No, You Reallly Are Not "Pro-Choice"

[Archivist]

I would say that people who hold this line of reasoning are mistaken. The first thing to recognize is that 99% of all abortions are done for convenience sake. So when we are talking about the rare instance where there is a life threatening event to both the mother and the unborn child, I personally think the prudent thing is for the doctor to look at both mother and child as his patients. As the doctor, it's his job to do his best to save the lives of both. However, in rare circumstances, this is not possible. I would say that in that terrible situation the doctor simply must make the best medical decision he can.

I would disagree with your claim that 99% of abortions are for the convenience of the pregnant woman. I would put that figure closer to 95% unless you are claiming that an abortion in a rape situation is mere "convenience." Either way we can agree that it is a relatively small number.

Why would you leave the choice up to the doctor rather than the pregnant woman? Shouldn't the decision be hers?

 

[SPF]

I would disagree with your claim that 99% of abortions are for the convenience of the pregnant woman. I would put that figure closer to 95% unless you are claiming that an abortion in a rape situation is mere "convenience." Either way we can agree that it is a relatively small number.

You're welcome to present your own statistics on the issue, but I wasn't just making up the 99% number. Florida is one of the few states that actually tracks and records a reason for every abortion. In 2015, 98.6 of abortions were done out of convenience. 0.085% of abortions were done because of rape, and 0.5% of abortions were done because the mother was in some form of danger, be it life threatening, or just physical or even psychological in nature.

Why would you leave the choice up to the doctor rather than the pregnant woman? Shouldn't the decision be hers?

It should be situational. The mother is of course able to voice her opinion, the child in the womb is not. From an inherent moral value standpoint, the lives of each would be equal. Obviously from a utilitarian point of view, the mother's life would be worth more. This is a situation where once you establish the principle you can discuss the practice.

So for example if we acknowledge the principle that all human life is equally morally valuable, then the practice that comes from that will be that the doctor is obligated to treat both mother and child as his patient and do the best he can to save both. Sure, if the mother is conscious and the child in the womb is viable, and there is a question as to whether or not he can save both, input from the mother I'm sure would be welcome. But the doctor's goal really should be to save both lives regardless of what the mother says. For me though, if I thought I could only save one, unless the mother straight up told me to save the child, I would probably save the mother.

 

[Archivist]

You're welcome to present your own statistics on the issue, but I wasn't just making up the 99% number. Florida is one of the few states that actually tracks and records a reason for every abortion. In 2015, 98.6 of abortions were done out of convenience. 0.085% of abortions were done because of rape, and 0.5% of abortions were done because the mother was in some form of danger, be it life threatening, or just physical or even psychological in nature.
It should be situational. The mother is of course able to voice her opinion, the child in the womb is not. From an inherent moral value standpoint, the lives of each would be equal. Obviously from a utilitarian point of view, the mother's life would be worth more. This is a situation where once you establish the principle you can discuss the practice.

I never accused you of making up the 99% number. I simply said that I disagree with that number. I also said that we are fairly close so it isn't worth arguing over the figure.

So for example if we acknowledge the principle that all human life is equally morally valuable, then the practice that comes from that will be that the doctor is obligated to treat both mother and child as his patient and do the best he can to save both. Sure, if the mother is conscious and the child in the womb is viable, and there is a question as to whether or not he can save both, input from the mother I'm sure would be welcome. But the doctor's goal really should be to save both lives regardless of what the mother says. For me though, if I thought I could only save one, unless the mother straight up told me to save the child, I would probably save the mother.

And I am simply saying that the choice should remain with the pregnant woman, not the doctor. It isn't just a matter of her providing "welcome input." The choice should remain with her. No doctor should tell a pregnant woman whose life is at risk "I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, I know you want to live but I've decided to save the fetal life instead."

 

[SPF]

I never accused you of making up the 99% number. I simply said that I disagree with that number. I also said that we are fairly close so it isn't worth arguing over the figure.

Well as I said you are welcome to provide your own statistics. Mine are based on actual reports and reality, I don't know what your number was based on.

And I am simply saying that the choice should remain with the pregnant woman, not the doctor. It isn't just a matter of her providing "welcome input." The choice should remain with her. No doctor should tell a pregnant woman whose life is at risk "I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, I know you want to live but I've decided to save the fetal life instead."

Again, it should be situational. If you were to be rushed into an emergency room and you were bleeding out from a cut on your leg, should the doctor listen to you if you decided you want to die and let you bleed out on the table? Or would he be morally obligated to save you?

The cases in which a woman's life is at risk during a pregnancy is rare. For example, during the case of an ectopic pregnancy in which the child has not reached viability, almost universally the doctors will only be able to save the mother, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The only example we could fabricate where there would be a concern would be if event X happened after the child reached viability and for reason Y it seemed like the doctor couldn't save both. At that point you have to ask yourself what's the best course of action. If I was the doctor, even though they both possess equal inherent moral worth as people, I would probably 9/10 times save the mother. In fact, it would probably require the mother specifically telling me to make sure I save her baby at all costs to go the other direction.

 

[Archivist]

Well as I said you are welcome to provide your own statistics. Mine are based on actual reports and reality, I don't know what your number was based on.

Once again, while I don't agree with your number I am not arguing it. I said that we agree that the number is small. Why do you want to argue the point?

Again, it should be situational. If you were to be rushed into an emergency room and you were bleeding out from a cut on your leg, should the doctor listen to you if you decided you want to die and let you bleed out on the table? Or would he be morally obligated to save you?

The cases in which a woman's life is at risk during a pregnancy is rare. For example, during the case of an ectopic pregnancy in which the child has not reached viability, almost universally the doctors will only be able to save the mother, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The only example we could fabricate where there would be a concern would be if event X happened after the child reached viability and for reason Y it seemed like the doctor couldn't save both. At that point you have to ask yourself what's the best course of action. If I was the doctor, even though they both possess equal inherent moral worth as people, I would probably 9/10 times save the mother. In fact, it would probably require the mother specifically telling me to make sure I save her baby at all costs to go the other direction.

Get real. we aren't talking about someone bleeding from a small cut of their leg. I am simply saying that the choice has to rest with the pregnant woman. Why should that choice be taken from her and given to the doctor?

 

[SPF]

Once again, while I don't agree with your number I am not arguing it. I said that we agree that the number is small. Why do you want to argue the point?

You saying you don't agree with my number is tantamount to me telling you that I don't agree with your idea that 2+2=4. The statistics I provided are based upon actual state provided numbers. I don't even know what "disagreeing" with the state provided numbers really means other than you must think that the women lied. But one would think that if a woman was going to lie about the reason it would skew the results more towards reasons other than convenience. So as far as I can tell your suggested "95%" number is not based upon anything other than a random number you felt like saying at that moment.

Get real. we aren't talking about someone bleeding from a small cut of their leg. I am simply saying that the choice has to rest with the pregnant woman. Why should that choice be taken from her and given to the doctor?

Well, if you were going to die on the emergency room table it probably wouldn't be a small cut. But at any rate, your answer is a non-answer in that you ignored the principle at hand.

You need to be specific about what choice we are talking about regarding the mother and her unborn child, both of which are equally morally valuable, each of whom have an equal right to life, and both of whom would be equal patients of the doctor.

All I have said is that in the case of life threatening event X, the right course of action for the doctor to take would be to treat both the mother and the unborn child as his patient and that he should have an equal desire to save both lives. How can you disagree with that position?

If that's the principle we accept, and I see no reason why we should not, then we can examine the practice of specific life threatening events. If event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and an nonviable unborn child, that is to say an unborn child that if removed from the womb will die, then the course of action is plain - save the mother.

If event x involves a life threatening event to only the nonviable unborn child, then the doctor should do everything he can to save the unborn child.

If event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, then hopefully the doctor could save both lives.

if event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, but for reason y the doctor will only be able to save one life, then barring a pleading intervention from the mother to sacrifice herself to save her child, I would probably save the mother. Not because the mother possesses more inherent moral worth, but she possesses more utilitarian worth. Certainly a difficult and unenviable situation either way for the doctor.

 

[Archivist]

You saying you don't agree with my number is tantamount to me telling you that I don't agree with your idea that 2+2=4. The statistics I provided are based upon actual state provided numbers. I don't even know what "disagreeing" with the state provided numbers really means other than you must think that the women lied. But one would think that if a woman was going to lie about the reason it would skew the results more towards reasons other than convenience. So as far as I can tell your suggested "95%" number is not based upon anything other than a random number you felt like saying at that moment.

And I have said that "we can agree that it is a relatively small number." Why are you arguing the point?

Well, if you were going to die on the emergency room table it probably wouldn't be a small cut. But at any rate, your answer is a non-answer in that you ignored the principle at hand.

You need to be specific about what choice we are talking about regarding the mother and her unborn child, both of which are equally morally valuable, each of whom have an equal right to life, and both of whom would be equal patients of the doctor.

And where the lives of both are at risk the choice has to rest with the pregnant woman, not the doctor. The pregnant woman is a life in being. The fetus is a life in being only if it survives until birth. The decision must therefore rest with her, not a third party.

All I have said is that in the case of life threatening event X, the right course of action for the doctor to take would be to treat both the mother and the unborn child as his patient and that he should have an equal desire to save both lives. How can you disagree with that position?

I have not disagreed with that position.

If that's the principle we accept, and I see no reason why we should not, then we can examine the practice of specific life threatening events. If event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and an nonviable unborn child, that is to say an unborn child that if removed from the womb will die, then the course of action is plain - save the mother.

Nor have I disagreed with that

If event x involves a life threatening event to only the nonviable unborn child, then the doctor should do everything he can to save the unborn child.

I haven't said otherwise.

If event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, then hopefully the doctor could save both lives.

I haven't said otherwise.

if event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, but for reason y the doctor will only be able to save one life, then barring a pleading intervention from the mother to sacrifice herself to save her child, I would probably save the mother. Not because the mother possesses more inherent moral worth, but she possesses more utilitarian worth. Certainly a difficult and unenviable situation either way for the doctor.

If you read what I have written you know that this is the point where I disagree. If the pregnant woman and fetus are at risk then the choice has to rest with the pregnant woman, not the doctor. Why do you insist on giving that power to the doctor.

 

[SPF]

And I have said that "we can agree that it is a relatively small number." Why are you arguing the point?

I don't think I've said anything argumentative, I'm just responding to you. If you stop making comments about the statistics then I won't have anything to respond to. We can certainly agree that it's a small number. My realistic number based upon actual statistics is small, and your made up number is also small.

And where the lives of both are at risk the choice has to rest with the pregnant woman, not the doctor.

Are we talking about instances in which the child located inside the womb is viable or not? If the unborn child is viable, then as each possess equal inherent moral worth, the goal of the doctor should be to save both. If the doctor were to think that he had a 95% chance of saving the child, but only a 5% chance of saving the mother, why should he try to save the mother instead?

The problem is the principle from which you are deriving your practices. You seem to think that the unborn human child does not possess the same inherent moral worth and value as the human located outside the womb. I don't see why that should be the case.

The pregnant woman is a life in being. The fetus is a life in being only if it survives until birth.

Can you put forth a positive argument that supports this assertion? I think the fetus is a life in being located inside a womb. The pregnant woman is a life in being located outside the womb. I suppose you would need to define "in being" though I suspect the way in which you want to use it would force you to beg the question.

 

[RogerRoger]

The death penalty is either moral or immoral apart from whether or not innocent people may be condemned or the way in which it is carried out. The question we must answer first is whether or not it is in itself a moral thing to do. Then after that is determined we can examine the practice and try to figure out the best way to carry out the practice of the principle.

I know this isn't the main point of the thread, but I disagree with this statement.

That's because you can't separate the morality of the action with the epistemological elements surrounding it. The question of whether the death penalty is moral, as far as I can see it, assumes that the person is actually guilty. Part of the difficulty around the issue is the inherent epistemic difficulty surrounding guilt and the legal system. There are plenty of cases where you cannot be sure of a person's guilt.

Yes, it's possible to conceptualize a thought experiment that says:

IF a person is (objective knowledge) guilty, is it ethical to administer the death penalty?
​

We can answer that question in a few ways, but you could definitely come to both a YES and NO answer. The problem in your position is that we are rarely, if ever, in that position, and more importantly, we can rarely, if ever, know that we're in that position. So while we answer the thought experiment, the experiment itself has little to do with reality. Justifying the death penalty in this way, it is difficult to overcome that difference. In real life, we cannot assume perfect knowledge.

 

[SPF]

IF a person is (objective knowledge) guilty, is it ethical to administer the death penalty?
We can answer that question in a few ways, but you could definitely come to both a YES and NO answer.

That seems mutually exclusive to me. I would welcome a new topic on this issue if you want to.

 

[RogerRoger]

That seems mutually exclusive to me. I would welcome a new topic on this issue if you want to.

I'm actually not really sure how to start a new topic.

What I meant is that I think you can build an argument for either that is at least reasonable. It's also possible that there's a single answer, and as I Christian I believe there is (no death penalty), but I know that can be contentious.

 

[AACJ]

You saying you don't agree with my number is tantamount to me telling you that I don't agree with your idea that 2+2=4. The statistics I provided are based upon actual state provided numbers. I don't even know what "disagreeing" with the state provided numbers really means other than you must think that the women lied. But one would think that if a woman was going to lie about the reason it would skew the results more towards reasons other than convenience. So as far as I can tell your suggested "95%" number is not based upon anything other than a random number you felt like saying at that moment.

Well, if you were going to die on the emergency room table it probably wouldn't be a small cut. But at any rate, your answer is a non-answer in that you ignored the principle at hand.

You need to be specific about what choice we are talking about regarding the mother and her unborn child, both of which are equally morally valuable, each of whom have an equal right to life, and both of whom would be equal patients of the doctor.

All I have said is that in the case of life threatening event X, the right course of action for the doctor to take would be to treat both the mother and the unborn child as his patient and that he should have an equal desire to save both lives. How can you disagree with that position?

If that's the principle we accept, and I see no reason why we should not, then we can examine the practice of specific life threatening events. If event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and an nonviable unborn child, that is to say an unborn child that if removed from the womb will die, then the course of action is plain - save the mother.

If event x involves a life threatening event to only the nonviable unborn child, then the doctor should do everything he can to save the unborn child.

If event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, then hopefully the doctor could save both lives.

if event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, but for reason y the doctor will only be able to save one life, then barring a pleading intervention from the mother to sacrifice herself to save her child, I would probably save the mother. Not because the mother possesses more inherent moral worth, but she possesses more utilitarian worth. Certainly a difficult and unenviable situation either way for the doctor.

Thanks for your educated contribution to this thread. I'm glad that this site has some informed opinions on this matter.

 

[HighCherub]

I would disagree with your claim that 99% of abortions are for the convenience of the pregnant woman.

Nah, it's 99%.
Pregnancy in cases of rape are so statistically small it can't even be used as a valid argument.

But since feminists have conflated drunken mistakes and otherwise bad decisions as 'rape', of course some people have been made to think a sizable amount of abortions are circumstances women shouldn't be accountable for.

 

[Archivist]

I don't think I've said anything argumentative, I'm just responding to you. If you stop making comments about the statistics then I won't have anything to respond to. We can certainly agree that it's a small number. My realistic number based upon actual statistics is small, and your made up number is also small.

If you aren't arguing the point, why didn't you simply agree with my statement 8 posts ago that we can agree that the number is small. BTW, my number is not "made up," I'm simply not providing evidence because I'm not arguing the point, you are. I'm agreeing with you that the percentage is relatively small

Are we talking about instances in which the child located inside the womb is viable or not? If the unborn child is viable, then as each possess equal inherent moral worth, the goal of the doctor should be to save both. If the doctor were to think that he had a 95% chance of saving the child, but only a 5% chance of saving the mother, why should he try to save the mother instead?

The problem is the principle from which you are deriving your practices. You seem to think that the unborn human child does not possess the same inherent moral worth and value as the human located outside the womb. I don't see why that should be the case.

Can you put forth a positive argument that supports this assertion? I think the fetus is a life in being located inside a womb. The pregnant woman is a life in being located outside the womb. I suppose you would need to define "in being" though I suspect the way in which you want to use it would force you to beg the question.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "life in being." A fetus en ventre sa mere cannot be a life in being.

Why would you want to take away a woman's right to protect her own life and assign that decision to a third party? I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, I know you want to live but I've decided that you will be the one to die. No, the choice must rest with the pregnant woman.

 

[Archivist]

Nah, it's 99%.
Pregnancy in cases of rape are so statistically small it can't even be used as a valid argument.

But since feminists have conflated drunken mistakes and otherwise bad decisions as 'rape', of course some people have been made to think a sizable amount of abortions are circumstances women shouldn't be accountable for.

When did I say that "a sizable amount of abortions are circumstances women shouldn't be accountable for?" I've said that rape, incent and life or health of the mother account for about 5% of abortions altogether. That isn't a "sizable amount."

 

[SPF]

Why would you want to take away a woman's right to protect her own life and assign that decision to a third party? I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, I know you want to live but I've decided that you will be the one to die. No, the choice must rest with the pregnant woman.

In which of the hypothetical scenarios that I provided did you determine that this question was applicable? Here they are again:

1. If event x involves a life threatening event to only the nonviable unborn child, then the doctor should do everything he can to save the unborn child.

2. If event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, then hopefully the doctor could save both lives.

3. if event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, but for reason y the doctor will only be able to save one life, then barring a pleading intervention from the mother to sacrifice herself to save her child, I would probably save the mother. Not because the mother possesses more inherent moral worth, but she possesses more utilitarian worth. Certainly a difficult and unenviable situation either way for the doctor.

Again, the morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the mother's womb. It has nothing to do with womens' rights, or the how in which the human life came into existence. The question that must be answered is simple: Does the unborn human being possess inherent moral worth and value, or is moral worth and value something that is not intrinsic to humans? That is the question that needs to be answered. From that principle, we can then derive what actions are moral and immoral.

 

[Archivist]

In which of the hypothetical scenarios that I provided did you determine that this question was applicable? Here they are again:

1. If event x involves a life threatening event to only the nonviable unborn child, then the doctor should do everything he can to save the unborn child.

2. If event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, then hopefully the doctor could save both lives.

3. if event x involves a life threatening event to both the mother and a viable unborn child, but for reason y the doctor will only be able to save one life, then barring a pleading intervention from the mother to sacrifice herself to save her child, I would probably save the mother. Not because the mother possesses more inherent moral worth, but she possesses more utilitarian worth. Certainly a difficult and unenviable situation either way for the doctor.

Again, the morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the mother's womb. It has nothing to do with womens' rights, or the how in which the human life came into existence. The question that must be answered is simple: Does the unborn human being possess inherent moral worth and value, or is moral worth and value something that is not intrinsic to humans? That is the question that needs to be answered. From that principle, we can then derive what actions are moral and immoral.

But that isn't what you said way back in your post number 20. There you said the following:

"I would say that people who hold this line of reasoning are mistaken. The first thing to recognize is that 99% of all abortions are done for convenience sake. So when we are talking about the rare instance where there is a life threatening event to both the mother and the unborn child, I personally think the prudent thing is for the doctor to look at both mother and child as his patients. As the doctor, it's his job to do his best to save the lives of both. However, in rare circumstances, this is not possible. I would say that in that terrible situation the doctor simply must make the best medical decision he can."

I have not disagreed with you at all on your first or second points. The only point that I have disagreed with is your statement that the doctor simply must make the best medical decision he can when both lives are at risk. Once again, that choice must rest with the pregnant woman, not the doctor.

 

[SPF]

Why would the pregnant woman have the right to determine whether or not the unborn child lives or dies instead of the doctor?

Let's say that the unborn child had reached the age of viability. Let's say we have a seemingly healthy 8.5 month old unborn child. There's a car accident. The mother is taken in and is about to have surgery. The mother is conscious and is telling the doctor that she doesn't want to die. The doctor however, seeing what the mother does not realizes that there is about a 5% chance that he can save her, and attempting to save her will inevitably kill the unborn child. However, he's 100% certain that he can save the unborn child if he acts immediately, but he knows that saving the unborn child will turn the 95% chance the mother will die into a 100% chance the mother will die.

Why would the decision about what to do rest with the mother instead of the doctor performing the operation?

I think the only answer you can give is that the mother's life is worth more than the unborn child's life. And that takes us back to the very beginning of the argument. It sounds like you're begging the question.

 

[Archivist]

Why would the pregnant woman have the right to determine whether or not the unborn child lives or dies instead of the doctor?

Let's say that the unborn child had reached the age of viability. Let's say we have a seemingly healthy 8.5 month old unborn child. There's a car accident. The mother is taken in and is about to have surgery. The mother is conscious and is telling the doctor that she doesn't want to die. The doctor however, seeing what the mother does not realizes that there is about a 5% chance that he can save her, and attempting to save her will inevitably kill the unborn child. However, he's 100% certain that he can save the unborn child if he acts immediately, but he knows that saving the unborn child will turn the 95% chance the mother will die into a 100% chance the mother will die.

Why would the decision about what to do rest with the mother instead of the doctor performing the operation?

I think the only answer you can give is that the mother's life is worth more than the unborn child's life. And that takes us back to the very beginning of the argument. It sounds like you're begging the question.

Because she is a life in being. The fetus is a potential life in being. Her decision trumps.

Lets change your hypo. There has been a car accident. Both the pregnant woman and the fetus have a 50% chance of survival, but the doctor cannot save both. Do you still want to take the choice away from the pregnant woman?

 

[Wolfe]

Because she is a life in being. The fetus is a potential life in being. Her decision trumps.

No, a fetus is a life, as much as a born person is a life.

No embryologist would tell you different, so when it is aborted, you're very much killing a baby.

I gotta say, it's quite scary how casual you'd throw away a babies life.