First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "suspends progesterone," or which drug you are referring to as "The abortion pill," since it is a 2-drug regimen.
I have, however, done research on how mifepristone (the first drug in the regimen) works. You can read more about that here. The relevant sections are under the headings "How does a medical abortion work?" and "How could a medical abortion be theoretically reversed?" which talk about how mifepristone binds to the progesterone receptors in the uterus.
Is your first comment in response to saying the abortion pill regimen kills a living human organism, and you are saying it "just suspends progesterone" to refute that? Or is that comment is response to something else stated in the article? Suspending progesterone to break down the uterine lining does kill the human embryo or fetus. It's a drug taken to purposely induce an abortion, killing the human embryo or fetus by taking away the source of nutrients. If it did not kill, it would not be used for inducing abortion.
As for your second comment, I am not really sure what you are getting at. Can you explain? To be clear on my end, I am not saying not wanting to be pregnant is not a reason women cite for an abortion. I am explaining that reducing all women's reasons down to merely not wanting to be pregnant is overly reductionist and does not accurately reflect the reasons women actually get abortions. Reasons are varied and complex. I think to inaccurately portray something as the overall reality for the majority of women just to make a point is in bad taste. If Reproaction were to clarify anywhere that they were using hyperbole to make their point, I would not be spending time refuting their implication.
I don't want women to suffer, either. Pregnancy is not a walk in the park, and I would never claim otherwise. I want to (and do) support pregnant women and mothers, even those who have an unplanned pregnancy. However, I am not against abortion merely because I "don't like it." There are lots and lots of things I do not like which I do not think should be legally imposed upon other people. However, because abortion kills a human organism, and I think all human organisms are persons, and I think killing persons is bad, I therefore think abortion is objectively a moral wrong, a violation of human rights for the person being killed, and should be legally restricted. I do not think the appropriate force for ending suffering during pregnancy is killing the child. I would rather see mental and physical medical help given to the women, as well as societal support, so her suffering is alleviated in a non-violent manner.
"Suspending progesterone to break down the uterine lining does kill the human embryo or fetus. It's a drug taken to purposely induce an abortion, killing the human embryo or fetus by taking away the source of nutrients. If it did not kill, it would not be used for inducing abortion."
The progesterone secreted by the ovaries affects the entire body of the pregnant person; thus, all the symptoms of illlnesses associated with first trimester pregnancies, such as fatigue and nausea, occurs. The intention of suspending the progesterone is not for the sake of killing the embryo, but rather reverting the mother's health back to a normal state at the expense of the embryo.
"However, because abortion kills a human organism, and I think all human organisms are persons, and I think killing persons is bad, I therefore think abortion is objectively a moral wrong, a violation of human rights for the person being killed, and should be legally restricted."
I can understand your point of view; however, your beliefs are not morally objective. Why do you think killing a human at any circumstances is wrong? Why should everyone adhere to those values? There are many real-life cases where other people or societies may not see killing someone as immoral, barring abortion, such as self-defense, euthanasia and the death penalty (note: I do not necessarily support the killing of humans in these cases).
"I do not think the appropriate force for ending suffering during pregnancy is killing the child. I would rather see mental and physical medical help given to the women, as well as societal support, so her suffering is alleviated in a non-violent manner."
I am sorry if you think what I'm saying is wrong, but I do not think you can make appeasements without justifying you are comfortable with someone enduring nine-months, give or take, of the what someone goes through during a pregnancy. Why do you think an embryo a child? A pregnancy always ends with labor or c-section — the former is almost always a painful experience for the one who is giving birth, and the latter leaves a scar. However, in regards to abortion, there are more options, and some of those methods are more humane than others.
Granted, you would most likely disagree because our fundamental beliefs and values are different, but I do believe that the interests of the pregnant of the person who is pregnant should be prioritized over the "interests" of the embryo/fetus/unborn.
It sounds like you are denying that an abortion procedure is an abortion procedure, or reframing abortion as simply a way to be un-pregnant.
Again, I am not denying that some women get abortions just to not be pregnant anymore. I am simply pointing out that the purpose of an induced abortion is to terminate an ongoing pregnancy using a means which avoids live birth -- that is, a means which purposely kills a human embryo or fetus as the means of terminating pregnancy. Taking pills to not be pregnant necessarily involves killing a human organism in this process. You cannot separate killing from induced abortion.
I wholeheartedly deny your assertion that a woman's "normal" state of health is not being pregnant. Pregnancy is perfectly within the normal range of physiological conditions for any female mammal. Your comment not only suggests that being not-pregnant is the only healthy norm for women's bodies, but also implies that all pregnant women are de facto "unhealthy," which is not true. We as a species would not have survived this long if pregnancy meant we were unhealthy, unfit, weak members of our species for 40 weeks at a time. I am not denying pregnancy complications can and do occur. I am not saying pregnancy or delivery is easy. I am merely denying the broad and rather misogynistic view that a woman's body is only healthy and normal when she is not pregnant. I think Rachel does a great job explaining why pro-life people view such statements claiming abortion is healthcare as both factually incorrect and sexist.
I'm sorry for not being more specific. However, I do not think all homicide is unjustified. There may be justifiable reasons for killing a person, such as accidentally in self-defense. But abortion cannot logically be categorized as self-defense, and it is certainly not accidental; therefore killing the prenatal human is not justifiable homicide even under the argument of self-defense. Again, Rachel does a great job explaining that pro-life point of view.
I don't have to be "comfortable" with someone suffering to also say I do not think that someone should be able to kill another person to alleviate their suffering -- an innocent one, at that; guilty of no crime, who can be given no charges nor a fair trial. If I were "comfortable" with women suffering during pregnancy, I would not also be interested in helping alleviate their suffering through non-violent means. Mothers need a variety of support from a variety of sources, and I am very interested in helping connect mothers to support resources. In fact, that is my entire job (I just do this for fun! ;) ) And I think human embryos and fetuses are children because they are. They are the biological offspring of a biological mother and father. You can give the terms emotional value if you would like, but they also have biological meaning.
Yes, our views fundamentally differ. I would argue all human organisms are persons. It does not seem like you do. Do you think a prenatal human organism becomes a person at any point before birth? If so, what point is that and why? Does personhood extend outside of the human species? Why/not?
If I am right, there is a balance of interests at play when the wants, health, and rights of the pregnant person and the person being gestated are being considered. If you are right, and the prenatal human organism is not a person, then I would agree with you that abortion is ok. I would concede that abortion is morally neutral or even perhaps even good, and that it should certainly be a legal medical option under a wide array of circumstances, perhaps even up to 40 weeks' gestational age and for any reason at all. I also believe that by not believing prenatal human organisms are persons, you are being logically consistent when you prioritize the interests of the pregnant person over the interests of the human embryo or fetus. However, with my viewpoint, except perhaps in a double-effect sort of case, that prioritization would not be logically consistent.
"Again, I am not denying that some women get abortions just to not be pregnant anymore. I am simply pointing out that the purpose of an induced abortion is to terminate an ongoing pregnancy using a means which avoids live birth -- that is, a means which purposely kills a human embryo or fetus as the means of terminating pregnancy. Taking pills to not be pregnant necessarily involves killing a human organism in this process. You cannot separate killing from induced abortion."
This is because human embryos are not viable outside of the womb. In the second trimester, there is an abortion method called the "medical induction abortion," which is basically giving birth before the 40th week. Yes, it does involve the killing of a human organism/embryo, which is why I specified people have abortions not for the sake of killing the embryo but at the expense of the embryo's life because whenever you terminate a the unborn dies, unless for similar reasons stated above.
"I wholeheartedly deny your assertion that a woman's "normal" state of health is not being pregnant... I am not saying pregnancy or delivery is easy. I am merely denying the broad and rather misogynistic view that a woman's body is only healthy and normal when she is not pregnant."
I never claimed that. Maybe I didn't word my previous post well, but I was not referring to the pregnancy itself, but rather the symptoms of pregnancy. If pregnancy is merely just gestating an embryo or fetus without enduring things like nauseau, fatigue and labor pains maybe I would be anti-abortion as well. However, to claim that forcing someone to remain pregnant is logical because pregnancy is a natural process is an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy.
"I do not think that someone should be able to kill another person to alleviate their suffering -- an innocent one, at that; guilty of no crime, who can be given no charges nor a fair trial."
I think this is where we disagree. I think killing via removing an underdeveloped human from a more developed human that is directly affecting the health or wellbeing of the latter (e.g. in the case of parasitic twins) is justified, which is one of the reasons why I support legal abortion. I also think that innocence should not matter if a Pro-Lifer believes in the equal right to life.
"They are the biological offspring of a biological mother and father. " Would you consider the death penalty as killing children then?
"If you are right, and the prenatal human organism is not a person, then I would agree with you that abortion is ok."
To reiterate my first point: "If pregnancy is merely just gestating an embryo or fetus without enduring things like nauseau, fatigue and labor pains, maybe I would be anti-abortion as well."
"Do you think a prenatal human organism becomes a person at any point before birth?" Yes, I do. I think some moral considerations should be taken when purposeful movements begin in the 16th or 18th week, and even moreso when cognitive functions begin later in the third trimester. However, to narrow the scope, this is between an underdeveloped human in a position that is causing harm to a more developed human that is on the receiving end. "Does personhood extend outside of the human species? Why/not?" I am not a vegan, so no.
"I also believe that by not believing prenatal human organisms are persons, you are being logically consistent when you prioritize the interests of the pregnant person over the interests of the human embryo or fetus."
I disagree. It is meaningless to debate whether embryos and underdeveloped fetuses are people. The pregnant person values their body way more than an embryo values it's life, which is quite possibly pratically none. Unwanted pregnancy is a contradiction between two parties, and the only people who wants the embryo or very early fetus to live are a third party: Pro-lifers.
An action taken knowing it will kill something, is killing something. Abortion does not kill because human embryos are not viable outside the uterus. Abortion does not kill by merely removing. It directly kills. It's like saying, "Putting a pillow over my born child's face does not kill them; they are just not viable without oxygen," or more passively, "Locking my child outside my house and not feeding them didn't kill them; they are just not viable without being directly provided food." No, you purposely took an action to deprive them of one thing they need to survive. Mifepristone directly affects oxygen and food supply to a human being. Just because chemical starvation or suffocation does not look the same as committing those atrocities to born humans by physically withholding food or blocking their airway does not mean the starvation/suffocation is not happening.
Thank you for clarifying. But no, I am not appealing to nature or making the naturalistic fallacy. I am not saying that because X is natural, it is morally good. I do not believe that nor do I use that to argue for the pro-life viewpoint. Not allowing women to kill their children is not forcing them to remain pregnant. That is a nice rhetorical move, but it is not logical. Again, ERI has a great resource on this.
Yes, the death penalty kills children. I also am not into the death penalty. :)
Hahaha, I am not a vegan, either....but I would still allow for the idea that personhood could extend beyond the human species; however, because of my view on personhood, it necessarily follows that all members of the human species are persons. Surprise, surprise! ERI has some great resources explaining what is essentially the substance view of personhood. This is a journal article going into the substance view of personhood that is a bit more technical and science-heavy, but a good read to understand where I am coming from as far as humans are concerned.
But you can also read good responses to the desire argument. This is essentially what Boonin uses to defend abortion and which I would say is a great defense of it. Not good enough to convince me he's right, but very good. I do not think it is meaningless to talk about personhood. It seems very obvious to me that if a living thing is a person, and persons have rights, that their rights can be violated and they can be harmed whether they want anything or are aware of anything. So whether the prenatal human or my grandma with dementia has any wants or desires regarding their future is of no consequence to me; it would be wrong for me to kill either of those people.
And of course, there is Don Marquis' classic response to why abortion might be wrong even if the human embryo or fetus is not a person. This is a very interesting argument, because it completely bypasses religion, desire and/or function, and personhood altogether. This may address some of your points since you have expressed a combined viewpoint of some measure of fetal personhood, along with defense of abortion regardless of personhood. There is a second, similar but updated essay he did, too, in which he specifically addresses some objections near the latter part of the essay. Either way, his arguments are a great read. Even for me, who holds a view of prenatal personhood, I think his contributions to the ethics of the abortion debate are valuable.
I do not think you have understood my argument at all. If so you are deliberately ignoring it. All I am trying to convey is that abortion terminates a pregnancy. The embryo/fetus dies, but the pregnant person does not have to endure the symptoms of said pregnancy anymore. People get abortions for the sake of not enduring the symptoms of pregnancy, NOT for the sake ("not for the sake" as in it is NOT the end goal) of killing the embryo/fetus, even though it would be considered "killing". Learn the difference between "AS THE INTENT vs. AT THE EXPENSE".
"An action taken knowing it will kill something, is killing something." Not always. Manslaughter is considered to be killing, but it is not done intentionally.
"Putting a pillow over my born child's face does not kill them; they are just not viable without oxygen... Locking my child outside my house and not feeding them didn't kill them; they are just not viable without being directly provided food." Oh, boy. Can you guys please come up with a better analogy for once? Learn the difference between an active action and a passive action. By suffocating someone with a pillow, you are in contact with and using aggression against their body. If anything, it is more akin to allowing someone to exsanguinate by removing the needle during a blood transfusion, hence not donating enough blood.
"Mifepristone directly affects oxygen and food supply to a human being." You see. There is 100% absolutely no way to justify the pro-life stance without conveniently erasing the pregnant woman and her hardships. This is why it is impossible to be simultaneously "pro-life" and "pro-woman." Who is supplying the oxygen and nutrients? Is that person obligated to do so? What happens to them and their wellbeing when they are "carrying out" that action?
"Just because chemical starvation or suffocation does not look the same as committing those atrocities to born humans by physically withholding food or blocking their airway does not mean the starvation/suffocation is not happening." Then perhaps, this is because... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!
Why should someone be obligated to altruistically give up their body and nutrients (something that directly affects the person, unlike socio-economic things which have indirect effects) for the benefit of another individual?
When medical abortions are carried out, and can only be effectively carried out, the unborn is still in the embryonic stage. This means the stomach is still a yolk sac or more closely resembles a yolk sac than a proper stomach, and the lungs are still buds incapable of the act of breathing. Does it malnourishes? Yes. This is because it cannot survive without another human's blood and nutrients; therefore, the only way to be pro-life is by forcing women to continue their pregnancies no matter what.
"ERI has some great resources explaining what is essentially the substance view of personhood." I've read through them already. The arguments are quite poor to be honest. For Rachel Crawford's argument, someone may value the life of a squirrel over a human embryo, but may value the life of a human child or adult over the life of a squirrel. Collin Killoren's argument has a lot of assertions such as all acorns will become oak trees and all embryos will become humans without external intervention without citing evidence for the claim (I'm not talking about species-specifications).
"Not allowing women to kill their children is not forcing them to remain pregnant. That is a nice rhetorical move, but it is not logical. Again, ERI has a great resource on this." By that logic, an abortion is not killing children because abortion is the only alternative to a pregnancy that is taking place. Go ahead, ignore what happens during a pregnancy and tell yourself that you care about pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant.
"This is a journal article going into the substance view of personhood that is a bit more technical and science-heavy, but a good read to understand where I am coming from as far as humans are concerned." That article has a lot of scientific errors, such as stating that a "zygote grows" when cellular growth does not occur in the cleavage stage.
To be frank, I am extremely disgusted by the fact that you believe a preimplantation embryo should have more bodily integrity rights than a sentient woman who is suffering. If you think embryonic research is wrong but not forcing someone to endure the symptoms of pregnancy, you see a reality check.
"But you can also read good responses to the desire argument." "At conception... needing only food, water, shelter, and oxygen, and a congenial environment... existence as a whole." There are no citations to support this claim. Vocabulary like "intrinsic" are subjective and counterproductive to the discussion.
"So whether the prenatal human or my grandma with dementia has any wants or desires regarding their future is of no consequence to me; it would be wrong for me to kill either of those people."
There is no conflict between two parties in your case. In an unwanted pregnancy, there is. It would be more rational to preserve the interests of the pregnant woman because her body and wellbeing is something she cherishes, as opposed to the interests projected by pro-lifers onto the embryo or fetus.
Good post. In the US, the debut of RU-486 wasn't really the game-changer abortion advocates had hoped for as the FDA regulates it about as tightly as surgical abortion. But in Canada it can be prescribed by any doctor and distributed by a pharmacist (no ultrasound necessary). And in the UK they have Pills by Post, which effectively makes getting an abortion about as easy as ordering a pizza since all it takes is calling the doctor and getting the pills delivered to one's door (easier, actually, since you generally have to pay for the pizza yourself). The Obama Administration actually wasn't that bad in this regard, largely staying the course and making only minor changes to the FDA guidelines rather than radically expanding abortion (I think all they did was increase the time limit by 2 weeks). But the abortion industry, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is pushing heavily for the FDA's REMS to be repealed. Part of this effort involves conducting dangerous and unethical studies on women in third world countries. And some Democratic presidential candidates went as far as advocating for abortion pills to be available over the counter. It's not clear whether a Biden Administration would do something this extreme, as he has not been asked about it during his rare interviews with reporters (a Harris administration, however, would be downright terrifying). Live Action has done a great job covering this, but pro-lifers need to be talking more about it. Even if Roe v. Wade really is overturned, much of the pro-life movement's efforts to protect unborn babies could become completely irrelevant. Not to mention the untold harm to scores of women from self-induced and forced abortions (both of which would be swept under the rug) that it would lead to.
I have heard about that in the UK. I remember reading a report that came out showing how the phone pill providers allowed women to alter the LMP they initially gave so it would be under the 10 week limit. Here is the USA, some of the REMS have been temporarily repealed under the guise of COVID-related concerns, and since 2016, only lethal adverse side effects have to be reported via the REMs system. A Freedom of Information Act request and a study done analyzing those did show how that complications are generally much higher than abortion providers and advocates cite. I believe over-the-counter use would be disastrous for women's health.
" Reducing the complex and varied reasons women seek abortion in the first place down to “don’t want to be pregnant?”"
So? Why do people have to suffer for 9 months just because you don't like it? Not wanting to suffer for 9 months is a valid reason.
First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "suspends progesterone," or which drug you are referring to as "The abortion pill," since it is a 2-drug regimen.
I have, however, done research on how mifepristone (the first drug in the regimen) works. You can read more about that here. The relevant sections are under the headings "How does a medical abortion work?" and "How could a medical abortion be theoretically reversed?" which talk about how mifepristone binds to the progesterone receptors in the uterus.
Is your first comment in response to saying the abortion pill regimen kills a living human organism, and you are saying it "just suspends progesterone" to refute that? Or is that comment is response to something else stated in the article? Suspending progesterone to break down the uterine lining does kill the human embryo or fetus. It's a drug taken to purposely induce an abortion, killing the human embryo or fetus by taking away the source of nutrients. If it did not kill, it would not be used for inducing abortion.
As for your second comment, I am not really sure what you are getting at. Can you explain? To be clear on my end, I am not saying not wanting to be pregnant is not a reason women cite for an abortion. I am explaining that reducing all women's reasons down to merely not wanting to be pregnant is overly reductionist and does not accurately reflect the reasons women actually get abortions. Reasons are varied and complex. I think to inaccurately portray something as the overall reality for the majority of women just to make a point is in bad taste. If Reproaction were to clarify anywhere that they were using hyperbole to make their point, I would not be spending time refuting their implication.
I don't want women to suffer, either. Pregnancy is not a walk in the park, and I would never claim otherwise. I want to (and do) support pregnant women and mothers, even those who have an unplanned pregnancy. However, I am not against abortion merely because I "don't like it." There are lots and lots of things I do not like which I do not think should be legally imposed upon other people. However, because abortion kills a human organism, and I think all human organisms are persons, and I think killing persons is bad, I therefore think abortion is objectively a moral wrong, a violation of human rights for the person being killed, and should be legally restricted. I do not think the appropriate force for ending suffering during pregnancy is killing the child. I would rather see mental and physical medical help given to the women, as well as societal support, so her suffering is alleviated in a non-violent manner.
The progesterone secreted by the ovaries affects the entire body of the pregnant person; thus, all the symptoms of illlnesses associated with first trimester pregnancies, such as fatigue and nausea, occurs. The intention of suspending the progesterone is not for the sake of killing the embryo, but rather reverting the mother's health back to a normal state at the expense of the embryo.
"However, because abortion kills a human organism, and I think all human organisms are persons, and I think killing persons is bad, I therefore think abortion is objectively a moral wrong, a violation of human rights for the person being killed, and should be legally restricted."
I can understand your point of view; however, your beliefs are not morally objective. Why do you think killing a human at any circumstances is wrong? Why should everyone adhere to those values? There are many real-life cases where other people or societies may not see killing someone as immoral, barring abortion, such as self-defense, euthanasia and the death penalty (note: I do not necessarily support the killing of humans in these cases).
"I do not think the appropriate force for ending suffering during pregnancy is killing the child. I would rather see mental and physical medical help given to the women, as well as societal support, so her suffering is alleviated in a non-violent manner."
I am sorry if you think what I'm saying is wrong, but I do not think you can make appeasements without justifying you are comfortable with someone enduring nine-months, give or take, of the what someone goes through during a pregnancy. Why do you think an embryo a child? A pregnancy always ends with labor or c-section — the former is almost always a painful experience for the one who is giving birth, and the latter leaves a scar. However, in regards to abortion, there are more options, and some of those methods are more humane than others.
Granted, you would most likely disagree because our fundamental beliefs and values are different, but I do believe that the interests of the pregnant of the person who is pregnant should be prioritized over the "interests" of the embryo/fetus/unborn.
Again, I am not denying that some women get abortions just to not be pregnant anymore. I am simply pointing out that the purpose of an induced abortion is to terminate an ongoing pregnancy using a means which avoids live birth -- that is, a means which purposely kills a human embryo or fetus as the means of terminating pregnancy. Taking pills to not be pregnant necessarily involves killing a human organism in this process. You cannot separate killing from induced abortion.
I wholeheartedly deny your assertion that a woman's "normal" state of health is not being pregnant. Pregnancy is perfectly within the normal range of physiological conditions for any female mammal. Your comment not only suggests that being not-pregnant is the only healthy norm for women's bodies, but also implies that all pregnant women are de facto "unhealthy," which is not true. We as a species would not have survived this long if pregnancy meant we were unhealthy, unfit, weak members of our species for 40 weeks at a time. I am not denying pregnancy complications can and do occur. I am not saying pregnancy or delivery is easy. I am merely denying the broad and rather misogynistic view that a woman's body is only healthy and normal when she is not pregnant. I think Rachel does a great job explaining why pro-life people view such statements claiming abortion is healthcare as both factually incorrect and sexist.
I'm sorry for not being more specific. However, I do not think all homicide is unjustified. There may be justifiable reasons for killing a person, such as accidentally in self-defense. But abortion cannot logically be categorized as self-defense, and it is certainly not accidental; therefore killing the prenatal human is not justifiable homicide even under the argument of self-defense. Again, Rachel does a great job explaining that pro-life point of view.
I don't have to be "comfortable" with someone suffering to also say I do not think that someone should be able to kill another person to alleviate their suffering -- an innocent one, at that; guilty of no crime, who can be given no charges nor a fair trial. If I were "comfortable" with women suffering during pregnancy, I would not also be interested in helping alleviate their suffering through non-violent means. Mothers need a variety of support from a variety of sources, and I am very interested in helping connect mothers to support resources. In fact, that is my entire job (I just do this for fun! ;) ) And I think human embryos and fetuses are children because they are. They are the biological offspring of a biological mother and father. You can give the terms emotional value if you would like, but they also have biological meaning.
Yes, our views fundamentally differ. I would argue all human organisms are persons. It does not seem like you do. Do you think a prenatal human organism becomes a person at any point before birth? If so, what point is that and why? Does personhood extend outside of the human species? Why/not?
If I am right, there is a balance of interests at play when the wants, health, and rights of the pregnant person and the person being gestated are being considered. If you are right, and the prenatal human organism is not a person, then I would agree with you that abortion is ok. I would concede that abortion is morally neutral or even perhaps even good, and that it should certainly be a legal medical option under a wide array of circumstances, perhaps even up to 40 weeks' gestational age and for any reason at all. I also believe that by not believing prenatal human organisms are persons, you are being logically consistent when you prioritize the interests of the pregnant person over the interests of the human embryo or fetus. However, with my viewpoint, except perhaps in a double-effect sort of case, that prioritization would not be logically consistent.
This is because human embryos are not viable outside of the womb. In the second trimester, there is an abortion method called the "medical induction abortion," which is basically giving birth before the 40th week. Yes, it does involve the killing of a human organism/embryo, which is why I specified people have abortions not for the sake of killing the embryo but at the expense of the embryo's life because whenever you terminate a the unborn dies, unless for similar reasons stated above.
"I wholeheartedly deny your assertion that a woman's "normal" state of health is not being pregnant... I am not saying pregnancy or delivery is easy. I am merely denying the broad and rather misogynistic view that a woman's body is only healthy and normal when she is not pregnant."
I never claimed that. Maybe I didn't word my previous post well, but I was not referring to the pregnancy itself, but rather the symptoms of pregnancy. If pregnancy is merely just gestating an embryo or fetus without enduring things like nauseau, fatigue and labor pains maybe I would be anti-abortion as well. However, to claim that forcing someone to remain pregnant is logical because pregnancy is a natural process is an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy.
"I do not think that someone should be able to kill another person to alleviate their suffering -- an innocent one, at that; guilty of no crime, who can be given no charges nor a fair trial."
I think this is where we disagree. I think killing via removing an underdeveloped human from a more developed human that is directly affecting the health or wellbeing of the latter (e.g. in the case of parasitic twins) is justified, which is one of the reasons why I support legal abortion. I also think that innocence should not matter if a Pro-Lifer believes in the equal right to life.
"They are the biological offspring of a biological mother and father. "
Would you consider the death penalty as killing children then?
"If you are right, and the prenatal human organism is not a person, then I would agree with you that abortion is ok."
To reiterate my first point: "If pregnancy is merely just gestating an embryo or fetus without enduring things like nauseau, fatigue and labor pains, maybe I would be anti-abortion as well."
"Do you think a prenatal human organism becomes a person at any point before birth?"
Yes, I do. I think some moral considerations should be taken when purposeful movements begin in the 16th or 18th week, and even moreso when cognitive functions begin later in the third trimester. However, to narrow the scope, this is between an underdeveloped human in a position that is causing harm to a more developed human that is on the receiving end.
"Does personhood extend outside of the human species? Why/not?"
I am not a vegan, so no.
"I also believe that by not believing prenatal human organisms are persons, you are being logically consistent when you prioritize the interests of the pregnant person over the interests of the human embryo or fetus."
I disagree. It is meaningless to debate whether embryos and underdeveloped fetuses are people. The pregnant person values their body way more than an embryo values it's life, which is quite possibly pratically none. Unwanted pregnancy is a contradiction between two parties, and the only people who wants the embryo or very early fetus to live are a third party: Pro-lifers.
Thank you for clarifying. But no, I am not appealing to nature or making the naturalistic fallacy. I am not saying that because X is natural, it is morally good. I do not believe that nor do I use that to argue for the pro-life viewpoint. Not allowing women to kill their children is not forcing them to remain pregnant. That is a nice rhetorical move, but it is not logical. Again, ERI has a great resource on this.
Yes, the death penalty kills children. I also am not into the death penalty. :)
Hahaha, I am not a vegan, either....but I would still allow for the idea that personhood could extend beyond the human species; however, because of my view on personhood, it necessarily follows that all members of the human species are persons. Surprise, surprise! ERI has some great resources explaining what is essentially the substance view of personhood. This is a journal article going into the substance view of personhood that is a bit more technical and science-heavy, but a good read to understand where I am coming from as far as humans are concerned.
But you can also read good responses to the desire argument. This is essentially what Boonin uses to defend abortion and which I would say is a great defense of it. Not good enough to convince me he's right, but very good. I do not think it is meaningless to talk about personhood. It seems very obvious to me that if a living thing is a person, and persons have rights, that their rights can be violated and they can be harmed whether they want anything or are aware of anything. So whether the prenatal human or my grandma with dementia has any wants or desires regarding their future is of no consequence to me; it would be wrong for me to kill either of those people.
And of course, there is Don Marquis' classic response to why abortion might be wrong even if the human embryo or fetus is not a person. This is a very interesting argument, because it completely bypasses religion, desire and/or function, and personhood altogether. This may address some of your points since you have expressed a combined viewpoint of some measure of fetal personhood, along with defense of abortion regardless of personhood. There is a second, similar but updated essay he did, too, in which he specifically addresses some objections near the latter part of the essay. Either way, his arguments are a great read. Even for me, who holds a view of prenatal personhood, I think his contributions to the ethics of the abortion debate are valuable.
"An action taken knowing it will kill something, is killing something."
Not always. Manslaughter is considered to be killing, but it is not done intentionally.
"Putting a pillow over my born child's face does not kill them; they are just not viable without oxygen... Locking my child outside my house and not feeding them didn't kill them; they are just not viable without being directly provided food."
Oh, boy. Can you guys please come up with a better analogy for once? Learn the difference between an active action and a passive action. By suffocating someone with a pillow, you are in contact with and using aggression against their body. If anything, it is more akin to allowing someone to exsanguinate by removing the needle during a blood transfusion, hence not donating enough blood.
"Mifepristone directly affects oxygen and food supply to a human being."
You see. There is 100% absolutely no way to justify the pro-life stance without conveniently erasing the pregnant woman and her hardships. This is why it is impossible to be simultaneously "pro-life" and "pro-woman." Who is supplying the oxygen and nutrients? Is that person obligated to do so? What happens to them and their wellbeing when they are "carrying out" that action?
"Just because chemical starvation or suffocation does not look the same as committing those atrocities to born humans by physically withholding food or blocking their airway does not mean the starvation/suffocation is not happening."
Then perhaps, this is because... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!
- Why should someone be obligated to altruistically give up their body and nutrients (something that directly affects the person, unlike socio-economic things which have indirect effects) for the benefit of another individual?
- When medical abortions are carried out, and can only be effectively carried out, the unborn is still in the embryonic stage. This means the stomach is still a yolk sac or more closely resembles a yolk sac than a proper stomach, and the lungs are still buds incapable of the act of breathing. Does it malnourishes? Yes. This is because it cannot survive without another human's blood and nutrients; therefore, the only way to be pro-life is by forcing women to continue their pregnancies no matter what.
"ERI has some great resources explaining what is essentially the substance view of personhood."I've read through them already. The arguments are quite poor to be honest. For Rachel Crawford's argument, someone may value the life of a squirrel over a human embryo, but may value the life of a human child or adult over the life of a squirrel. Collin Killoren's argument has a lot of assertions such as all acorns will become oak trees and all embryos will become humans without external intervention without citing evidence for the claim (I'm not talking about species-specifications).
"Not allowing women to kill their children is not forcing them to remain pregnant. That is a nice rhetorical move, but it is not logical. Again, ERI has a great resource on this."
By that logic, an abortion is not killing children because abortion is the only alternative to a pregnancy that is taking place. Go ahead, ignore what happens during a pregnancy and tell yourself that you care about pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant.
"This is a journal article going into the substance view of personhood that is a bit more technical and science-heavy, but a good read to understand where I am coming from as far as humans are concerned."
That article has a lot of scientific errors, such as stating that a "zygote grows" when cellular growth does not occur in the cleavage stage.
To be frank, I am extremely disgusted by the fact that you believe a preimplantation embryo should have more bodily integrity rights than a sentient woman who is suffering. If you think embryonic research is wrong but not forcing someone to endure the symptoms of pregnancy, you see a reality check.
"But you can also read good responses to the desire argument."
"At conception... needing only food, water, shelter, and oxygen, and a congenial environment... existence as a whole." There are no citations to support this claim. Vocabulary like "intrinsic" are subjective and counterproductive to the discussion.
There is no conflict between two parties in your case. In an unwanted pregnancy, there is. It would be more rational to preserve the interests of the pregnant woman because her body and wellbeing is something she cherishes, as opposed to the interests projected by pro-lifers onto the embryo or fetus.