120 comments
Avatar
aryanmag
Nowadays, most of the rape victims were being killed. Government should increase the punishment for the rape like death penalty and automatically be put to https://jailaid.com/.
Avatar
Athena1077
I also want to add I do NOT consider a 1st trimester embryo as valuable as a newborn. A newborn is by far more valuable than a non-sentient, non-viable, embryo. Not meaning to be callous, but I do get tired of the comparison, being human is not enough to make an embryo valuable, it does not have the same qualities of a newborn which is viability outside the body and being sentient, I consider those qualities that makes someone a full blown person.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Nictem
These people view a zygote as same valuable as a newborn or a woman. I will never understand that
Avatar
Athena1077
I don't know if you will read this, but if you want to respond to me via email that is fine, since we are already emailing.
I just have to respond to the rape question you addressed here. I will be honest, the idea that you would consider an abortion done by a rape victim as wrong, is beyond cruel and dehumanizing. That you or any pro-lifer would deny a rape victim an abortion to me is cruel. If I was raped you would NOT be able to talk me out of an abortion, I would not even think twice about having an abortion, I would RUN not walk to the nearest abortion clinic. If anybody tried to talk me out of it or tell me what I am doing is evil, I would simply not speak to that person again.
I would never try to stop a rape victim from having an abortion. I would support whatever decision she made, that is the loving thing to do, nothing loving or compassionate in forcing a rape victim to gestate and give birth.
Hide Replies 3
Avatar Placeholder
Ann Morgan
Here's what I think. I think the forced birthers are making mere sobs, when they talk about the 'precious baybee' in a rape victim, and that her 'mere inconvenience' is worth the 'precious baybee's very life'. I don't believe for a second that they think it is really a 'precious baybee'.
But how about THIS as a compromise, which will both provide justice, and prove that they mean what they say about the gasping in awe value of the embryo and aren't just making sobs while they sit fat, happy, safe, and comfortable:
All heterosexual pro-life men must register in a national 'lottery'. Lying about your political belief or sexual orientation to avoid registration will be a capital crime. If a woman becomes pregnant via rape, a name will be drawn. Whichever man is drawn must go to the nearest super-max prison every day to be gang-raped from exactly 9:00-10:00 pm by any inmates who want to participate. It will also be filmed, and available for purchase on the internet. The money will be given to the woman.
He must do this (show up at 9:00) religiously, for all 9 months of the woman's pregnancy. No excuses. Not 'sick or hurt', not 'in a coma', not 'busy at job', not 'car broke down', not 'alarm didn't go off' not 'weather too bad to get there'.
A woman doesn't get to 'not' be pregnant during part of the 9 months regardless of what happens, so the man cannot fail. If he is so much as 1 second late, out goes the fetus in pieces, even if the woman is only 1 day away from giving birth. Just to be sure, the man should consider giving up his job and moving into the prison for all 9 months. That is too bad, but some women have to give up their jobs when they are pregnant
The inmates will be tested for AIDS, but the test is not foolproof. The man might get AIDS. That is too bad, but the woman might die from pregnancy or childbirth. The man might get a different incurable but non-lethal disease. That is too bad, but women can suffer permanent, but non-lethal damage from pregnancy and childbirth.
How many pro-lifers would agree with this? Or is the fetus only 'precious' when someone ELSE is suffering the 'mere inconvenience'.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Nictem
"but it's natural" 🤢🤮
Avatar Placeholder
Nictem
Yes, I agree. It's absolutely cruel, it can even be called torture. I have read so many shocking comments from "prolifer" people about that thematic. One even wrote abortion is always wrong, no matter how old 🤢
Avatar
nobrownmms
This is the first time I've ever seen a person tell another person
"We should first acknowledge the horror of rape."
Damn, you need to TELL people that they should be horrified at rape? SMH.
Hide Replies 3
Avatar
joshbrahm
I don't think I'm telling most people that they should be horrified by rape. I think I'm telling most people to do a better job of showing the compassion that they already have toward survivors of rape.
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
nobrownmms
We should first acknowledge
This doesn't sound like you're telling people to do a BETTER job. Rather it sounds like you're telling them rather robotically that "rape is bad. Act like you think its bad or they'll be on to you."
I’ve trained people before who understood the definition of rape, but they didn’t understand what rape is.
This whole notion of needing to "train" people how to feel about a humiliating act of violence strikes me as very odd. Little children need to practice with empathy and imagine walking in someone else's shoes until they begin to get a sense of WHY they should consider someone else's feelings. After a while, it becomes a very natural thing to walk in someone else's shoes.
Quite frankly, I think its difficult to get people who think "rape is bad, but hey, you got knocked up. At least God left you with a gift." to properly understand what rape is. These adults are broken or simply lack empathy. "Training" them to parrot pre-scripted lines won't convince anyone that they truly empathize with someone else's pain.
Here is how they should be trained to understand what rape is: hold them down at knife point, strip, and penetrate them with an unlubed watermelon, all the while Snapchatting the violation to their peers, and then blame the rape on them, because they were asking for it by wearing that sexy, plaid shirt. (And having their rape kit languish and untested for 10 years.)
Then they'll understand what rape is. Its not just sex with someone you aren't attracted to, its the feeling of powerlessness and (sometimes) being told it was your fault. If they go through that training, yet still can go on with the same platitudes given in this article with a straight, sincere face, I'll perhaps believe you that you're responding with genuine "wisdom and compassion".
Some women might not want to abort that fetus, but most probably do. It is not up to you to decide for her whats best for her. It is her decision and hers alone.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
joshbrahm
"This doesn't sound like you're telling people to do a BETTER job. Rather it sounds like you're telling them rather robotically that 'rape is bad. Act like you think its bad or they'll be on to you.'"
Yeah, so I'm not sure where to take this discussion. I've told you that A is what is going on, and you've responded that "No, it sounds like B is what's going on instead," and the B you offered as an alternative is super uncharitable. It may be true of fringe anti-abortion people, (both sides of any issue have fringe elements) but those people would hate my work anyway, since they would think that I'm too nice to pro-choice people or something.
I've trained thousands of people, and I have very rarely met someone who didn't seem to actually think that rape is a horrific thing. I have met a bunch of them that fail to communicate that very well in the context of a debate about abortion, and that's what I want to help them to do.
I think it's fair to argue that until people have experienced rape, they can't fully understand how awful it is to experience. I'm talking about a spectrum of understanding what rape is, with one extreme being someone who is clueless about it and the other end being someone who has experienced it. I want to help people who have NOT experienced it to have a BETTER appreciation for how horrific rape is. Reading the graphic eyewitness testimonies about the Rape of Nanking was an awful experience, but it helped me to BETTER understand how awful rape is. Does that make sense?
Avatar Placeholder
Wholovesorangesoda
Glad your bringing this issue up.
One thing I think you're missing in the article though, is the specific KIND of pain, suffering, and borderline psychosis a raped woman can experience because the baby is in HER body specifically. A child born from rape may cause other kinds of psychological/ emotional pain for mom but it simply is not the same as having something inside of your body that you want to tear out with your bare hands.
I remember reading a story of a 14 year old girl in the late 1800's. She was raped an impregnated by her grandfather. She attempted an abortion on herself with a ten inch knitting needle at 3 months. She was hospitalized in excruciating pain. Several months later she expelled the wounded fetus.
This is so dark it's beyond and kind of logic in my opinion. It seems maybe we should speak in terms of psychology and psychiatry specifically when discussing these cases?
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Nictem
Prolifer don't care about the rape victims. But same time they tell us to "not use rape victims". Sick and cold hearted.
Avatar Placeholder
Nictem
There must be an exeption for rape cases. Everything else is cruel and discrimination.
It is literally torture.
Avatar Placeholder
Serpent
i'm confused. are you aiming to make abortion illegal or not? i think for many pro-choicers that's the main issue. i support anything you do to help women (and afab people) who don't want to have an abortion but feel like they don't have another choice.
apart from the legality, the condescending attitudes are offputting. as a modern woman you probably think of it before your first actual period. before you've ever had sex. before you seriously realize how much of a risk rape is. we think about it as long as we're (potentially) fertile. and pro-choicers don't go around convincing us to have an abortion. they are merely defending our right to choose, and they may be campaigning to have various experiences heard, like that of Caitlyn Moran. even if we already believe a fetus is not a child, we might not immediately accept that it doesn't have to be a tragic, painful experience.
meanwhile the pro-life crowd seems to be revelling in the tragic side of it (hmm i guess kinda like as a feminist you're often accused of deliberately choosing to see sexism). it's turning a philosophical and ethical debate into a legal one. it speaks in a condescending way, as if assuming we've never thought about the issue before, assuming we haven't considered some obvious arguments. worst of all, especially when religion is involved, pro-lifers speak from a position of authority. another condescending way is to treat us as victims of propaganda and make the argument about the "abortion industry". (guess what else is an industry? child products of all kinds)
and we know you won't stop at birth. some pro-lifers may be anti-vaxxers (at least in specific cases), some even dare to sneer at poor families and even say they have too many babies... and most pro-lifers will be unhappy if the kids grows up an atheist or LGBT+ (especially if we open-mindedly note the signs early and let the kid do simple things like change their name or wear the clothes intended for a different gender). oh speaking of which, pro-lifers deny the very fact that not everyone who gets pregnant or has an abortion identifies as a woman (though the pro-choice side is guilty of that too), and guess what, somehow the pro-choice side is also more comfortable with using the words vaginal birth (as opposed to "natural" or "normal"), which aims to remove the stigma off c-sections.
wow tbh i didn't mean to write such a rant. but yeah, there are kinda many other factors apart from rape. is the pro-life side ready to say "we won't value your unborn child less if they turn out to be LGBT"? that would be a start...
Avatar Placeholder
Crystal
Please have a Happy Easter too Hypatia.
Avatar Placeholder
Crystal
I completely understand about the iPhones.
Avatar Placeholder
Crystal
Thanks, Hypatia.
Gentle correction: it's Kia Ora.
"I believe one poster said how can pro-choicers not see the foetus as a child so I posted my comment because of my own beliefs ."
I completely understand where you are coming from too, thanks for the explanation of why you did it so I know better. I also knew your purpose was not to agitate or hurt people but simply to state your opinion so it was distressing to see you being piled on like that. Please enjoy your Thursday too, it's nearly Easter here; have a good one.
Avatar Placeholder
Crystal
I’m happy to know I cheered you up, Hypatia. I didn’t like what happened on LAN; I was sorry for it because I know you well enough to know you meant no harm. Also thank you for sticking up for a PL person; that shows character on your part and I would act the same if a respectful legal abortion advocate was being swooped down on by PLers. Quite a few legal abortion advocates would have just attacked the PL person without listening to a word they had to say :(
I hope I am going to approach the next paragraph as sensitively and gently as possible as I want to be sure this is a constructive opinion, and if what I say is anything but sensitive and respectful I want to know about it: I think I know why they did it, and I am going to explain their reasoning on this one because it’s something you need to know for future discussions with PL people especially as I grew up PL and I believe I have a good understanding of PL belief and ways; although I am by no means defending what
happened to you and certainly not blaming you for what occurred, and I hope my next paragraph does not read as a defence but rather as an explanation. The article you commented on discussed a very recent miscarriage. In their minds, your original comment about baby Noah (I think that’s the little chap’s name) not being a person was insensitive towards a grieving mother and needed to be challenged; hence the outpouring of wrath you received from some of the commenters (although I know you well enough to know you were simply stating your view, and you had no intention of causing offence by your comment so was saddened to see you get attacked). The thing is, to a PL person, a human being is a person from the moment of conception (zygote) and for anyone to say otherwise when a mother has just miscarried is denying the humanity of the child that mother lost; and that will upset some of them because in their minds they are siding with the perspective of the mother against anyone questioning the child’s personhood. From my understanding of the way PL people think, I believe the best times to state such an opinion are basically anytime except when people are expressing outrage over an abortion, or a multitude of them, or when people are discussing a miscarriage; philosophy on when human life begins is an excellent place to state your opinion, for instance. I tell you this so that you know for the future; I hope you found this helpful and that I showed sensitivity to your situation as well, as you handled the attacks you did receive very well I thought. I have every intention of expounding the PL mindset to you when it comes to these kinds of situations in the future as well, if you run into problems again (This, I hope, will be a helpful tip for when you comment at LAN).
I have spoken to fellow PL people to encourage them on websites that are not friendly to the PL position. I am doing the same for you as I want you to do well, Hypatia.
When you comment at LAN, be careful. Some people are just looking for someone to pick on and I think that’s wrong. I advise you to stay away from mean and vitriolic commenters and stick to civil people. If you have problems,
don’t hesitate to speak to the moderators: Dannicus Awesomus is a good person to discuss run-ins with although I personally have never said a word to him.
Another point – if anyone is rude to you, the best thing to do is to say something like “I would like very much to have a civil discussion with you on this issue, but if you keep making jabs at me like this I am afraid it will be impossible”* and don’t stay around, and don’t respond to rude comments in your inbox; just delete the comments if you can. One of the hardest lessons I had to learn in the past was not to respond to rude people, because replying to cutting comments (especially if you are a people-pleaser and trying to be civil) practically drains the life out of you emotionally.
BTW that is Josh Brahm’s suggestion for rude individuals; I have tried it and it works wonders … in some cases:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dont-be-too-nice/
Try sticking to civil commenters; like in all other forums, there are reasonable and rude people. For instance, I have spoken to Javelina Harker and I have a high regard for her; she is such a nice person! She will be civil and respectful towards you though she will disagree with quite a bit of what you say. Also, people like Paul and Jed might be good to chat with (they have been kind to me) although I believe Javelina Harker is one of the best people there.
I will offer more tips for your occasional times you comment at LAN but I think you are wise to stay off there most of the time. I think it’s a safe space for PL people and if the moderators made that clearer everyone would be much happier.
In regards to men and women having a say on abortion I can understand your position, and why you hold it. What do you think about this article Josh Brahm wrote about men stating their opinion on abortions:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/responding-to-the-astute-observation-that-i-am-a-man/
Also I am curious as to why you think the financial abortion proposal is interesting?
No, I hadn’t heard of the proposal in Sweden before you showed me, but since I have heard of that now here’s what I think of it. In a way it would be a good thing because the men could be more honest about their responsibilities as parents. On the other hand I think it is a terrible measure – men should financially support the women they get pregnant; it’s their responsibility and duty. Since they don’t carry the child for nine months they shouldn’t get a free pass; I think that is highly unfeminist. Here are a couple of quotes from Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women, discussing men and financial support:
p. 176
"I mean, therefore, to infer that the society is not properly organized which does not compel men and women to discharge their respective duties, by making it the only way to acquire that countenance from their fellow-creatures, which every human being wishes some way to attain." (This isn't exactly talking about child support but if someone wanted to apply it they could)
p. 91
"The necessity of polygamy, therefore, does not appear; yet when a man seduces a woman, it should, I think, be termed a *left-handed marriage, and the man should be legally obligated to maintain the woman and her children, unless
adultery, a natural divorcement, abrogated the law. And this law should remain in force as long as the weakness of women caused the word seduction to be used as an excuse for their frailty and want of principle; nay, while they depend on man for a subsistence, instead of earning it by the exertion of their own hands or heads. But these women should not, in the full meaning of the relationship, be termed wives, or the very purpose of marriage would be subverted, and all those endearing charities that flow from personal fidelity, and give a sanctity to the tie, where neither love nor friendship unites the hearts, would melt into selfishness. The woman who is faithful to the father of her children demands respect, and should not be treated like a prostitute; though I readily grant that if it be necessary for a man and woman to live together in order to bring up their offspring, nature never intended that a man should have more than one wife." (In a sense, her words might not apply on the level of careers and breadwinning because women can do that, but they STILL apply a lot on the "she asked to be raped" business plus other areas) (also note I use asterisks* in place of italics)
Yes, Josh Brahm is a gracious person. You did well to recommend his site and SPL; I think they are the best chances for civil discussion on the matter out there. Also quite a few of the people on TFA (the Friendly Atheist) have been very respectful and understanding to me on this issue despite our passionate disagreements, although a handful of people do not like my views on this or me for it, and I accept either reaction although I am sad about the latter as I feel part of their dislike is my fault (not all of it, on some issues pertaining to this I continue to hold the viewpoint I have with good reason) due to my lack of knowing or coming to the understanding of some of the things I know now about how to approach issues like this, so although my intentions were good I made serious blunders in judgment in some cases :(
I will discuss this comment later but you said here, “It's just thr rudeness on both sides that frustrates me I think you need to try and understand the other sides viewpoints without resorting to ad hominem attacks and slurs . Your one of the few prolife online people I know that can do that!”
I can assure you I also find the rudeness frustrating especially when one party is trying to be civil to the other cursing them, regardless of which side they stand on. Thank you for the kind words, and I appreciate that you also don’t resort to ad homs and slurs but care about politeness, like I do. I totally agree with your first sentence;
for, if we as PL people are to deal with the problem of abortion we need to properly understand why people hold a different view from us. That doesn’t mean we need to agree but I do think we need to know what we’re talking about rather than making things up about the opposition’s opinions out of thin air.
I think we’ve both found that Josh Brahm’s site has the express design of fostering understanding between the two sides so that “prolifers can be more persuasive and less weird” when they communicate. I really appreciate Josh’s work because this is one of the few sites where rudeness is not tolerated in the least and I feel safe here.
I have never seen iZombie; thanks for telling me about the lead actress! I’d love to know what it’s about? Also one thing I really enjoy of British culture is the English BBC classics – Pride and Prejudice, Cranford, Daniel Deronda, etc. The British authors and the BBC presentations of those classic works are so meaningful to me.
You also take care my friend, X
Avatar Placeholder
Crystal
Another thing - I hope that I was respectful and sensitive in my long reply to you regarding your Rawstory comments; I didn't read everything you wrote before posting but what I did read told me you were deeply frustrated. Also I missed that you commented on LAN and your responses were not well-received - I saw that after I'd posted the long comment up and I wanted to say I am sorry about that especially as I read your original responses where you were attacked, and they were not rude and hostile at all.
Avatar Placeholder
Crystal
Hi, Hypatia; I saw some of your comments on Rawstory, on this article:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/christian-blogger-pro-choice-women-need-to-be-reminded-men-are-supposed-to-be-leaders-on-abortion/comments/
Firstly I agree that men being leaders on abortion is bizarre! This isn't their issue to take from us and say "You will do as we tell you!", although I do think they have the right to express what they believe about abortion just as much as any other topic. For two reasons: 1) I believe more often than not guys encourage their girlfriends to abort only; one common phrase is "get rid of it"
2) I think that an egalitarian approach to the issue where everyone's viewpoint matters will solve this issue better, as the input of both father and mother is equally valuable IMO
Secondly, I hope this isn't rude of me but I did see what you said about what happened to one of your friends on LAN. Personally, I advise against your commenting on LAN and sticking to websites that encourage debate in a civil manner; as far as I have observed, it is the PL equivalent of RHRC. Please let me explain.
I would not do well on RHRC because as a PL person I would be getting into the sharks and jets mentality and would be eaten alive; I am not prepared to damage myself emotionally at a place like that. It would be similar to LAN for you, although if you wish to comment there I could help offer a few tips to attempt to make your commenting sessions there smoother as I believe I understand their mindset fairly well; would you find such input helpful?
Last but not least I appreciate your friendship and if I have offended or overstepped my boundaries in any way I would like to be told, and I humbly apologise in advance.
Avatar
Philmonomer
I'm all for civility and compassion in discussions. That said, I don't think anyone should be surprised if your (the pro-life side's) civility and compassion isn't necessarily met with the same, in return.
No matter how nicely or compassionately you put it, I'd be livid if I were a woman and people were trying to take away my right to abort the zygote/embryo/fetus inside me that came about because I was raped.
Hide Replies 3
Avatar
acyutananda
"I'd be livid if I were a woman and people were trying to take away my
right to abort the zygote/fetus inside me that came about because I was
raped."
If you were a woman you would, but if I were a woman I wouldn't. There are many women who feel that their and other women's right to abort the zygote/fetus inside them that came about because of rape should be taken away. There are pro-life women who get livid when other pro-lifers support a rape exception.
Since I'm not a moral relativist, I think that someone must be right and someone must be wrong.
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
Philmonomer
If you were a woman you would, but if I were a woman I wouldn't. There are many women who feel that their and other women's right to abort the zygote/fetus inside them that came about because of rape should be taken away. There are pro-life women who get livid when other pro-lifers support a rape exception.
Yup. There's a lot of emotion all around. And I totally get that if you really think abortion clinics are murdering actual people you may not be kind and compassionate. I don't actually fault the pro-life movement for that all.
That said, I can see someone reading this article, talking about how pro-lifers should be kind and compassionate, thinking that such kindness and compassion should be reciprocated, and then encountering the real world of pro-choice people who get very, very angry (for good reason, IMHO).
This blog post (below) seems related. While it's talking about gay rights, abortion works well to the ideas being discussed:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/06/11/you-cant-deny-people-their-rights-and-be-nice-about-it/
Avatar Placeholder
Crystal
There are also rape victims that support abortion if a woman wants it that would be livid with the rape exception; see this comment:
http://www.xojane.com/issues/pro-life-activist-to-pro-choice-christian#comment-2327892385
From the article:
http://www.xojane.com/issues/pro-life-activist-to-pro-choice-christian
I respect her but I cannot support her pro-legal abortion stance.
Avatar Placeholder
Dee
Yes. I also made big life style changes. Moved away from negative influences and found something that i loved doing to occupy me.
Avatar
acyutananda
A zero-sum situation is one in which if one party gains some utility, the other will lose an equal amount of utility. An unwanted pregnancy which is proposed to be resolved by abortion is one of various examples that arise in human society of a situation where if one party (in this case the mother) wins, the other party will lose bigger. I don't know the name for that kind of situation, but we can think of various examples in human society.
In such a situation between two innocent people (neither of whom created the situation), the most obvious moral principle for society to apply would be this principle: the decision should go against the party who will lose the least by a decision against them.
But do we apply this principle when one of the parties has just died, without signing off as an organ donor, and the other party needs his kidney? No, we don't.
I don't think I really support this social convention (prohibition on such organ harvesting from the dead), but if I understood correctly, Timothy Brahm supported it in the post on PP organ harvesting and the violinist; since it serves as a clear example for the point I'd like to make, let's suppose that I do support it and everyone supports it.
So we see that the "obvious" principle, the decision should go against the party who will lose the least, gets drastically derailed by another principle, bodily rights. It doesn't get completely lost, but it is drastically affected.
And I don't think that it is wrong that it should get drastically affected (though the prohibition on organ harvesting from the dead may be a more extreme effect than is necessary). I think bodily rights are important.
"People have a sense of ownership of their bodies, or rather feel possessive about their bodies. This is hardly a new observation, but it needs to be spelled out here. And due to empathy with that sense, or due to a social contract, society sometimes grants to its citizens body-related rights that are out of proportion to what a rational fairness would seem to demand – even allowing people to refuse to let their body parts be used by their living fellows after the people are dead.
"Our sense of others’ bodily ownership rights often tips what should perhaps logically be a simple balancing of competing needs – seeing who is likely to suffer greater overall harm – in the direction of the owner of the body whose use is being demanded. That intuitive sense that we have of people’s bodily ownership rights is the whole basis of the concept of bodily rights and thus of the bodily-rights argument. We seem to sense that particular kinds of trespass on someone’s bodily boundaries may cause mental harm to that person disproportionate to any bodily harm, because of that person’s sense of ownership. The sense of ownership has a sort of magnifier effect."
On this page you have offered two possible arguments for aborting a rape pregnancy: 1) can’t we agree that at least in the case of rape abortion should be legal because rape is so bad?, (i.e., the woman's emotional suffering, though not as big a loss to her as the loss of the baby's life would be to it) and 2) (http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/responding-question-rape-wisdom-compassion/#comment-2562332839) combining a "right to refuse" [bodily-rights] argument with the case of rape [i.e., the fact that the case of rape is so bad]. (Implicitly, isn't your above interlocutors' can’t we agree that at least in the case of rape abortion should be legal because rape is so bad? also combined with bodily rights, such that these two arguments are really the same?)
[Edit: And there in the comments you have gotten explicit about two morally-relevant factors on the baby's side (besides the equal right to life) that were probably implicit in your above discussion. Those new factors: de facto guardian responsibility, and the clearer wrong of direct killing (versus indirect killing).]
Now we come to your operative conclusion, Basically, we should be willing to do just about anything for this woman except kill someone. I won’t cross that line. . . . if people should be given an equal right to life because of the kind of thing they are . . .
To me, this seems like a strict application of the decision should go against the party who will lose the least by a decision against them. But what do you think of my "So we see that the 'obvious' principle, the decision should go against the party who will lose the least, gets drastically derailed by another principle, bodily rights. . . . And I don't think that it is wrong that it should get drastically affected . . ." -- ?
To me, we shouldn't force a woman who has been raped to carry a pregnancy if it looks like that will cause a mental breakdown in her, underlain by the rape trauma (or even force a woman who hasn't been raped to carry a pregnancy if it looks like that will cause a mental breakdown underlain by something else, or cause a physical breakdown). (Let's ignore for now the difficulty of determining which such cases are genuine and which aren't, and suppose we can know.) I don't see it as strictly life versus life; because of the "magnifier effect" of bodily rights -- while I don't agree with those who say that that magnifier is so strong that any woman should be allowed to abort for any reason -- for me the line is something like “A woman whose risk of grave loss of well-being is small should not be allowed to kill her unborn child” (whereas, if that risk is high, she should, sadly, have the right to kill if she wishes). Due to women's bodily rights, the case for society's right to interfere in the first place is not overwhelming but is near the borderline. [Edit: There is an interplay between bodily rights on the one hand and the decision should go against the party who will lose the least on the other hand.]
Similarly, in the "De Facto Guardian" situation, the idea that we might prosecute a woman, already in a stressful situation, who refuses to nurse the baby when it's painful to do so, makes me a little squeamish -- if at all we go that far, we shouldn't go further and say that she must seriously risk her [Edit: health].
I don't see the reality of bodily rights at work at all in where you have drawn the line above, or am I wrong?
Note that my relatively soft line does NOT imply the unborn is of less value than the woman, or has less rights, any more than refusing a dead person's kidney to a living person who needs it implies that the living person is not fully human, or any more than the McFall v. Shimp judge thought that McFall was not fully human. In my soft line people are still "given an equal right to life;" it simply gives due weight to bodily rights as well.
 
As indicated, I find “A woman whose risk of grave loss of well-being is small should not be allowed to kill her unborn child” to be a correct moral principle. Ultimately a correct moral principle can only be apprehended by a correct moral intuition. Surely our moral intuitions are determined by a weighing of factors such as I have discussed above,* though unconsciously. We can also attempt to weigh such factors in a completely logical or rational, conscious, way. But since our moral intuitions come out of our unconsciouses in some way we cannot understand, we can never know for sure exactly which factors influenced those intuitions to what extent.
  • Equal right to life, "rape is so bad," bodily rights (specifically "right to refuse"), de facto guardian responsibility, and the clearer wrong of direct killing (versus indirect killing).
    My comment became complicated, but my main point is, aren't you applying a strict principle of the decision should go against the party who will lose the least without taking into account bodily rights as much as you would take them into account in other situations?
Hide Replies 4
Avatar
uninvolved_1
The fact "de facto guardianship" makes you squeamish isn't an argument against it.
Hide Replies 3
Avatar
acyutananda
"The fact 'de facto guardianship' makes you squeamish isn't an argument against it."
First of all, I support and myself use in my discussions the idea of de facto guardianship.* Have you read that "De Facto Guardian" thought experiment by Stephen Wagner, the Brahms, et. al.? It proceeds by exploring our moral intuitions stage by stage. I was certainly on board in the early stages: I agree that we should prosecute a woman who has refused to supply an infant with baby formula. I even agree that we should prosecute a woman who has refused to breast-feed if it is painless to her. But I had written: "Similarly, in the 'De Facto Guardian' situation, the idea that we might
prosecute a woman, already in a stressful situation, who refuses to
nurse the baby when it's painful to do so, makes me a little squeamish . . ." What I was saying was that I started to draw the line at the pain stage.
  • A.k.a. Minimally Decent Samaritanism.
    Secondly, let's look at the word "squeamish," which I think is your main focus. I had written, "Similarly . . . the idea . . . makes me a little squeamish . . ." "Similarly" refers to the preceding para, where instead of "squeamish," I had simply said "we shouldn't . . ." So what I mean by "squeamish" is not merely an emotion, though emotion is present in me as well, but a sense of "shouldn't" (i.e., a moral intuition).
    If your whole point is that emotions are not moral arguments, yet you would agree that moral intuitions (senses of "should/shouldn't," dictates of conscience, coming out of our unconsciouses in some way we cannot understand) are moral arguments, then I think we're in perfect agreement. The "De Facto Guardian" article itself uses the term "moral intuition," and uses moral intuitions as arguments.
    More broadly, do you agree with my "I don't see the reality of bodily rights at work at all in where you have drawn the line above . . ." -- ?
    I just recently updated my rejection of the bodily-rights argument for abortion rights in which I proceed by analyzing the concept of bodily rights. As I write in that essay, "The bodily-rights argument for legal abortion is usually advanced through thought experiments that create analogies with pregnancy – analogies in which our sympathies will be on the side of a right to refuse to let one’s body be used. And those arguments are usually contested by showing the disanalogies between the situations of the thought experiments, and the situation of actual pregnancy. In this essay, however, the approach will be to analyze the concept of bodily rights, rather than to deal with thought experiments that elicit our intuitions about bodily rights." I say, for instance:
    The only meaningful right that the current concept of bodily rights provides would best be termed a “right to freedom from the mental harm caused by offense to our mental sense of body ownership.”
    http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/bodily-rights-and-a-better-idea/
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
uninvolved_1
I believe that the de facto guardianship argument is a well formulated argument. And I see no reason to draw the line at pain. And you gave no argument to draw the line at pain.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
acyutananda
"I believe that the de facto guardianship argument is a well formulated argument."
I agree it's well-formulated in the sense that insofar as the argument depends on logic, the logic is valid. But the argument depends very importantly (and explicitly) on moral intuition as well as on logic. Someone could say, "According to my moral intuition, Mary has no obligation toward the child, and in fact she has the right to throw it out in the snow at the outset if she wishes." And that would effectively undermine the argument to an extent.
Because the argument depends very importantly on moral intuition, and moral intuitions differ, and there is no way to prove logically that one moral intuition is more correct than another.
"And you gave no argument to draw the line at pain."
I did give evidence: my moral intuition. Perhaps my moral intuition should not technically be called an argument, but it is evidence of the same kind (the moral intuitions of the authors) that the conclusions of "De Facto Guardian" depend on and fail without.
Have you given any argument for calling the de-facto-guardianship argument a well-formulated argument? No, you haven't. But if you examine what your argument would be for saying that, I think you would agree with me: "insofar as the argument depends on logic, the logic is valid. But the argument depends very importantly (and explicitly) on moral intuition as well as on logic."
By the way, I did not exactly "draw the line at pain." I first said, "the idea that we might prosecute a woman, already in a stressful situation, who refuses to nurse the baby when it's painful to do so, makes me a little squeamish -- if at all we go that far, we shouldn't go further and say that she must seriously risk her life."*
Then I said, "I started to draw the line at the pain stage" (I didn't finish drawing it).
  • I have now edited "life" to "health."
    Do you agree with my "I don't see the reality of bodily rights at work at all in where you have drawn the line above . . ." -- ?
Load More 30View All 120