[Phantom Hoover]

Scotty's argument is about as specious as libertarians who argue that taxes are wrong because they take away freedom. Somebody's freedom has to be curtailed, and someone's beliefs have to be forced on others. This is a basic fact of reality.

[InsaneBaron]

Kara, remember, there have been times when whole cultures (Aztecs, Nazis, ISIS) have condoned the killing of five-year-olds, or fifty-year-olds, and taught their populace that this was necessary to appease the gods/cleanse their nation/win the Jihad. I doubt anyone here would say that we, as modern Americans with a hopefully better respect for human life, could not "impose" our beliefs on them.

Meanwhile, the Pro-Life movement, as zookeeper and others pointed out, actually succeeds in limiting itself to non-violent protest 99.9% of the time, and when the 0.1% decides to act out, the rest of the movement promptly condemns him as a terrorist. If what we're doing is "imposing our beliefs on others", than Martin Luther King Jr. was imposing his beliefs on racists.

[karajorma]

Once again we get into the fact that there is no biological difference between a black person and a white person that could allow you to treat the two differently. That much is not an issue of belief.

You can't really tell me that there is no biological difference between a foetus and a 5 year old child.



Basically my problem is that by the definition you are trying to argue, it's not that Scotty is wrong to use "forcing your belief onto others" as a blanket statement but that there is no such thing because there is nothing but that in human society. That smacks of attempting to use linguistic trickery to win an argument.

[InsaneBaron]

Once again we get into the fact that there is no biological difference between a black person and a white person that could allow you to treat the two differently. That much is not an issue of belief.

You can't really tell me that there is no biological difference between a foetus and a 5 year old child.

Okay then, let's make the difference a little less visual. On the one hand, a child who's one day old. On the other hand, a child one day away from being born. Where's the difference between the two that makes it acceptable to kill one and not the other?

After all, there's a lot of difference biologically between me and a five-year-old child. None of that matters morally. The five-year-old is a former unborn baby, I'm a former five-year-old, in fact, I'm a former fetus myself... and yet somehow my moral value changed at my birth?

[The E]

This "debate" is rapidly degenerating into useless sophistry. We've heard all these arguments and read this entire discussion before. It all boils down to the question where a mother's right to sovereignty over her body ends and an unborn's right to live begins, and that question is unsolvable in this environment. No amount of hypotheticals will change that.

So let's go back to other topics that can be discussed in this context before this degenerates further.

[zookeeper]

Basically my problem is that by the definition you are trying to argue, it's not that Scotty is wrong to use "forcing your belief onto others" as a blanket statement but that there is no such thing because there is nothing but that in human society. That smacks of attempting to use linguistic trickery to win an argument.

Sure, I'm not saying there's many legitimate uses of that phrase. However, my problem is basically that I don't think there is any reasonable, non-pedantic interpretation for it that, at least in this case, wouldn't also be a circular argument.

The non-pedantic formulation would be something along the lines of "it's wrong to force your beliefs on other people except for the belief that other people shouldn't be harmed, therefore it's wrong to force the belief that fetuses shouldn't be harmed on other people, because fetuses are not people" which is rather circular because whether fetuses are people or not is precisely the thing the disagreement is over in the first place. Hence why I called it little more than a rhetorical device.

It's sidestepping the disagreement about whether fetuses are people and reframing it into a disagreement about whether it's ok to force your beliefs onto others, in a way which simply doesn't do anything. The disagreement regarding abortion is still about whether fetuses are people or not, and as The E said, that is in this context unsolvable.

[Scotty]

No one who is pro-choice (and not a misanthrope) that I have ever met thinks that an abortion late term is appropriate or justifiable.  Implying that I and people who are pro-choice either agree with that particular event or support its practice is disingenuous at best, and deliberately obfuscates the issue at worst.  When I'm not on a phone I'll elaborate.

[AtomicClucker]

Welp, it went from religion, to morality, to liberties and then some more. This thread is degenerating faster than a crowd of games journalists accusing themselves of being GamerGate supporters

[Turambar]

The problem is that we all need to get over this idea that every successful combination of Human DNA is special and needs to be preserved.

[InsaneBaron]

No one who is pro-choice (and not a misanthrope) that I have ever met thinks that an abortion late term is appropriate or justifiable.  Implying that I and people who are pro-choice either agree with that particular event or support its practice is disingenuous at best, and deliberately obfuscates the issue at worst.  When I'm not on a phone I'll elaborate.

We'll, I'm very happy to hear this, although unfortunately it doesn't necessarily line up with a lot of the people I've debated the issue with in the past. Perhaps I've run into too many of the extremists.

EDIT: For that matter, given The E's comments about "screaming incoherently and intimidating" (I've met very few pro-lifers who meet that description... perhaps three total?) I get the feeling a number of us might be basing responses on extremists we've met. Thanks for calling this out; it's something we need to be careful about.

EDIT: Now that we've found a point of agreement, a question. Would you be willing to force (i.e. by enacting a law) those who do approve of late-term abortions to comply with your moral stance on the matter? I sure would. There's a life at stake.

[Scotty]

I'll just go ahead and skip the part where we mutually determine what the other believes through a series of hypotheticals, and instead outright state what I think about the matter and why.

The very core my pro-choice beliefs is the concept of bodily integrity.  In short, it is the concept that what happens in one's body is under the jurisdiction of oneself and no higher authority.  This is perhaps best exemplified in the complete lack of controversy surrounding organ donation.  Under law in damn near every modern country, it is not only morally unconscionable but outright illegal to force anyone, regardless of age, heritage, citizenship, even whether the person is alive or not, to donate any of their organs or body parts to anyone else, period.  It is utterly irrelevant whether the donation would save a life, or the donation is the only reasonable match.  It is utterly irrelevant whether the potential donor is alive or dead; if they are dead, they must have indicated they wanted to be an organ donor in death, or taking any one of those parts is completely illegal.  There are no exceptions to this, even if the person needing the donation would die without this specific donation.

And yet, suddenly it's not only morally acceptable but imperative that when a woman becomes pregnant, her right to bodily integrity is void?  Unacceptable.

That said, I absolutely think that it's inhumane to prolong the process beyond the point where the fetus is capable of feeling pain (which is emphatically not at the moment of conception, or anywhere near that).

To be pro-life is to be anti-bodily-integrity.  The very concepts are diametrically opposed.

To be pro-choice is not to be anti-life.  I absolutely support a woman's right to control what goes on in her own body.  I also absolutely support a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term.

[karajorma]

Okay then, let's make the difference a little less visual. On the one hand, a child who's one day old. On the other hand, a child one day away from being born. Where's the difference between the two that makes it acceptable to kill one and not the other

I've not met anyone who would argue that it's okay to abort a day before due date. That's a complete strawman of the pro-choice position. I called out Bob when he was strawmanning Christianity, I'll thank you to not do the same yourself.

 As Scotty said, most people draw the line at the point where the foetus becomes capable of feeling pain or the point at which it could survive (with medical intervention) if it were born.

[mjn.mixael]

I'll just go ahead and skip the part where we mutually determine what the other believes through a series of hypotheticals, and instead outright state what I think about the matter and why.

The very core my pro-choice beliefs is the concept of bodily integrity.  In short, it is the concept that what happens in one's body is under the jurisdiction of oneself and no higher authority.  This is perhaps best exemplified in the complete lack of controversy surrounding organ donation.  Under law in damn near every modern country, it is not only morally unconscionable but outright illegal to force anyone, regardless of age, heritage, citizenship, even whether the person is alive or not, to donate any of their organs or body parts to anyone else, period.  It is utterly irrelevant whether the donation would save a life, or the donation is the only reasonable match.  It is utterly irrelevant whether the potential donor is alive or dead; if they are dead, they must have indicated they wanted to be an organ donor in death, or taking any one of those parts is completely illegal.  There are no exceptions to this, even if the person needing the donation would die without this specific donation.

And yet, suddenly it's not only morally acceptable but imperative that when a woman becomes pregnant, her right to bodily integrity is void?  Unacceptable.

That said, I absolutely think that it's inhumane to prolong the process beyond the point where the fetus is capable of feeling pain (which is emphatically not at the moment of conception, or anywhere near that).

To be pro-life is to be anti-bodily-integrity.  The very concepts are diametrically opposed.

To be pro-choice is not to be anti-life.  I absolutely support a woman's right to control what goes on in her own body.  I also absolutely support a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term.

Makes sense.. but I couldn't help wonder at what point does the fetus obtain the right to bodily integrity? That's what makes this so complicated. At some point (a point that is still often in debate) the fetus is a human being and deserves the same basic rights. How do you reconcile the rights of the woman and the child at that point?

[Scotty]

Makes sense.. but I couldn't help wonder at what point does the fetus obtain the right to bodily integrity? That's what makes this so complicated. At some point (a point that is still often in debate) the fetus is a human being and deserves the same basic rights. How do you reconcile the rights of the woman and the child at that point?

This one is pretty easy, actually!  Until and unless the fetus is no longer using the woman's uterus, the woman's bodily integrity is intact.  Whether it is or is not morally reprehensible (or should be legal) to conduct a late term abortion (with the understanding that such a service was reasonably available during previous stages of pregnancy) is honestly a side-issue, but one that I feel like I've adequately described earlier.  I personally think that when the fetus is capable of feeling pain is an adequate cutoff.

[Aesaar]

It is utterly irrelevant whether the potential donor is alive or dead; if they are dead, they must have indicated they wanted to be an organ donor in death, or taking any one of those parts is completely illegal.

I'd be perfectly ok with making organ donation mandatory when the donor is dead (barring medically relevant issues like transmissible diseases).

[Bobboau]

I personally would be willing to accept a 2/3rds compromise, in that abortion was legal for the first 2/3rds of a pregnancy and banned in the last one (with obvious medical exemptions) if I thought it would end this debate. but it wouldn't

[Goober5000]

Makes sense.. but I couldn't help wonder at what point does the fetus obtain the right to bodily integrity? That's what makes this so complicated. At some point (a point that is still often in debate) the fetus is a human being and deserves the same basic rights. How do you reconcile the rights of the woman and the child at that point?

This one is pretty easy, actually!  Until and unless the fetus is no longer using the woman's uterus, the woman's bodily integrity is intact.  Whether it is or is not morally reprehensible (or should be legal) to conduct a late term abortion (with the understanding that such a service was reasonably available during previous stages of pregnancy) is honestly a side-issue, but one that I feel like I've adequately described earlier.  I personally think that when the fetus is capable of feeling pain is an adequate cutoff.

So, is this summarization of your position correct?

1) The woman's right to bodily integrity covers the length of time that the fetus is using the woman's uterus
2) The fetus's right to bodily integrity begins at the point it is capable of feeling pain

[AdmiralRalwood]

No; that's just the point at which killing the fetus becomes morally reprehensible.

[jr2]

The very core my pro-choice beliefs is the concept of bodily integrity.  In short, it is the concept that what happens in one's body is under the jurisdiction of oneself and no higher authority.  This is perhaps best exemplified in the complete lack of controversy surrounding organ donation.  Under law in damn near every modern country, it is not only morally unconscionable but outright illegal to force anyone, regardless of age, heritage, citizenship, even whether the person is alive or not, to donate any of their organs or body parts to anyone else, period.

Maybe, to make it a little more clear about the controversy here:

Hypothetically (or maybe there is an actual case, who knows) suppose you have Siamese twins.  One has 60% of the body, the other 40, but two heads obviously. One wants separation.  One does not (can't survive with 40% of a body).

...Except in the case of a pregnancy, assuming that the unborn is actually a person (or, some would say, has reached the point of becoming a person), you have a completely viable means of separation with both parties surviving, in 9 months maximum.

You are already violating bodily integrity with abortion, assuming the unborn is indeed a human.  How do you determine which party's bodily integrity is to be enforced above another's?  The one who has a voice?  The one who doesn't??

I really wish there was a way to viably freeze the unborn out of the womb for later implantation for those who can't have children of their own / or want to adopt an unwanted child.  That would make this issue so much easier, as you could get rid of multiple issues at once.

Anyways, on the subject of pain, some links here, here, here, here, and here, in no particular order, for and against, but the jist is that an unborn child can feel pain between 20 (pro life arguments) and sometime after 24 (pro-choice) weeks, however, do take note of these:

• In the 6th and 7th weeks after fertilization, the brain’s “cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum are developing.” [Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery]
• By 7 weeks, pain “sensory receptors appear in the perioral [mouth] area.” [New England Journal of Medicine]
• By 10 weeks, “All components of the brain and spinal cord are formed, and nerves link the stem of the brain and the spinal cord to all tissues and organs of the body.” [Encyclopedia of Human Biology]
• By 12 weeks, “the fetus sucks its thumb, kicks, makes fists and faces, and has the beginnings of baby teeth.” [Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications]
• By 14 weeks, “Limb movements, which occur at the end of the embryonic period (8 weeks), become coordinated….” [Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects]
• By 16 weeks, “Eye movements begin.” [Embryology: Board Review Series]
• By 18 weeks, pain sensory receptors spread to “all cutaneous [skin] and mucous surfaces….” [New England Journal of Medicine]
• By 20 weeks, the fetus “now sleeps and wakes and hears sounds.” [American Medical Association Complete Medical Encyclopedia]

Anatomical:

Pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child’s entire body by no later than 16 weeks after fertilization, and nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks. For unborn children, says Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, 20 weeks is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.” As a result, unborn babies at this age probably feel pain more intensely than adults.

Behavioral:

By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human—for example, by recoiling. Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. In addition, ultrasound technology shows that unborn babies at 20 weeks and earlier react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch.

Physiological:

The application of painful stimuli is associated with significant increases in the unborn child’s stress hormones. During fetal surgery, anesthesia is routinely administered to the unborn baby and is associated with a decrease in stress hormones compared to their level when painful stimuli is applied without such anesthesia.


Despite the fetus’s advanced development at 20 weeks, the following abortion procedures are the most commonly used:

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist, and tear the baby’s body into pieces.  This continues until the child’s entire body is removed from the womb.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy describes the procedure saying, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.”

Digoxin abortion: A drug called digoxin is injected directly into the baby’s heart, giving the fetus a fatal heart attack.  The dead baby is then removed from his or her mother by dismemberment.

[The E]

Constructing hypotheticals and asking "But what about these special cases?" is not helpful. These issues will always have a degree of fuzziness around the edges.

So let's stop doing that, yes?