You listed 3 of the reasons that stood out to you on why some women abort late term but only addressed rape. Can you give your views on the other 2 reasons please as well as explain your view on if late term abortion when the quality of life for the fetus/baby if the baby is diagnosed with a life threatening illness or disorder? Thank you.
"on the child’s third birthday he starts to look like the rapist. She starts having nightmares. . . . Most pro-choice people will point out differences between the analogy you gave and pregnancy." Since you called this "nightmares" analogy an example, I'm not sure "the analogy you gave" means the "nightmares" analogy or "any example you might have given." The "nightmares" analogy may not be a great analogy to pregnancy as a whole. Pro-choice people may immediately point out that the child is not inside the woman's body or even in other ways creating a physical risk for her (there are some analogies that include such an element of physical risk). But I think it is a good analogy to the suffering that rape may add on to a non-rape pregnancy -- that is, to the additional suffering that is specifically an effect of the rape. Thus it seems to me to be a good argument against the rape exception -- if one can once establish a case against abortion in non-rape cases and if that case does not depend on the woman's responsibility (which is lacking in rape cases).
"The "nightmares" analogy may not be a great analogy to pregnancy as a whole. Pro-choice people may immediately point out that the child is not inside the woman's body..." I definitely agree that the analogy doesn't take into account bodily rights and other potentially morally relevant aspects of pregnancy. I've been finding it really difficult to come up with an comparison that is completely analogous to pregnancy. I find that stories like this are a useful first step because it shows the person I'm talking to where most pro-life people are coming from (viewing abortion as the unjustified killing of a human person). From there we can discuss any disanalogies they find important and modify the example according to their particular objections.
What about forcing or coercing parents to donate their body parts to their children, though? After all, if their children cannot get these body parts from someone else (in time, at least), then this might actually be a good analogy to pregnancy. Also, I apologize that my response here is 10 months late, but I haven't interacted with you on Disqus before today, so yeah. :)
Corrected last paragraph of my "Though not about pregnancy" post: Understanding that the real issue is not one of bodily boundaries but of actual harm, then for justice to be determined in any given situation where one innocent person proposes to kill another innocent person in order to protect their interests against that person, we have only to see which of the two is likely to suffer greater harm if the other's interests are upheld.
"the analogy doesn't take into account bodily rights . . . really difficult to come up with an comparison that is completely analogous to pregnancy." Though not about pregnancy as we know it, this story is aimed at the argument "A person always has a right to refuse to let their body be used by another organism, even if the organism is also a person": Suppose the reproductive function of the human race evolves. The uterus as we know it has become extinct. A sperm introduced into a woman's body meets an egg somewhere, and the resultant organism travels and implants among the skin cells behind the woman's shoulderblade. After ten days, the skin loosens and the embryo falls out. Placed in a bucket of milk, it will grow till it is fully viable, and then it can be removed from the milk and its breathing started. This is the process by which we all got here. No woman has ever been known to experience any physical harm or discomfort from the ten-day gestation process, but removing the growing organism during that period would involve killing it. According to the "A person always has a right . . ." argument, the unborn may be a person, yet the woman could not be legally prevented from killing that unborn child lodged harmlessly for a brief time behind her shoulderblade. I think that only a fanatic would say she could not be legally prevented from killing her unborn child under those circumstances; and if she can be prevented, then the "A person always has a right . . ." argument does not hold. And then we realize that the power of the bodily-rights arguments that we have seen does not really derive from the sacredness of bodily boundaries themselves; it derives from the actual harm that may befall someone. Understanding that the real issue is not one of bodily boundaries but of actual harm, [Edit: then for justice to be determined in any given situation where one innocent person proposes to kill another innocent person in order to protect their interests against that person,] we have only to see which of the two is likely to suffer greater harm if the other's interests are upheld.
Thanks for your reply. "stories like this are a useful first step because it shows the person I'm talking to . . ." It's a good thought that even a limited analogy can be valuable for some specific purpose. Personally, I have been glued recently to the question of what analogies can and can't do. An analogy is in part a piece of fiction that makes people feel as well as think. And I think the feelings may be what have more impact on the brain circuitry, in terms of the desired effect of unclouding a person's mind so that they can move toward a better and more correct moral intuition about the topic than their existing one. I have thought as best I could about this (and about bodily rights) here: http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/
I've been wanting to watch this, but is it available for free? Or do you think it's okay to pay to watch it? I don't want to monetarily support it's creators, but really want to see it...
Well, it was the Westboro Baptist Church that protested Tiller's funeral. They hate everyone and protest at all kinds of funerals, so I don't really think it's fair to include them among pro-lifers' reactions to Tiller's murder. Other than that, spot on. I think it's important for pro-lifers to understand where pro-choicers are actually coming from, and directly engaging material from the other side is a good way to do this.
It definitely sounds like something WBC would do. However, the WBC is still antiabortion. So, as much as we probably want to distance ourselves from them they are still technically pro-life (if we take pro-life to mean generally being against legal abortion).
I think it's fair to assume that it was just WBC at the funeral. I think they fit in the extreme end of the category of "weird self-described pro-lifers" that Abby Johnson was talking about. Thankfully most weird pro-lifers are less extreme.
Since you called this "nightmares" analogy an example, I'm not sure "the analogy you gave" means the "nightmares" analogy or "any example you might have given."
The "nightmares" analogy may not be a great analogy to pregnancy as a whole. Pro-choice people may immediately point out that the child is not inside the woman's body or even in other ways creating a physical risk for her (there are some analogies that include such an element of physical risk). But I think it is a good analogy to the suffering that rape may add on to a non-rape pregnancy -- that is, to the additional suffering that is specifically an effect of the rape. Thus it seems to me to be a good argument against the rape exception -- if one can once establish a case against abortion in non-rape cases and if that case does not depend on the woman's responsibility (which is lacking in rape cases).
I definitely agree that the analogy doesn't take into account bodily rights and other potentially morally relevant aspects of pregnancy. I've been finding it really difficult to come up with an comparison that is completely analogous to pregnancy. I find that stories like this are a useful first step because it shows the person I'm talking to where most pro-life people are coming from (viewing abortion as the unjustified killing of a human person). From there we can discuss any disanalogies they find important and modify the example according to their particular objections.
Also, I apologize that my response here is 10 months late, but I haven't interacted with you on Disqus before today, so yeah. :)
Understanding that the real issue is not one of bodily boundaries but of actual harm, then for justice to be determined in any given situation where one innocent person proposes to kill another innocent person in order to protect their interests against that person, we have only to see which of the two is likely to suffer greater harm if the other's interests are upheld.
Though not about pregnancy as we know it, this story is aimed at the argument "A person always has a right to refuse to let their body be used by another organism, even if the organism is also a person":
Suppose the reproductive function of the human race evolves. The uterus as we know it has become extinct. A sperm introduced into a woman's body meets an egg somewhere, and the resultant organism travels and implants among the skin cells behind the woman's shoulderblade. After ten days, the skin loosens and the embryo falls out. Placed in a bucket of milk, it will grow till it is fully viable, and then it can be removed from the milk and its breathing started. This is the process by which we all got here. No woman has ever been known to experience any physical harm or discomfort from the ten-day gestation process, but removing the growing organism during that period would involve killing it.
According to the "A person always has a right . . ." argument, the unborn may be a person, yet the woman could not be legally prevented from killing that unborn child lodged harmlessly for a brief time behind her shoulderblade.
I think that only a fanatic would say she could not be legally prevented from killing her unborn child under those circumstances; and if she can be prevented, then the "A person always has a right . . ." argument does not hold.
And then we realize that the power of the bodily-rights arguments that we have seen does not really derive from the sacredness of bodily boundaries themselves; it derives from the actual harm that may befall someone.
Understanding that the real issue is not one of bodily boundaries but of actual harm, [Edit: then for justice to be determined in any given situation where one innocent person proposes to kill another innocent person in order to protect their interests against that person,] we have only to see which of the two is likely to suffer greater harm if the other's interests are upheld.
"stories like this are a useful first step because it shows the person I'm talking to . . ."
It's a good thought that even a limited analogy can be valuable for some specific purpose. Personally, I have been glued recently to the question of what analogies can and can't do. An analogy is in part a piece of fiction that makes people feel as well as think. And I think the feelings may be what have more impact on the brain circuitry, in terms of the desired effect of unclouding a person's mind so that they can move toward a better and more correct moral intuition about the topic than their existing one. I have thought as best I could about this (and about bodily rights) here:
http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/
Other than that, spot on. I think it's important for pro-lifers to understand where pro-choicers are actually coming from, and directly engaging material from the other side is a good way to do this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/06/george-tiller-funeral-att_n_212155.html
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hundreds-pay-last-respects-to-george-tiller-39026/