Fetal Sentience

[Jebus]

Except being pro-choice isn't killing babies. To me being pro-choice is allowing women to make their own reproductive health care choices. If a sexually active woman does not want to have a baby she has every right to have access to affordable birth control so she can prevent an unplanned pregnancy. If she does have an unplanned pregnancy and does not want to carry the pregnancy to term she has every right to access an abortion. 90% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks when the fetus is most likely not conscious and aware.

Why does a woman have this "right?" What deity has proclaimed that women have this right? You could just as easily say that a hunter has every right to shoot a moose? I think you are on the deontological track and may need to give the issue a bit more thought.

[AustynKersey]

Austyn can you edit your quote there's a mistake

I just did. I'm still trying to figure out the quote thing. My bad.

[AustynKersey]

Why does a woman have this "right?"

Because the fetus is inside the woman's body and every person has a right to bodily integrity.

What deity has proclaimed that women have this right?

What gave them this right? In my country Roe vs. Wade did, not a deity. Women should have this right because it is unethical to take away ones right to bodily integrity.

Would you like it if I forced you to get a tattoo you didn't want? What if I forced you to donate your kidney to me? What if I forced you to have sex with me? If I did any of these things that would be a violation of your right to bodily integrity. Every person has ownership over their own body.

You could just as easily say that a hunter has every right to shoot a moose?

Last time I checked, a moose does not live inside a hunter's body.

[Jebus]

You could just as easily say that a hunter has every right to shoot a moose?

Last time I checked, a moose does not live inside a hunter's body.

You misunderstood the analogy. How would you respond if someone said that he has every right to shoot a moose? Hunting is legal in the U.S. just like abortion. Whenever you make claims that women, animals, or aliens have rights without backing that up with consequential facts you come across as deontological. We have had several discussions about consequentialism vs. deontology here in the past. I recommend you have a look.

[garrethdsouza]

We had a discussion about it on the skeptic vegans discussion group if anyones interested https://www.facebook.com/groups/skeptic ... 714219350/

I don't think a woman should be saddled with enduring pregnancy and having a child if she doesn't want to merely because she wound up getting pregnant. For instance she may have only been intending on having sex and a child is a lifelong commitment, having a child may never have been in the picture, it may not be feasible and there are also issues of population control, or simply her not wanting a child for her own reasons. There are also very nontrivial risks with and consequences to being pregnant and giving birth and everyone hasrights of bodily integrity to determine whether they would want to undergo this.

An early stage fetus isn't sentient and hence, the same as we regard plants. Just because it has the ability to develop into a rational agent naturally, affording rights to a nonsentient clump of cells just because it could naturally be able to develop, that's a naturalistic fallacy. Every cell or tissue could be scientifically made to develop into another sentient being by techniques like cloning. Also other nonsentient clumps of cells are often surgically removed . We don't give other cells or tissues those rights. So saying that one clump of cells should be treated as a potential rational agent but equally nonsentient cells should not is ridiculous. Which is why saying that abortion is unethical at all developmental stages is asinine. It's clearly not unethical in earlier statges.

Majority (98%) of abortions occur at the pre/non sentient period, before the 20th week period. And for the ones that are done post that, its done almost exclusively for medical complications.

If you're talking about when , here's an article:
http://slate.me/1dAtfB0

In terms of consequentialism, pro-choice causes the least harm vs pro-forced birth position mistakenly called pro life.

[garrethdsouza]

You could just as easily say that a hunter has every right to shoot a moose?

Last time I checked, a moose does not live inside a hunter's body.

You misunderstood the analogy. How would you respond if someone said that he has every right to shoot a moose? .

The analogy is incorrect because you're comparing it to a sentient. The real analogy is saying is it OK for a person to shoot a plant? Grow your plant and shoot it.

But of course people aren't going about having abortions for (a misguided sense of) sport or recreation/fun.

I've heard this is a good book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Reclaiming-Ab ... merReviews

[Jebus]

The analogy is incorrect because you're comparing it to a sentient. The real analogy is saying is it OK for a person to shoot a plant? Grow your plant and shoot it.

You probably tried to read between the lines and missed the point which had everything to do with the deontological usage of the word "rights" and nothing to do with "sentience." A hunter could say that God gave him the right to kill moose. I chose the moose analogy as I was replying to a vegan who might be able to relate to a religious style dogmatic claim but otherwise I could have used the word "plant" or "chair".

[brimstoneSalad]

Except being pro-choice isn't killing babies.

A distinction must be made between being against abortion on ethical grounds, and being in favor of criminalizing abortion in a political respect.

Harmful recreational drugs like meth and crack are evil. They destroy lives. There's nothing good about them.
And yet, the war on drugs has done even more harm. It has cost billions annually that could have been spent elsewhere on education and bettering lives. It has made regulation and treatment nearly impossible due to fear of criminal prosecution. It has increased war and violent crime along drug routes and in cities. And it has funded organized crims and terrorism; islamic extremists make their livings on opium, which they'd never be able to sell at such astronomical prices if it was legal and regulated instead.

Those are the facts of the drug trade, and the war on drugs.

Similar findings can be seen with regard to criminalization of abortion.
It is unreasonable to be in favor of criminalizing abortion. It needs to be safe and legal. This is because of the terrible consequences of criminalization, which don't even reduce abortion rates.

Abortion can be morally wrong, while it also being morally wrong to criminalize it -- both for consequential reasons.

[garrethdsouza]

Abortion can be morally wrong, while it also being morally wrong to criminalize it -- both for consequential reasons.

I get that as exceptions to the norm abortion could be morally wrong. Like gender selective feticide which has skewed sex ratios in many countries like India. But do you mean generally as well?

[brimstoneSalad]

I get that as exceptions to the norm abortion could be morally wrong. Like gender selective feticide which has skewed sex ratios in many countries like India. But do you mean generally as well?

Sex selective abortion isn't necessarily wrong; it depends on the consequences.

Yes, generally as well. But I said "can be" not "is". We'd have to look at all of the consequences.