tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.comments2024-01-02T07:16:42.491-05:00Thinking Critically About AbortionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-64710148429251228662024-01-02T07:16:42.491-05:002024-01-02T07:16:42.491-05:00I assume you are responding to this (other?) anony...I assume you are responding to this (other?) anonymous person. <br /><br />They are not saying that no fetuses have any rights (although they may think that). They are saying that, like you and me, a fetus doesn't have a right to anyone else's body. <br /><br />About "fetus" versus "baby" we might think that far later fetuses are babies since they look like babies and have feelings like babies. Embryos and early fetuses need not be called babies. See www.AbortionArguments.com Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-44378564092676598652024-01-02T05:09:19.567-05:002024-01-02T05:09:19.567-05:00I find interesting that in essence you are saying ...I find interesting that in essence you are saying a fetus has no rights. When do you decide it’s no longer a fetus but a baby??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-17113561965018637672023-11-10T06:57:08.995-05:002023-11-10T06:57:08.995-05:00Hi, "murder" means "wrongful killin...Hi, "murder" means "wrongful killing (of a person)" and so what's said here is what's called "question begging" or assuming what you are would need to support. Please see the section in the book on question-begging arguments. <br /><br />Calling an embryo or beginning fetus a "child" is also question begging: see the section on definitions of abortion. Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-76247715614252608342023-11-09T20:00:02.611-05:002023-11-09T20:00:02.611-05:00
This isn’t really how the arguments go, however....<br /><br />This isn’t really how the arguments go, however. This is a bit too charitable on the pro-choice side and the key point missing in the anti-abortion side is that those who condemn abortion assume the foetus is an innocent human life and deliberately destroying an innocent human life is murder. It is the murder that is wrong, not the abortion per se. There are multitudes of exceptions where abortion is entirely morally plausible (e.g. ectopic pregnancy) as no murder is taking place when you remove a fallopian tube that will certainly rupture and kill both mother and child. No one on the anti-abortion side truly has such a black-and-white view of abortion. <br />Neither do pro-choice activists. The key issue pro-choice activists struggle with is when do we say it’s permissible to murder? Most would like to say “never” and would do, but they put a box around abortion as an exception. Then when you ask why in this case is murder licit? And then come the more sophisticated excuses of bodily autonomy or they push back against the personhood argument claiming it may be human life in there, but it’s not a person and it’s permissible to murder non-persons. But what it essentially boils down to, is that for pro-choice persons murder is entirely possible for a wide range of circumstances - inconvenience, financial stress, emotional stress, duress, not wanting to see someone in pain etc.<br /><br />Most pro-choice persons will never have to engage in abortion other than from their armchair (thankfully) but for those who do, the realisation of destroying human life catches up with them eventually. This is why it’s pernicious and should be illegal in almost every circumstance, not just to protect the child.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-56679582971011500362023-01-16T20:50:33.037-05:002023-01-16T20:50:33.037-05:00No. This isn't doing that since a common meani...No. This isn't doing that since a common meaning of "human being" that entails that human beings in this sense are prima facie wrong to kill. Did you not read this post you are commenting on?Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-81231409335934790822023-01-16T20:40:51.964-05:002023-01-16T20:40:51.964-05:00Because you’re simply taking it for granted that i...Because you’re simply taking it for granted that it’s wrong to kill human beings instead of explaining why. Is it simply because we’re alive? Well, that doesn’t make sense since we don’t think it’s wrong to kill any and all living things. It’s something more. We think human beings are special, for better or worse, not just for being alive (many non human things are too!) but because we think human beings are special in some way. And even then, there are cases of justified killing of human beings, so not all killing of humans is deemed wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-68672316622478751282022-09-21T18:58:31.003-04:002022-09-21T18:58:31.003-04:00It looks like the court changed it's mind on t...It looks like the court changed it's mind on that, on the basis of bad arguments.Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-18225469804357253552022-09-21T18:51:27.604-04:002022-09-21T18:51:27.604-04:00And to you I say that an individual’s right to con...And to you I say that an individual’s right to consent or refuse consent to access the interior of their body does not depend on your assessment or approval of their motives for doing so.<br />The courts have already established that one person’s need to access the interior of another’s body in order to survive does not grant the right to such access. A fetus does not have more rights than other human beings.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-12057057007709967912022-09-21T18:48:23.484-04:002022-09-21T18:48:23.484-04:00Hi, that's current law, and we know that laws ...Hi, that's current law, and we know that laws can change. Laws could change to require some beneficience, although not necessarily along the lines you suggest.Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-53919884190537866852022-09-21T18:45:36.001-04:002022-09-21T18:45:36.001-04:00But you're not just claiming a right to life; ...But you're not just claiming a right to life; you're adding the right to use someone else's organs, a right that no other person enjoys.<br /><br />The part of the law you’re missing is that no person’s need for the use of another’s body grants him the right to such use, regardless of the “innocence” of that need. If that we’re not the case, we’d regularly be forcing blood donations, marrow donations, and organ transplants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-69013488954377427012022-07-19T12:39:29.006-04:002022-07-19T12:39:29.006-04:00Thanks but whether, when and why that's wrong ...Thanks but whether, when and why that's wrong or not is the question. Here's a follow-up on all that:<br /><br />https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-68682374914355858612022-07-19T12:30:01.192-04:002022-07-19T12:30:01.192-04:00Regardless the ethical questions, an embryo at con...Regardless the ethical questions, an embryo at conception is a life which much be terminated in order to prevent it's continued existence. This is true whether or not one holds a degree in biology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-21192795620554693162022-07-17T20:13:57.419-04:002022-07-17T20:13:57.419-04:00Thanks, yes. In addition to this "can" c...Thanks, yes. In addition to this "can" claim though what's also needed is an explanation of what can happen, must happen: there's an obligation to make it happen. See the section on arguments from potential in TCAB. Thanks!<br /><br />Yes, it's too bad more "conservatives" aren't libertarians!Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-69721687356595861982022-07-17T20:07:45.553-04:002022-07-17T20:07:45.553-04:00A cancerous tumor is made from human cells and is ...A cancerous tumor is made from human cells and is biologically alive, though we remove as soon as they are found. The defining characteristics: "of human cells," and "biologically alive," are not exclusive to human fetuses. You'd have to at the least add 1 more defining characteristic, "will/can grow into fully formed human." Though after you add this characteristic and/or create a definition narrow enough to target the fetus apart from other human organs or growths ect you end up admitting the fetus is not the same as an alive human and/or that terminating a fetus up to a certain point does not meet the standards required to criminalize the mother for a private medical procedure. Big government doesnt belong in the bedroom and big gov doesnt belong in the doctors office. Church doesnt belong in schools or the law. <br /><br />- concerned libertarian Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-30483704443111429422022-07-06T22:50:47.881-04:002022-07-06T22:50:47.881-04:00Hi, you have many questions here. A short answer t...Hi, you have many questions here. A short answer to some of them is that these things are biologically alive, but that that's not what matters. Maybe this will help:<br /><br />https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-5024654317804680852022-07-06T22:45:17.647-04:002022-07-06T22:45:17.647-04:00Like most people- I have zero training/schooling i...Like most people- I have zero training/schooling in any field beyond my kitchen so my questions may come off as "dumb" compared to these wonderfully well written articles- but I'm going to ask them nonetheless. Are my eggs not "living"? What about sperm? If life begins at conception, where do harvested embryos fall on the "scale of living"? If I understood someone correctly who went through the procedure of having embryos harvested- they are fertilized, implanted and then removed 4-6 weeks after implantation has occurred. Then kept frozen until needed or wanted. Also- a woman is technically about 2 weeks pregnant PRIOR TO fertilization. **YES- a woman's "pregnancy clock" begins BEFORE they have sex to fertilize that egg. When sperm meets egg, woman is already 2 weeks along. At "4 weeks", the egg has been fertilized approximately 2 weeks. Implantation takes 7-10 days so the embryo has been attached to the uterine wall for a matter of DAYS only.** Are scientists charged with negligence if those embryos are not stored correctly or if there is a malfunction in the equipment (like freezers)? What about any unnecessary embryos that remain? What about those that can not be used due to time? Are bans in place to restrict the number of embryos that can be kept to lower the death toll? If life ends at "death", when we take our final breath, why does life begin prior to the first breath? If life ends at the final heartbeat, where would those who have devices to keep their hearts going fall on that spectrum? The heart is not fully developed until weeks 8-11. Is THAT when "life starts", once the heart is completely formed? I must admit that my thought processes obviously falls very short of how a biologist or someone with a doctorate may think so again, excuse my level of ignorance. No- I don't have a firm opinion on abortion. I feel like there are so many murky areas that leave this far from a clear cut subject. One more thing- a comment above states that abortion should only be when mother's life is in danger. Does that mean mother's physical wellbeing? Life or death physically? Or is that her mental and psychological wellbeing too? I realize mental health is only important in *some* situations so I am curious if this would be one of those times...? Should law makers be the people who determine when each mother's life is at risk or are those decisions best left to actual MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS? Should law makers dictate when you or your loved one needs services? Or should a physician be the person to turn to for those things? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-33356577893498376132022-06-30T06:11:48.492-04:002022-06-30T06:11:48.492-04:00"a woman has no right to kill the Fetus unles..."a woman has no right to kill the Fetus unless medically necessary to save her own life."<br /><br />Maybe, but why? A beginning fetus is very much not like a refuge.Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-46424037917368059872022-06-18T11:38:42.436-04:002022-06-18T11:38:42.436-04:00Thanks for responding, but without any details and...Thanks for responding, but without any details and reasons to substantiate these bold claims, we should not take what you are saying seriously. Right? Thanks!Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-43470304817799277812022-06-18T11:31:48.041-04:002022-06-18T11:31:48.041-04:00Calling this a “critical thinking” blog is a gross...Calling this a “critical thinking” blog is a gross farce. All that is being done here are feeble attempts to make abortion okay no matter what while trying to sound intellectually superior. The arguments given fail on both accounts!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-23497038892247028312022-04-30T10:49:38.630-04:002022-04-30T10:49:38.630-04:00Thank you! Thank you! Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-32014665807955083032022-04-28T07:23:21.177-04:002022-04-28T07:23:21.177-04:00Thank you! This is all really interesting and help...Thank you! This is all really interesting and helpful!Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-45482488092597957722022-04-28T06:12:19.865-04:002022-04-28T06:12:19.865-04:00Really great article.
Want to offer my take on t...Really great article. <br /><br />Want to offer my take on the time when a fetus "develops consciousness." While the structures in the brain may be there around a certain point in gestation, there are several factors that suggest consciousness hasn't genuinely begun yet. For example, the digestive system may be present at some point, but it isn't until after birth that this system will be used. Kidney function partially begins to function in utero but isn't fully relied on till after birth. Lungs may expand and "practice" breathing, but this doesn't actually carry out any real function.<br /><br />I mean, that's what happens during gestation - it gets this new human body built and it's reasonable to assume that as the parts build, they will begin to function in to a degree without actually achieving the desired effect of that function. <br /><br />Scientific American offered in this article called "When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ that consciousness develops in the human fetus and ultimately "flips on" at the crescendo of birth: "a massive surge of norepinephrine—more powerful than during any skydive or exposed climb the fetus may undertake in its adult life—as well as the release from anesthesia and sedation that occurs when the fetus disconnects from the maternal placenta, arouses the baby so that it can deal with its new circumstances. It draws its first breath, wakes up and begins to experience life."<br /><br />I would recommend reading some of Elselijn Kingma's journals. Particularly her article on "Were you a Part of your Mother" which argues for the "parthood" model of pregnancy as opposed to the "containment" model. While you might be unable to find that article available easily anymore, I wrote a summary of it on my blog here: https://philosophyinutero.blogspot.com/2020/09/parthood-view-of-pregnancy-makes-more.html<br /><br />Would also recommend her article on artificial wombs. This one responds to how we define birth and how artificial wombs challenge the "containment" model of pregnancy's idea of birth being about moving from one location to another: "First, gestatelings are treated as if they had never been born, not in the sense that they haven’t left the maternal body—for they have—but in the sense that they haven’t undergone the transition from a fetal physiology to a neonatal physiology. Thus they are only “born” in the sense that they have changed location from inside to outside the maternal body, i.e. “born-by-location-change”. But they are not “born” in the sense that they have changed their physiology from fetus to neonate, i.e. “born-by-physiology-change.”'<br /><br />A fetus undergoes physiological changes at birth. Their physiology is directly correlated with the pregnant person and thus points to the parthood nature of a fetus to a pregnant person's body. It is physiologically comprised in the way that it is in direct response to the physiological connection with the maternal body.<br /><br />Thought you might like to read her articles. It bridges the gap between biology and philosophy for me.Jahzarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03482455755838953720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-34935057752704708012021-12-01T17:27:23.445-05:002021-12-01T17:27:23.445-05:00I may misunderstand what you are saying but here&#...I may misunderstand what you are saying but here's something to keep in mind: not everything said in support of true and justified claims must be true or justified: there can be bad arguments for good views. Maybe that's relevant here?Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-89151524622878876632021-12-01T17:25:18.523-05:002021-12-01T17:25:18.523-05:00Thanks for your response, which is puzzling given ...Thanks for your response, which is puzzling given the goals of this page. This page is based on a book with the subtitle "Why Most Abortions Are Not Wrong and Why All Abortions Should be Legal." Did you not realize that? Nathan Nobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152631338134046080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-2726461307154508242021-12-01T17:20:12.437-05:002021-12-01T17:20:12.437-05:00Hi a tad late but have to respond. And I apologize...Hi a tad late but have to respond. And I apologize in advance because this is going to seem very generalizing and mean. <br /> In examining your article and comments I noticed that you do as many pro lifers christian evangelists do.....you go silent as BerBer accurately pointed out or you find a way to blame the woman("she shouldve kept her legs closed" as if women have kids by themselves and I dare you to say that to someone who got raped....I tried to keep my legs closed he forced them open btw). Thus as a female POC, you just reinforce my suspicions that the whole pro life has nothing to do with the sanctity of life at all but with the sanctity of control. The control of white heterosexual men(like yourself based on your photo) over everyone else. Because as BerBer and George Carlin(may he R.I.P) pointed most of you pro life till the child is born then could care less once a live birth occurs especially if the child is not white. My experience as a caseworker, a homeless shelter and food pantry volunteer allows me this very snide, broad and cynical remark...sorry And the same politicians you all elect who talk about the "sanctity of life" are the ones that want abortions to be available when their side chicks get knocked up. Also allow me to play devils advocate but those same politicians have no problem signing death warrants for men already born on death row(and I am pro death penalty btw)In addition, I noticed that your crowd is noticeably silent when acts of hate were committed against people already born(Charleston church shooting, Atlanta shooting, Armaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor etc) stopping their beating hearts. Oh wait, they weren't white....my bad. Sorry again but it's look very pro forced birth from where I stand. <br />I have posed these points to several like you and I get no response or some strawman argument about big bad Planned Parenthood and the same tired argument of Margaret Sanger being racist. Pro choice means much more than your vague generalizations. I believe in the woman's right to choose. Her choice and her reproductive destiny. If she chooses to carry her pregnancy to term I will support her wholeheartedly. If she chooses to terminate her pregnancy, for whatever HER reasons(which are not for me, you, any of your pro life friends, those HBIC (head bigots in charge) in GA, AL, and FL, holy rolling christians be they catholic baptist whatever to judge) I support her. The decision should be hers and the partner if he is in the picture. So long story short as far as the epithet of "forced birther" being applied to you thanks to your silence or downright dismissal towards in regards to other lives (like the mother of the child, POC, men and women on death row, victims of hate crimes) if the shoe fits wear it....once again Sorry GenXbutmoreMillenialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10686942127039583173noreply@blogger.com