The Complexities of Abortion

In my understanding: before 24-26 weeks of gestation, a human foetus lacks intact thalamocortical circutry and therefore isn't sentient (i.e. feels pain as an independent organism with the potential for learning to anticipate pain in other organisms (empathy)) – not a person, so excising it is a lumpectomy, not homicide ...

Having others tell a woman she must carry to term just sounds like a violation in itself.

A woman's bodily autonomy right trumps the fetus's rights at every stage, even if it's a person at the moment of conception. Bodily autonomy rights are that important.

If they were (as you are suggesting), then I can unconsent from saving the kid who is drowning in the pool (given there is no one else around to do it) because there is risk to my body getting an ear infection.

What are your guys’ thoughts?

As far as i can tell, the task of the pro-abortionists has been to diminish and belittle in the conscience the body of the unborn. To kill it with a clean conscience, for example, one must sneak in and sever its life before this or that occurs, before it has feelings or a heartbeat. At least then will the killer be satisfied with herself and her humanity.

I have to quell the dissonance and remain satisfied that it isn't up to me wether someone wants to kill the life growing inside of her. I leave that to her, but will always remember that they are killing a life that is not their own, and will judge accordingly.

I would not consider it murder because there is a valid excuse for it.

No, what I consider a valid excuse for abortion is if the unborn is a product of rape or if the mother is too young or if the fetus is malformed.

What are your own views on the matter?

In the case of rape, I suppose that it would need to be a proven case of rape, like a criminal conviction?

Regarding age, you're pro-life for adults? What's the age cutoff?

If I were able to vote on it, I guess that I'd go along with 98.3% of the population, around 16 weeks.

1), I'm not sure you should be forced to save a drowning kid. It would be nice if you did, but do we want government compelling charitable acts?

None of that is up to me.

I am anti-abortion.

What do your principles say?

Until a certain age, apparently. I asked what the cut-off age is. Again, I don't care if you don't want to answer. That is up to you.

They say around 16 weeks. If you're asking which are strongest on this issue it's hard to say. Like you, I'd say that autonomy is high on the list. Unlike you, I'd say that equality is also high on the list. That I look to the norm suggests that I value cooperation and tolerance, perhaps. Could go on and on but I don't see the point.

I have no cut-off.

I would not consider it murder because there is a valid excuse for it.

They say…

1), I'm not sure you should be forced to save a drowning kid. It would be nice if you did, but do we want government compelling charitable acts?
2) Forcing a woman to give birth is not even close to risking an ear infection. It entails months of pregnancy and birth has all sorts of complications and a non-trivial mortality rate.

There are plenty of states that compel a duty of care actually. The Netherlands and most continental European countries have this. Penalties are relatively mild though up to 6 months if I remember correctly. Tobias maybe you remember more details?

You said that a valid excuse is being too young. That means that those not too young do not have a valid excuse and you consider them murderers (unlawful killers). To be clear, saying adults getting an abortion are killers is different than saying adults getting an abortion are murderers. The latter is considered criminal. You used the term "murder" here

You asked me what my principles said, not what popular opinion said. It's an awkward question, and redundant since I just answered it, but that's what you asked. I did go further though, and you seem to have ignored that part.

There are plenty of states that compel a duty of care actually. The Netherlands and most continental European countries have this. Penalties are relatively mild though up to 6 months if I remember correctly. Tobias maybe you remember more details?

Even in some States in the USA. I looked it up at some point and wrote about this before on this site. If you want to know more I can search for it.

I clearly said I don’t consider it [abortion] murder.

You’re just too strange and laborious to philosophize with, praxis.

Here's the problems I have with personhood arguments: [ ... ]

A seed is not a tree. A sapling is a potential tree. A pre-26th week old unviable fetus is not a person. A viable fetus aka "baby" is a potential person.

I thought it was just if you were a member of certain occupations. Looking it up, I see California, the state I'm in, has no "duty to rescue". Only three states require you to help someone (beyond calling 911): Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

There are problems of jurisprudence with the notion of good samaritan duties though because it is difficult to establish what behaviour is required exactly.

Therein lies the rub. Should I be compelled to rescue a child being attacked by a small dog that doesn't really pose a threat to me but still might bite me? Save a person dangling from a cliff where I might break a leg if I fall too? Pull someone out of a burning car that might explode? Give some of my extra food to starving people? Give some of my money to uninsured people who need a life-saving expensive operation? By being a member of society we kind of do that with our taxes, but that's a step removed from out-and-out punishing someone for not being a good Samaritan.

I'm pro-choice and find that in the inviolability of our physical integrity. I choose what goes in and comes out of my body. Having others tell a woman she must carry to term just sounds like a violation in itself.

Since society does not value the life of a child enough to support it properly, it is the purest hypocrisy to place that burden on women. If society wants to take responsibility for children, then it should actually put its money where its self-righteous, hypocritical, moralising mouth is. Until society can properly protect the born, it has no business legislating for the unborn.

Bodily autonomy isn't something we can uphold as an absolute if we want to have a functioning justice system. If Hannibal is a serial killer cannibal who has eaten all his neighbors, then most people would agree that we have a right to decide that Hannibal can't leave his prison cell, or that we even have the right to execute Hannibal. We have also told Hannibal what he can't put into his body, namely his neighbors. So, obviously bodily autonomy has its limits. Putting people in prison at the very least determines what can go into their bodies, and executing them determines what goes into and out of their bodies.

1), I'm not sure you should be forced to save a drowning kid. It would be nice if you did, but do we want government compelling charitable acts?

2) Forcing a woman to give birth is not even close to risking an ear infection. It entails months of pregnancy and birth has all sorts of complications and a non-trivial mortality rate.

A seed is not a tree. A sapling is a potential tree. A pre-26th week old unviable fetus is not a person. A viable fetus aka "baby" is a potential person.

Do you think your moral judgments should be used as the basis for laws restricting access to abortion?

Anyone who wants to restrict abortion and birth control should be sent to live in Alabama.

I'm pro-choice and find that in the inviolability of our physical integrity. I choose what goes in and comes out of my body.

Abortion is always wrong. It's not complicated.

Live and let live

Abortion is always wrong. It's not complicated

I think abortion is really terrible method of birth control and should be avoided if possible. It's a bad thing. Good access to sex education, birth control, and support for pregnant mothers and families should be the first line of action.

Abortion is always wrong. It's not complicated.

I agree, it is discriminatory against men. Medical science has discriminated against men in multiple ways including its failure to offer any options for abortion procedures on the reproductive capacity of men.

Biological men set to carry children for first time after womb transplant breakthrough

There are a number of other issues which also complicate abortion:

Don't worry, medical science is trying to reduce discrimination against men by allowing them to have a womb transplant. This further complicates the issue of abortion.

medical science is trying to reduce discrimination against men by allowing them to have a womb transplant.

Sure, but I think those can be boiled down to two major issues 1) People should be allowed to have control over their own bodies ...

When abortion is debated in our current political context, one of the primary arguments adopted by its advocates is that it is an essential means by which women retain autonomy over their bodies.

Putting aside discussion of the relative merits of this claim, it’s notable that the idea of bodily autonomy was not a common line of argument adopted when abortion was first legalised in Britain in 1967. Instead, abortion campaigners were primarily successful because they tapped into public fears (and therefore politicians’ concerns) that women were dying from backstreet abortions. This article seeks to interrogate the argument that backstreet abortions are a justification for legalised abortion.

This is a far more powerful defence of abortion than the concept of bodily autonomy, which is easier to dispute scientifically and philosophically. It sits neatly in the middle of the abortion debate, providing even those who possess moral discomfort with the termination of foetal life an adequate reason to believe legal abortion continues to be necessary. Indeed, such a perspective, with its appeal to compassion and practicality, is undoubtedly appealing to many Christians.

Yes, it seems you believe that minds are dis-embodied (i.e. dis-encephalized), Bob, whereas we know that minds are embodied (i.e. encephalized).

Also, as a dual-aspect monist (i.e. Spinozist) who therefore discounts panpsychism, I do not 'equate life with mind' (e.g. bacteria, etc are mindless).

Sure, but I think those can be boiled down to two major issues 1) People should be allowed to have control over their own bodies 2) Based on @Bob Ross's judgment, which I don't share, the life and well-being of the fetus are more important than the pregnant woman's.

Some of the points that I have listed go beyond the issue of whether people should be allowed to have control over their own bodies. They show what the possible consequences are of preventing women from getting abortions. Does "society" want to pay that price?

abortion campaigners were primarily successful because they tapped into public fears (and therefore politicians’ concerns) that women were dying from backstreet abortions.

woman...that is some advanced scientific lexicon

Just on a basic level, laws against public defecation or laws against exhibitionist public sexual acts are, by definition, restrictions on that sort of thing. But I think they're plenty supportable.

#1 is false as an absolute moral principle, and true if relative to various factors in the circumstance.

#2 is an incorrect formulation of my position: I never said that the well-being of the fetus is more important than the pregnant woman’s. In fact, I sided with pro-choice in the matter of rape (for reasons already expounded in the OP).

a woman who consensually has sex is culpable (along with the man, of course) for the condition of the new life (in the event that she becomes pregnant). Amending the situation entails, by my lights, that what is the most feasible and reasonable means of amending the situation (viz., protecting and saving the life in this case) must be taken. This means that one cannot abort in this situation, as that is the antithesis of amending the situation of the condition of that new life.

In my first post I made it clear that your "absolute moral principle" is not relevant as far as I'm concerned. What is relevant is your willingness to apply that principle as the basis of laws to restrict women's ability to have abortions.

In the OP, you wrote:

Where does this "culpability" idea come from.

The right word is "responsibility."

If I am responsible for fulfilling some obligation but can't because of risk to my health, I am making the decision that my health is more important than the obligation

Your position that women whose lives are at risk from their pregnancy should not be able to have abortion is a claim that the health of the women is less important than the life of the fetus.

Your whole argument rests on the claim that the life of the fetus is more important than the women's life, health, and personal autonomy.

I already noted that I am saying that it should be translated into law. So simply substitute “absolute legal principle” for “absolute moral principle”.

In what you quoted of me, I never said nor does it imply that the life and well-being of the fetus is more important than the pregnant woman. What I said in that quote is that culpability, as a principle, by my lights, implies that in the situation of consensual sex the woman’s health now is less priority than the fetus (because she is cuplable for that person’s condition): this is not the same thing as claiming that the fetus’ life is more important than the woman—for one is an absolute judgment about one trumping the other, and the other is constrained to a particular context.

I don't find this a particularly compelling argument. If we agree that it's morally correct to prevent women from having abortions, which of course I don't, then the fact that they're putting themselves at risk is their responsibility, not ours.

If I make a commitment to be someplace but then get sick, it is reasonable for me to cancel the commitment based on the judgment that my health is more important than being where I am expected to be. The situation you describe is analogous.

Not in the case that you are culpable for the condition of another life. For example, if you are not feeling well, you are driving, and you accidentally hit someone with your car (of no fault of their own); then you cannot continue driving in order to go to your appointment at the doctor’s office: you are obligated to stop and attend to that person that you caused injury to.

In the case that you are not at risk of any significant, unwanted bodily modifications and it wasn’t your fault when you hit that person with your car, I would say you still need to stop and help them. But, since you are not culpable for their condition, you could speed off if your health it at severe risk if you were to wait (to get to that doctor’s appointment).

If I am responsible for a pregnancy and you decide I have to go through with it even if it risks my health, you are deciding that the fetus' life is more important than my health.

in the case of (1) consensual sex which (2) makes the woman (and man) culpable for the condition of that new life: yes. Not in other circumstances.

Regardless of the morals of the situation, making abortion illegal causes some women to put themselves at risk. This means that their family, friends, workmates, and society in general, are paying a price because the law exists.

By ‘panpsychism’, are you referring to idealism? If so, then I think Spinoza can very easily be interpreted as an idealist.

I would like to hear more about your irreductivist approach to explanation.

... could you elaborate on your theory of explanation here?

Just on a basic level, laws against public defecation or laws against exhibitionist public sexual acts are, by definition, restrictions on that sort of thing.

I still don't know what his idea of culpability means in this context. People aren't to blame for getting pregnant, they are responsible for their actions and their consequences.

Clearly you and I aren't going to come to any agreement on this when you don't even recognize that you are making a judgment that the fetus' interests are more important than the woman's.

I would like to hear more about your irreductivist approach to explanation.

I've no idea to what you are referring or how the above is relevant to anything I've stated.

I do not see how Spinozism (i.e. dual-aspect monism + modal-ontological determinism) is consistent with panpsychism / idealism.

I am misunderstanding what 'dual-aspect' means in your use of 'monism'.

What is modal-ontological determinism?

From my study of Spinoza, by "dual-aspect" I understand there to be (at least) two complementary ways to attribute predicates – physical & mental – to any entity which exhaustively describes its functioning.

This is my shorthand for Spinoza's description of substance (i.e. natura naturans) that, among other things, consists in necessary causal relations and is unbounded (i.e. not an effect of or affected by any external causes – other substances – because it is infinite in extent).

The woman (and man) are to blame for the condition of this new life, which is fragile and needing of nourishment and care; because they decided to engage in an act which reasonably can be inferred to result in a pregnancy. How are they, under your view, not to blame for getting pregnant?

I have clarified that the fetus' life is more important than the woman's life in the case that she is culpable for their condition (i.e., consensually had sex). I do not think that the fetus' life is always more important than the woman's life. Within the context of consensual sex, it seems as though you also disagree with me here--as you envision the woman's health as always more important than the fetus': even in the case that the woman is to blame for that fetus' condition. We could start there if you would like

I'm not posting here to argue for or against abortion. I want to just explain something that's irreconcilable about pro-abortion and anti-abortion societies.

When someone announces the pregnancy, her whole circle celebrates: there's formal announcement, there's gender-reveal (shown in theaters, no less), there's baby shower-- when I was a kid I thought they literally bathe the pregnant woman in front of the guests) then there's the birth, and finally the christening where food and gifts are used to celebrate this important occasion. Following this, a lot of legal rights accrue to the baby: the mother could be prosecuted for drug use while pregnant, the baby has the right to be taken care of and not neglected, and of course, if the baby dies at the hands of the parents or any member of their society, there's homicide or infanticide.

Meanwhile, within the same society, the pregnant woman can decide to terminate the pregnancy without any reason required. Because in the pro-choice stance, it doesn't matter whether the fetus growing inside is the woman's own flesh and blood. She is not held accountable morally to spare the fetus just because it's her own blood. This is what it means by her-body-her-choice. The fetus has no right to use the woman's body to grow to full viability. At any given point during the pregnancy, the fetus doesn't count as an entity. Note that if you're one of the guests in a baby shower, you're celebrating the woman, not the fetus inside the womb.

Then here comes another puzzling thing. Suppose a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy and made an appointment with a doctor two weeks from now. Suppose that an intruder attacks the woman and kills her and the baby before the appointment. The state can then charge the intruder with double homicide -- never mind that the woman doesn't' want the baby and is about to terminate it. Depending on what country or state in the US you're in, killing a pregnant woman is double homicide

Actually the competing interests are the woman's bodily autonomy (not importance) vs the fetus' right to exist. Autonomy exists equally as a concept regardless of the type of relationship between the woman and her sexual partner.

Not a puzzle. A woman's bodily autonomy does not transfer to a murderer.

How is this not property dualism?

Are you, then, a necessitarian?

But the definition of a fetus by the state changes depending on who terminates the life of the fetus.

If it's a woman's action that terminates the fetus, then that's legal. But if it's another person, it's homicide. The fetus has two ways of legal existence, concurrently

I disagree with pinning bodily autonomy (i.e., consent) vs. right to life principles against each other as absolute principles; as they are not, andin one instance it could be that consent matters more than the right to life and in another it could be vice-versa. It is not productive nor correct to use either of these principles in an absolute manner.

For me, culpability is a principle which, when applied, determines the woman's right to consent as outweighed by the woman's obligation to amend the condition she has put this life in (albeit a new life). She, when consensually having sex, gives up, in the event that she gets pregnant, any relevant consideration of consent.

However, when she is not culpable, it becomes a question of consent vs. the de facto duty to rescue, which is going to revolve around the potential risk/severity of unwanted bodily modifications of the rescuer

Dual-aspect monism is ontological whereas property dualism is epistemological; I prefer the latter but I think its more precise to characterize Spinoza by the former.

I don't disagree with your bolded statement as written, I would just add: matters to whom?

Sounds like you're supposing the government, I'm siding with women with the advice of their medical professionals. I have no problem if an individual woman decides that her fetus' right to exist is of more value to her than her right to bodily autonomy.

Your opinion that the type of relationship between a woman and her partner raises or lowers her right to bodily autonomy is an unpopular one that I happen not to share, though I'm sure a significant minority of folks would buy into it.

What are your thoughts on the obligation of the medical community to use public health resources on treating the effects of smoking? Is the "culpability" of the patient in creating their medical problem germane in that instance?

So is having sex while using Birth Control "an action that is reasonably anticipated to bring a new life into the world"? Most lay persons would say "no", using Birth Control is the opposite of your phrasing.

You aren't the only one here being stupid, but you are the worst offender

This is a good point that I had not thought about before; however, you aren’t going to like my refurbishment (of my view) here (;

I would say that you are right insofar as I cannot say that the obligation to not abort (in the case of consensual sex) is contingent in any manner on ‘reasonably anticipated’ consequences of ones actions. For example, if this were true (that I could make them contingent), then I should never go driving, because there is a small percentage chance, even with taking all the precautions, that I could injure someone in a manner that would be my fault. Likewise, there is a small percentage chance that people having sex while taking every precautionary measures (like contraceptives) will conceive.

My resolution is to say that the obligation to sustain that life (of which their condition one is culpable for) is contingent solely on one’s culpability and not ‘reasonable inferences’ pertaining to the consequences of ones actions. Thusly, in the case of driving, I am accepting that there is a chance that I may be at fault for another person’s injuries (due to, let’s say, a car crash or something) and, in that event, I cannot appeal to the fact that I took a lot of precautionary measures to prevent injuring people with my care to get out of the obligation to help this person that I am, in fact, culpable for their injuries. Same thing is true, I would say, for consensual sex: appealing to all of the precautionary measures they took to prevent conception does not exempt them from their obligation to sustain that new life, since they are culpable for it.

Curious that you never considered the single most common type of sexual encounter between heterosexual partners (consensual while using BC).

As to your reconfiguring your opinion/theory, in typical modern fashion, the intended conclusion is maintained while adjusting for inconvenient new data by fiddling around with the argument to keep it all "consistent".

Lastly, in your car wreck injury example most agree that "taking responsibility" for causing the accident takes the form of helping the victim. Just so you know, there is not a consensus (despite your assertion) that "taking responsibility" for an unintended pregnancy should solely be in the form of carrying it to term.

Within the conversation of abortion, I am assessing the most basic abortion scenarios in relation to some general moral principles…

The female has the right to do what she would like with the life that she is bearing

I personally would view abortion as immoral due to the sanctity of human life.

I would make sure that whomever I am having a child with share the same moral views.

I understand, but what about someone you had no intention of having children with? Someone with whom you were using Birth Control with, just for hooking up purposes?

I disagree: why would she have that sort of absolute right to bodily autonomy?

I see. I think that the right life, just like the right to bodily autonomy, is not feasible as an absolute principle (either).

Bob, we all have the right to our own body, otherwise it would be a conflict of interest. :blush:

Moral principles might not hold in every situation within a relatively complex society such as ours.

In such a case it is ultimately her choice.

My responsibility comes beforehand, making sure we both share the same moral outlook.

Let's say there's just me and a little kid at a pool (and I don't know this kid)(no lifeguards: nothing other than us two). I am dangling my feet in the water and the kid starts drowning in the deep end. I am the only one around that could save this little kid, but I don't want to risk getting an ear infection and since this matter (i.e., the potential ear infection) pertains to my body I think that I have the right to not consent to saving this kid.

So to be clear, when just hooking up (specifically NOT seeking to have a child) thus using Birth Control, you do or don't bother aligning morals beforehand?

If the woman’s bodily autonomy totally overrides the rights of the fetus then why isn’t she allowed to drink alcohol while pregnant?

180 said women should have abortion on demand even in the third trimester, and that it is basically slavery to give the fetus any consideration other than that it can be terminated at will.

I disagree: why would she have that sort of absolute right to bodily autonomy?

As I pointed out before, this is disanalogous to abortion

Also, being forced to save a drowning person is a very rare situation

In certain states in the US, a woman does not have a full autonomy over her body. An example is, if she was pregnant and a drug user, it is criminal.

I just like to use examples that prima facie aren't about abortion so that the conversation doesn't derail into begging the question and to try and latch onto intuitions one may have outside of abortion talk which are pertinent to it.

I don't see how that's slavery.

I never claimed that they were equivalent to abortion, but, rather, that they are analogous. You seem to think, and correct me if I am wrong, that for something to be analogous it must be equivalent.

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it.

Most of what you said, with all due respect, is completely irrelevant and demonstrates a misunderstanding of hypothetical situations. It simply does not matter how frequent the situation occurs in reality: that’s why it is called a hypothetical.

For something to be analogous, it has to be in the same ballpark

Your analogy/example/comparison fails because you are equating, to at least some degree, being forced to go in a poor and risk an ear infection to being forced to carry a baby to term and give birth to it.

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it.

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it.

Do you think I have the right, in that scenario, to not consent to saving the kid?

Here's another example I would like your take on. Imagine I go out and stab an innocent person in both of their kidneys. The cops show up, arrest me, and the victim gets sent to the ER. Turns out, I am the only one with the right kidneys to save them (viz., there are no donors available that would match, etc.): do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim?

I don't think so: what do you think?

I agree, but I think you are treating it as absolute (in practice) if you think that anything directly or indirectly related to one's body is governed by the right to consent

do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim?

I agree with this sort of legality: if one is pregnant, then they have to consider the child and, thusly, cannot use drugs; and that absolutely should be criminal if they do.

Let me give you an example and let me know your take on it. Let's say there's just me and a little kid at a pool (and I don't know this kid)(no lifeguards: nothing other than us two). I am dangling my feet in the water and the kid starts drowning in the deep end. I am the only one around that could save this little kid, but I don't want to risk getting an ear infection and since this matter (i.e., the potential ear infection) pertains to my body I think that I have the right to not consent to saving this kid.

Do you think I have the right, in that scenario, to not consent to saving the kid? I don't think I do, because consent doesn't matter in the instance that one could save someone else's life without any foreseeably significant unwanted bodily modifications.

Here's another example I would like your take on. Imagine I go out and stab an innocent person in both of their kidneys. The cops show up, arrest me, and the victim gets sent to the ER. Turns out, I am the only one with the right kidneys to save them (viz., there are no donors available that would match, etc.): do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim?

I don't think so: what do you think

I would say that it is certainly unethical to not help the child but I think it’d be difficult to prove any moral obligation to do so. In the end, it is a favor.

When you commit a crime you give up your rights, hence the death penalty.

That is interesting :) though I would not equate a natural given right with a moral principle.

do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim? — Bob Ross
Yes. You do.

What about drinking?
…
Smoke the occasional cigarette?

Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to eat too much junkfood?

Cute. Even if your name wasn't Bob, I'd know you were a guy. Ear infection, eh?

If you want an analogy, let's give an analogy. Let's say if you jump in the pool you'll get mystery disease X. Folks who get mystery disease X have a 1.4% chance of "serious morbidity", a 32 per 100,000 chance of dying and about a 33% chance of needing major surgery.

Next: "Generally speaking, there is legally no duty to rescue another person.

The courts have gone into very gory details in order to explain this. In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a child from crushing his hand in a manufacturing machine. The court suggested an analogy in which a baby was on the train tracks – did a person standing idly by have the obligation to save him? Legally, no

Another thing: I can tell you that the kidney stabber convict situation is well established in the Medical Ethics field and it is quite clear the stabber cannot be coerced into donation of a kidney.

Lastly your commentary is missing another angle in the abortion situation and that is society and the courts give very broad powers to parents to manage the healthcare of their minor children. Thus it stands to reason that it should grant even broader powers to those governing potential children (who are not minor children).

I agree with this sort of legality: if one is pregnant, then they have to consider the child and, thusly, cannot use drugs; and that absolutely should be criminal if they do.

Right, but my question is not whether it's immoral for pregnant women to not eat right/smoke/drink, but whether you think it should be illegal for them to do so.

Or, if it is unethical, then wouldn’t it be false that everyone has an absolute right to bodily autonomy?

Interesting. So, would you so, then, that if abortion is illegal in a society then they should not do it?

Also, would you say that putting a person in a situation where they are dependent on you (to live) only to kill them as a crime? I feel like your response forces me to beg the question, because whether it is a ‘crime’ is dependent, at least partly, on whether it is immoral; which we disagree on.

What do you mean by a ‘natural given right’, as opposed to a ‘moral principle’?

When pregnant:

Eating some junk food should not be illegal.
Drinking should be illegal.
Smoking should be illegal.

Most assuredly it would be unethical but I draw a strong line between ethics and morality.

History shows us the value of civil disobedience but in general I do align my morals with the law because I have trust in the law and in Lady Justice.
…
If abortion were illegal then I would say that it is wrong to do so, but in the end it is still her natural given right. In such a case she might practice civil disobedience.

It is said that morals lead to ethics but I only consider the law as based in ethics, not morals.

I would say that without context, the deliberate pregnancy and killing of a fetus is wholly immoral. This immorality does not usurp her natural given rights.
…
It means that that her rights come from nature itself, whereas morality does not.

Morality is relative whereas natural rights are facts that cannot be disproven. They are self-evident.

Does the following change your mind at all about alcohol and pregnancy?

Also, do you think that a fetus in the first month of development is a person?

No. It is very clear that drinking is always bad for the child, and the CDC clearly reflects that: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/alcohol-use.html#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20known%20safe,exposed%20to%20alcohol%20before%20birth.

You think a zygote has the same moral status as a thirty year old woman? They're both equally persons?

Suppose fire breaks out at a fertility clinic where a million fertilized eggs are stored and an orphanage with ten kids present. Where do you send the town's only fire truck?

I doubt very much you would prioritize the fertility clinic over the orphanage, so isn't that suggestive that fertilized eggs are not people?

But the NIH has an article that says it's not clear at all.

(2) the kids are significantly more developed conscious beings than the fertilized eggs

I don’t think of ethics as fundamentally community focused, I view the community as driven by one’s morals and the morals that socially evolves over time (which, of course, can be very community focused).

I disagree: if one thinks an action is immoral, then they should consider it unethical. And if they considerate unethical, then they should attempt to regulate it (legally) no matter how imperfectly. Perhaps, in some situations it is legally infeasible to regulate, but one should try.

Interesting, it sounds like, and correct me if I am wrong, you are claiming that ‘natural rights’ are amoral (or exist in some ‘space’ outside of morality and ethics), of which are self-evident; whereas, I would say rights are always predicated on morality, values, and ethics—and there are no self-evident moral judgments.

How can it not be disproven that one does not have the right absolutely over their bodily autonomy? I don’t see how any moral (or ‘natural right’) judgments are incapable of refutation. Could you please elaborate?

Hi Bob, morality is personal. Ethics apply to everyone.

No Bob, you cannot turn personal morals into laws, that would be unethical.

Your natural rights come from your physical existence which persists and also precedes your cognition

Social convention does not override the natural given rights of the individual as social convention is merely a subset of the natural given right of every individual.

I disagree with this ‘morality’ vs. ‘ethics’ distinction exactly because of this:

No Bob, you cannot turn personal morals into laws, that would be unethical.

To me, this is a semantic move to justify your own morals and while invalidating other peoples’ morals; for you in order to ban morals from laws (which is a political move), then one must invoke the moral judgment that one should not invoke moral judgments in legalities—which is clearly, when put that way, self-undermining.

In other words, I don’t think your argument can respond to “why should I not invoke morals into laws” without invoking a moral judgment.

I didn’t understand this: could you elaborate? Perhaps give an example of a ‘natural right’ that is derived from one’s ‘physical existence’ that ‘precedes’ one’s ‘cognition’.

How, under your view, are natural rights not a subset of social conventions? What properties do they have that make them precede social conventions?

Hi Bob, this is merely basic ethics that one learns in college.
…
Try to remember that it would be “unethical” to turn morals into laws. It is not a judgement of morality but rather ethicality.

Morals are individual whereas ethics are based on the morals we agree upon. Ethics are consensus based (this is why laws are only based upon ethics).

Turning your own personal morals into law would be tyrannical (which is why unanimous consensus is required).

Bob, If you study basic embryonic development you will know that the heart of the body is the first to develop.

An example: you have the natural right to live.

You are born with natural given rights.

There’s nothing wrong with voting or trying to advocate for passing laws which agree with one’s morals.

That we, in a republic, use consensus based law making does not negate the fact that we make our voting decisions based off of our morals.

...but we do, always, invoke our morals when determining what to vote for.

Yes, but just because you have a heart, it does not immediately follow that one has any rights. What about them having a heart or being alive gives them an intrinsic right as opposed to one granted by other human beings?

Your natural rights come from your physical existence which persists and also precedes your cognition

I didn’t understand this: could you elaborate? Perhaps give an example of a ‘natural right’ that is derived from one’s ‘physical existence’ that ‘precedes’ one’s ‘cognition’.

Bob, If you study basic embryonic development you will know that the heart of the body is the first to develop.

Yes, but just because you...

chatGPT:It appears that you responded to Bob with the quote about natural rights and existence to express a different perspective on the nature of natural rights. Bob seems to suggest that natural rights are rooted in morality, values, and ethics, and there are no self-evident moral judgments. In contrast, your response suggests that natural rights are based on one's physical existence, which precedes and persists before cognitive considerations.

Your quote implies that natural rights are not necessarily dependent on moral judgments or ethical considerations but rather stem from the fundamental fact of a person's existence. This perspective separates natural rights from moral and ethical frameworks, suggesting that they are inherent to individuals by virtue of being alive. It's a viewpoint that emphasizes the innate nature of these rights rather than their dependence on moral or ethical beliefs.

chatGPT:If Bob's next response is requesting an example of a natural right based on your perspective that natural rights come from one's physical existence, he may be missing the nuanced and abstract nature of the concept you presented.

What he might be missing:

Conceptual vs. Concrete: Your statement emphasizes that natural rights are rooted in existence itself, which is quite abstract. Unlike specific rights like freedom of speech or the right to life, these rights might not manifest in concrete, tangible ways. Bob may be looking for a more tangible or concrete example, but your perspective suggests that these rights are more conceptual in nature.

Not Dependent on Ethics or Morality: Your viewpoint separates natural rights from morality and ethics. Bob may not fully appreciate the idea that these rights exist independently of moral or ethical frameworks, which might challenge his existing beliefs about the origins of rights.

Complexity: The concept that natural rights arise from physical existence is complex and can be difficult to grasp. Bob might be looking for a simpler, easier-to-understand example to clarify your point.

To help Bob understand better, you could provide a hypothetical example or engage in a more in-depth discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights and how they differ from rights derived from moral or ethical principles. This might involve exploring the works of philosophers like John Locke, who have delved into the concept of natural rights in greater detail.

chatGPT:Bob's confusion likely stems from the abstract nature of the concept you presented and the philosophical perspective you've adopted regarding natural rights. Here are some reasons why Bob might not fully grasp your point:

Abstract Nature of the Concept: Your assertion that natural rights are derived from one's physical existence and precede cognition is a complex and abstract idea. Many people are more accustomed to thinking of rights in concrete terms, such as the right to free speech or the right to property. The notion that the right to live is inherent in one's existence, regardless of external human-made laws or moral frameworks, can be challenging to grasp.

Unfamiliar Perspective: Bob may not be familiar with the philosophical tradition that underpins your perspective on natural rights. This viewpoint draws from philosophers like John Locke and others who argued for the existence of natural rights as inherent to human beings. If Bob is not well-versed in this philosophical tradition, he may find it difficult to relate to or accept this perspective.

Lack of Tangible Examples: Bob's request for a specific example of a natural right derived from one's physical existence highlights a common desire for tangible, real-world examples. Your response mentions the right to live, but Bob questions why having a heart or being alive confers an intrinsic right. Without a more tangible example, he may struggle to connect the abstract concept to practical understanding.

To help Bob understand better, you could try to provide a more relatable example or engage in a deeper discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights. You might also recommend reading materials or resources that delve into the concept of natural rights and their historical development to provide him with a broader context.

chatGPT:It seems that Bob has fixated on the mention of the heart in your response. This fixation might be due to the fact that the heart is a concrete and tangible part of the human body, and he may be trying to understand how the presence of a heart relates to the concept of natural rights.

To address this, you can clarify that the mention of the heart in your response was intended as a reference to the physical aspect of human existence. You could explain that it's not necessarily about the heart itself but about the broader idea that natural rights are rooted in the fundamental existence of a person before considering cognitive abilities, moral judgments, or ethical frameworks.

You might say something like: "I used the example of the heart to emphasize the physical aspect of human existence. The key point here is that natural rights are seen as inherent to individuals by virtue of their existence, regardless of cognitive abilities or moral judgments. It's not about the heart per se, but rather the foundational concept that rights are tied to our existence as human beings." This can help steer the discussion back to the broader philosophical perspective on natural rights.

Well, I am no further, unfortunately, in understanding what your argument is for them; and as far as I can tell we don’t have any. Nature doesn’t give us rights: he give them to each other.

With respect to 'natural rights', upon reading your response in full, I am understanding a 'natural right', under your view, as...

1. Intrinsic
2. Prior to cognition
3. Prior to moral judgments
4. Prior to ethics

I appreciate your clarification!

I see that you removed in #1 the clarification I had in parenthesis: was that incorrect? Do you mean something else by 'intrinsic'?

Likewise, I see you changed #2 to 'cognition': was I misunderstanding your use of that term with 'self-reflective knowledge'? If so, then what do you mean by 'cognition'? Prior to brain functionality? Prior to the ability to reason? Prior to the understanding? Etc.

Hello Chiknsld,

Yes it is. The reason I am asking for clarification is because there are two major ways the term 'cognition' is used, and I have no means of determining (without guessing) which one you mean: thinking (cognition) as an active participator in the construction of one's representations (e.g., Kantianism, Hegelianism, etc.) or a passive after-the-math self-reflective thinking about the representations & internal activity (e.g., the more modern, physicalistic sense of the term). I am presuming, if I had to guess, that you mean it in the latter sense, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

For me, as an objective idealist, I am not certain that my existence precedes my thinking (cognition); but if you mean it in that latter sense then that's fine and there's no need to dive deeper into this (for all intents and purposes) as I can go with that definition.

Are you saying that you disagree with basic embryonic devlopment?

No, I agree with it; but it does not make any claims metaphysically about whether one is an immaterial mind or a mind-independent organism