[InsaneBaron]

As I said, I'm glad to here both Scotty and Kara acknowledge this, although it bothers me that they're the first pro-choicers I've met to say anything to this effect. Most of the ones who even brought the matter up followed the same logic as the "How I lost all faith in the pro-life movement" article that went viral:

In the five years since that day in October, I have rethought many things. I no longer believe that abortion is murder because I no longer hold that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a “person.” I also came to realize that the focus on personhood ignores the fact that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is growing inside of another person’s body. For a variety of reasons, I see birth as the key dividing line.

As I said, it's entirely possible that I've simply run into too many people you would probably consider "extremists" or as Scotty put it, "Misanthropes". Demographically, HLP is a lot more centrist than, well, the world in general.

The problem I have with this logic is that, pain issue aside, a human being is still getting killed. A late-term unborn baby is a former early-term one; any way you slice it, that person's getting killed. Not to mention, the solution to this "violation of a woman's bodily integrity" involves making an even bigger violation of the baby's bodily integrity. The mother might have to carry her baby for nine months, but the baby's body is completely destroyed.

EDIT Kinda Ninja'd by Jr2's point. The "violation of the mother's bodily integrity" ends in less than a year. Trying to end it early leaves one member of the pair dead.

[jr2]

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?

I think what I'm attempting to do is to remove the unborn human from the realm of hypothetical, to the realm of reality.

In much the same way as it's much easier to bring home the horror of something like the Holocaust after watching something like The Boy In Striped Pajamas, or easier to realize the horrors the victims of war crimes go through after watching, say Casualties of War, etc, etc.

[The E]

The only hypothetical worthy of discussion here is "What about a mother wanting to have an abortion?". Nothing else matters. Constructing a hypothetical like your siamese twin, which you deem to be equivalent to the abortion example, is completely useless, because these examples just aren't equivalent.

Everyone who has posted in this topic is sophisticated enough to discuss the actual issues without using not-really-equivalent examples. Using them does not add to the discussion. Discussing them is useless.

Also, for the record, there is an actual example of the hypothetical you constructed. You can read about it here. It should be noted that the only reason that case existed was because there was a choice between maybe saving one twin or definitely losing both, something your hypothetical didn't touch on, but which is crucial in determining whether or not a separation is ethical.

[Scotty]

It doesn't matter how long the violation will occur for.  You don't tell someone that slavery is okay because there's a hypothetical ten year statutory limit on being a slave.  It's totally tangential to the point.

Nothing here violates the fetus's bodily integrity.  If you don't know why that is, I suggest going back and reading the definition I supplied a bit more carefully.

Hint: it has nothing to do with bodily harm.

[jr2]

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.

So, basically, because the duration of bodily integrity violation for the woman (9 months) is longer than the bodily integrity violation of the fetus (half an hour?), then the lesser of two evils is to violate the bodily integrity of the unborn.

This sails right past one detail:

You mentioned slavery, forcing someone to do something against their will

How does your position deal with forcing someone to forfeit the entirety of their, let's say average of 70


I get the issue with body integrity, check.

I get that the woman cannot be forced to donate her organs for their use in keeping an unborn alive, check.

I don't get that you don't get that you are inversely donating the entirety of another human's life (totality of all body organs) for 70 years.

Please do elaborate. 

[InsaneBaron]

It doesn't matter how long the violation will occur for.  You don't tell someone that slavery is okay because there's a hypothetical ten year statutory limit on being a slave.  It's totally tangential to the point.

Nothing here violates the fetus's bodily integrity.  If you don't know why that is, I suggest going back and reading the definition I supplied a bit more carefully.

Hint: it has nothing to do with bodily harm.

As far as I understand, your definition of bodily integrity is that what happens to, or in, a person's body, is under their jurisdiction. But abortion not only interferes with but completely destroys the baby's body, and the baby has no choice in the matter.

Comparing pregnancy to slavery is pretty far fetched. Slavery is a violation of a person's most basic freedoms; pregnancy is a natural part of life, and as it's needed to bring a new human being into the world, it's broadly speaking a good thing.

but even if I grant you that, look: we have two people, who's rights to bodily integrity seem to conflicting.

Option A: Wait a couple months until the conflict ends with both parties alive and well.
Option B: For the sake of reinstating A's bodily integrity a little faster, commit the ultimate violation of B's integrity by destroying B's body.

[Bobboau]

well, the fetus has no choice in anything because the fetus is incapable of choice, the fetus doesn't have a choice in being born either. You don't have a conflict between two people because a fetus is not a person, especially early on in the pregnancy. In the future I will be dead, that doesn't mean I'm dead now, why is it that in the future a fetus will turn into a person means that it is a person now?

[Turambar]

pregnancy is a natural part of life, and as it's needed to bring a new human being into the world, it's broadly speaking a good thing.

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree.  The world is probably OK on humans.

[Bobboau]

well, no no we need more children because our demographics are aging and we need more young people to pay for our older generation.

[mjn.mixael]

well, the fetus has no choice in anything because the fetus is incapable of choice, the fetus doesn't have a choice in being born either. You don't have a conflict between two people because a fetus is not a person, especially early on in the pregnancy. In the future I will be dead, that doesn't mean I'm dead now, why is it that in the future a fetus will turn into a person means that it is a person now?

Because despite how factually you try to type that... large portions of the population have conflicting views on when personhood begins...

[Grizzly]

It should perhaps be noted that the bodily integrity of the fetus is not neccisarely impacted during the abortion. Rather, it's ejected from the worm along with it's "life support system". The unfortunate side effect to this is that the fetus is at that point completely dependant on the mother to survive, and thus dies.
The question here is whether or not the fetus has the right to use the resources that a woman provides to it without her consent, or that a woman should risk sacrificing her own life for the sake of having a higher chance of saving the baby's life. The decisions of abortions often boil down to a) The unwanted result of consensual sex due to failure of contraceptives, b) the unwanted results of unwanted sex (ie rape) or c) medical complications.

[karajorma]

Let me ask you this, let's suppose that the bible said the soul enters the body only at birth and that before that the embryo was no more a person than an unmixed sample of sperm and an egg. I know it doesn't say that, but let's suppose it did. The bible does not say that sperm is alive just because it might one day become a human being. It's just something that might possibly one day have a soul and become a human. Let's say the bible flat out says that an unborn child is the same. Would you still have a problem with abortion then?

[mjn.mixael]

Let me ask you this, let's suppose that the bible said the soul enters the body only at birth and that before that the embryo was no more a person than an unmixed sample of sperm and an egg. I know it doesn't say that, but let's suppose it did. The bible does not say that sperm is alive just because it might one day become a human being. It's just something that might possibly one day have a soul and become a human. Let's say the bible flat out says that an unborn child is the same. Would you still have a problem with abortion then?

Having felt the kicks of my own children before they were born... have experienced that they reacted and kicked back to certain stimuli. Yes, very much yes. But of course I'm talking late pregnancy here. But in your hypothetical, it still counts given where your line is drawn.

[Bobboau]

It should perhaps be noted that the bodily integrity of the fetus is not neccisarely impacted during the abortion. Rather, it's ejected from the worm along with it's "life support system". The unfortunate side effect to this is that the fetus is at that point completely dependant on the mother to survive, and thus dies.

that's not entirely accurate, there are plenty of abortion methods that destroy the fetus still in the womb, not that it invalidates your greater point.

Because despite how factually you try to type that... large portions of the population have conflicting views on when personhood begins...

it's the only premise that an anti-abortion stance has to stand on.

[karajorma]

Having felt the kicks of my own children before they were born... have experienced that they reacted and kicked back to certain stimuli. Yes, very much yes.

A pig reacts to stimuli, that doesn't stop most people from eating bacon. It's not a human, so it's okay to kill it.

But if that's the issue you can't get over, let's say that the soul enters at 20 weeks. Would you still have a problem with a pill that could cause an abortion in a woman up to 10 weeks?

[Grizzly]

It should perhaps be noted that the bodily integrity of the fetus is not neccisarely impacted during the abortion. Rather, it's ejected from the worm along with it's "life support system". The unfortunate side effect to this is that the fetus is at that point completely dependant on the mother to survive, and thus dies.

that's not entirely accurate, there are plenty of abortion methods that destroy the fetus still in the womb, not that it invalidates your greater point.

Actually there's an interesting side question there, if people would be okay with some abortion methods but not with others.

Also... How did we actually get to discussing the merits of abortion here? Although Planned Parenthood provides abortion as one of it's many services, the vast majority of the services it provides are aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies entirely (thus reducing the need for abortion), supporting women in poor financial healthcare so that miscarriages don't happen (And if you are going to argue that abortion is murder, miscarriages are manslaughter), preventing cancer, preventing STIs and many other measures that our child loving community would adore. There are quite a few planned parenthood clinics (slightly less then half) that do not provide abortion but do provide these other services. It is in nobodies interest, not of that of any *-life movements, pregnant women or any fetus that these clinics are attacked. Yet the politicians seem more interested in letting their policies be influenced by terrorists rather then preventing senseless deaths. Woo. Go world.

[The E]

For the last time: stop it with the hypothetical scenarios and what-ifs. They do not lead to anything productive, and are more of an interrogation or blackmail technique than a good way of making your argument.

Let's also get away from the topic of the ethics of abortions and talk about something perhaps more relevant to the concrete case that started this thing. Namely, is the way in which the abortion debate is conducted in the United States, with all the exaggerations and hyperbole and panic-making, at least partially responsible for this?

[mjn.mixael]

Having felt the kicks of my own children before they were born... have experienced that they reacted and kicked back to certain stimuli. Yes, very much yes.

A pig reacts to stimuli, that doesn't stop most people from eating bacon. It's not a human, so it's okay to kill it.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here... a pig is most clearly a different situation that an nearly fully developed unborn child... We don't farm children in order to eat them. Nor does anyone other than the most hardcore animal rights activists actual consider a pig having equal or similar rights to a human child in any way, shape, or form.

But if that's the issue you can't get over, let's say that the soul enters at 20 weeks. Would you still have a problem with a pill that could cause an abortion in a woman up to 10 weeks?

And at this point, the argument you were trying to make becomes void. Birth, being one of the clearest and easiest dividing lines between "child with rights" and "child without rights" has been ceded. There are few, if any, lines to be drawn with any sort of hard conclusion during pregnancy. That's why pro-lifers keep using the same old arguments about how early there is a heartbeat or when some other very person-like development happens in the child. If any of these lines were true debate-enders, this whole thing wouldn't be such an issue. As soon as pro-choicers ceded birth as the dividing line, the debate became exponentially more complicated.

[InsaneBaron]

Let me ask you this, let's suppose that the bible said the soul enters the body only at birth and that before that the embryo was no more a person than an unmixed sample of sperm and an egg. I know it doesn't say that, but let's suppose it did. The bible does not say that sperm is alive just because it might one day become a human being. It's just something that might possibly one day have a soul and become a human. Let's say the bible flat out says that an unborn child is the same. Would you still have a problem with abortion then?

Where on earth have I brought up the Bible as an argument? To me at least, the fact that Christianity in general tends to line up with the pro-life movement is more of an argument for Christianity than for the pro-life movement. In other words, it's more accurate to say that I'm Christian because I'm pro-life, not the other way around (either statement is an oversimplification, but still).

EDIT: Kinda Ninja'd by The_E

[Bobboau]

@josh- why are we talking about abortion and only abortion? Because it's the controversial issue. See http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

@mixael- I never ceded nothing. I only ever entertain discussion about other dividing lines in order to understand the point of view of the person I'm arguing against.