for the natural order of things. I don't agree with the extreme fundamentalists or jehovah witnesses, who say that we must reject all sorts of good medical care, but I also don't think we have some obligation to maximize the likelihood of a successful pregnancy in ever case.  Of course, if we are able to develop good technologies which don't do other harm (such as divorcing the sexual act from procreation, or putting restrictions on mothers) and the parents of the child choose to use those technologies to increase the likelihood of success, I have no objection to that. I think it's good, as long as it's not excessive or infringes on the parent's proper authority over the care of their child.

In a similar vein, the mother is her own person, and the child is her responsibility. We shouldn't have society or the state controlling every aspect of the mother's life to maximize the health and likelihood of the child surviving pregnancy. The mother should not take undue risks, and society should not place undue burdens or restrictions on her.


Quote
Of course, there would still be abortion because of medical necessity.  Anyone who believes otherwise is living in la-la land.

We cannot intentionally kill innocent children. There is nothing "la-la land" about this view. It is the only view that comports with the moral reality, and it's the only view which prevents us from devaluing human life.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 05:26:27 PM by JoshuaD »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2021, 05:52:43 PM »
Do those who are Pro-Life for religious reasons and ok with spontaneous abortions believe that if God ends a life, or does not intervene to save it, its not  immoral? Its only immoral when humans do it.

When it comes to the Will of God being done how do we know when God is using people as his/her instrument and when he/she isn't?
Seems to me to be a lot of assuming as to what is God will and what is not. And not if a little hubris in the thinking that Gods will is something we can surrender to, as if our surrender is required for G_d's  will to be done. 

But I digress
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 05:55:49 PM by rightleft22 »

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2021, 05:57:11 PM »
Do those who are Pro-Life for religious reasons and ok with spontaneous abortions believe that if God ends a life, or does not intervene to save it, its not  immoral?
Its only immoral when humans do it. When it comes to the Will of God being done how do we know when God is using people as his/her  instrument and when he/she isn't?
Seems to me to be a lot of assuming as to what is God will and what is not. And not if a little hubris in the thinking that Gods will is something we can surrender to, as if it is something that is required for G_d's  will to be done. 

But I digress

I'm not speaking of God here.

In my posts above, I distinguish between an act and a non-act. There is a big difference between acting to kill someone and failing to act to save them.

We owe it to every unborn child not to kill them with chemicals or a blade.

We don't owe it to every unborn child to use every possible means at our disposal to absolutely maximize the chance that they survive the pregnancy. We might choose to do some things. That would be good. Failure to do so is not the same as murder.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2021, 06:03:38 PM »
One thing I would expect is a huge increase in funding for preventing spontaneous abortions, especially early ones where the fertilized egg does not attach to the womb.  This one problem alone accounts for the death of millions babies each year, dwarfing any loss from medical abortions.  I still wonder why this is not a major concern for the pro-life movement.

I would also expect support for young children to increase dramatically, too.  If the mother is just the carrier of a unborn human being, with no choice in the matter, then how can we then further burden her with being solely responsible for caring and feeding the baby when she is born?

One would also expect any rape or incest exceptions to be eliminated for abortions, since the baby had no say in the matter.

Of course, there would still be abortion because of medical necessity.  Anyone who believes otherwise is living in la-la land.

I would not support this, at least not in any extreme way.


So Pro-Life but taking as little responsibly as possible for the Life that is saved? 
We saved you from committing murder, your welcome, we won't interfere further, your on your own, your welcome, have a good life. You really don't have a morel issue with that?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 06:08:10 PM by rightleft22 »

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2021, 06:15:17 PM »
Quote
So Pro-Life but taking as little responsibly as possible for the Life that is saved?
We saved you from committing murder, your welcome, we won't interfere further, your welcome,  your on your own. You really don't see a morel issue with that.

I'm not saying that we should take as little responsibility as possible for the child. Did something I said lead you to that conclusion? If so, that is not my view.

I think that a child is owed the love and care of both of his parents, and that for his parents to do that properly they should be married and treat each other the way a married couple should. I think that society should foster marriages, because the family (not the individual) is the fundamental unit of a good and healthy society.

I think we should take a ton of responsibility for our own children. I think raising our children well is the most important thing a parent can do. I think we owe a lesser degree of responsibility to our neighbor's children than we do to our own. Of course, I think we owe all children something, and there should be no orphans because good married couples take them in and raise them like their own. 

I think we can never do evil acts and have them be justified.  That being said, I don't think "doing evil" is equivalent to "failed to do something good, and evil followed as a result."

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2021, 07:11:27 PM »
Quote
We cannot intentionally kill innocent children. There is nothing "la-la land" about this view. It is the only view that comports with the moral reality, and it's the only view which prevents us from devaluing human life.

There was a heart-breaking story on NPR I heard about a couple who wanted their child but had to have an abortion.

When they went in for an ultrasound exam, they discovered that there was no abiotic fluid around the fetus.

The doctor told explained the implications.  Most likely, the child would be spontaneously aborted before full term.  If the child made it to full term, he would only survive a few days, perhaps a few weeks at most, suffering the entire time.  There was also a significant risk that the mother could die in the process.

They asked if it were at all possible that their child could be normal.  "If it happened, you would be the first," the doctor told them.

So they decided they had to have an abortion, for everyone's sake.  They had to do it right away, though, because they lived in a state where abortions were outlawed after 8 weeks, and the mother was almost at that point.

Abortions are necessary sometimes.  To force a mother, at considerable risk to herself, to birth a child who would only know pain and suffering for a short while until he died is monstrous, the product of sick minds who think that their moral imperatives are more important than the pain and suffering of real people.  It's all well and good to say we should never kill innocent children.  But reality doesn't give a damn about that.  Reality sometimes give people a bad hand, only giving the choice between pain and death.  To force someone to suffer needlessly because of some moral code shows that the person with that moral code is completely morally bankrupt and shouldn't be listened to at all.

Human life is precious, but reality--or God, if you will--sometimes doesn't give a flying f**k about it.  Sometimes life does things to people that no moral person would ever allow.  And anyone who actually cares about human life and values it will realize that sometimes it is necessary to end it to end the suffering.

Abortions are sometimes necessary.  Learn to live with it.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2021, 07:43:01 PM »
There was also a significant risk that the mother could die in the process.

I think this is a very important factor in how we may read the story, because I think it is hard to argue that a person can be required to take a major risk to their own life, especially when the 'payoff' is slim or none. In fact even if the birth would otherwise be a 99% chance of success I think a person would be taking a reasonable position to argue that a major risk to the mother is sufficient grounds to at least consider a "me vs them" moral quandary. I still don't think it's cut and dried, and some might choose the child over themselves (especially if both might live). In your example they both can't, so at minimum the debate should be on the table.

Quote
They asked if it were at all possible that their child could be normal.  "If it happened, you would be the first," the doctor told them.

So this is the part I find suspect. Although naturally everyone wants a normal and healthy baby, I disagree vehemently with the crowd that argues that any child with (for example) Down's Syndrome should be aborted on principle. On this point leftists are severely at odds with each other, because various groups that fight for recognition of the value of people with Down's are certainly going to find it monstrous when people like Dawkins post on Twitter that allowing a Down's baby to come to term is immoral. And personally I find that type of argument not only insupportable from any kind of basic principles, but on a eugenics level it veers too far towards Nazism to even be aesthetically appealing as a position. It's quite shocking, really. Only the worthy should live? Maybe these parents wouldn't have been thinking quite in those terms, but I do think it's a decision many people make precisely on those grounds. Why else would tests be taken as a matter of course early in the pregnancy specifically to look for Down's?

Quote
They had to do it right away, though, because they lived in a state where abortions were outlawed after 8 weeks, and the mother was almost at that point.

It does seem perplexing that a law ostensibly in place to protect the unborn should, in this case, actually prevent any sort of chance the unborn may have had (depending on the circumstances), since the parents were artificially pressured to make an immediate snap decision.

Quote
To force a mother, at considerable risk to herself, to birth a child who would only know pain and suffering for a short while until he died is monstrous

The issue of the risk matters a lot. But the pain and suffering angle is strangely not so clear. By that I mean that in North American secular culture there has come to be an implicitly accepted moral axiom that suffering and pain are absolutely the worst evil, to be avoided at practically any cost. Using this same premise as a foundation, people like Sam Harris for instance have difficulty defining 'the path to heaven' as being anything other making making objectively sound moves away from suffering and towards...something. Something better than suffering, it would seem. So heaven in this case is defined by hell, hell being the primary and heaven merely a derivative notion. And he is certainly not alone is believing that satiating suffering is the primary mode of life, which is borne out in practice is all avoidance of discomfort and unpleasantness in favor of sating desires immediately and materially. Harris does not actually advocate for this, but I view it as an almost inevitable conclusion from his premise. Needless to say it's evident to those who are looking that this is an empty programme and that people are sick in spirit from it (as Nietzsche predicted).

So without disagreeing outright that suffering can be really, really bad, especially if it's unstoppable and severe, nevertheless I do not think it's reasonable to begin from a premise that says that a course guaranteeing suffering is automatically out of the question. It depends on what life is for, really. After all, if suffering meant an unacceptable situation then it would certainly make a suicidal position much more rational. I know the distinction made is that suicidal ideation can move toward a more positive situation, whereas in some cases there is no hope for material improvement, but nevertheless many strange conclusions might well follow logically from a starting point that says suffering must not be allowed.

Quote
Reality sometimes give people a bad hand, only giving the choice between pain and death.  To force someone to suffer needlessly because of some moral code shows that the person with that moral code is completely morally bankrupt and shouldn't be listened to at all.

How much suffering in the world, in your opinion, happens needfully?

Quote
Human life is precious, but reality--or God, if you will--sometimes doesn't give a flying f**k about it.

This may sound like a funny question, but - how do you know this? Or is this a way of saying that the material situation will not change magically just because something very unfortunate is happening? Because if that's what you mean it actually doesn't imply that reality doesn't care about it. It depends on what you take reality to be (I know this may sound flip but it's really not).


Quote
Sometimes life does things to people that no moral person would ever allow.

Well that's the twenty million dollar question, isn't it? Is there a factual set of moral facts out there? If so, then perhaps they state what you suggest, and certain situations are objectively unacceptable. It would have to be an objective fact if every person - in order to be moral - has an obligation to accept the same conclusions about it. Do you think that there are facts about morality that are indisputable, regardless of personal point of view or life experience?

Quote
Abortions are sometimes necessary.  Learn to live with it.

This might indeed be true. But I hope that in insisting on this position (which my OP certainly allows for) you are not intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater? It would be sad, right, if there were these necessary abortions?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 07:48:00 PM by Fenring »

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2021, 12:25:57 AM »
Quote
Abortions are sometimes necessary.  Learn to live with it.

Is the irony of this statement lost on you?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2021, 09:35:13 AM »
The question that lies at the heart of the Hero's Journey Is 'How to respond to Life as it Is'? Its wonder and its horror as life feeds on life. 
At the heart of every wisdom tradition this is the question we are called to come to terms with. Christianity tends toward a answer of we broke life and must fix it, though Christ answer was YES. Birth, Betrayal, Death, Reresection the reality of every breath. Life as it IS its wonder and its horror is Love. 

Quote
Human life is precious, but reality--or God, if you will--sometimes doesn't give a flying f**k about it.
Life's will, will be done.

Quote
How much suffering in the world, in your opinion, happens needfully?
All of it and none of it.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2021, 03:18:07 PM »
We shouldn't be pumping our children full of chemicals that fundamentally transform the way their bodies operate. That's horrible.

As a transhumanist I'm all in favor of fundamentally transforming the way our bodies operate.

A good god could have made it so that human beings can only procreate (and only get sexual desires) after reaching adulthood, but unfortunately god doesn't exist and thusly human teenagers do both from early in their teens.

"Reduce sexual desire" is one possible path to resolve the issue, but frankly it seems way harder to do and much more prone to failure than the mere technological path of preventing pregnancy with IUDs.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2021, 06:04:45 PM »
Quote
We cannot intentionally kill innocent children. There is nothing "la-la land" about this view. It is the only view that comports with the moral reality, and it's the only view which prevents us from devaluing human life.

There was a heart-breaking story on NPR I heard about a couple who wanted their child but had to have an abortion.

When they went in for an ultrasound exam, they discovered that there was no abiotic fluid around the fetus.

The doctor told explained the implications.  Most likely, the child would be spontaneously aborted before full term.  If the child made it to full term, he would only survive a few days, perhaps a few weeks at most, suffering the entire time.  There was also a significant risk that the mother could die in the process.

They asked if it were at all possible that their child could be normal.  "If it happened, you would be the first," the doctor told them.

So they decided they had to have an abortion, for everyone's sake.  They had to do it right away, though, because they lived in a state where abortions were outlawed after 8 weeks, and the mother was almost at that point.

Abortions are necessary sometimes.  To force a mother, at considerable risk to herself, to birth a child who would only know pain and suffering for a short while until he died is monstrous, the product of sick minds who think that their moral imperatives are more important than the pain and suffering of real people.  It's all well and good to say we should never kill innocent children.  But reality doesn't give a damn about that.  Reality sometimes give people a bad hand, only giving the choice between pain and death.  To force someone to suffer needlessly because of some moral code shows that the person with that moral code is completely morally bankrupt and shouldn't be listened to at all.

Human life is precious, but reality--or God, if you will--sometimes doesn't give a flying f**k about it.  Sometimes life does things to people that no moral person would ever allow.  And anyone who actually cares about human life and values it will realize that sometimes it is necessary to end it to end the suffering.

Abortions are sometimes necessary.  Learn to live with it.

I don't see how that story leads you to the conclusion that the child should be murdered. I don't see that as the answer.

If the mother's life is in serious risk of loss, I think she can consider having her womb removed. It has malfunctioned and is putting her at risk of death.  If she thinks removing the womb is the best choice for herself, that's a choice I think she can probably make.

Any talk of the child's suffering has no meaning. We can't kill children (or anyone) because they're in pain. We don't have to extend their lives artificially, but we can't take a knife to their skull because we think it's better for them.

It's not better for them. It's not better for the mother. I'm not a consequential, but from your post I think maybe you are.Even from a consequentialist point of view, the abortion is not justified. In your analysis, you are focused on just the immediate consequences (like all consequentalists do) and ignoring or discounting the more subtle consequences of the action. The doctor should not be paid to murder someone; he suffers for it.  The mother and father should not hire someone to murder her child; she suffers for it. Society (i.e. you) should not hold up their story as an example of when abortion is justified and then, in doing that, swing the door wide open for all sorts of completely elective murders; the murdered children and all of the people involved in those abortions suffer.

An abortion is not necessary in even this extreme and tailor-made case. It is never necessary. It is always evil to intentionally kill an innocent child, and we should never, ever do that.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2021, 10:06:35 PM »
Quote
A good god could have made it so that human beings can only procreate (and only get sexual desires) after reaching adulthood, but unfortunately god doesn't exist and thusly human teenagers do both from early in their teens.

"Reduce sexual desire" is one possible path to resolve the issue, but frankly it seems way harder to do and much more prone to failure than the mere technological path of preventing pregnancy with IUDs.

Why is "self-control" completely off the table?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2021, 06:57:09 PM »
Quote
A good god could have made it so that human beings can only procreate (and only get sexual desires) after reaching adulthood, but unfortunately god doesn't exist and thusly human teenagers do both from early in their teens.

"Reduce sexual desire" is one possible path to resolve the issue, but frankly it seems way harder to do and much more prone to failure than the mere technological path of preventing pregnancy with IUDs.

Why is "self-control" completely off the table?

Have you ever met a teenager?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #45 on: April 04, 2021, 02:39:17 PM »
JoshuaD,

when you abuse language by calling an embryo, blastocyst or fetus a child, you show that your intent is to deceive and trying to trick people into adopting your view via emotional manipulation rather than relying on making a convincing argument.  No child ever dies when an embryo, blastocyst or fetus is killed.  A child is definitionally not an embryo, blastocyst nor a fetus.

The same is true when you use murder to describe the killing of embryos, blastocysts, and fetuses.

If you really thought you had a convincing claim - you wouldn't resort to deception, manipulation and trickery.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #46 on: April 04, 2021, 05:45:30 PM »
LetterRip: I believe that all of the unborn -- embryos, blostocysts, fetusus, or whatever else you'd like to call them -- are children.  Actual children. You believe I'm wrong. That's fine. It doesn't make any sense to say that I'm being deceitful when I say the thing I actually think.

I think you dehumanize children with your euphemized language. When you do that, I don't think you're being deceptive or manipulative or tricky, I think you're just honestly wrong. I would appreciate the same courtesy and assumption of good will.

Do you think I'm out here arguing with the few dozen active members of Ornery that life begins at conception to... sell some product? Enslave women? Enact my plan for world domination?  Of course not. I'm making these arguments because I believe them, and I use my words in a way that reflect my beliefs. It doesn't make any sense at all to accuse me of deceit, manipulation, or trickery.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #47 on: April 04, 2021, 06:11:16 PM »
Quote
A good god could have made it so that human beings can only procreate (and only get sexual desires) after reaching adulthood, but unfortunately god doesn't exist and thusly human teenagers do both from early in their teens.

"Reduce sexual desire" is one possible path to resolve the issue, but frankly it seems way harder to do and much more prone to failure than the mere technological path of preventing pregnancy with IUDs.

Why is "self-control" completely off the table?

Have you ever met a teenager?

I've met plenty of teenagers who have self control in regarding to sex. They almost always have very strong families, some intuitive distrust of our culture's values, and they don't typically possess that big pit of loneliness and low self-worth that arises in the wake of divorce, neglect, and abuse.

Sixty years ago, we set the virtue of sex loose and it transformed into a rabid beast. Instead of recognizing that it was not good when unleashed, we told people to find their self-worth in relation to it. Is it any surprise that, now, teens are anxious to start establishing their value on that ladder? No. Is that how it must be? No. We have failed the teens, and the sort of solutions proposed here are putting a toxic bandaid on a cancer.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2021, 06:16:41 PM by JoshuaD »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #48 on: April 04, 2021, 07:11:14 PM »
One thing is clear, regardless of whether teenagers could ever be expected to practice continence: they certainly cannot be expected to when brought up in an environment idolizing free sex and shaming people who remain virgins. IMO regardless of where one stands on the topic of the unborn and even on sexuality, it does young people no good to enter a veritable meat market from age 11, where there is pressure, innuendo, and pornography as well. Absent these cultural things, would it so unrealistic to wonder whether teenagers could abstain? Hard to say.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« Reply #49 on: April 04, 2021, 09:55:26 PM »
One thing is clear, regardless of whether teenagers could ever be expected to practice continence: they certainly cannot be expected to when brought up in an environment idolizing free sex and shaming people who remain virgins. IMO regardless of where one stands on the topic of the unborn and even on sexuality, it does young people no good to enter a veritable meat market from age 11, where there is pressure, innuendo, and pornography as well. Absent these cultural things, would it so unrealistic to wonder whether teenagers could abstain? Hard to say.

There were plenty of teen pregnancies in the Victorian era. Sexual repression in society doesn't halt an essential biological drive. Same thing with Islamic societies. Monogamy is also exceedingly unnatural, even more so mating for life with one partner. Doesn't mean it can't work for some, it surely does. But hanging your hope on some idyllic utopia where teens are all respectful monks who conform to your idea of life partner pairing for the purpose of procreation is simply fantasy.