[Ghostavo]

Scotty, are we to assume you support legalization of abortion for fetuses 9 months in?

I bring this up because that's the only possible way you can justify the argument that personhood is more nebulous than freedom in the context of this argument.

[GhylTarvoke]

So then why bring the nebulous concept of freedom instead of the (admittedly possibly equally nebulous) concept of personhood, sentience or some other form of categorization of living beings, which has been the whole point of the entire discussion?

Ditto. As I said before, personhood is the core of the issue; it's the crucial point on which the two sides disagree. Everything else is a sideshow.

For example, arguments about bodily autonomy would hold no weight with a pro-lifer. They'd probably say, "Yes, bodily autonomy is important. But the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy, and the fetus has the right to life." The same would apply to freedom, women's rights, and so on.

[Scotty]

Legalization?  I think I've been pretty clear about that (the answer is yes, without contradicting myself, which I'm obviously not going to do because then I might as well have posted 'lol **** pro-lifers' for all the good my post would have done).

That said, I've also been pretty damn clear about what I personally think about the practice.  I think it's inhumane.  I think that if the option existed at all before the point at which a fetus feels pain it should have been taken prior.  I'd personally suggest a lot of the current measures implemented in states where abortion is technically legal, but strongly frowned upon by the sitting government (information on the alternatives, the process itself, the effects of the process, potential complications, etc.).

But I think it's pretty interesting that we're not longer discussing whether abortion in the broadly painted sense should be legal or not, and instead decided to spend the conversation cross-referencing my personal viewpoint for tiny inconsistencies!  Much more productive.

So then why bring the nebulous concept of freedom instead of the (admittedly possibly equally nebulous) concept of personhood, sentience or some other form of categorization of living beings, which has been the whole point of the entire discussion?

Ditto. As I said before, personhood is the core of the issue; it's the crucial point on which the two sides disagree. Everything else is a sideshow.

For example, arguments about bodily autonomy would hold no weight with a pro-lifer. They'd probably say, "Yes, bodily autonomy is important. But the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy, and the fetus has the right to life." The same would apply to freedom, women's rights, and so on.

I would very much like you to answer that question I asked a few posts back about forcing people to donate blood or organs if someone else needed them to live.

[Ghostavo]

The reason why I believe something is just as important to me as what I believe.

But I think it's pretty interesting that we're not longer discussing whether abortion in the broadly painted sense should be legal or not, and instead decided to spend the conversation cross-referencing my personal viewpoint for tiny inconsistencies!  Much more productive.

Pick one.

[GhylTarvoke]

I would very much like you to answer that question I asked a few posts back about forcing people to donate blood or organs if someone else needed them to live.

Good point. I don't know the standard pro-life stance on organ donations, but I'll state my own position: unless you're directly responsible for someone's condition, you have no moral obligation to give them your organs.

[Scotty]

I would very much like you to answer that question I asked a few posts back about forcing people to donate blood or organs if someone else needed them to live.

Good point. I don't know the standard pro-life stance on organ donations, but I'll state my own position: unless you're directly responsible for someone's condition, you have no moral obligation to give them your organs.

So if someone caused a car accident that damaged a person's kidneys beyond operation or repair, you'd force them to give up a kidney for it, were they compatible?  A liver?  A heart?

I can do hypotheticals, too!

The reason why I believe something is just as important to me as what I believe.

But I think it's pretty interesting that we're not longer discussing whether abortion in the broadly painted sense should be legal or not, and instead decided to spend the conversation cross-referencing my personal viewpoint for tiny inconsistencies!  Much more productive.

Pick one.

I don't see anything mutually exclusive here.  It does matter to me why I think what I think.  I've been pretty clear on that.  I don't think it's productive quibbling the minutiae when we haven't even settled the main issue.

[Phantom Hoover]

So if someone caused a car accident that damaged a person's kidneys beyond operation or repair, you'd force them to give up a kidney for it, were they compatible?  A liver?  A heart?

you're just after saying you think abortion is immoral if the foetus can feel pain; Ghyl, you should try turning his hypotheticals around to pick at that

[Ghostavo]

I don't think anyone on this thread is claiming that abortion should be completely illegal on all circumstances, most of the discussion is on when it should stop to be legal. Then you start arguing that the matter is about freedom and start a discussion where apparently all abortion, no matter the circumstances should be legal.

When I first engaged with you I thought that the reason why you would take a position was important too, like the first quote would lead to believe. But then you dismiss all discussion of this as quibbling on minutiae.


Admittedly I started this exchange mistaken on your position because I had no idea that people existed that claimed all abortion should be legal. So if that's your position, now I understand why you would attempt to argue for freedom.

[Scotty]

I thought I was being pretty clear about bodily integrity earlier.  At this point I'm asking Ghyl to define his own position, since this particular point is a major source of contention between our ideologies.

I don't think anyone on this thread is claiming that abortion should be completely illegal on all circumstances, most of the discussion is on when it should stop to be legal. Then you start arguing that the matter is about freedom and start a discussion where apparently all abortion, no matter the circumstances should be legal.

When I first engaged with you I thought that the reason why you would take a position was important too, like the first quote would lead to believe. But then you dismiss all discussion of this as quibbling on minutiae.


Admittedly I started this exchange mistaken on your position because I had no idea that people existed that claimed all abortion should be legal. So if that's your position, now I understand why you would attempt to argue for freedom.

I certainly didn't dismiss all of it; there were a good 20 or so posts on the subject, and I answered the questions posed.  I wanted to make sure we didn't lose sight of the major issue: that is to say, whether abortion should be legal and at what point it should cease to be.  Pretty sure I answered that!  Pretty sure I also answered what I thought about it (it's not positive).  I'm aware of why I think the way I do, I articulated as much.  If that's distasteful to you, it's not really my place to tell you not to be.  Quite frankly, even though I think it should be 'legal' I don't like the thought of it happening.  To say otherwise (that is, to say that it should be illegal after a certain point) would make me a hypocrite by my own words, and I'm well aware of that.  If the impression you got was that "I don't think anyone on this thread is claiming that abortion should be completely illegal on all circumstances," you clearly missed Col.Hornet's introduction to the thread.

[Ghostavo]

He claimed at least three circumstances where it should be allowed.

[Scotty]

He also unequivocally called all three of those cases murder.  Pretty sure murder is illegal!  That aside, though, I had forgotten those three exceptions he posted.  That's what I get for skimming on a phone earlier.  It doesn't really change how deeply we disagree on the subject (also, congrats on once again nitpicking and missing the main point of the post.  This is why discussions on HLP are ****).

[Phantom Hoover]

I thought I was being pretty clear about bodily integrity earlier.

So did I, which is why I'm now terribly confused that you think it's immoral to exercise your bodily autonomy if it causes pain to a foetus.

[GhylTarvoke]

@Scotty: If someone's organs are irreparably damaged through your wrongdoing, then (IMO) you have a moral obligation to give them your organs, or something of "equal value". Should you be forced to? That's a messier question, but I would say yes.

Obviously, this scenario is different from abortion. Since the fetus will die, abortion is closest to the "heart donation" scenario - except the donor won't die. (And again, the fetus' personhood is in question.)

@Phantom: I have trouble determining when you're being sarcastic. My rule of thumb is, "if Phantom's typing in all-lowercase, then he's being sarcastic". 

[Ghostavo]

He also unequivocally called all three of those cases murder.  Pretty sure murder is illegal!  That aside, though, I had forgotten those three exceptions he posted.  That's what I get for skimming on a phone earlier.  It doesn't really change how deeply we disagree on the subject (also, congrats on once again nitpicking and missing the main point of the post.  This is why discussions on HLP are ****).

Oh come on... why is it whenever I defend my argument you accuse me of nitpicking or quibbling on minutiae? You specifically called me out on

If the impression you got was that "I don't think anyone on this thread is claiming that abortion should be completely illegal on all circumstances," you clearly missed Col.Hornet's introduction to the thread.

but I'm not allowed to respond to it?

Is discussion only not **** when everyone agrees and forms an echo chamber?

[Scotty]

Well, if we're going to be pedantic about it, I think I said "inhumane", which it is regardless of whether I think it's immoral or not.  I don't think it should happen if there's an alternative (with the understanding that we're still talking about abortions at a stage late enough that the fetus can feel pain), especially given that I should certainly hope that there's been ample time to reach a decision before that point.  I would personally deeply disapprove.  I don't think I can genuinely call that thinking it 'immoral'.

You do bring up a good point though (at least someone does).  It gives me something to think about.

but I'm not allowed to respond to it?

Is discussion only not **** when everyone agrees and forms an echo chamber?

Ideally you'd respond to the substance of a post as well!  You didn't, you picked out arguably the least important single sentence of the post, and addressed it exclusively.

[Ghostavo]

How do you respond to a post where you agree with the majority of it, but there's a part of it that you don't?

[Scotty]

PMs.

Or don't respond.

That's not intended in a negative fashion; tiny little disagreements like that are a large portion of why HLP is **** at debates of substance.

[GhylTarvoke]

I personally haven't found a better place on the internet...

[NGTM-1R]

That's not intended in a negative fashion; tiny little disagreements like that are a large portion of why HLP is **** at debates of substance.

Or you know you could debate it public and just note that your issue is with an exclusive segment, like sane people.

[Ghostavo]

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!