Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?


SquareOne

Recommended Posts

 

 

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

We're assuming that the woman did initially consent. That's why we are talking about the withdrawal of consent. It's all right there in the thread.

The thread is fifteen pages long.  I thought I had read the relevant comments among the 300 or so, but I must have missed that assumption.

 

Even if consent is assumed, it means nothing unless the fetus has standing.  Now the debate moves to personhood, which is a legal state that is by nature subjective.  At present, a fetus lacks that legal status in the U.S., so consent is a moot point.

Personhood is assumed too. Here is the post: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55101-should-an-atheist-be-pro-life/page-14#entry837463 , followed by http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55101-should-an-atheist-be-pro-life/page-15#entry837808

 

It's a moot point, yes. It's a tangent but it's not strictly my tangent, but I'm also interested in it, and I have a case to look into and an improving perspective on how looking at consent and abortion. I don't really have much more to add, so I'll just let everyone get back to the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned, personhood is the crux of the matter.  If one assumes personhood, then consent doesn't matter.  The fetus has the same right to exist as its host.

 

Of course I don't buy the assumption, and neither does our society. 

 

Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

 

Maybe not the best analogy but then again I'm not sure yours is quite right either

 

 

Unless you are implying that it's o.k to push the stowaway off the plane (while flying) because there was no consent to them being there.

No, mine is not quite right, because a stowaway, no matter how unwelcome, is a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

We're assuming that the woman did initially consent. That's why we are talking about the withdrawal of consent. It's all right there in the thread.

 

I'm still trying to understand how consent works in this scenario. How do you grant consent to somebody that has no consciousness and CAN'T consent or comprehend consent? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

We're assuming that the woman did initially consent. That's why we are talking about the withdrawal of consent. It's all right there in the thread.

 

I'm still trying to understand how consent works in this scenario. How do you grant consent to somebody that has no consciousness and CAN'T consent or comprehend consent? 

 

They are referring to the woman not giving consent to getting pregnant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 14 year old cannot grant consent.  How could an embryo that doesn't even understand that it exists be able to enter into a contract?  Before it develops a working brain it is almost an inanimate object.  Dogs cannot grant consent regardless of age.  Cats cannot grant consent.  Do you ask your pets for their permission before you get them spayed?  If you own a cow would you ask it permission before you sell its milk?  Do you ask your car for permission before you give it the cheap grade of gas?

 

Comparing things that have the power to understand consent with things that lack this ability is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 14 year old cannot grant consent.  How could an embryo that doesn't even understand that it exists be able to enter into a contract?  Before it develops a working brain it is almost an inanimate object.  Dogs cannot grant consent regardless of age.  Cats cannot grant consent.  Do you ask your pets for their permission before you get them spayed?  If you own a cow would you ask it permission before you sell its milk?  Do you ask your car for permission before you give it the cheap grade of gas?

 

Comparing things that have the power to understand consent with things that lack this ability is false.

 

Let me just clarify -- we were assuming that a fetus is a person and that the mother had consented to it using her body and then decided to withdraw that consent. There are persons who lack the power to understand consent -- people in comas, for instance. So, valid comparisons are available. Hope that helps. Like I said, I don't have much else to add and have much to mull over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

 

Maybe not the best analogy but then again I'm not sure yours is quite right either

 

 

Unless you are implying that it's o.k to push the stowaway off the plane (while flying) because there was no consent to them being there.

No, mine is not quite right, because a stowaway, no matter how unwelcome, is a person.

 

So do you consider a fetus at any time a 'person' in the womb'?

 

If not, then can I take it you are o.k with abortions up until labour? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Comparing a fetus to a passenger on a plane is ridiculous. The pilot knows what he has committed himself to.  He willingly took on this passenger and has a social contract to fulfill.  The woman having sex did not consent to taking on a passenger.  It's more like a stowaway on a plane: possible, but not desirable.  Maybe even not safe.

We're assuming that the woman did initially consent. That's why we are talking about the withdrawal of consent. It's all right there in the thread.

 

I'm still trying to understand how consent works in this scenario. How do you grant consent to somebody that has no consciousness and CAN'T consent or comprehend consent? 

 

Exactly.  It's a red herring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About these aeroplane analogies.

 

There's been a lot of aeroplane analogies in this thread.  I just thought I'd raise a quick point.  I'll probably come back to it in a more refined form later.

 

It seems to me that the analogy of a pilot ejecting from an aeroplane and leaving the plane, and its other passenger, to crash and burn, is not the right analogy.

 

Surely the closer analogy is that the pilot comes out of the cockpit, stabs and kills the passenger, and then carries on her flight.

 

Now obviously that analogy is a bit crass, and it's not perfect, but it seems nearer the mark.  The reason being that abortion is not the act of simply withdrawing consent, it involves an active act of killing.

 

...

 

By the way, I'm not suggesting that a plane passenger and foetus are the same thing, and I'm not basing any argument on the above analogy.  I honestly don't think abortion is an issue that can be resolved either way by using analogies.  Just trying to get a bit closer to the mark.

 

...

 

mymistake I'll reply to you properly later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha,,, you might as well say, the pilot went to the cabin, find an unwanted stowaway rat, stab it with a knife and eject it through the toilet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha,,, you might as well say, the pilot went to the cabin, find an unwanted stowaway rat, stab it with a knife and eject it through the toilet

 

Better yet, found some non-sentient mildew growing in the bathroom and sprayed some mildew cleaner on it.

 

Stabbing the passengers is a horrible analogy as it merely invokes emotion and infers that the pilot ended a sentient life. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If potential sentient life is valuable, why not just encourage its mass production?  Every egg that drops is a missed opportunity and the use of birth control possibly even a moral failure.  Isn't that the categorical imperative that flows from the idea that we put potential on an even plane with what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, I know it is emotional. I said it was crass. But if you are objecting to arguing from emotion, I'm not the one you should be reprimanding in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re taking every opportunity, this is an argument Dawkins makes in The God Delusion, and it is a good argument. But, having though about it, it is flawed. I'm typing on my phone right now though so it's hard to reply in detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you are right that the pilot analogy I referred to is only valuable if the life is sentient. Which for me is the crux of the matter. That's why I do not personally support the pilot analogy, or indeed any analogy on this topic.

 

Like I said above. I was only speculating on someone else's argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if the pilot had her fetus aborted while flying the plane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

However, I do not believe that your argument from consent is the "trump" argument that settles the debate.  I understand it.  I have thought about it.  I do not agree with it.

 

Please explain the problems you find with the "argument from consent".  How many problems exist and how bad is each flaw?  Ultimately, why do your reject the argument?

 

As promised, my reply.

 

I've been sitting here typing for about 25 minutes.  Yet every time I write an argument, I keep countering it in my head, and striking it out.

 

I was thinking about consent to sex, or to medical surgery, and what happens when one is subject to those things but consent is withdrawn midway.  What should happen, is that the process stops.  But if not, then those people carrying out the act should be prosecuted.

 

But in reality, if in the moment, that process does not stop, one should be entitled to defend oneself physically.  To the point of killing the other person, if that is what it takes to stop it.  In those instances, it does not matter that the other person has personhood.

 

So, where I am now, is asking what differentiates a foetus from one of those people?

 

Most obviously, the foetus is not doing its invasive act consciously.  Whereas the other intruders "deserve" to die, because they are at fault, no such argument could be made against the foetus.  So it feels like a particular injustice.

 

So - I suppose that on that basis I would be driven to the conclusion that an abortion is a necessary injustice.

 

And that's where I am at the moment.

 

Anyway, I'm going to the gym.  Six miles of treadmill will hopefully give me time to think this through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most obviously, the foetus is not doing its invasive act consciously.  Whereas the other intruders "deserve" to die, because they are at fault, no such argument could be made against the foetus.  So it feels like a particular injustice.

 

So - I suppose that on that basis I would be driven to the conclusion that an abortion is a necessary injustice.

 

And that's where I am at the moment.

 

Anyway, I'm going to the gym.  Six miles of treadmill will hopefully give me time to think this through.

 

Yeah, that is why you arrive at a different conclusion than most of the people here.  You are approaching this from the idea of justice and fairness for the fetus when really that is irrelevant.  That is why people think you are still influenced by religion.  Nobody asks to be born and nobody asks to not be born.  Before they are born they don't have an opinion.  But a lot of people who do get born have a miserable life and find the situation so unpleasant that they commit suicide.  For them being born was the injustice.  There are many others who are miserable but the taboo against suicide is just enough to keep them from trying it.  Once-size-fits-all does not work because life doesn't have to be wonderful and often isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are approaching this from the idea of justice and fairness for the fetus when really that is irrelevant.

 

Why?

 

The idea of justice for the foetus is valid if it is a person.

 

On what basis would you say that it is not a person?

 

 

 

There is a hint that you might argue lack of personhood from lack of self-awareness...  (correct me if I'm wrong) :

Before they are born they don't have an opinion.

 

But that is not exclusive to foetuses, let us remember.  It is also true of newborns, people with serious mental illness, and pretty much anyone who is temporarily unconscious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  SquareOne,in what sense one can even assume,that a fetus (let's say,4 months old or less) is a person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what sense can you say a baby is a person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Um,how about not dodging a question with a different question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an adult human is a person, then unless we draw a line at some point in the age of a human, then they are all persons, foetus, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.  At the moment, British law does draw a line, and that that line at birth.  I myself am challenging the idea that birth is an adequate line at which to begin personhood, though I don't cling to  any definite answer.

 

Now.  I answered your question, so maybe you'll be so courteous as to return the favour.  :)

 

 

In what sense can you say a baby is a person?
 
I would actually invite everyone to have a crack at answering this question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.