Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 05:53:40 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Roe v. Wade is overturned

Started by Dark Sexy Dangerous, June 24, 2022, 03:32:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Bgmts and VGF's points above remind me of an interesting philosophy paper called "A Defence of Abortion" which runs with the idea that a foetus is a human life and attempts to defend abortion from that starting point. In the most famous section, known as the Violinist argument,  the writer Judith Jarvis Thompson proposes a thought experiment:
QuoteI 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 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 now you've 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.
The full paper is here, badly formatted:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Theremin


Dex Sawash


But god didn't put that fiddlecunt up her arse.
Checkmate secularists.

JamesTC


shoulders

Seems to me a redundant, spurious and fucking stupid way to present the argument. Can this of all things be an issue where we are spared shit analogies?

Blumf

It is a shit argument. The analogy fails because there was no choice in the matter but, using the anti-abortion stance, you make a choice to have sex and risk getting pregnant.

Ferris

Quote from: Blumf on June 29, 2022, 12:33:04 PMIt is a shit argument. The analogy fails because there was no choice in the matter but, using the anti-abortion stance, you make a choice to have sex and risk getting pregnant.

I think the kidnap part of the analogy is used as a parallel to unwanted/forced sexual activity against your will.

I don't think it's a particularly good argument because it doesn't really tell me anything new. It also puts a load of hypotheticals in place which confuse the analogy, and it gives credence to a position I think is morally reprehensible on its own terms.

TrenterPercenter

Agree with shoulders

Ah but what if you had a violinist attached to your kidneys?
You wot?
A violinist from the Society of Music Lovers
Society of wot?
Look that doesn't matter really it's just padding to appeal to my elitist tastes, what is important is they are attached to your kidneys
My kidneys? why?
Because it's like having a foetus inside you
Is it? My kidneys are like foetuses? that sounds daft
No, it's because the foetus is dependant on your body for nine months, it's the violinists life...
But we've got machines that do this
wot?
they are called dialysis machines
Yes but if we didn't
You don't have to be hooked up to them all day either, it's like a 3-4 of hours a few times a week, have you looked into how dialysis works?
LOOK!, ahem, sorry, it's an analogy it is something that is meant to represent something
Well it's not very good is it, you were going on about violinists at the start and where is God in all of this?
Well God isn't in it
Do you know about God?
Yes but it's not relevant in this analogy
We are talking about abortion?
Yes, but from the perspective foetuses are people and all people are born with a right to life
You do realise we believe in magic and transubstantiation right?


Blumf

Quote from: Ferris on June 29, 2022, 12:38:59 PMI think the kidnap part of the analogy is used as a parallel to unwanted/forced sexual activity against your will.

Which also weakens the argument being made, as it's not universal enough. There are other reasons than rape to have an abortion.

Plus, we're dealing with religious nuts here, they'd claim the woman shouldn't have led the rapist on.

Ferris

Quote from: Blumf on June 29, 2022, 01:11:04 PMWhich also weakens the argument being made, as it's not universal enough. There are other reasons than rape to have an abortion.

Plus, we're dealing with religious nuts here, they'd claim the woman shouldn't have led the rapist on.

Well exactly. I don't find it particularly convincing. What's wrong with a good old fashioned trolley problem eh?

It's the same philosopher as the trolley problem, Judith Jarvis Thomson.

Ferris

Quote from: Astronaut Omens on June 29, 2022, 01:15:50 PMIt's the same philosopher as the trolley problem, Judith Jarvis Thomson.

Hence my joke.

TrenterPercenter

There are times when it is strategically beneficial to seek compromise or address concerns that can appear counter to desired goals.  This is not one of them, the cost of being diplomatic in the pursuit of consensus is being absolute on the non-negotiatables, there are lines and passing laws to remove the rights of women over their own body is well over it.

In this instance it is simple, you don't get to tell people what to do with their bodies, you don't get to remove medical assistance to women, and you don't get to push your religion via the state into people lives.

No need for any fancy analogies or chin stroking analysis on this one, there is no counter argument here.


pcsjwgm

Don't lose faith in the Democrats. Just one more election and they WILL act, I can feel it.

https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1541516323217444868

Quote from: Ferris on June 29, 2022, 12:38:59 PMI think the kidnap part of the analogy is used as a parallel to unwanted/forced sexual activity against your will.
I think it's less about that and more about finding yourself suddenly pregnant without having planned to be. Kidnapped by circumstances.
Quote from: Blumf on June 29, 2022, 12:33:04 PMThe analogy fails because there was no choice in the matter but, using the anti-abortion stance, you make a choice to have sex and risk getting pregnant.
It was their choice to take the risk, but it wasn't their choice to get pregnant- it's fair to say that having an unplanned pregnancy is a situation people find themselves in more than a situation of their choosing. The ludicrous nature of the analogy- someone suddenly waking up and finding that, against their intentions, they have a responsibility for another life is a fair enough fit with a real situation if you accept the idea of a foetus being a life.


Quote from: TrenterPercenter on June 29, 2022, 01:21:08 PMThere are times when it is strategically beneficial to seek compromise or address concerns that can appear counter to desired goals.  This is not one of them, the cost of being diplomatic in the pursuit of consensus is being absolute on the non-negotiatables, there are lines and passing laws to remove the rights of women over their own body is well over it.
The point of the Jarvis Thompson paper, I think is to separate one pro-choice argument, -the point that a person has autonomy over their own body and doesn't necessarily have a duty to sustain another life- from a second one which is often mixed in with it: that it's wrong to think of a foetus as a life.
She only does that seperation in order to clarify and strengthen that first point. It isn't intended as a middle-ground position, it's called "A Defence of Abortion".
It's fair enough if you find ivory tower chin-stroking analogies offensive in some way, but since most US politicans get educated at Ivory Towers University, I don't see what's wrong in talking about academic debates on the issue, they do have an influence.

shoulders

Quote from: Blumf on June 29, 2022, 12:33:04 PMIt is a shit argument. The analogy fails because there was no choice in the matter but, using the anti-abortion stance, you make a choice to have sex and risk getting pregnant.

Yes, a pre-requisite when using analogies is to stress test them. But further still, if they are more convoluted and distracting from the argument than simply expressing the principle and/or a piece of simple reasoning defending the point of view, they are not required.

The fact she received credit for this nonsense bullshit distraction makes me angry on a level.

Quote from: shoulders on June 29, 2022, 01:45:52 PMBut further still, if they are more convoluted and distracting from the argument than simply expressing the principle and/or a piece of simple reasoning defending the point of view, they are not required.

The fact she received credit for this nonsense bullshit distraction makes me angry on a level.
I think that when you're dealing with one of the most inflammatory and divisive topics in America it's legitimate to use analogies which make the situation less familiar in order to get the people who's mind you're trying to change to look at the topic with fresh eyes.

shoulders

Quote from: Astronaut Omens on June 29, 2022, 01:58:19 PMI think that when you're dealing with one of the most inflammatory and divisive topics in America it's legitimate to use analogies which make the situation less familiar in order to get the people who's mind your trying to change to look at the topic with fresh eyes.

If that particular analogy has changed even a single person's mind I must revise opinions of our species down even further.

Quote from: Ferris on June 27, 2022, 11:57:28 AMJudge: case closed - bake him away, toys.

Do what the kid fetus says!

Johnny Yesno


jamiefairlie




That was my reaction when I started working from home.

Blumf


Quote from: Johnny Yesno on June 29, 2022, 03:15:38 PMWhat's the trolley problem?
There's been a mistake and some kind of heavy vehicle is speeding down train tracks towards a place where 10 workers are on the track. If you do nothing all 10 workers will be killed.
You can save them by pulling a lever which will divert the train onto another track. On this track there's 1 person working. That worker will be killed if you pull the lever.

What's the right thing to do and why? What's wrong with doing nothing? Do you have a duty to pull the lever? If you pull the lever does that make you more responsible for the 1 workers death than it would be if you just let the 10 workers die?

It's a series of debates around that abstract situation and others like it intended to help people express what they believe about intervening and not-intervening in life and death situations, and about the life of 1 versus the life of many.

jamiefairlie

Quote from: Astronaut Omens on June 29, 2022, 05:02:47 PMThere's been a mistake and some kind of heavy vehicle is speeding down train tracks towards a place where 10 workers are on the track. If you do nothing all 10 workers will be killed.
You can save them by pulling a lever which will divert the train onto another track. On this track there's 1 person working. That worker will be killed if you pull the lever.

What's the right thing to do and why? What's wrong with doing nothing? Do you have a duty to pull the lever? If you pull the lever does that make you more responsible for the 1 workers death than it would be if you just let the 10 workers die?

It's a series of debates around that abstract situation and others like it intended to help people express what they believe about intervening and not-intervening in life and death situations, and about the life of 1 versus the life of many.

And now a very practical issue with AI systems running vehicles that may face similar choices

flotemysost

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on June 29, 2022, 01:21:08 PMIn this instance it is simple, you don't get to tell people what to do with their bodies, you don't get to remove medical assistance to women, and you don't get to push your religion via the state into people lives.

No need for any fancy analogies or chin stroking analysis on this one, there is no counter argument here.

Yup. I know all the violinist stuff is kind of just an abstract excercise in debating, but I'm going to say it again - it really doesn't matter if the sex was consensual or not (and that's leaving aside the fact that all types of contraception can fail, many types of contraception aren't suitable for everyone, and men can commit rape resulting in pregnancy by stealthing during "consensual" sex).

NO ONE who is carrying an unwanted pregnancy should have to justify their reason for needing an abortion. Being forced to go through the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth (and possibly child-rearing) should never, ever be treated as a moral penance for being sexually active.

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on June 28, 2022, 11:46:29 PMIn Catholic school I was told abortion was a "slippery slope" issue because if we justified it in terms of saving a life or if it was an unwanted pregnancy at the beginning of an amazing career, it opened the door for trivial abortions to go on holiday

soz bbz can't go holibobs as got preggerz :( nxt time!!! xxx



Video Game Fan 2000

Every anti-abortion thing I was forced to go to, and even the teacher we had for ethics, were fixated with the idea of having an abortion because you had a holiday planned. They always used it like it was supposed to be instantly and intuitively an evil thing and then and we were all gonna go "boooo!" to the hypothetical aborting holidaymaker like we were at a panto.

Martin Van Buren Stan

I support legal abortion 100% but the only thing that ever gave me pause for thought was the question about fetal destruction. Say some guy beats up a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, should that carry an additional sentence over typical assault? I think it should but doesn't that mean there is value regarding the life of a foetus? Or is it just the fact that the man has removed the woman's choice over the pregnancy that makes it worse than an assault on a non pregnant person.

flotemysost

#268
Quote from: Martin Van Buren Stan on June 29, 2022, 06:16:43 PMI support legal abortion 100% but the only thing that ever gave me pause for thought was the question about fetal destruction. Say some guy beats up a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, should that carry an additional sentence over typical assault? I think it should but doesn't that mean there is value regarding the life of a foetus? Or is it just the fact that the man has removed the woman's choice over the pregnancy that makes it worse than an assault on a non pregnant person.

I think it's pretty clear that no one here is saying no foetus has any value ever. It's the fact that people's right to bodily autonomy has been taken away that's so disturbing. Also it's worth reiterating that abortion bans have resulted in pregnant people losing both their own life and the foetus' life (in cases where it would have been possible for an abortion to save the person carrying the pregnancy), so in regards to this topic it's kinda moot I think.

Mind you, that guy's probably gonna be in high demand pretty soon!

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on June 29, 2022, 06:16:00 PMEvery anti-abortion thing I was forced to go to, and even the teacher we had for ethics, were fixated with the idea of having an abortion because you had a holiday planned. They always used it like it was supposed to be instantly and intuitively an evil thing and then and we were all gonna go "boooo!" to the hypothetical aborting holidaymaker like we were at a panto.

This is properly cracking me up I'm afraid. I went to a secular school tbf but I've never heard that one before, even on unhinged online comments sections etc.

Edit (and slight tangent): actually now that I think about it, I don't remember abortion being mentioned at all during my sex education at school. While this is probably preferable to the Catholic "shunt all the girls into a room and show them a video of aborted foetuses being chucked in the bin, which is definitely completely real and not staged" method, the whole process was definitely framed as "this is how you make a *planned* baby" - there was very little mention of sex for pleasure, other than a brief bit along the lines of "when the man's penis goes in the woman's vagina it feels good, because this encourages people to make babies".

Obviously fuck all about any other aspect of sex or type of relationship, but that's Section 28 for ya!

Psybro

I don't think my Catholic school really broached it, all the emphasis was on not getting pregnant in the first place.