Forum:Go back to clothes hangers?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Okay, I put this in the forum rather than SB because the topic is abortion and I don't want to clog up the SB with the inevitable tidal wave of shit. I just want a very specific point asked. I was sent a link to this interview with Ellen Page, and while it's mostly interesting, her comment on abortion is something that bugs me. Yes, I totally agree with it. However, is it technically an argument from adverse consequences to say this sort of thing? This is all I'm asking and want answered so if people could try to keep it on this individual thing rather than retreading well-worn ground it'd be much appreciated. Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst, yes, it's an argument from adverse consequences the full argument usually goes Whatever one's views on the moral rights and wrongs of abortion they are always going to happen so it would be best if they were to happen under proper medical circumstances.
The You're killing babies brigade will point out that if you consider abortion to be murder as abortion is always, under all circumstances, incontrovertibly murder and those that disagree are evil/ignorant/immoral/amoral/all of the above then this argument doesn't hold much water at which point we're off, let the flame wars commence. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is an argument form adverse consequence, that is why the pro-choice movement needs a better argument. - π 13:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd phrase that that is why the pro-choice movement should use it's many better arguments. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. Whilst I probably come down on the side of pro-choice, it is more to do with how much the pro-life arguments/strategies/politics annoys me rather than ever having heard a convincing pro-choice argument. - π 14:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, come to think of it properly, Adverse Consequences only really applies as a fallacy when you're arguing if something is true or not - i.e., a scientific theory ("gravity causes people to die when they fall so must be false" etc.). So probably doesn't apply here. Or should it? After all, you'd be considering the morality of the act itself rather than what it results in. Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Consider it like this:
Making abortion illegal will cause women to have illegal abortions
Illegal abortions are less safe than legal abortion
Therefore abortion should be legal
That is a classic argument from adverse consequences, although a lot of moral and legal are. Consider murder:
If murder is not illegal, more people will commit murder
People being murdered is bad, as they die
Therefore we should outlaw murder.
Whilst again a logical fallacy overall the premise is good. - π 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A Convincing Pro-Choice Argument[edit]

Whilst there are many conflicting viewpoints it can be argued that, to all intents and purposes, a foetus at 20 weeks or less, has failed to achieve "personhood" in as much as:-

  • There is no meaningful brain activity
  • The foetus would not survive outside the womb

As such the rights of the mother, who has achieved personhood, supersede those of the foetus and, if it is in the mother's best interests to terminate the pregnancy, then it should be her right so to do.

Naturally there is much there that the pro-life lobby would disagree with. They tend to take the view that "personhood" is achieved at conception - this is EL's line. However both the legal and medical worlds tend to take the 20 week line. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have always had with the pro-choice argument is it is being put forward by someone who themselves was not aborted and are no longer at risk. - π 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
could you expand on "no meaningful brain activity" ? 20 weeks is 5 months, I would have expected full autonomic nervous system at that time. Following that path if you are in the hospital in a coma you have no meaningful brain activity so dropping you in the dumpster is fine. I don't agree with that. The argument is better, not good but better if you argue that there are no legal consequences to a miscarriage , and an abortion is an elective miscarriage. I don't follow the coathanger issue, a bicycle spoke is a much nicer stabbing tool Hamster (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This is anything but convincing. My cat has meaningful brain activity and she can survive outside the womb, but I don't consider her to be a person - even though I love her very much, obviously. The thing is that this is not brain activity or degree of physical development that makes one person. You may have this dejavuthing when you are reading this, but personhood is defined only by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. --Earthland (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I knew this would bring EL back out of the woodwork. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Crundy. You're getting very Ken-like answering 18-month old threads. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 09:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the thread popped back up to the top of the list because of some reverted wandalism and I didn't check the dates. </Ken> CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)