Mental gymnastics...

submitted by In-the-clouds from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There is some logic in the bodily autonomy argument but I don't think any of us agree it's an absolute. There are times when it's justifiable to take away someone's bodily autonomy. Specifically when they are a threat to themselves or others.

I don't think it's reasonable to say, allow a consenting adult to gouge out their own eyeballs or something like that. It's clearly an insane notion and a sign of mental illness and intervention to prevent them from doing so is justifiable. We wouldn't just sit back and be like, well they are an adult they have bodily autonomy and the right to do that. Now there may be a valid reason for removing an eyeball due to injury or disease where bodily autonomy and personal choice comes into play. But if it's an otherwise healthy individual I'm not sure it's fair to say there's a right to self harm. Although admittedly there is very little that can be done to prevent it if someone really wants to.

Now an abortion isn't at all compatible to causing permanent handicap in terms of its effects on someone's life. (If it is done right of course). But I don't think the argument is really about bodily autonomy so much as it's about "does the fetus have a soul, and if so when?" Which is a largely metaphysical question you can't prove or nail down an exact time.

I don't see a huge problem with allowing early stage abortions before the fetus has progressed far in development especially when weighed against the social and economic consequences of banning it in our current society, but I still find the idea of it being a bodily autonomy argument to be missing the point of what it's really about. We could argue that while a woman absolutely has a choice on whether to breastfeed or not, she doesn't have a choice to feed the baby or not. The baby must be fed somehow. Otherwise it's no better than murder. If the mother absolutely refuses and wishes to give the baby away instead that as you say is sad but perfectly justifiable and protects the interests of the infant. But once the pregnancy progresses beyond a certain point I don't think we can justify abortion as a bodily autonomy argument unless it's in an aforementioned case of medical necessity where the mother's life is in peril, it's absolutely her choice then. But if she's otherwise healthy and wishes to get a third trimester abortion I do think the developed fetuses right to live (as I see no valid distinction between a developed fetus and a baby in terms of the morality of homicide).

I think the issue gets messy because there's no scientific basis by which a clear point can be determined where we can say, before this point it's not a person yet. Conception is the closest point where we can say that there's a definite before and after. Birth is messier as there's no real moral ground to argue that there is any difference immediately before and after birth in terms of viability. )

Perhaps viability is a point we should consider but even then there are moral implications that must be considered. For example if the fetus is viable and the woman wishes to induce premature labor for no valid reason that clearly should not be allowed as it has definitely consequences on the child's life. In the same way women should be allowed to chain smoke or drink massive amounts while pregnant as it is hurting the future child. I think consenting to pregnancy constitutes consenting to the loss of your own bodily autonomy for the sake of the child. And I don't think that after the fact there's any right to revoke that consent once things have developed too far.

Personally I say balancing out all the social and ethical concerns, sex selective abortions, aborting of fetuses with disabilities etc. The only real time an abortion is clearly justifiable for non-medical reason is very early in the pregnancy. Within arguably the first few weeks.

I don't think at all men should be left off the hook for this. Clearly men can't share in the pregnancy but I do believe very strongly any man has at the very least an obligation to support the woman financially during the pregnancy. (Though mere financial obligation is far from optimal)

It's really an ethical quagmire from a number of angles. Women can be pressured into getting abortions they don't want by boyfriend's or husband's or mere financial necessity. I don't agree with an outright ban on abortions across the board but I do think it's important we look at the issue as a practice which isn't inherently good or lacks the gravity of ending a potential life. It's at best a necessary evil. And I think the common talking points of "my body my choice" or "stop killing babies" really dumb down the whole discussion to a moral black and white issue when it's far more complex.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'd always go with the Hippocratic Oath : "... and I will do no harm or injustice to them."

Since pregnancy by rape is a thing nowadays, I'll adjust the following sentences of it to our "modern" times. An abortion isn't that risky itself anymore when done by professionals, as far as I understand. But it can be, when done in some backdoor slaughterhouse.

But it is factual harm to the woman, when she can't have an abortion on her free will. At least up to some point in time of the pregnancy. But this harm can be the lesser harm to her. Hence, she should have the right to choose between options.

Christian fundamentalists raising questions about when a soul starts to exist in a fetus are completely beside this point.

The first angle should always be the physical and mental health of the pregnant women in question.

As far as I can understand your points, you agree on this.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's completely fare. I agree, but the issue comes down to differing opinions on what specifically constitutes harm or injustice.

Euthanasia is a prime example of a that. I think that there are circumstances where it's morally justifiable but I don't think it should be legalized because it removes a major social more of taking care of the sick and infirm and not merely disposing of them. We don't want to come to a society where we are so cruel that we consider the elderly and infirm a burden that should be easily disposed of. And I think legalization here has potentially troublesome unknown social ramifications.

But is it harm or injustice to give a terminally ill person in hospice care a knowingly fatal dose of heroin so they die faster rather than languishing in pain for hours or days? I'd argue that it is neither. But is it something that society should tolerate or promote? I think the answer to that question is also no.

Ethical quandaries are controversial because there are usually good compelling arguments to be made for both positions. That doesn't necessarily mean both positions are equally moral or right, but it does mean we'll never have the short easy answers that we want and are so drawn to adopting. It's the primary reason why in most debates people become frustrated why their short insight on the topic isn't received as they hoped. My body my choice is a good example. The basic idea is sound, but it's a poor pro-abortion argument because the opponent is not arguing against bodily autonomy. They will simply say it's not your body, so it's not your choice. They underlying postulation is not accepted so the argument is ineffectual but to the person making the argument they can't understand that and here the rejection of the statement as a rejection of the idea of bodily autonomy in general rather than a rejection of the idea that bodily autonomy applies specifically to abortion. They then see that rejection as monstrous as indeed, saying that people have no right to make their own medical choices is indeed a monstrous thing to say, however that isn't what is being argued, both sides are misrepresenting the other but not intentionally. Abortion is murder is another good example. From the pro life side the person making that statement believes fetus = baby therefore murder. They see the rejection of that ideal as monstrous as indeed promoting infanticide is. However the pro choice side disregards that argument not because they are pro murder but because they do not accept the underlying postulate that fetus = baby.

Unfortunately there's no easy way to reconcile these viewpoints but at the very least the state of discourse would improve greatly if the arguments were made from a position not assuming the bad intents of the opposition.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

... which has become kind of hard nowadays since almost every difference of opinion or angle is charged with emotion so easily.

Communication itself has gotten quite weird in many aspects when the side with the "shortest" or "funniest" answer is upvoted so easily by doing a click.

Put bots, astroturf accounts and shills in this mix, and you have this chaos happening right now in many, many places.

I agree.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes while I think social media is contributing American society at the very least has had third rail topics for years and years. As the old addage goes don't discuss religion or politics in mixed company. Social media essentially breaks that convention.