Permissibility Of Abortion

[Ran]

All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

According to the principle that the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong, options that directly assault the violinist -- giving the violinist a fatal injection or dismembering his body, for example -- are morally contraindicated.

Now whether the option of severing the connection between the violinist and the victim is morally permissible, I'll give this further reflection.

[Carborendum]

...What would be the difference between aborting the fetus of a woman who was raped or killing the newborn child of the woman who was raped? In both cases, the woman did not have agency -- she didn't choose to become pregnant.

A rape victim who carries the child to term has two choices:

A) Abort or not abort. and

B) Raise or adopt.

When given these choices, she cannot then justifiably ask for further choices that will justify killing. Not that abortion is "explicitly" considered killing.

bu11fr0g stated above that ensoulment does not take place until birth. If he is right...

He is NOT right. I know of no official statement from the Church as to when the soul enters the body. We DO, however, know that the sould is firmly in the body at the moment of birth. But this does not mean that there is no soul in the body before that moment. We are firmly in the "We don't know" camp on that issue.

As for the exception for the life or health of the mother, it is then a clear cut case of self-defense. If anyone does something that will harm/kill me, I'm justified in defending myself by any means necessary. This principle doesn't change if the other person is a fetus.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Carborendum

[Nathair/|\]

Thank you! On the vision of the redemption of the dead received by Joseph F. Smith, however, I don't think it is qualitatively any different from other revelations recorded in the D&C, notably the vision of the three degrees of glory. There may be a case for arguing that all revelatory experience is essentially "mystical" in nature. The Islamic mystics would have certainly argued that way. But I don't think there is legitimate ground for singling out that particular vision as a mystical experience, different from the other revelations recorded in the D&C.

I'm not trying to single out that one to say it is categorically different, it's just the one that I've seen specifically referred to. The context was a response to Nibley's Prophets and Mystics essay. (I've also heard that Nibley himself said that that was one of the things he was wrong about, but I can't substantiate that claim.)

[webbles]

The standard paper on abortion from a philosophical point of view is Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion", you might want to check it out.

A relevant point in said paper is the following:

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. but now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous

unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers {49} has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you— we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

I've heard the violinist analogy and I've never seen the value of it. To get pregnant, except for rape, you kind of have to be involved. You are not kidnapped and forcibly plugged into the circulatory system of the fetus. If you don't want to be pregnant, then stop at the very beginning.

[Alvino]

According to the principle that the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong, options that directly assault the violinist -- giving the violinist a fatal injection or dismembering his body, for example -- are morally contraindicated.

Now whether the option of severing the connection between the violinist and the victim is morally permissible, I'll give this further reflection.

I don't know what you mean by "direct". How I think of the word, simply disconnecting a little cable from your arm (let's say that's how you are connected to the violinist) seems pretty 'direct'. He's innocent, too.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

I've heard the violinist analogy and I've never seen the value of it. To get pregnant, except for rape, you kind of have to be involved. You are not kidnapped and forcibly plugged into the circulatory system of the fetus. If you don't want to be pregnant, then stop at the very beginning.

The violinist argument is against the idea that abortion in cases of rape is wrong when the reason is that the baby is an innocent person...

She also gives reasons in favor of the permissibility of abortion when the mother is in danger.

She also gives reasons in favor of the permissibility of abortion in cases of voluntary sexual intercourse.

In other words, read the paper.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Alvino

[webbles]

The violinist argument is against the idea that abortion in cases of rape is wrong when the reason is that the baby is an innocent person...

She also gives reasons in favor of the permissibility of abortion when the mother is in danger.

She also gives reasons in favor of the permissibility of abortion in cases of voluntary sexual intercourse.

In other words, read the paper.

I read the paper. I think a much better quote from it would be:

It seems to me that the argument we are looking at can establish at most that there are some cases in which the unborn person has a right to the use of its mother's body, and therefore some cases in which abortion is unjust killing.

And that is how I view things. There are 3 cases where abortion is permissible (after much fasting and prayer). All other cases were voluntary and so the fetus has a right to its mother's body because the mother allowed it in. And her "people-seeds" argument about voluntary sexual intercourse is pretty weak.

[Ran]

I don't know what you mean by "direct". How I think of the word, simply disconnecting a little cable from your arm (let's say that's how you are connected to the violinist) seems pretty 'direct'. He's innocent, too.

Direct killing is to cause death by a direct action on the body itself. The cable is not the body of the violinist. In disconnection, the cable is being directly acted upon, not the body. This is in contrast to causing death by dismembering the body or injecting the body with a fatal solution.

[Alvino]

There are 3 cases where abortion is permissible (after much fasting and prayer). All other cases were voluntary and so the fetus has a right to its mother's body because the mother allowed it in.

OK, so, what did the pregnant woman consent to: getting pregnant or taking the risk? That distinction is crucial but it's clear that you are talking about taking the risk of getting pregnant. The problem there, as Thomson mentions in her paper, is the following:

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would it be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house—for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars {59} burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in.

How do you respond to that?

And her "people-seeds" argument about voluntary sexual intercourse is pretty weak.

Why do you think it's weak?

Here's Thomson's thought experiment just for convenience:

Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't

want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As it happens, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not—despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do—for by the same token anyone can avoid pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

[Alvino]

Direct killing is to cause death by a direct action on the body itself. The cable is not the body of the violinist. In disconnection, the cable is being directly acted upon, not the body. This is in contrast to causing death by dismembering the body or injecting the body with a fatal solution.

1. Why is killing the baby inside the womb relevant? If the fetus is aborted within the first 15 weeks of conception it won't survive so there's no relevant difference between killing it inside the womb or taking it outside and leaving it to inevitably die.

2. How is "direct killing" of any relevance here? If it's not 'direct' you are not against it or what?

3. About your "direct killing", now you added the idea of "direct action on the body itself". I'm going to have to ask you to now say what "direct action on the body itself" means. Is chemical and biological warfare used on innocent civilians for fun not immoral for you? What about bombs? What killing doesn't involve direct action on the body itself, btw? Doctors use tools to kill the fetus, is that indirect?

[webbles]

OK, so, what did the pregnant woman consent to: getting pregnant or taking the risk? That distinction is crucial but it's clear that you are talking about taking the risk of getting pregnant. The problem there, as Thomson mentions in her paper, is the following:

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would it be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house—for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars {59} burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in.

How do you respond to that?

The problem with using buglars in the scenario is that they have their own conscience and make the decision to buglar the house. A fetus doesn't. The fetus is not breaking and entering. It was allowed in.

An innocent person is a little bit better but with pregnancy you have to actively do something. You don't just sit around and wait for pregnancy to happen. It would be more like waiting outside of your house and seeing an innocent person and pushing them into your home.

So the entire scenario is absurd when trying to relate with pregnancy.

Why do you think it's weak?

Here's Thomson's thought experiment just for convenience:

Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't

want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As it happens, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not—despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do—for by the same token anyone can avoid pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

Because as she states "you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors". What is wrong with that? If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. Plain and simple. Her statement on why "this won't do" doesn't seem to make any sense to me. And it is probably because I'm ok with abortion because of rape.

[Alvino]

The problem with using buglars in the scenario is that they have their own conscience and make the decision to buglar the house. A fetus doesn't.

The point in mentioning burglars is to use it as a reductio ad absurdum in which, if you say that you are partly guilty or at fault for making it somewhat easier for a bad thing to happen to you, then you have to accept that a burglar getting into your house because you opened the window to get some fresh air is OK since this person now has a good claim on being there. That's clearly absurd. The point was not about getting pregnant by consensual sex there, that was addressed by someone who blunders in.

The fetus is not breaking and entering. It was allowed in.

I agree if by "allowed in" you mean simply doing something that just might increase the chances of it happening, not that he is wanted.

An innocent person is a little bit better but with pregnancy you have to actively do something. You don't just sit around and wait for pregnancy to happen. It would be more like waiting outside of your house and seeing an innocent person and pushing them into your home.

Brother, you are missing the point. The child is NOT wanted in that scenario. What is wanted is the opening of the window and the criticism to saying that "Well, she DID open the window" as a reason for saying that the fetus now has a right claim on the mother's body is that, in that case, women could avoid getting pregnant for sure by getting an hysterectomy. Another similar example is like saying that it is right for you to be left to die in the street if you have a car accident because, after all, you DID decide to drive that day and knew the risks involved in driving.

So the entire scenario is absurd when trying to relate with pregnancy.

You might want to read a little bit more carefully.

Because as she states "you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors". What is wrong with that? If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. Plain and simple.

"If you don't want to be involved in a car accident, don't drive!"

Do I really have to explain why that is a very silly view, webbles? Put it this way: If you accept that attitude that means EVERYONE is responsible for everything they did that they knew it involved some risk, as small as it might be, and it happened to turn out against them by some event or other. "A deer jumped in front of you while driving and trying to avoid it you crashed and are now unable to walk? It's your fault. You DID pick up the car that night, did you not? Did you not know that deers MIGHT jump in front of your car and cause you to have an accident? There you go, then. It's your fault." "You got swept up and your family killed in a tsunami? Well, you DID decide to take your family to that beach knowing that it was possible, however unlikely, that there might be one. It's YOUR fault that your family got killed in it. You could have decided not to be there and take the risk." Etc. That's how callous your view is, webbles.

Her statement on why "this won't do" doesn't seem to make any sense to me. And it is probably because I'm ok with abortion because of rape.

Let's see. She said that won't do because:

"But this won't do—for by the same token anyone can avoid pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army." -- Judith Jarvis Thomson

What doesn't make sense about it? Remember, here she's talking about people who use contraceptive measures. The idea is, as I've tried to mention already, that if taking ANY RISK AT ALL is the standard for being responsible for getting pregnant, then women who get raped because they went out of their houses are at fault and responsible for having gotten pregnant by getting raped.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Alvino

[Calm]

I often get allergy attacks if I sleep with the window so I have to make a choice, do I want to sleep with the windows open bad enough to get an attack? I may lessen the likelihood of getting an attack by various measures (filters on the windows for example), but I know that there is a likelihood of me getting one to a certain percentage without anyone else's involvement. If I get an attack, I have no one to blame but myself. I put myself in harm's way knowing that it could occur. Unless someone knowingly puts themselves in the way of a rapist, one cannot apply that same level of reasoning because unlike allergy attacks and pregnancy, rape has a mind behind it. Now if someone came up to me and grabbed me and shoved my head into a sack full of pollen, that person would be responsible for my attack because he is the one who chose to expose me at that place and time to a level of allergen that was risky for me.

There is no contraceptive that is 100% guaranteed and any woman who uses it with sex is accepting that percentage. This is not like a burglary where there is some mind behind it acting of its own volition. Sperm don't intentionally go looking for weaknesses, the person you are having sex with isn't intentionally getting you pregnant so it is simply a matter of likelihood. You can put all the barriers you want between yourself and the sperm but until they come up with a 100% no failure rate (even sterilization can reverse themselves), then you are knowingly engaging in a certain level of risk.

The only way to get a 100% no risk of pregnancy is abstinence or radical surgery and those who chose that method for themselves, who are willing to make that level of self control and sacrifice to not get pregnant have a different moral obligation than those who engage in sexual behaviour that involve risks. Trying to equate the actions of mindless sperm with the actions of a thinking human being who rapes people is a category error of logic, IIRC.

Edited October 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Vance]

I keep thinking about the statement, "Give me liberty of give me death".

Why the assumption that given the choice, the "fetus" (or more correctly the spirit within the fetus, if indeed the spirit has entered the "fetus") would ALWAYS choose to impose his life upon an unwilling rape victim thus turning her into a slave, and also live as the offspring of a rapist?

Why the assumption that said spirit has no further opportunity?

[webbles]

The point in mentioning burglars is to use it as a reductio ad absurdum in which, if you say that you are partly guilty or at fault for making it somewhat easier for a bad thing to happen to you, then you have to accept that a burglar getting into your house because you opened the window to get some fresh air is OK since this person now has a good claim on being there. That's clearly absurd. The point was not about getting pregnant by consensual sex there, that was addressed by someone who blunders in.

I agree if by "allowed in" you mean simply doing something that just might increase the chances of it happening, not that he is wanted.

Brother, you are missing the point. The child is NOT wanted in that scenario. What is wanted is the opening of the window and the criticism to saying that "Well, she DID open the window" as a reason for saying that the fetus now has a right claim on the mother's body is that, in that case, women could avoid getting pregnant for sure by getting an hysterectomy. Another similar example is like saying that it is right for you to be left to die in the street if you have a car accident because, after all, you DID decide to drive that day and knew the risks involved in driving.

You might want to read a little bit more carefully.

I'm glad that we agree with the burglar scenario is more akin to rape than to consensual sex. But the blundering still doesn't work. Opening a window and then someone falling in is not the same thing as consensual sex. If you really want it to work, change the scenario so that right outside the window is hundreds of people walking into the window. When you open it, by chance one of those people that are walking into the window actually walk into your house. You knew that people were walking into the window. You knew that opening the window would let them in. And yet you still did it.

The car accident scenario doesn't work as I explain below with your deer analogy.

"If you don't want to be involved in a car accident, don't drive!"

Do I really have to explain why that is a very silly view, webbles? Put it this way: If you accept that attitude that means EVERYONE is responsible for everything they did that they knew it involved some risk, as small as it might be, and it happened to turn out against them by some event or other. "A deer jumped in front of you while driving and trying to avoid it you crashed and are now unable to walk? It's your fault. You DID pick up the car that night, did you not? Did you not know that deers MIGHT jump in front of your car and cause you to have an accident? There you go, then. It's your fault." "You got swept up and your family killed in a tsunami? Well, you DID decide to take your family to that beach knowing that it was possible, however unlikely, that there might be one. It's YOUR fault that your family got killed in it. You could have decided not to be there and take the risk." Etc. That's how callous your view is, webbles.

Sex, by definition, causes pregnancy. Driving doesn't cause car crashes. Your analogy with deer would be better if the only reason you are getting in the car is to run into deer. Then you try and put as much preventative measures in the car to prevent your injury and you run into the deer. Is it your fault that you got hurt? Yes because you intentionally ran into the deer. Going to the beach also doesn't cause tsunamis. So it also has nothing to do with sex and pregnancy. Your analogies are badly flawed.

Let's see. She said that won't do because:

"But this won't do—for by the same token anyone can avoid pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army." -- Judith Jarvis Thomson

What doesn't make sense about it? Remember, here she's talking about people who use contraceptive measures. The idea is, as I've tried to mention already, that if taking ANY RISK AT ALL is the standard for being responsible for getting pregnant, then women who get raped because they went out of their houses are at fault and responsible for having gotten pregnant by getting raped.

And that is why that analogy is weak. The only reason she gives in why it is valid is to assume that rape is equivalent to consensual sex. It isn't. Rape takes away your consent and is forced upon you by a separate, thinking person. It is not your fault because someone else forces you to do it. That is a lot different then getting pregnant from consensual sex where you actively engaged in it and desired it.

Since you are really wanting an analogy, I've think this might fit the bill:

You want to sky dive. You are told the possible risks that will happen if you sky dive. You select a parachute and you package it yourself. You then go up into the air and jump out. If the parachute fails to open, who's fault is it?

[thesometimesaint]

weebles:

I like flying in air planes. That doesn't mean I give consent to someone pushing me put of one.

[bcuzbcuz]

St. John of the Cross (officially honored with the title: Mystical Doctor of the Church):

In order to arrive at knowing everything, Desire to know nothing.

Got it. I'm there already.