Saving the violinist

[water]

Are you saying that you think it should be criminalised? Let's assume so.

Don't assume so.
I just want to see the whole issue put into perspective. I think the abortion debate often starts its focus too late into the happening.

Often, the underlying argument, even of both sides, is that people are entitled to free sex with no negative consequences. And while such sex is sometimes indeed possible, it is unwarranted to assume that people are entitled to it. The probability laws of this universe just don't work this way, one might as well keep that in mind.

 

[one_raven]

As I said to someone earlier tonight...
The difference between an Idealist and Ideologue is whether your apply your lofty visions to your own life, or attempt to force others to apply it to theirs from the outside.
It is a thin line to walk.

 

[redarmy11]

Water, I do understand where you're coming from but I think the current framework is right: abortion should remain legal and a matter of individual choice; guarding against irresponsibility should remain the job of schools and sex educators rather than becoming a legal matter.

 

[water]

If anything, I am pro-abortion. In my opinion, if there is the slightest doubt about whether the child is wanted or not, it is better aborted.

 

[water]

guarding against irresponsibility should remain the job of schools and sex educators rather than becoming a legal matter.

But it is the state that comissions sex education, so it already is a legal matter to guard against irresponsibility.

 

[redarmy11]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you have views one way or the other - just recognising that you do have a point when you say that issues of personal responsibility should be considered. However, my opinion is that this is a matter for schools rather than law courts or abortion clinics. What do you think?

But it is the state that comissions sex education, so it already is a legal matter to guard against irresponsibility.

And in my view that should be the extent of the state's involvement.

 

[water]

just recognising that you do have a point when you say that issues of personal responsibility should be considered. However, my opinion is that this is a matter for schools rather than law courts or abortion clinics. What do you think?

Law courts and abortion clinics are still under the Law, so, by proxy, they are dealing with issues of personal responsibility. Albeit that might not be directly visible there.

And in my view that should be the extent of the state's involvement.

The thing is that the State has to justify its involvement, present a moral policy, and this is where it gets tricky.

 

[redarmy11]

The thing is that the State has to justify its involvement, present a moral policy, and this is where it gets tricky.

I agree. Certainly medical staff have to abide by the law. They also have moral issues to consider, such as whether the child will be seriously handicapped, which affect the decision to carry out the procedure and at what stage in the pregnancy (in the UK anyway - other countries will differ). However I think that asking them to consider whether an individual has been irresponsible in getting pregnant is inappropriate, and places too much of a burden on them.

As for the lawmakers, it's a tricky area. I envisage courts sitting to establish whether the condom really broke before deciding whether to grant an abortion (or a morning-after pill!). Messy and impractical, no? Especially since a rise in back-street and DIY abortions would be almost inevitable.

As I said, I think the current framework is the most reasonable one in the circumstances.

 

[James R]

Fraggle Rocker:

"The devil is in the details." These two situations are vastly different when you get down to the details. Every problem pregnancy is unique, you can't even compare them to each other. To try to compare them all generically to a different situation that isn't even fleshed out enough to have details is really bogus.

I agree with you that every pregnancy is unique, and that goes as much for unintended pregnancies as any other kind.

But pro-lifers want a blanket one-size-fits-all rule covering abortion: no abortions allowed. Sure, some of them might make exceptions in "extreme" circumstances, such as where a woman becomes pregnant because of rape, but as a general principle pro-lifers want to ban abortion.

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, want only to maintain the right of women to freely make informed decisions concerning their own bodies and their own pregnancies, without the interference of governments or religious nuts who think they should be able to control other people.

The point of the violinist exercise is to examine the pro-life moral argument from a different perspective - one that may hopefully throw some light on some of the relevant moral issues. Sure, this is a simplification, but all good philosophical problems are. They deliberately extract one or two issues, so that they can be examined independently of the wealth of confusions and complications that actually occur in real life. And in so doing, they help us focus on what is important and relevant.

This is a typical example of the way both pro- and anti-abortionists (to hell with "pro-life" and "pro-choice," this is all about abortion and we ought to be honest enough to say so) oversimplify situations to try to make their points.

As somebody said, pro-choice proponents do not want more abortions. The experience of abortion is extremely traumatic for most women, and most people do not take it lightly. So, "pro-choice" is not the same as "pro-abortion". Hence, the different name.

I should also mention that "pro-life" is misleading, too. Most people who claim to be "pro-life" are not vegetarian, for example. So, they are only "pro-" particular forms of life. (I also wonder how many support the death penalty...)

The devil is indeed in the details. You can't take them away and continue the argument.

Yes you can. If you always try to deal with the full complexity of a problem, you never get anywhere. The history of science, in particular, shows the value of reductionism - in eliminating confounding variables and factors in order to get at one particular point.

This hypothetical problem doesn't even have details, so it's useless.

That's a severe overstatement. The issue raised here is quite applicable.

How does the violinist feel about it? Is he conscious and lucid? Does he have an opinion on the morality of forcing another person--drunk or not--to give up nine months of his life to save his own life?

Let's assume we can't access his views. Perhaps he is unconscious. That keeps things similar to the pregnancy situation. We don't know the views of the fetus, either.

If he's not conscious, who is responsible for making decisions for him?

You are, as the person connected to him. You decide if he lives or dies. Just as a mother decides if her unborn child lives or dies.

Normally it is next of kin. There's a good chance that it's his mother. Does his mother think that he should be saved at the cost of nine months of another person's life?

Well, that can vary from case to case, can't it? Now compare pregnancy. And remember the original poll question. Is there a moral obligation to keep a child, even if the mother does not think she should sacrifice 9 months of her life? The parallels are rather interesting, don't you think?

What kind of a life will he have, weighed down with all that guilt? What if saving him means that the other person doesn't get to go to college--or even finish high school, loses his job, becomes bankrupt and goes on welfare? What if the other person had a really promising future and now it's ruined? Whose future is more important?

The same questions arise in the abortion case, don't they? See how useful this is?

Abortion is a complicated issue and each case is unique in a lot of ways. To distill out all the unique details like this in order to reduce it to a catchy phrase on a bumper sticker is to render it into pure emotion with very little reason involved. It becomes exactly like politics and religion: nothing but pure bullshit.

So, you are pro-choice, I take it?

 

[antifreeze]

Especially since a rise in back-street and DIY abortions would be almost inevitable.

not necessarily. look at el salvador. abortion is completely outlawed and yet it still occurs, most often via abortion drugs smuggled into the country or operations performed in secret or in neighboring countries. i feel it is not unreasonable to think a similar scenario would transpire should abortion be outlawed here. besides, opponents of abortion usually don't have a problem with birth control pills.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

So, you are pro-choice, I take it?

I heed my wife's very sensible counsel:

"Men will be entitled to opinions on abortion the first time one of them gets pregnant."

I'm curious as to how many of the people participating in this thread are even female? To most of us it's just an interesting philophical issue upon which to pontificate. I wonder how a man who takes the anti-abortion stance would feel if he suddenly found himself pregnant, abandoned by the other parent, and his entire future in shambles. --or-- How a man who takes the pro-abortion stance would feel if he suddenly found himself full of the endorphins often generated by pregnancy, creating a feeling of optimism and good cheer, and sometimes even a strong parental bond to the fetus.

 

[one_raven]

I'm curious as to how many of the people participating in this thread are even female? To most of us it's just an interesting philophical issue upon which to pontificate. I wonder how a man who takes the anti-abortion stance would feel if he suddenly found himself pregnant, abandoned by the other parent, and his entire future in shambles. --or-- How a man who takes the pro-abortion stance would feel if he suddenly found himself full of the endorphins often generated by pregnancy, creating a feeling of optimism and good cheer, and sometimes even a strong parental bond to the fetus.

Which is exactly why I think the only valid position for any man to have is "pro-choice" (one of the many damned good reasons, anyway).
Being pro-choice, does not mean that you are for forcing women to get abortions, so the whol bond/endorphine argument holds no water for arguing for the outlaw of abortion at all.

 

[James R]

Fraggle:

I agree with you, except for this:

How a man who takes the pro-abortion stance would feel if he suddenly found himself full of the endorphins often generated by pregnancy, creating a feeling of optimism and good cheer, and sometimes even a strong parental bond to the fetus.

Pro-choice means you get to choose to keep the child, if you wish. So, there's no problem here. If you want the child, keep it.

 

[Maxi]

i think it's a very complicated issue because there are always a lot of factors involved... i'm for abortion because i believe that it's up to the very person to decide whether she wants to concieve the child or not...

however it's easy to abuse it... i mean with the scientific progress going on doctors are able to track whatever "dysfunctions" the child might obtain once concieved... and parents could then sort of "hand pick" their children with all genetic data they can be provided

 

[Prince_James]

I postulate that indeed, one has a moral obligation in either the violinist or in the case of pregnancy. I explain it thus:

It is held that ending the life of another without justification is wrong. (We shall consider this axiomatic as whether or not it is moral or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.)

It is held, furthermore, that it is wrong to impose upon another without their consent. (Again, axiomatic.)

The violionist (or the child) is not guilty of inflicting harm upon you purposefully, in that in either case, they are somewhat the innocent middle-man.

Justification for killing someone requires malicious intent on their part, or an act in a war, and even then, without excessive cruelty outside what is necessary in either case.

There is no malicious intent and it is not a war.

Yet there is still a conflict, a dilemma, as two things are opposing one another. The duty not to kill and the right to not have one's life influenced unduly by another.

Yet in assuming the right of freedom, we commit the act of murder. Whereas if we allow out right of freedom to be violated, we commit no murder, and as in neither case was the act willed by the other person involved, they too, are blameless.

Therefore, in order to not be a murderer, we are obliged to support the man.

That being said, in the first case - of total ignorance about the 12th floor policy - we ought to be compensated to some extent. However, we had a responsibility to not be drunk, either, and to be in control of our actions enough to not randomly pass out at random floors. Indeed, we are then responsible for putting ourselves in a position where we could be taken advantage of, and thus the blame is, in part (but not in full) our own.

In the second case, it is our own damn fault for getting so drunk we accidentally go to the 12th floor. No compensation whatsoever is morally obligated that one be given, and indeed, it is an act of charity if we receive a thing.

You can take the same view for abortion that I have concluded on the above. That is to say, abortion is never justified, on any level, ever. Rape and incest are not excuses, nor is life of the mother only, although in the latter case an act to attempt to fix the pregnancy is is permittable so long as the purpose is to save both, not just one.

But as Water said, this is also just as much about responsibility as it is about abortion. Do we have a "right" to a violation of a natural process in order to get out of it part of it but not suffer the consequence? Does one have some right to freedom from caloric burning by walking a mile? Do one have a right to not have to move my arms and legs to swim? No. Then why does one have a right to have sex without the threat of pregnancy? One does not. Therefore, specifically as the act requires a morally detestable act to get out of it, one is not justified in engaging in it with the presumption of not being saddled with the result. That is to say, just as we are obligated to suffer certain things in exchange for the right to do other things, so too much we suffer with pregnancy if we opt to have sex. If need be, one may be rightfully punished by a society for engaging in such acts and then not being willing to go through with the consequences, as either the male or female part of the relationship.

Now to Water specifically:

Upon what foundation do you presume that abortion is justified if the child is not wanted? Is not life better then death? And cannot the child decide for himself if he so wishes to live at a later time, yet gets no such choice if it is robbed of him, and indeed, he is unjustly murdered? For even in a "bad" life - and indeed, I'd note that "bad" is extremely relative - there is some value to be had, and indeed, is presumably better than death with no chance at all.

 

[pragmathen]

A related scenario:
You are surrounded by a group of thugs. They proceed to beat the living crap out of you. In that twilight state between fully conscious and dazed beyond belief, you're dragged up to the 12th floor and unceremoniously hooked up to the violinist next to you. Though you're eventually nursed back to health, you realize that the violinist runs with the gang that beset you and took away your dignity. Though you believe in nurture more than nature, you can't discount the fact that the violinist's presence in your life (even if he goes somewhere else to live with others) will always be viewed in a negative light.

You realize that it's entirely up to you whether this violinist lives or not. He may turn out to be a great violinist; he may turn out to be Satan's right-hand man violinist. The fact that he is directly connected to the very people that forced you into this situation is galling on a personal, ethical level.

For the guy:
You are surrounded by a group of thugs. They proceed to beat the living crap out of you. They drag you up to the 12th floor. You see the violinist on the bed and they explain they're going to hook you up to him to keep him alive. After several attempts, they realize the connections won't work. You're free to go--you have no means of keeping the thugs' violinist alive because it is a non-issue. The violinist dies or never was.

 

[Prince_James]

Pragmathean:

Did the violinist in the first scenario order his gang to do this to you?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Pro-choice means you get to choose to keep the child, if you wish. So, there's no problem here. If you want the child, keep it.

Many men try to browbeat their pregnant wives, girlfriends, and daughters into getting abortions.

As I said, I'm sick of the deliberately confusing labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Either you approve of abortion and believe there are situations in which it's appropriate, or you don't.

I consider myself pro-ferret, as I live in a state where they are illegal so this is actually an issue. Yet I don't believe that everyone has to have one. I don't even have one myself. I don't have to print a bumper sticker saying, "I'm pro-choice on ferrets since somebody already pre-empted the term 'pro-choice' with no subject to mean something else."

I'm sure that a hundred years from now when the issue is (hopefully) settled, people will come across references to the "pro-choice" movement, wonder what the hell it was about, and then roll their eyes and talk about Newspeak. They'll also wonder why there had to be a "pro-life" movement at all.

Truth in labeling goes a long way and it also keeps our language from degenerating into gibberish.

 

[James R]

I agree, Fraggle. "Pro-life" is as misleading a label as "pro-choice". For a start, "pro-lifers" are generally not vegetarian. Thus, they are only "pro-human-life", for a start. And strangely, many of the same people also support the death penalty. Go figure.

But pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. "Pro-abortion" sounds like these people want more abortions. Agreeing to be referred to as a "pro-abortionist" tips the scales in favour of the "pro-life" argument before the argument even gets started.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

And eat fetuses.

Nice allegory for getting preggers, James.

well spotted

in which case James you forgot some very important points, you should have mentioned that the violinist was closely related, ie. your own child you'd be killing, as killing a stranger (fame is irrelevant) is never so emmotive as killing your own.

You should also mention that once hooked to this violinist biology reconfigures your body and brain so you feel an 'attachment'

You know James you are a guy, you have and never will be pregnant thus you will never know what this feels like. Neither will any woman who has never been pregnant.

To describe it as being attached to a strange violinist ...adding the fame bit as if that somehow makes his life more valuable? Ridiculous and poor analogy indeed.

Meanwhile
I will never failt to be bemused the enormous hypocrisy of animal rightists who are for the killing of human babies, ripping their arms and legs off stabbing them in the head and sucking their brains out in a long drawn out 2hr operation without any consideration for pain and sufferring (which is proven after 26weeks and debateable after as little as 6weeks) yet they can't abide the prospect of the instant blade to the throat slaughter of a pig.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.