Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child » Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child

Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 08/17/07 - 06:09 PM:	#41
mrousseau wrote: One important question becomes not whether the mother can decide to abort her fetus but whether society will do the job for her. If it were a simple issue that did not require society's involvement then I would lend more weight to this type of reasoning but it is simply not the case. To argue in support of abortion until birth, you'd have to provide a reasoning as to why society should have no say in when the mother is permitted to ask for an abortion but perform it nonetheless. Individuals who request a service from society should be subject to society's discretion as to when it will perform said services. Once again, "society" has become some kind of sentient entity capable of making its own decisions and morality? Society can be "forced" to do something against its "will"? It has "discretion"? "Society" is a contract -- a virtual "piece of paper" which is a mandate on its membership. The members implicitly sign this contract and must do whatever the piece of paper says with no "say" in it. If that piece of paper said, "abortion is not allowed after 24 weeks", then no member of society has a "say", neither does the mother, doctors, religious groups or even the fetus. If that piece of paper says, "the rights of the member of society to what happens to their own body must never be overridden" -- that is also valid. Society is the incorporation of an ethical "average" of its membership.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 538

Posted 08/18/07 - 09:34 AM:	#42
swstephe wrote: Once again, "society" has become some kind of sentient entity capable of making its own decisions and morality? Society can be "forced" to do something against its "will"? It has "discretion"? "Society" is a contract -- a virtual "piece of paper" which is a mandate on its membership. The members implicitly sign this contract and must do whatever the piece of paper says with no "say" in it. If that piece of paper said, "abortion is not allowed after 24 weeks", then no member of society has a "say", neither does the mother, doctors, religious groups or even the fetus. If that piece of paper says, "the rights of the member of society to what happens to their own body must never be overridden" -- that is also valid. Society is the incorporation of an ethical "average" of its membership. You are exaggerating and being ridiculous. I am willing to have a discussion about this with you but not if you aren't going to take it seriously. Society has laws and if the laws say "no member of the society may kill another without proper cause" then the members are not allowed to do so. If such a law is written about abortion, then the same would be said about that. The main reason that the collective will of the people does belong in this discussion is that society is required to regulate abortions and provide them safely to the mothers that want them. But this role entitles them to some discretion as to when it should be permitted to refuse to provide the service to the member. While my arguments have been in favor of prohibiting abortion past viability unless certain extreme circumstances are present, the will of the members as the collective will of the society must also reflect this position if it is to be enforced.

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 898

Posted 08/18/07 - 04:28 PM:	#43
I would not say that there is room enough to claim any greater degree of lack of seriousness in what swstephe has proposed, if one looks at the broadest possible picture. It is true, mrousseau, that you do not agree with that, as you do not agree with my view, but to contend that either he or I are not being serious, are being ridiculous, is simply your opinion--to which degree, has no greater value over our opinions that we are. (if I may speak on swstephe's behalf for just this moment) In that a political organization seen as a nation has laws, in that any social group within or without that political nation has customs, manners, standards and rules, in that such states of organized social animals go from the bottom up, in the patterns and developments of social structure, in that this is all within the world we are in, there is a social pattern. It's one big lovely movie that neither started here nor ends here. For that fact, to say that here is 'the way it is to be' (in the sense of applying an 'ought') carries no greater, if not much less weight than to say we humans need to balance the whole to work more effeciently with it. In all of society (and I am again, do not forget, taking this in the definition which you have rejected) it is a natural fact that killing for a reason is approved--there is no denying that fact. The question remaining, then, is what reasons are approved. Society as some political organization is not required by nature to regulate abortions--certain social groups within that society as some political organization, which have the favor of number and might, have simply declared such to be the case. My argument--though it likely has been missed as being such, at least by some--is that the individual approches an individual for that medical assistance, and society has no say-so over that possession of the mother--that future. Then, in that abortion is fully legal, and carries no stigma, in that education is fully supported and carried out, the need to worry about even the cut off point that you are concerned about, mrousseau, will for all practical purposes, disappear. It would be of no more concern because having an abortion done would be easy in developed and developing nations (to the larger degree) and would be nothing to hide nor keep secret. The far greater bulk, of something (abortion) which has so extremely little bearing on the prosperity and quality of society in the first place, would then be done fairly early along in pregnancy--probably within the usual signs of morning sickness. Edited by Mars Man on 08/18/07 - 04:37 PM

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 538

Posted 08/18/07 - 05:33 PM:	#44
I think I misread that actually. I agree with him, I thought we was being sarcastic.

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 898

Posted 08/19/07 - 07:49 AM:	#45
I see. Thank you for that extra information, mrousseau. MM

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.