Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 This is a rant about one argument that exists in the current abortion thread. I'd appreciate it if responders would limit the scope of their replies to comments about this specific argument. Here is what drives me crazy: arguments that abortion is partly justified by the fact that a kid "would have had a bad life anyway," the "bad-life-anyway" argument. It's just not relevant in abortion debates where the moral relevance of a fetus is being contested. This is an extremely simple point, but, apparently, people are capable of missing it entirely. People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that, *generally, one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it. Stepping briefly onto path 1, it should be obvious why the bad-life-anyway argument fails instantly. Having a bad future never entitles other people to kill you. Under the right conditions, you might be entitled to kill yourself, but no one would ever make that decision for you. On this path, bombing a daycare center *in Camden, NJ could not be justified by saying they would have had bad lives, it would makes you a terrorist and a mass murderer. It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. It has zero currency as a justification under this framework. In order to use it, you would first need to debate whether a fetus is a person like you and me. If you skip *debating the premise, you risk looking like someone who thinks its OK to slit a random pedestrian's throat if you think their life isn't worth living. If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one. *edited for clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 _ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Idk whether to laugh or cry! I feel like I am talking to Karl Pinkerton. Once again, you have utterly and completely missed the entire point. I don't even think you are capable of accurately paraphrasing what I've said. What a joke. Having a bad future never entitles other people to kill you. Under the right conditions, you might be entitled to kill yourself, but no one would ever make that decision for you. I like how your argument just ignores the fact that for decades mothers have been making that decision and killing their children by the millions. That is fact. But just pretend it didn't happen. Mothers are entitled to kill their unborn children. Awe, too bad for you. Please don't spam emotes. That won't change the facts. Hang on a minute. My argument doesn't ignore this fact at all. It is a fact, yes. It doesn't effect what I'm saying in any way, shape, form, or dimension. The fact that you can't see this proves that you have no idea what I'm talking about. Are you on post-op meds? Drunk? On this path, bombing a daycare center makes you a terrorist and a mass murderer. Not at all. You have constructed a slipery slope fallacy. It's been how many decaded since RvW and the only terrorism that resulted was from anti-abortion religious nuts. Hang on again, lol, hang on. This isn't a fallacy, it's a valid inference based on the premise that a fetus is a person like you and me. This is fun. It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. It has zero currency as a justification under this framework.If you assert then it must be truth. If you skip the first path, you risk looking like someone who thinks its OK to slit a random pedestrian's throat if you think their life isn't worth living. Don't agree with my opponent or bad things will happen to you! That is an appeal to emotion. lol. I don't even - it's hard to take this seriously. If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one. Which fallacy did you use here? You ignore the facts and then assert that those who don't agree with you are not qualified to debate. I'm not the oblivious one in this situation. That would be you. You literally have no idea what is going on here, to the point where it's just pathetic. You are in fact not qualified to debate this issue because you can't even understand how your opponent's basic premise effects your 'bad-life-anyway' model. Try again, if you want. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 ... It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. ... Aren't nearly ALLpro-choice arguments irrelevant to someone "who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me"? I don't think too many people who view zygotes, embryoes, or early-term fetuses as "persons" are likely to approve of aborting them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 ... It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. ... Aren't nearly ALLpro-choice arguments irrelevant to someone "who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me"? I don't think too many people who view zygotes, embryoes, or early-term fetuses as "persons" are likely to approve of aborting them. Yes! Correct. Not even rape is a coherent excuse for an abortion to people who start with that premise, because rape wouldn't affect the fetus' status as a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I think you're making a good point. Asserting the future life of a fetus is to claim a premise that the fetus is a person. It's a bad argument for pro-choice. Agree. On another note, how can anyone know of the fetus will become a person with a crappy life? He or she might have a decent life, or a wonderful life, or even perhaps start the next multitrillion multinational megacorporation. We can't say what future holds for ourselves. How can we decide the fate of a person based on what we think might happen in the future? Is having a potentially crappy life a future-crime? Don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flockoff Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it. No, that's not it. You're setting up a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to have an abortion debate where neither side completely (or at all) sees the fetus as a "person" because some people defend the fetus as a "potential life" in the sense that the full person that fetus will become has the right to be born. This would be in about the same vein as saying we have to protect against long term environmental hazards as a responsibility to future generations. The argument of "bad life anyway" as you call it is just a direct counter to the potential life argument. It's not a catch-all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Personally I don't bother with that argument. The main one for me is the fact that women should not be one rape/accident/birth control error/abusive relationship/etc away from second class citizenship. What's funny to me, pockets, is that a common anti-choice argument against abortion is "That fetus could be the next Einstein/Michael Jordan/cure for cancer/etc." The "bad life" is the direct way to counter that laughable tactic. Its not hard to figure that out. I know the "bad life" doesn't tend to work on antis - and its no suprise. Most antis I know stop giving a shit the moment the baby pops out of the vagina. Ever noice that most "pro-life" politicians are the same ones who rally against welfare, head start, programs that would benefit poor kids, blast single mothers, etc? In the words of George Carlin: "If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 What's funny to me, pockets, is that a common anti-choice argument against abortion is "That fetus could be the next Einstein/Michael Jordan/cure for cancer/etc." The "bad life" is the direct way to counter that laughable tactic. Its not hard to figure that out. That's why bad-life argument is a bad-argument, because by reversing it as you did, it becomes very obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it. No, that's not it. You're setting up a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to have an abortion debate where neither side completely (or at all) sees the fetus as a "person" because some people defend the fetus as a "potential life" in the sense that the full person that fetus will become has the right to be born. This would be in about the same vein as saying we have to protect against long term environmental hazards as a responsibility to future generations. The argument of "bad life anyway" as you call it is just a direct counter to the potential life argument. It's not a catch-all. That is possible, I should have qualified it by saying that this is generally a premise in abortion debates. I did do that in the other thread, but forgot to here.Good catch, thank you. But I don't see the bad-life-anyway as a legitimate counter to the potential life argument for the same reasons as before. What you really need to be arguing about first is the moral relevance of a potential life. Then you can start speculating as to its potential quality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Personally I don't bother with that argument. The main one for me is the fact that women should not be one rape/accident/birth control error/abusive relationship/etc away from second class citizenship. What's funny to me, pockets, is that a common anti-choice argument against abortion is "That fetus could be the next Einstein/Michael Jordan/cure for cancer/etc." The "bad life" is the direct way to counter that laughable tactic. Its not hard to figure that out. I know the "bad life" doesn't tend to work on antis - and its no suprise. Most antis I know stop giving a shit the moment the baby pops out of the vagina. Ever noice that most "pro-life" politicians are the same ones who rally against welfare, head start, programs that would benefit poor kids, blast single mothers, etc? In the words of George Carlin: "If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked." I've noticed that, yes. It became very obvious to me during college. I was at this small church where a few students were giving a presentation, asking for donations, on a service project they were organizing for certain refugees in a nearby city. One guy raised his hand and obtusely asked whether the project included any kind of evangelism. I mean, really? It's not enough to just help people out without trying to convert them too? At the time I wrote it off as a Baptist mentality. So I've encountered this in my life, yes, albeit more generally. It's an extremely weak counter at best, for the reasons I stated. Assuming the premise, etc. A better but still fatally flawed counter would be that the aborted fetus could have been the next Pol Pot! That the abortion did the world as we know it a grand favor! That would at least make more sense as a counter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 ... It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. ... Aren't nearly ALL pro-choice arguments irrelevant to someone "who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me"? I don't think too many people who view zygotes, embryoes, or early-term fetuses as "persons" are likely to approve of aborting them. Yes! Correct. Not even rape is a coherent excuse for an abortion to people who start with that premise, because rape wouldn't affect the fetus' status as a person. Yet I've seen so many people who otherwise oppose abortion say that they'd make an exception in the case of rape or incest. Makes no sense to me. Oh, just to make sure no one thinks I'm an anti, I'd like to state that I'm entirely pro-choice with regard to first-trimester pregnancies. For me, it's more complicated later on when the fetus has developed a central nervous system and can feel pain and might even be sentient, sort of. Thankfully, I'm too old to have to worry about this on a personal level anymore. And what other people choose to do about an unwanted pregnancy is really none of my damn business. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 ... It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. ... Aren't nearly ALL pro-choice arguments irrelevant to someone "who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me"? I don't think too many people who view zygotes, embryoes, or early-term fetuses as "persons" are likely to approve of aborting them. Yes! Correct. Not even rape is a coherent excuse for an abortion to people who start with that premise, because rape wouldn't affect the fetus' status as a person. Yet I've seen so many people who otherwise oppose abortion say that they'd make an exception in the case of rape or incest. Makes no sense to me. Oh, just to make sure no one thinks I'm an anti, I'd like to state that I'm entirely pro-choice with regard to first-trimester pregnancies. For me, it's more complicated later on when the fetus has developed a central nervous system and can feel pain and might even be sentient, sort of. Thankfully, I'm too old to have to worry about this on a personal level anymore. And what other people choose to do about an unwanted pregnancy is really none of my damn business. Yes, it's confounding. I see that as some kind of political compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Yes, it's confounding. I see that as some kind of political compromise. I think its its more telling of beliefs of many anti choicers - a raped woman wasn't a slut spreading her legs by choice! Its women's behavior that upsets many antis rather than any concern for a fetus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 It's an extremely weak counter at best, for the reasons I stated. Assuming the premise, etc. A better but still fatally flawed counter would be that the aborted fetus could have been the next Pol Pot! That the abortion did the world as we know it a grand favor! That would at least make more sense as a counter. If we had known that Hitler would have become what he did, and we had a chance to abort him... I wonder if anti-abortionists would or not? And, btw, I like your posts, Thackeries, and SilentLoner's. You guys make too much sense! Aaah! My head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Yes, it's confounding. I see that as some kind of political compromise. I think its its more telling of beliefs of many anti choicers - a raped woman wasn't a slut spreading her legs by choice! Its women's behavior that upsets many antis rather than any concern for a fetus. That's interesting, I haven't considered that. Would that also apply to incest in some way? There certainly seems to be a lot of similar rhetoric in the initial aftermath of Roe that I've never seen elsewhere. I wonder if that's part of what's going on. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flockoff Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 It's an extremely weak counter at best, for the reasons I stated. Assuming the premise, etc. A better but still fatally flawed counter would be that the aborted fetus could have been the next Pol Pot! That the abortion did the world as we know it a grand favor! That would at least make more sense as a counter. The rebuttals work together, though … starting out as a poor unwanted child, while it's not impossible, greatly reduces the chances of growing up to become the doctor who cures cancer and increases the chance that he shoots the kid who's on his way to becoming that doctor. I hate to be so cold, but ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 It's an extremely weak counter at best, for the reasons I stated. Assuming the premise, etc. A better but still fatally flawed counter would be that the aborted fetus could have been the next Pol Pot! That the abortion did the world as we know it a grand favor! That would at least make more sense as a counter. The rebuttals work together, though … starting out as a poor unwanted child, while it's not impossible, greatly reduces the chances of growing up to become the doctor who cures cancer and increases the chance that he shoots the kid who's on his way to becoming that doctor. I hate to be so cold, but ... The problem is "so what?" The issue is about whether the fetus is a person, and the potential life, good, mediocre, evil, or whatever, isn't relevant to that premise. And to be fair, arguing that 'hey, that aborted fetus could have cured cancer' is equally irrelevant because they don't assert that one person's life is worth more than another person's, * or that a person's achievements make them more worthy of living. Also, you know, I think it's right to feel cold after writing that bit about the kid shooting the med student. It's dabbling in social eugenics and appears to be rather sinister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flockoff Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it. No, that's not it. You're setting up a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to have an abortion debate where neither side completely (or at all) sees the fetus as a "person" because some people defend the fetus as a "potential life" in the sense that the full person that fetus will become has the right to be born. This would be in about the same vein as saying we have to protect against long term environmental hazards as a responsibility to future generations. The argument of "bad life anyway" as you call it is just a direct counter to the potential life argument. It's not a catch-all. That is possible, I should have qualified it by saying that this is generally a premise in abortion debates. I did do that in the other thread, but forgot to here.Good catch, thank you. But I don't see the bad-life-anyway as a legitimate counter to the potential life argument for the same reasons as before. What you really need to be arguing about first is the moral relevance of a potential life. Then you can start speculating as to its potential quality. If it's established that we're just concerned about a potential life independent of the organism's life as a fetus, I don't see any relevance to it. The only way to discern a fetus from, say, the hypothetical son I imagine myself having, or the potential offspring that exists between a given male and female is that a specific set of genes have been selected. So what? Why does the fetus have the right to materialize as a baby over a random possible combination of genes to materialize as a fetus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 That is for all the strawmen the prolifers erect in these debates. Most abortions are fairly well regulated/legislated and no pro choice folk are going round lobbying pregnant girls elect to get an abortion. The only ones who seem to want to interfere in the personal and usually hard choice women have to make are the prolifers appealing to emotional coercion. The number of 3rd trimester abortions are minimal to insignificant. Most abortions are in the first trimester and is chemically induced to simply cause a miscarriage. The international trend seems to cut off at 20 weeks gestation. After that, the no questions asked policy fades to determination of other factors of exceptions like known gestational defects as we of course now can see the lil' buggers with sonar. I certainly do not have to post the stats which you can google for yourself. Most late term are medical procedures to protect the health of the mother or abort a non viable foetus. I find it very hard to believe that a woman would carry to 7 months and then "choose" to abort out of inconvenience reasons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flockoff Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 It's an extremely weak counter at best, for the reasons I stated. Assuming the premise, etc. A better but still fatally flawed counter would be that the aborted fetus could have been the next Pol Pot! That the abortion did the world as we know it a grand favor! That would at least make more sense as a counter. The rebuttals work together, though … starting out as a poor unwanted child, while it's not impossible, greatly reduces the chances of growing up to become the doctor who cures cancer and increases the chance that he shoots the kid who's on his way to becoming that doctor. I hate to be so cold, but ... The problem is "so what?" The issue is about whether the fetus is a person, and the potential life, good, mediocre, evil, or whatever, isn't relevant to that premise. And to be fair, arguing that 'hey, that aborted fetus could have cured cancer' is equally irrelevant because they don't assert that one person's life is worth more than another person's, * or that a person's achievements make them more worthy of living. Also, you know, I think it's right to feel cold after writing that bit about the kid shooting the med student. It's dabbling in social eugenics and appears to be rather sinister. Of course. You have the right to live regardless of what you're likely to do. But again, this is only meant as a direct counter. The two cancel each other out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it. No, that's not it. You're setting up a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to have an abortion debate where neither side completely (or at all) sees the fetus as a "person" because some people defend the fetus as a "potential life" in the sense that the full person that fetus will become has the right to be born. This would be in about the same vein as saying we have to protect against long term environmental hazards as a responsibility to future generations. The argument of "bad life anyway" as you call it is just a direct counter to the potential life argument. It's not a catch-all. That is possible, I should have qualified it by saying that this is generally a premise in abortion debates. I did do that in the other thread, but forgot to here.Good catch, thank you. But I don't see the bad-life-anyway as a legitimate counter to the potential life argument for the same reasons as before. What you really need to be arguing about first is the moral relevance of a potential life. Then you can start speculating as to its potential quality. If it's established that we're just concerned about a potential life independent of the organism's life as a fetus, I don't see any relevance to it. The only way to discern a fetus from, say, the hypothetical son I imagine myself having, or the potential offspring that exists between a given male and female is that a specific set of genes have been selected. So what? Why does the fetus have the right to materialize as a baby over a random possible combination of genes to materialize as a fetus? I couldn't possibly say, but this is my guess as to what happens: It is premised that a fertilized egg and beyond = a potential life which in turn = a person like you and me. In which case, we are back where we started at the OP as to the relevancy of a bad-life-anyway argument. I should point out that the "potential life" here is different from the "potential life" of a mass murderer or medical genius. In these cases, I understand the argument to be referring to a "potential life" as life in general and not tied to any particular future outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 _ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Browse the thread a bit to see what you've been missing. I actually don't feel comfortable picking apart your latest response, it feels mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts