Abortion -cpr on the fetus?

[answer-is-42]

@mh - You are a pathetic person. You hurl personal attacks and insults because you cannot justify your beliefs and you cannot bear to reconsider them. I didn;t cry to mommy, but did politely ask him/her (snake oil) to stop insulting me and he challenged me to continue so I did. Your own posts obviously show you have no problem with people hurling insults, so why do you have a problem with mine. I personally tried to chide him/her in a way I found humorous (they all refer to snake oil). What does  that have to do with you? You state that insults are childish yet you have attacked me personally on innumerable occasions (actually I am not interested to go back and count but there are quite a few) and I have not once personally attacked you despite our disagreement until this post.
I have nothing to prove to you on a persona or professional level, but how can  you at all justify the claim that because I defer from you personally on a moral issue that I practice poor medicine? I disagree with Ben Carson on many social issues, but he has risen to a very high position in his professional career so I must assume that regardless of his social policies, he is probably a good neurosurgeon. My spelling is off because of the spell check on this device that keeps changing my words, I did not figure this forum was all about grammatical perfection.
@Parker Tan - see above

Nah.  You see, you've insulted me there but I'm choosing to forgo a reply in kind, because you need maturity demonstrated to you.

My point, which you obviously missed, is that someone mature enough to have passed through such a rigorous scholastic and occupational regime would have the maturity to ignore the insults of someone beneath them.  Lacking that, your fakery is the more obvious.

You are crying about someone insulting you, replying in kind, and then ignoring the point that that makes about your own maturity.  I cannot spell it out any simpler than that; if you cannot understand such a simple formulation, you impeach your own intelligence, through no insult of mine.

While I would like to point out that you admit you are beneath me, do you not realize that physicians are people? We get upset and can respond in kind just like anyone else. That being said, I have never cursed and my insults to snake oil (I don't think I have directedly insulted you, you did that on your own just now) were humorous to me atleast. Not sure what that has to do with anything.
In the context of my job I am required to maintain professional composure, in the context of a forum filled with, what did you say, someone beneath me? I can respond anyway that I want.
I hope I never have to meet you professionally, but if I do,  I will still care for you to the best of my abilities no matter how much a jacka$$ I feel you are.
You really haven't address my moral arguements so I have little to say to you further, if you decide to bring some moral arguements to the table let me know, otherwise you are the weakest link, GOOD BYE

[Ravenshire]

I thought we were no longer speaking in ideal scenario. But if it was ideal there would be no abortions whatsoever. The government, being a part of a whole society which is in turn part of real religion and guidance would accept responsibility for the child's mental, emotional, and phisical well being , along with values. But in an ideal scenario abortion would never be an option, nor would it have to be.

Yeah. We've seen just how well state run facilities for children work.

No thanks.

[Cato]

In fact I would argue that the mother is the WORST person to be making decisions because she has proven that her goal is the termination of the fetus/infant which is rarely in the child's best interests.

How can you say this not knowing the basis of her decision? You have yet to demonstrate where any of this is a problem; i.e., of the 1.4% of abortions we are discussing, what percentage of that population gives rise to a situation where a reasonable person would conclude that actions of the mother weren't in the best interest of the child. Once we determine that population, one then is compelled to consider the needs of the mother including potential harm to the mother for carrying full term. Your assumption that five month pregnant women are choosing to abort their pregnancies willy-nilly and need to have some self appointed superior conscious save them from themselves is absurd.

[answer-is-42]

@Cato. A moral question is not predicated on the incidence of the issue but the intrinsic moral question at hand. If it happens at a rate >0 then addressing it on its merits is worthwhile in a philosophical sense (This is a philosophy forum). I am sure the incidence of being murdere by a blowtorch is low compared to the overall murder rate, but does that
somehow change it's morality?
Next you add conditions I have never specified such as carrying to full term. When did I propose this in this discussion? My only question was regarding a fetus that had been taken to the point of potential viability when the decision for abortion is made. You have made a straw man arguement. Next I would like you to demonstrate when I have ever attributed any motivation to the mother's decision to end her pregnancy. I have neither stated it was well thought out nor have I stated it was willy nilly. You are arguing suppositions that you made not arguement said I have asserted. These are again straw men. I have not asked that women be saved from them selves nor have I asserted a superior conscious. My simple arguement is if a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy (as is her right based on a bodily autonomy arguement - I may not fully subscribe to this arguement but that is irrelevant as I will grant it for the sake of the discussion) how does that extend to necessarily terminating the fetus (not her body just located within it ) if a means of removal that could potentially allow the fetus to survive is available ? For the trolls out there that symbol is called a question mark, it denotes a question NOT a statement. The question is what MORAL PRINCIPLES justify this action. The most common retorts I have heard are she doesn't want (why should that matter once it is out of her bodily autonomy does not apply), outcomes based (who is going to pay, overcrowding, ect. However outcome based morality leads to slippery slope arguement such as genocide to prevent overcrowding and k already addressed the payer question on multiple occasions) , or special pleading. Finally, as I stated before the incidence of the issue is irrelevant to its morality. It may effect its practicality or ability to legislate but it doesn't change the intrinsic Moral questions In play. This is a thought exercise to see if moral principles are rationally justified.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Lol, I don't think I'm beneath you ... I'm ascribing that attitude to you.

Is English your native tongue, or should I cut you some slack for being ESL?

[popsthebuilder]

I thought we were no longer speaking in ideal scenario. But if it was ideal there would be no abortions whatsoever. The government, being a part of a whole society which is in turn part of real religion and guidance would accept responsibility for the child's mental, emotional, and phisical well being , along with values. But in an ideal scenario abortion would never be an option, nor would it have to be.

Yeah. We've seen just how well state run facilities for children work.

No thanks.

I said ideal, as in completely different and hardly comparable to current government.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You really haven't address my moral so I have little to say to you further, if you decide to bring some moral arguements to the table let me know, otherwise you are the weakest link, GOOD BYE

Actually, you've neglected to answer the points I've brought up, likely because you have no cogent answer.

As for patronizing you as a patient, you needn't worry yourself. I don't give dumbasses responsibility in my life, especially in medicine ... not to me too the fact that you're not a doctor.

You remind me of Daffy Duck playing Robin Hood, where Porky Pig as Friar Tuck is unconvinced ... you keep making an ass of yourself with nothing positive to show for it.

[bennyboy]

@benny I don't care what you think of my assertion on my degree. I began insulting snake oil because I first politely asked him to stop cursing and his response was essentially bring it on (I think he said I'm shaking). So I began insulting him without cursing and generally mocking him/Her related to his username. My insults derive from either snake or oil. If you have an issue with insults then I await your response to snake oil for childish behavior. Insulting some one because they disagree is is wrong. I only insulted snake oil because he continued to insult me and challenged me to do so. If you don't believe me then review this thread. My credentials don't change that  so either you are a hypocrite or you will oppose snake oil for childishness. If your only comebacks are personal attacks then you really don't have an argument. I see this much more from theists but I suppose anyone who is challenged in their beliefs and does not want to change them even if they cannot justify them will respond in this way

I'm not calling you out for childishness.  I'm calling you out because your childishness is evidence that you are unlikely to be a licensed doctor, i.e. that you lied about your credentials in order to add credence to your arguments. Your behavior is not consistent with that of a mature medical professional.

Now, it's true that behaving badly doesn't prove you're not a doctor-- and yes, an MD can listen to slayer and jerk off to Brazilian fart porn in his free time if he wants to, it's his right to do whatever he wants. However, in the context of a forum where you've just thrown credentials into the mix in an obvious attempt to buttress a philosophical argument, I think my skepticism is justified by many of your comments.

The only comments you could really make that would matter are to demonstrate at what age a fetus can be demonstrated to feel pain, or to exhibit emotion or organized thought. The non-religious position is that if there's no harm in the now, then they are comfortable with the spiritual consequences of abortion-- which they believe to be zero. Demonstrate either that there IS harm, right now, to an existing human being, or that there IS a soul which will be punished for the crime of killing an unfeeling bundle of cells, or you are unlikely to make any headway.

[Pyrrho]

@pyyrho. Thanks for a good and on point response. Absolutely the crux of the arguement is at what point do we bestow personhood. That seems to be missed by most here. Many (not all) people who oppose abortion do so based on the bodily autonomy arguement. IE even if a fetus is a person, the mothers bodily autonomy trumps theirs. I'm trying to introduce a point that take that out of the equation and is there still a moral justification for termination ? I won't address legality because I'm not a lawyer and honestly am not try to change legislation. What I am doing doing is trying to spark intellectual and moral discussions on why we think some things are ok and again I want to thank you for actually engaging in this.  Regarding frozen embryos. That is a difficult moral question for me along the same lines. Certainly they are not independently viable so there are no known ways of salvaging them short of a maternal womb. If there is no womb then my argument really doesn't hold since my point only focused on a fetus who could potentially survived ex utero
...

The thing is, there is always some woman who wants a child, who has been unable to get pregnant.  So you are going to find women more than willing to take at least some of the frozen embryos.  So the fact that a frozen embryo cannot live on its own does not mean that it cannot become an adult human.  It is not dependent on its biological mother at all for that.

I believe the current law on the matter treats frozen embryos basically as property, though, again, I am no lawyer and obviously the law on such things would vary by country.  My opinion is that basically, that is the right approach, as it is a mindless set of cells, not properly a person at all.  However, the word "basically" is necessary, as I do not think it would be right to use it for the purpose of growing it into adulthood after tampering with it as an experiment to see what sort of hideous thing one could create.  So not quite just property, but basically just property.


Back to the idea of personhood.  What makes a person more important than, say, a dog or pig?  Is it not somehow connected with intelligence?  If that is what matters, then a newborn, it would seem, would be less like a person than a normal adult dog or pig.  And it would mean that there should be no special qualms about killing a fetus in utero, unless one also has a problem with killing dogs and pigs.

As for regarding a newborn as a person, my advice on that has already been given, that one should have a more or less definite point when one makes such distinctions for any practical purpose.  Otherwise, we will have quite a mess on our hands.  At what point in the normal development of a child does the child reach the age of reason (for want of a better expression)?  Is it three?  Five?  Ten?  And what about a child who is particularly mature for its age, or one that is lagging behind normal development?  Presumably, we want to err on the side of caution, and start regarding the child as a person prematurely rather than making the opposite mistake, and so, again, going with birth more than satisfies that, if, that is, that reason is what distinguishes people from other animals.


Now, we should also add into this matter the fact that human cells are routinely not regarded as a person.  For example, if I have an itch, and I scratch my hand, I am very likely killing a few human cells.  But surely that does not make me a murderer, does it?  And if that is correct, then that means that killing some human cells is morally okay.

Likewise, when a surgeon removes a tumor, the surgeon is killing some human tissue.  We do not want that to be illegal, do we?  We do not regard that as wrong (generally speaking), do we?  So, again, the mere killing of human cells is not morally a problem.

We also can ask ourselves about our attitude toward sperm cells and egg cells.  They have the potential to become humans, and are themselves human cells.  However, most of us do not regard them as having rights in themselves, and do not object to the fact that most of them die.  

Here though, is a bit of comic relief, but with a point to it:

---

---

Some people very much disagree with what I am saying.  But I think some of the disagreement is due to people taking inconsistent and unsupported positions.

I think you will be hard-pressed to come up with a consistent position in which fetuses are persons, but dogs and pigs are not, while also not regarding sperm and eggs as persons.  The potential to be something is not the same as being that something.  An oak tree is potentially a desk (which is to say, one can make a desk out of an oak tree), but an oak tree is not a desk.  An acorn is potentially an oak tree, but an acorn is not an oak tree.


Now, I can understand someone being squeamish about killing a fetus, both because medicine is not for everyone (as much that is done deals with repulsive things; not everyone is up for resecting a bowel, for instance), and also because one may not be too sure about when personhood begins, and one may wish to err on the side of caution.  But the approach to take for this second source of squeamishness is to try to come up with some sort of explanation for what should be regarded as a person, and what should not.

Obviously, if you do not perform abortions yourself, you do not have to bother thinking about the issue.  Presumably, though, you have some interest in the question, or you would not have started the thread.  What is it, in your opinion, that constitutes a person?  And if you are like most people, and eat meat, what is your justification for that?  I ask that because it is very relevant to the issue of personhood, and what it is okay to kill and what it is not okay to kill, and for what purpose, if any, it is okay to kill.  And I think you will find it difficult to come up with a sensible story in which it is wrong to kill a fetus but right to kill a pig.  Potentiality is not actuality, and sperm and egg cells have potential, too.

I think most people never properly deal with the issues involved in this, and don't ever form consistent and coherent and sensible positions on this.  Even the extreme position of the Catholic Church does not achieve consistency, since they have no problems with someone not having sex, and consequently all of their sperm and egg cells dying without achieving the potential of becoming a person.  Yet they object to sex with birth control, as it interferes with the potential for creating a person.

One could take a very extreme approach close to what the Catholic Church takes, in which one tries to create as many humans as possible.  That, however, would result in running into the problem of overpopulation, which tends to cause death in very nasty ways for many of the members of the excessive population.

If you don't regard sperm cells and egg cells as important to save (and practically, they cannot be), then at what point does it matter whether they die or not?  Again, what is it that makes a person a person?

[bennyboy]

The question is what MORAL PRINCIPLES justify this action.

The greater good.

/thread