[The E]

Scotty, I could say that you're violating the rights of the baby to protect the rights of the mother, but I already said that, and we could throw those two arguments back and forth at eachother until the Shivans glass Earth without getting anywhere. Even if I stipulate that pregnancy is a violation of the mother's rights (I have qualms about so labeling an essential part of human propagation), the violation of the baby's rights is far greater than the violation of the mother's rights; the little guy is losing literally everything.

As long as the mother is okay with carrying the baby, no violation of bodily integrity occurs (just as your financial autonomy is not impacted by your decision to pay your bills).
However, if after due deliberation a mother decides that she will not carry that child to term and that an abortion is the correct course of action, then her wishes must take precedence over those of the unborn child, if bodily autonomy is a concept we wish to stick to.
Placing restrictions on abortions sets a precedent for the needs of one person overriding the wishes of another, which I believe to be a bad thing.

As was pointed out earlier, IMO, "Pro-Life" is a misnomer in a way. The position is more accurately called "Pro-Birth", as its proponents place a high value on children being born, but not as much value on the childs' quality of life afterward. I would submit to you that lowering the ancillary costs of childbearing and childrearing (as in, the opportunity cost a mother incurs by dropping out of the workplace for a year or two, the financial burdens of getting adequate medical attention during and after pregnancy for all people involved, the running costs of raising a child until he or she is ready to live by him- or herself...) is a much more effective strategy in terms of getting women to agree to a pregnancy than any amount of picketing in front of women's health institutions or moralizing could ever be.

Thanks for clarifying your definition of Bodily Integrity, but the problem is, this definition isn't consistent. If A. Bodily Integrity requires that I have jurisdiction of my body, and B. A person can destroy my body, it's self-contradictory to claim that my bodily integrity is intact. Doesn't bodily integrity include the right to keep my heart beating? No one would claim that stealing was a violation of the right to property, but vandalism wasn't.

When is an unborn child a person? When is it granted its own set of rights? That's the only relevant question in this regard.

Personally, I draw the line at "able to live outside the mother's womb", you likely have a different point in mind. But until that threshold is crossed, the rights of the mother are the only rights applicable. Afterwards, it gets murkier. The reason I draw the line at independent living (well, as independent as a newborn can be) is that such a child could feasibly be put up for adoption, and thus we can accommodate the mother's wishes without violating any rights the newborn has.

[InsaneBaron]

However, if after due deliberation a mother decides that she will not carry that child to term and that an abortion is the correct course of action, then her wishes must take precedence over those of the unborn child...

Why? Why are one person's rights more important than another's?

Placing restrictions on abortions sets a precedent for the needs of one person overriding the wishes of another, which I believe to be a bad thing.

I think we both agree that a young child has a right to be cared for, because it needs that care. Why does the logic change if the baby isn't born yet? Either way the little guy is dependent on his or her parents.

As was pointed out earlier, IMO, "Pro-Life" is a misnomer in a way. The position is more accurately called "Pro-Birth", as its proponents place a high value on children being born, but not as much value on the childs' quality of life afterward. I would submit to you that lowering the ancillary costs of childbearing and childrearing (as in, the opportunity cost a mother incurs by dropping out of the workplace for a year or two, the financial burdens of getting adequate medical attention during and after pregnancy for all people involved, the running costs of raising a child until he or she is ready to live by him- or herself...) is a much more effective strategy in terms of getting women to agree to a pregnancy than any amount of picketing in front of women's health institutions or moralizing could ever be.

Then by all means, let's lower the costs! Not sure why this excludes trying to make abortion illegal, or talking an individual person out of having one.

When is an unborn child a person? When is it granted its own set of rights? That's the only relevant question in this regard.

Personally, I draw the line at "able to live outside the mother's womb", you likely have a different point in mind. But until that threshold is crossed, the rights of the mother are the only rights applicable. Afterwards, it gets murkier. The reason I draw the line at independent living (well, as independent as a newborn can be) is that such a child could feasibly be put up for adoption, and thus we can accommodate the mother's wishes without violating any rights the newborn has.

Why is independence the deciding factor? I was dependent on my parents for sixteen years, that didn't change my moral value. But even if I concede that the question is "murky", shouldn't we then err on the side of caution by eliminating even the risk of the baby dieing?

EDIT: To clarify the last one, it seems your argument on where to draw the line where the little guy has moral value is based on when he gains a certain degree of independence, and I don't see how someone's value is dependent on whether or not the can survive on their own.

EDIT: If it makes this all more palatable, here's an Atheist putting this all much better than I'm doing:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/

[The E]

Okay, first off, making abortions illegal means that abortions will be performed haphazardly and dangerously. The legalization of abortion was more a case of legalizing the status quo than anything else. It's an ineffective measure because it doesn't do anything to address the issues that lead to a mother choosing to have an abortion.

Now, you may be fine with drawing your particular line at "egg cell has been fertilized and is implanted". I'm not, and I'm not going to get into specifics any further than this post. My reasoning is that, as soon as the foetus is developed enough that it can be transferred into a mechanical womb, then that procedure should be used (assuming, of course, that the state foots the bill for the procedure, the high-intensity med care that follows, and the eventual adoption). As I said, this preserves the rights of the unborn and the mother simultaneously. Before that point, all I can say is that I value the rights of an actual person higher than those of a person in potentia. I can try to rationalize this, but at its core, it's an emotional decision.

Ultimately though, I do not have the right to tell another person what he or she may do with her body. I may assist in making a decision, but it is ultimately not mine to make, and once a decision has been reached, it is my responsibility to help deal with the consequences if required. Based on that, I cannot support any attempt to reduce another's bodily autonomy through force of law.

[InsaneBaron]

Okay, first off, making abortions illegal means that abortions will be performed haphazardly and dangerously. The legalization of abortion was more a case of legalizing the status quo than anything else. It's an ineffective measure because it doesn't do anything to address the issues that lead to a mother choosing to have an abortion.

Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, all these will happen whether they are legal or illegal. Doesn't mean we should make them legal.

Now, you may be fine with drawing your particular line at "egg cell has been fertilized and is implanted". I'm not, and I'm not going to get into specifics any further than this post. My reasoning is that, as soon as the foetus is developed enough that it can be transferred into a mechanical womb, then that procedure should be used (assuming, of course, that the state foots the bill for the procedure, the high-intensity med care that follows, and the eventual adoption). As I said, this preserves the rights of the unborn and the mother simultaneously.

If we can develop this procedure to the point where we can do it safely and effectively, awesome! Until then, I'm going to keep fighting discrimination against the youngest of us.

I can try to rationalize this, but at its core, it's an emotional decision.

Therein lies the problem. Emotions aren't always a reliable way to determine morality. I'm pretty sure the perpetrators of Kristalnacht, or the shooter from the last thread, were acting on their emotions rather than reason. Morality must be based on reason. Emotions can be useful, but they must be true ones (ie ones that correspond with reality.) "Jews are pigs", as we both know, is an emotion that doesn't correspond with reality. "Black lives matter" does.

Ultimately though, I do not have the right to tell another person what he or she may do with her body. I may assist in making a decision, but it is ultimately not mine to make, and once a decision has been reached, it is my responsibility to help deal with the consequences if required. Based on that, I cannot support any attempt to reduce another's bodily autonomy through force of law.

But you can support the use of law to prevent one person from violating another's rights! Blast it, you're so close!

EDIT: Apologies if I got too emotional here; it's one of those debates where the other guys are inches away from getting it and just won't quite cross the threshold...

That's what I get for debating people who actually listen

[Unknown Target]

Holy ****, I forget to check for a few days and it's up to a 100 comments...????

At work now but I'll have to look at this later.

[zookeeper]

Typically, when assigning priority to a selection of items, it's pretty indicative of relative value.  If you prioritize people over freedom, you assume by default that freedom is less valuable than people.  If you do not, then you aren't really prioritizing people over freedom, are you?

The very act of fighting a war for freedom indicates a value judgment placing it above human life.  This is a pretty consistent trend over human history!  Why, then, does it suddenly reverse when we get to the topic of abortion?  Why does human life suddenly become so much more important in this one instance?

It doesn't.  But it's a pretty convenient excuse for what is in reality a deeply personal disgust or distaste with the methods used.  I'm not one to judge on whether that reaction is appropriate or not, and I'm sure as **** never going to force someone to get an abortion.  That's barbaric and cruel.

And that's really the crux of my pro-choice standing.  It's a choice, go ahead and see the pregnancy to term!  Have children, don't get any abortions ever.  It's your choice.  Being pro-choice does not inherently mean being pro-abortion.  It means being pro-choice.  If it's ever up to me (and likely it will not be, for various reason), and it was my spouse dealing with this issue, I would probably want to keep the baby!  But having that choice is vitally important, for societal, economic, and psychological reasons.

Being pro-life is being anti-freedom.

I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born, not a child educated, not a child housed.  That's not pro-life, that's pro-birth.

Hope that's clear enough for you, zookeeper.

Kinda. It explains your position, but of course doesn't (and I know the intent wasn't to) explain and/or justify the reasoning behind the "bodily integrity is sacrosanct" thing, the same way "human life is sacrosanct" isn't. And justifying the reasoning behind one's position is something that hardly anyone ever does in abortion debates (or other debates either, for that matter). Debate is pretty much completely pointless without that.

[Scotty]

If you read more, you'll figure it out, zookeeper.  I actually did exactly that when talking to GhylTarvoke.

[zookeeper]

If you read more, you'll figure it out, zookeeper.  I actually did exactly that when talking to GhylTarvoke.

I don't see it. As far as I can tell, you just talked with him about forced blood/organ donations, and didn't even seem to agree (as he was ok with it in very narrow circumstances, whereas you naturally aren't).

[666maslo666]

Using that kind of retarded logic you'd have to also force people to donate blood if people are dying when there's not enough compatible blood available.

I dont think that would be such a bad thing. I might have reservations in the general case (forcing random people to do it), but forcing a person which is directly responsible for the situation which resulted in the dying people? (this is a correct analogy for pregnancy, unless it was rape). Yeah, I would do so. I dont consider bodily autonomy to be absolute, I can certainly imagine situations when violating it to prevent greater evil would be a preferrable course of action. Just like we can say that its a bad thing to steal in general, but stealing food if you are dying of hunger can still be morally justified.

[The E]

Okay, first off, making abortions illegal means that abortions will be performed haphazardly and dangerously. The legalization of abortion was more a case of legalizing the status quo than anything else. It's an ineffective measure because it doesn't do anything to address the issues that lead to a mother choosing to have an abortion.

Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, all these will happen whether they are legal or illegal. Doesn't mean we should make them legal.

There's a massive difference here though. We can all agree that murdering someone is a crime that needs to be punished. However, we (as in, humanity as a whole) can not come to a complete and objective agreement regarding when an assortment of cells becomes "someone". Convicting someone of capital crimes when we cannot for certain say that a capital crime has occurred is stupid.

And no matter what we do, women who can't bring a child to term for whatever reason will have abortions. Whether that involves travel to a country which does not treat it as a crime, deliberately having an accident, or even more dangerous means. It is, overall better to not make this illegal, just as it is better to legalize drugs than to fight a war on them.

[InsaneBaron]

Okay, first off, making abortions illegal means that abortions will be performed haphazardly and dangerously. The legalization of abortion was more a case of legalizing the status quo than anything else. It's an ineffective measure because it doesn't do anything to address the issues that lead to a mother choosing to have an abortion.

Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, all these will happen whether they are legal or illegal. Doesn't mean we should make them legal.

There's a massive difference here though. We can all agree that murdering someone is a crime that needs to be punished. However, we (as in, humanity as a whole) can not come to a complete and objective agreement regarding when an assortment of cells becomes "someone". Convicting someone of capital crimes when we cannot for certain say that a capital crime has occurred is stupid.

And no matter what we do, women who can't bring a child to term for whatever reason will have abortions. Whether that involves travel to a country which does not treat it as a crime, deliberately having an accident, or even more dangerous means. It is, overall better to not make this illegal, just as it is better to legalize drugs than to fight a war on them.

Remember that it's kinda hard to get humanity in general to agree that even outright murder is wrong; arguably the majority of societies through history permitted it in some form. Even in America, for crying out loud, it took a very long time to achieve a consensus that slavery was wrong, and racism is still a problem. Morality doesn't come from consensus.

Regarding the drug analogy, it all comes back to my right to swing my fist ending where your nose begins. Even with alchohol and marijuana, we don't let people drive under the influence. Yes, illegalizing abortion isn't a be-all-end-all solution, but it's a massive step in the right direction.

[Scotty]

Here's two PMs at the suggestion of Scotty

Isn't the point of having forums and open threads to present arguments in an open manner?

I liken these discussions to be like sharpening a rock. If there are substantial disagreements, there is going to be a whole lot of rock smashing. But you eventually reach a point where you are sharpening a blade, and there is only going to be small details that will collide. In this case I thought, mistakenly, that we were on the same position, i.e. abortion should be legal until an arbitrary date, which is why I engaged with you. Either I would convince you your argument was wrong, or you'd present counter-arguments for why your argument was better than those proposed before, e.g. using personhood as the defining feature regarding legality.

I'm not going to lie and tell you that you didn't present some good counter-arguments, e.g. concerning the donation of organs, which I'm unsure how to adjust my position to that. However, I still think that the freedom argument would be wrong, because in my opinion, which evidently you don't share as you expressed these would be only used for this context, these same arguments could be used other situations to deprive people of quality of life. That is, I like an argument where the applicability of it is as large as possible.

Anyway, to prevent me from babbling on, if we don't present these disagreements on an open thread, how can we improve our arguments or (most crucially) allow others lurking to improve theirs?

It is!  The issue I had with the response I received wasn't one of quantity or depth of disagreement, it was of how little it overall contributed to the conversation!  On a public forum, the actual substance of a discussion is only one part of the public awareness of a discussion.  I've seen more threads on HLP (and elsewhere) than I care to admit (and a smaller number that I care even less to admit that I contributed to) get bogged down in the details that don't really affect the core substance of the debate, but which disrupt the discussion such that it no longer continues in a constructive manner.

After that abominable mouthful of a sentence, this is arguably what happened in the last abortion thread, just a couple days ago.

My arguments using the concept of Bodily Integrity stem from a core belief of mine: personal self-determination is the highest priority for any government or social construct to enable someone to experience.  In a slightly more digestible mouthful: The right to have control over one's own body is the most important right.  All other rights must eventually stem from this one.  This ideal is human self-expression in the most basic sense.  Bodily Integrity, the concept of being ultimately and personally responsible for every part of one's own body.

Responsibility does not preclude abuse or misuse.  I personally would never try to convince my spouse (should I ever have one capable of having children) to get an abortion, and would try to dissuade her if she did!  I would not (could not) demand it, but that is her choice.  It is her body, and I have no dominion over any part of it - and neither should anyone else.  I would be extremely disappointed in anyone who chose to undergo a late-term abortion; I think it's inhumane, but I will fight to the death for that person's right to control her own body under any circumstance, and I don't think that she should suffer legal consequence for exercising that right.  There will always be consequences (it's a choice, after all), but legally I think there should be none.  (Special note: I can already hear the objection to alcohol and drug use, to which I would redirect you back to the whole "your freedom ends where my nose begins" quote; legally allowed to use, and legally allowed to operate equipment and vehicles under the influence are radically different concepts)

This doesn't excuse second and third order effects of exercising rights, to wit: trespassing, breaking and entering, breaking the law in other ways, etc.

I think it might be helpful to post these messages in the thread, since they've been pretty good discussion!

My mistake, zookeeper, it was the conversation with Ghostavo.

[The E]

Regarding the drug analogy, it all comes back to my right to swing my fist ending where your nose begins. Even with alchohol and marijuana, we don't let people drive under the influence. Yes, illegalizing abortion isn't a be-all-end-all solution, but it's a massive step in the right direction.

The right direction to what, exactly? You must have some goal in mind here.

And again: If you want to stop abortions, your first priority should be to make sure that noone needs to have them. Use the carrot, not the stick.

Also, just for the record? Morality does come from consensus. All your examples prove it.

[InsaneBaron]

The right direction to what, exactly? You must have some goal in mind here.

Defending innocent human life.

And again: If you want to stop abortions, your first priority should be to make sure that noone needs to have them. Use the carrot, not the stick.

Abdorption. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that making it easier to raise a family is a critical way to protect these lives. But no matter how much progress we make in this direction, as long as abortion is legal it's going to keep happening. Even one is too many. Every single baby saved is, in and of itself, enough to justify all the effort the Pro-Life Movement is capable of putting into it.

[Scotty]

The only thing that pro-choice and pro-life agree on is that both want to see fewer abortions.

[The E]

Abdorption. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that making it easier to raise a family is a critical way to protect these lives. But no matter how much progress we make in this direction, as long as abortion is legal it's going to keep happening. Even one is too many. Every single baby saved is, in and of itself, enough to justify all the effort the Pro-Life Movement is capable of putting into it.

Okay, let's move on to a practical issue then: Assume you succeed in your desire to use your country's legal system to enforce (rather than codify) your morality. Let us posit a scenario: A woman finds out that she's pregnant against her wish. Knowing that abortion is illegal, and assuming that it's too early in the pregnancy to move the foetus, she decides to head to neighboring Othercountry, where abortions are legal and will be performed at a reasonable fee for foreigners. A few days later, she returns, now baby-free, and continues with her life.

How do you intend to police this? How do you make sure that your law can be enforced fairly? In other words, how intrusive do you want your law enforcement to be to make sure that you can catch perpetrators?

[InsaneBaron]

Abdorption. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that making it easier to raise a family is a critical way to protect these lives. But no matter how much progress we make in this direction, as long as abortion is legal it's going to keep happening. Even one is too many. Every single baby saved is, in and of itself, enough to justify all the effort the Pro-Life Movement is capable of putting into it.

Okay, let's move on to a practical issue then: Assume you succeed in your desire to use your country's legal system to enforce (rather than codify) your morality. Let us posit a scenario: A woman finds out that she's pregnant against her wish. Knowing that abortion is illegal, and assuming that it's too early in the pregnancy to move the foetus, she decides to head to neighboring Othercountry, where abortions are legal and will be performed at a reasonable fee for foreigners. A few days later, she returns, now baby-free, and continues with her life.

How do you intend to police this? How do you make sure that your law can be enforced fairly? In other words, how intrusive do you want your law enforcement to be to make sure that you can catch perpetrators?

Honestly, I can't say for sure how I'd want to deal with that scenario, other than supporting the Pro-Life movement of Othercountry. I'll think about it. There's smarter Pro-Lifers out there than me, you might have to ask them. But this doesn't invalidate preventing it from happening in my own country. Like I said, illegalization isn't going to usher in a utopian golden age, but it sure will save a lot of lives.

[InsaneBaron]

The only thing that pro-choice and pro-life agree on is that both want to see fewer abortions.

Then why on earth do you insist that it's such an important right?

[Scotty]

Even aside from the numerous reasons I've posted in this thread: access to legal, safe, supported abortions has the long term effect of reducing the number of abortions and reducing the number of unsafe, unsanctioned abortions at the same time.

Having children at an inopportune time in this country is nothing short of financially catastrophic.  Higher quality of life correkates significantly with reduced abortion rates.

[InsaneBaron]

Even aside from the numerous reasons I've posted in this thread: access to legal, safe, supported abortions has the long term effect of reducing the number of abortions and reducing the number of unsafe, unsanctioned abortions at the same time.

Having children at an inopportune time in this country is nothing short of financially catastrophic.  Higher quality of life correlates significantly with reduced abortion rates.

If Roe v. Wade was supposed to reduce the number of abortions in the US, it's failed catastrophically.

And again, by all means, let's do what we can to raise quality of life! Pretty sure most people on both sides are doing what they can to accomplish that anyway.