[Pants-of-dog]

"Leaving aside the contrived nature of the analogy,its key logical flaw lies in its failure to distinguish between killing and letting die. In the context at hand, this distinction corresponds closely to the difference between what might be called ordinary and extraordinary life-preserving measures, whether they take the form of healthcare or some other intervention.

Let me give a simple example to illustrate what I mean by ordinary vs. extraordinary life-preserving measures. If you have fainted on the train tracks, it would be admirable for me to dive in front of an on-coming train and sacrifice myself in order to knock you out of the way. But you are not entitled to have me perform this extraordinary act of heroism. If I do not dive in front of the train, no one would say that I was guilty of manslaughter. On the other hand, you probably would be entitled to my assistance if I am standing idly by and see you collapse hours before a train is in sight. Where exactly to draw the line between ordinary and extraordinary life-saving measures might be fuzzy, but the basic validity of the distinction should be readily apparent.

Having laid this groundwork, we can see that the “Right to Life” is a right not to be killed. It is not a right not to die. The reason that the woman in the story can sever the tubes without violating the violinist’s dignity is because he does not have a right not to die. The tubes are an extraordinary means of preserving his life, and he is not entitled to extraordinary life-saving measures. However, the woman may not stab the man in the heart and only then sever the tubes. In this case, she would be violating his dignity because he has a right not to be killed. This latter scenario most closely resembles an abortion, in which the fetus is ripped or burned to death while still in the womb and only then removed.

Now, why does the abortion procedure go to such great lengths to kill the fetus before removing him? In many early-term abortions, the procedure is simply easier, but not so in late-term abortions. The reason is instructive: leaving a prematurely born infant to die without providing basic care would be illegal, a violation of the infant’s right not to be killed."

So we agree that the personhood of the fetus is unimportant in this case. The argument does not require seeing the fetus as “not a baby”.

This rebuttal seems apply more to keeping fetuses alive if they are still viable. No one is arguing that the fetuses should not be kept alive after being removed from the pregnant person.

[anna]

So we agree that the personhood of the fetus is unimportant in this case. The argument does not require seeing the fetus as “not a baby”.

This rebuttal seems apply more to keeping fetuses alive if they are still viable. No one is arguing that the fetuses should not be kept alive after being removed from the pregnant person.

No we don't agree, if you read at the link past the excerpt, it goes on to say:

"Like the violinist, an infant is not entitled to extraordinary life-saving interventions, but he is entitled to ordinary sustenance. This includes the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival—food, water, oxygen, warmth, etc.—from those responsible for him. Parents who fatally neglect their young children are guilty of killing them, not just letting them die. Regardless of whether the parents want or ever wanted those children, the law understands that they have a primary responsibility to provide the ordinary sustenance to which young children are entitled. If unborn children have the same personhood status as infants, then they should be accorded the same rights. Since the placenta represents the ordinary means by which a fetus obtains food, water, oxygen, and warmth, it follows that he should have the right to remain in his mother’s womb until viability, even if she does not want him there.

The only avenue of defense available to a pro-choicer is to deny that a pregnancy represents an ordinary (rather than an extraordinary) life-saving intervention. This assertion violates fundamental human intuitions about the overriding naturalness of pregnancy, one the most basic biological functions of which the female human body is capable. It also treads dangerously close to denying that parents have any special responsibilities for the persons they create, even if unintentionally. These new persons require a certain natural environment for initial development. If parents cannot be expected to provide this primary necessity, it is difficult to imagine how they could be held to any special responsibility at all.

The academic literature on abortion sometimes gets down to debating this very question: whether parents have any special responsibilities for their children prior to wanting them. Pro-choice philosophers are often forced to deny it. While various unhelpfully contrived analogies are bandied back and forth in a vain attempt to gain insight into a situation—parenthood—that is simply unique in the human experience, the fact remains that society unequivocally recognizes such responsibilities, at least with respect to born children. One illustration that has not yet been mentioned is that society imposes the burden of child-support on “deadbeat dads,” even if they never wanted the children in question. Personally, we think that the special status of the parent-offspring relationship—and the dangers to society of denying it—should be sufficiently apparent to any reasonable person as to obviate the need to defend this point further. Those who are interested in how this debate has played out among the experts can reference the philosophical literature."

[XogGyux]

No we don't agree, if you read at the link past the excerpt, it goes on to say:

"Like the violinist, an infant is not entitled to extraordinary life-saving interventions, but he is entitled to ordinary sustenance. This includes the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival—food, water, oxygen, warmth, etc.—from those responsible for him. Parents who fatally neglect their young children are guilty of killing them, not just letting them die. Regardless of whether the parents want or ever wanted those children, the law understands that they have a primary responsibility to provide the ordinary sustenance to which young children are entitled. If unborn children have the same personhood status as infants, then they should be accorded the same rights. Since the placenta represents the ordinary means by which a fetus obtains food, water, oxygen, and warmth, it follows that he should have the right to remain in his mother’s womb until viability, even if she does not want him there.

I think you missing the point.
It is not a matter of personhood at all. An infant can survive without being a parasite on the mother, you can give formula to the infant, if the baby is premature you can put in a ventilator while the lungs mature, you can give IV hydration/nutrition. You cannot say the same thing about an embryo or even an early fetus.
If my kidneys are dead, and yours are compatible with mine... I cannot force you to give out one of yours, even if your life might be 100% identical with 1 kidney rather than two. Why would you think a person (in this case an embryo/fetus) is entitled to the mother's uterus, blood and birthing?
At this point many turn to the "well the woman became pregnant knowingly by having sex, or at least she knew pregnancy was an option" which is a complete copout. And I'll show you... how about the scenario where you are initially OK donating your kidney to me, but half way through the tests you think it better and change your mind and no longer want to donate to me? Should then you be obligated to do so?
This is nonsense, if people really cared about saving lives, they would focus on preventing unwanteded pregnancies to begin with. Funny enough, the same people are often also against many forms of anti-conceptive and education I wonder why.
In this nonsense of abortion, the US alone have spent billions, possibly even trillions, of dollars through the decades. Do you know how many people could have been saved from famine with that amount of money? Do you know how many people could have been saved from malaria? or vaccinated against tuberculosis? or given condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission? It is a farce, never card about lives, we will be continuously clash on this abortion shit for decades to come, waste billions and trillions more while people die of hunger, of preventable/curable diseases because a bunch of middle aged men wants to control women's body Talk about Oedipus complex.

[Pants-of-dog]

No we don't agree, if you read at the link past the excerpt, it goes on to say:

"Like the violinist, an infant is not entitled to extraordinary life-saving interventions, but he is entitled to ordinary sustenance. This includes the baseline level of care necessary for ordinary survival—food, water, oxygen, warmth, etc.—from those responsible for him. Parents who fatally neglect their young children are guilty of killing them, not just letting them die. Regardless of whether the parents want or ever wanted those children, the law understands that they have a primary responsibility to provide the ordinary sustenance to which young children are entitled. If unborn children have the same personhood status as infants, then they should be accorded the same rights. Since the placenta represents the ordinary means by which a fetus obtains food, water, oxygen, and warmth, it follows that he should have the right to remain in his mother’s womb until viability, even if she does not want him there.

It seems that the only distinction between ordinary and extraordinary circumstances is how common it is. This seems arbitrary rather than logical.

The assumption seems to be that pro-lifers can ignore the rights of the pregnant person if the situation is common enough.

And because of this commonness, the fetus should be given more rights than born babies.

The only avenue of defense available to a pro-choicer is to deny that a pregnancy represents an ordinary (rather than an extraordinary) life-saving intervention. This assertion violates fundamental human intuitions about the overriding naturalness of pregnancy, one the most basic biological functions of which the female human body is capable. It also treads dangerously close to denying that parents have any special responsibilities for the persons they create, even if unintentionally. These new persons require a certain natural environment for initial development. If parents cannot be expected to provide this primary necessity, it is difficult to imagine how they could be held to any special responsibility at all.

Since I never argued this, I will ignore this part of the argument that you are copying and pasting.

The academic literature on abortion sometimes gets down to debating this very question: whether parents have any special responsibilities for their children prior to wanting them. Pro-choice philosophers are often forced to deny it. While various unhelpfully contrived analogies are bandied back and forth in a vain attempt to gain insight into a situation—parenthood—that is simply unique in the human experience, the fact remains that society unequivocally recognizes such responsibilities, at least with respect to born children. One illustration that has not yet been mentioned is that society imposes the burden of child-support on “deadbeat dads,” even if they never wanted the children in question. Personally, we think that the special status of the parent-offspring relationship—and the dangers to society of denying it—should be sufficiently apparent to any reasonable person as to obviate the need to defend this point further. Those who are interested in how this debate has played out among the experts can reference the philosophical literature."

Nor did I argue this point.

The argument you are quoting makes several incorrect assumptions about what pro-choice people think.

[late]

The only avenue of defense available to a pro-choicer is to deny that a pregnancy represents an ordinary (rather than an extraordinary) life-saving intervention.

Talk about your hidden agendas...

That is anti-abortion... It's also BS.

It's the same as what you said before, different wording with an apparently stronger emphasis.

The law is a tool to balance competing rights and interests. In this case, you are trying to create an argument that a fetus has rights, and parents do not.

The reality is all this is arbitrary.

Birth forms a natural divide between the potential for life, and an actual biologically independent being. But any partial restrictions are political.

I could tear apart your fantasy, but I did that before, and you just came up with another fantasy.

Oh well...

[anna]

Talk about your hidden agendas...

That is anti-abortion... It's also BS.

It's the same as what you said before, different wording with an apparently stronger emphasis.

Hidden nothing. You've said yourself it's the same as what I said before, and I was quite clear that the unborn baby is its own person.

The law is a tool to balance competing rights and interests. In this case, you are trying to create an argument that a fetus has rights, and parents do not.

The reality is all this is arbitrary.

Birth forms a natural divide between the potential for life, and an actual biologically independent being. But any partial restrictions are political.

I could tear apart your fantasy, but I did that before, and you just came up with another fantasy.

Oh well...

Honestly, I couldn't care less what you think you could do, after 20 years of online discussions, nothing is new and I put into every discussion as much or as little energy as I'm inclined at that moment. You'll go on your way and I'll go on mine, and neither of us will have made a dent. Oh well...

Anyway - your birth line leaves you having no problem killing a baby one day inside its due date. That is utilitarian to the point of barbarism. The better divide is between before a heartbeat and after. It's an imperfect divide, but it's far better than yours.

[anna]

It is not a matter of personhood at all.

It is.

An infant can survive without being a parasite on the mother

When you compare an unborn baby to a parasite, there's little use in continuing the conversation so consider this my last to you.

you can give formula to the infant, if the baby is premature you can put in a ventilator while the lungs mature, you can give IV hydration/nutrition. You cannot say the same thing about an embryo or even an early fetus.

And yet the baby is not doing these things, the caregiver is doing these things. The baby receives long after it's born, it cannot survive by itself without someone else providing the action.

This is nonsense, if people really cared about saving lives, they would focus on preventing unwanteded pregnancies to begin with. Funny enough, the same people are often also against many forms of anti-conceptive and education I wonder why.

True, I can't argue with this. The answer to why, as we both know, is religious belief.

In this nonsense of abortion, the US alone have spent billions, possibly even trillions, of dollars through the decades. Do you know how many people could have been saved from famine with that amount of money? Do you know how many people could have been saved from malaria? or vaccinated against tuberculosis? or given condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission? It is a farce, never card about lives, we will be continuously clash on this abortion shit for decades to come, waste billions and trillions more while people die of hunger, of preventable/curable diseases because a bunch of middle aged men wants to control women's body Talk about Oedipus complex.

Eh. You could say the same about our military budget, unfortunately, and I'm sure far more was spent on that than on anything related to abortion. I don't see this as an line of thought worth continuing.

It seems that the only distinction between ordinary and extraordinary circumstances is how common it is. This seems arbitrary rather than logical.

It's quite logical. It's the difference between DNR and CPR/intubation/feeding tube, for example.

The assumption seems to be that pro-lifers can ignore the rights of the pregnant person if the situation is common enough.

And because of this commonness, the fetus should be given more rights than born babies.

Since I never argued this, I will ignore this part of the argument that you are copying and pasting.

Nor did I argue this point.

The argument you are quoting makes several incorrect assumptions about what pro-choice people think.

That may be the case. Since I'm not a pro-choice people, I'll grant you that perhaps you yourself think differently. Yet you've also assumed pro-lifers consider the unborn baby to have more rights than born babies. This isn't true, since no one argues against abortion in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

[late]

killing a baby

You still don't get to rewrite science and law.

You can have your opinion, you don't get to create 'facts' from your fantasy life.

I said this was political, and that usually means some sort of compromise, which is what we have now.

Birth is the natural divide between potential and actual. I don't advocate that, I'd be wasting my time. I suppose I am wasting my time here, but it doesn't involve the work politicking does..

[Pants-of-dog]

It's quite logical. It's the difference between DNR and CPR/intubation/feeding tube, for example.

No. You did not get my point.

The difference between ordinary and extraordinary circumstances in the argument you quoted is based solely on how common the experience is.

This is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference.

That may be the case. Since I'm not a pro-choice people, I'll grant you that perhaps you yourself think differently. Yet you've also assumed pro-lifers consider the unborn baby to have more rights than born babies. This isn't true, since no one argues against abortion in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

If you think the fetus should have a right to the body of the parent, while you do not simultaneously argue that born children should have that same right, then you are arguing for extra rights for the fetus.

I now invite you to argue for mandatory breastfeeding and for mandatory blood transfusions and organ donation when a born child needs them.

[XogGyux]

It is.

No it is not. Personhood is irrelevant. A person (A) cannot override the bodily rights of another person (B). It is irrelevant wether "person (A)" classifies or not as a person at all. Therefore, it is irrelevant.

When you compare an unborn baby to a parasite, there's little use in continuing the conversation so consider this my last to you.

You are right, there is little use continuing this nonsense conversation, and I already explained why.
For the record:

A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

How is it that this does not describe a fetus? Much less of a "comparison" and more of a description.

And yet the baby is not doing these things, the caregiver is doing these things.

The caregiver is not risking her life/health by providing formula. A pregnant mother-to-be is.

The baby receives long after it's born, it cannot survive by itself without someone else providing the action.

Except after being born, care can be provided by someone that 1) voluteers (foster parents, adopted parents, etc) or 2) getting paid to do so (nurses, doctors, nanny, etc). Before such time, the only way to maintain the life if the mother does not want to have the pregnancy, is to force that mother to be an incubator.

True, I can't argue with this. The answer to why, as we both know, is religious belief.

Not entirely, but to a great degree yes. Glad we agree on something.

Eh. You could say the same about our military budget, unfortunately, and I'm sure far more was spent on that than on anything related to abortion. I don't see this as an line of thought worth continuing.

Not only I "could" but i routinely do. There is no reason why the US would spend as much as the next 10 other "top 10" countries combined, especially when more than half those 10 countries are our allies. As far as I am concerned, humanity shouldn't be waring each other, since there is no other species in this planet that can even pose a threat to us, and we couldn't possible defend an invader from out of space... there is no good reason in an ideal world why we should have big armies at all.
However, the pragmatic me understands that for as long as humans have existed there have been wars and unfortunately this won't change during my lifetime, as a result I can be OK with the notion of making sure we are the "biggest bully" as a matter of pragmatism. I don't think we need to be the "biggest bully" by a factor of 10 though.

This isn't true, since no one argues against abortion in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

No one? You have not been paying much attention.
I have experienced firsthand a version of this. I had a woman and her partner decline an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy not too long ago. She left the hospital against medical advice, I don't know what ended up happening for her but she sure risked her life.
What about the Ohio abortion nonsense shit about reimplanting ectopic pregancies? What a fking nonsense.
Seriously, if you want to save life, start saving the easier ones to save, start helping feed the hungry and heal the sick. Help prevent suicides and murdering that occurs due to having 2 many guys. Then perhaps we can debate this nonsense on equal footing.

[wat0n]

Oh I do. There are those who say the government should force you to stay connected to the violinist regardless, using utilitarian arguments.

Oh, and actually not just utilitarian arguments. Just found someone who would force you to stay connected to the violinist, yet still allow you to abort, because he believes that neither fetuses nor newborns are persons @Pants-of-dog.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

I have no idea what your point is.

Are you accusing me of holding those positions? Or did you find some random psychopath on the Internet who used the violinist analogy to argue for murder?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

I have no idea what your point is.

Are you accusing me of holding those positions? Or did you find some random psychopath on the Internet who used the violinist analogy to argue for murder?

Well, not sure if Peter Singer is a psychopath to be honest (it seems some people didn't quite like when he was hired by Princeton) but you might find his definition of "person" interesting and can quite easily let you see where he comes from:

You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

I did write that, in the 1979 edition of Practical Ethics. Today the term “defective infant” is considered offensive, and I no longer use it, but it was standard usage then. The quote is misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to her or his parents.

Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, but only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.

.

What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

I wonder what would happen if he were told that sometimes perfectly healthy newborns cannot find parents to adopt them.

His definition of "person" is interesting but I would not go as far as to say it's the correct one.

PS: This article treats Singer's stance on the violinist argument with more detail,

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/c ... 0violinist.

In this case, abortion would be right under his utilitarian ethics because fetuses have no preferences, hence they are not persons and furthermore they can be disregarded from the utilitarian calculation.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

How does this relate to my argument?

[wat0n]

The violinist argument is interesting, but is not the final say in the topic.

[anna]

You can have your opinion

Why yes... yes I can.

I suppose I am wasting my time here

Yes... yes you are.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, not sure if Peter Singer is a psychopath to be honest (it seems some people didn't quite like when he was hired by Princeton) but you might find his definition of "person" interesting and can quite easily let you see where he comes from:

I wonder what would happen if he were told that sometimes perfectly healthy newborns cannot find parents to adopt them.

His definition of "person" is interesting but I would not go as far as to say it's the correct one.

By that definition, the fetus is not a person. However, that has no impact on the violinist argument.

PS: This article treats Singer's stance on the violinist argument with more detail,

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/c ... 0violinist.

In this case, abortion would be right under his utilitarian ethics because fetuses have no preferences, hence they are not persons and furthermore they can be disregarded from the utilitarian calculation.

He is right in one way: the violinist argument only works if we presuppose that people in general have a right to control who uses their body.

In countries where this right is not recognised, pregnant people would have no right to an abortion.

[wat0n]

By that definition, the fetus is not a person. However, that has no impact on the violinist argument.

It does, because the argument is that even if the violinist is a person, it's acceptable to let him die. Singer would be against that line of thought, that because the violinist is a person it is not acceptable to let him die under utilitarian arguments even if he would indeed say that fetuses are not persons and hence abortion is acceptable. The same applies to infanticide under his definition, at least as long as it doesn't harm any persons.

I think it's also far from clear his view on newborns and even some fetuses is correct, even taking his definition of personhood for granted. For instance, a newborn likely does have preferences such as not wanting to starve or feel pain. If the newborn is hungry, it will cry. If it's in pain, it will also cry. And the biological mother (and sometimes even the father) often understands why is the newborn crying. Just because preferences aren't rationalized, it doesn't mean they aren't there. The same could plausibly apply to the fetus after some stage in its development.

Of course, Singer's definition of "person" need not be universal. I'd say it's not but in reality this isn't a discussion that is held among the general public and is only held among philosophers, I think.

He is right in one way: the violinist argument only works if we presuppose that people in general have a right to control who uses their body.

In countries where this right is not recognised, pregnant people would have no right to an abortion.

Indeed, if one believes people have no right to bodily autonomy one could perfectly deny them abortion.

[Pants-of-dog]

.....
Of course, Singer's definition of "person" need not be universal. I'd say it's not but in reality this isn't a discussion that is held among the general public and is only held among philosophers, I think.

Yes, this is why I think his definition is irrelevant to most debates.

Indeed, if one believes people have no right to bodily autonomy one could perfectly deny them abortion.

Interestingly enough, this is actually the case in at least one developed western country.

[wat0n]

Yes, this is why I think his definition is irrelevant to most debates.

But that's because that's not part of the discussion. Some will claim fetuses are persons, others will claim they are not and no one will provide any justification for their positions - and that's in the already unusual case where this is made explicit, often people in opposing sides of the debate will hold beliefs regarding the personhood of fetuses without even making them explicit and without having these beliefs challenged by the opposing side.

To advance with the discussion, the first step is to agree on a definition on who's a person and why, and then apply the definition to fetuses to decide if they are persons. If they aren't, I find it hard to justify a ban of on-demand abortion. If they are, then one could begin to discuss under what circumstances would abortion be justified regardless. Those likely exist, the most obvious one being if an abortion's necessary to save the pregnant person's life - if killing another person in self-defense is acceptable - even when such person is unable to realize that his actions are directly threatening someone else's life -, then so is abortion.