Alex:In your first paragraph, you mention that the 'extraction' option is more or less equivalent with the 'abortion' option to the mother, but ,it has to be said, that one should also consider the baby. The two options are definitely not equivalent to the baby...
AS:But the 'baby' is not a baby when it is just a few cells. It can't think or feel so it does not have the ability to 'know' anything. This is why I say the pro-life/prochoice argument boils down to aesthetics. I believe it is because pro-lifers usually 'see' a baby gurgling and gooing all powdered and pink. While at the same time conditioned to think of women as mothers who should sacrifice their lives for their 'babies'. In this case the woman becomes second rate to the "baby' by dint of aesthetics...i.e. a mother is not as as aesthetically pleasing as a newborn both in size and nature. This is especially true of the woman who would have an abortion. In a pro-lifer's eyes she is a monster. The immoral value becomes an aesthetic one in a pro-lifers eyes. But I ask you why, besides aesthetics, does the forming cells have more right to person hood than the full grown mother?
Alex: Of course, I could go on a philosophical tangent, and claim that a human life’s consciousness and knowledge has nothing to do with their rights, but since you want to talk more practically, which I respect, let’s do so.
First we must specify the time that a baby stops being ..cells. For me it is after a couple of months. What is your assessment?
Secondly, the woman doesn’t become second rate to the baby (of course we have to agree what time period qualifies it as a baby) when it is the baby’s life at stake, in comparison to 9 months of suffering.. ( in the case the mother doesn’t want the baby that is)
Also we must consider that this suffering is helped a lot by those wonderful motherly hormones!
AS: my view of abortion there are only 2 choices, side with the cells/fetus or side with the mother. In my view of things, both may be immoral...i.e side with the cells/fetus and you have forced a full grown human to do something they do not want to do or side with the mother and the cell/fetus never get a chance to develop. That being said, the immorality of an action is present in both sides. This is the reason I say it all boils down to aesthetics...it's a matter of which choice is more pleasant 'sounding'. We can talk about the 'wrongness' of an action til the cows come home, but it always boggles my mind how people would rather talk about someone else's immorality instead of their own.
Alex: You are presenting the fetus and the mother as two opposite sides, and I must admit, it is a bit disturbing to me .. But anyway, the problem with choosing sides between the fetus (that becomes human life at some point during pregnancy) and the mother, is, that bipartisan approaches lead to division and loss of rationality. Abortion should be discouraged, not legislated against, in my opinion. ‘Nature’ also seconds this opinion, since there can be complications in a pregnancy after an abortion..
But if we unilaterally side with the mother, we remove all responsibility from her. If we unilaterally side with the fetus, it will curtail sexual activities, due to the fact that contraception is not efficient 100%.
Alex:You mention the right of a woman to end a pregnancy or control her body as the factor for legitimizing abortion. What about the baby's body? Can we control that too? Does it have any rights? That is my philosophical question..
AS:Again, there is a choice to make here. And each choice is immoral. So then the only practical solution for the time being is to make a cut off date as to when abortions can be performed. An abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is much less 'immoral' than in the late stages, where I will grant you...the fetus 'becomes' a baby.
Alex: Agreed. Let’s just specify the time period.
Alex: As far as the 'abstract' concept of life is concerned, i think that, that is our unwritten concession. We classify human life based on functionality and dependence. And since we can't really make a clear distinction of when a human life becomes important enough to have rights, the endless debate of pro-lifers and pro-choicers continues..
AS: But I don't think we have to classify any such thing. Even if we say that some cells is a 'baby' it still doesn't make it right to force a woman to carry said cells. I think pro-choicers refuse to even entertain this notion and this is why I think they are thinking on a more 'aesthetic' level. There is absolutely NO consideration for the woman. She might as well be an inanimate object...like an incubator. She is a human being too...yet not one pro-lifer seems to admit that. I think that is very telling.
Alex: Again, if the woman had involvement or consent to create this life (which again, we have to agree on the time period it qualifies it as one), well, there has to be some kind of responsibility that derives from that.
If you are making the point, that some pro lifers are chauvinists or misogynists, or just extremely conservative women and men, I must agree. But there is another side to that, in my opinion. The children, or the babies, or the fetuses have been completely ignored in this ‘war of the sexes’ that has appeared in western societies. It is all part of a bipartisan approach that destroys the social fabric, although that is jumping to another topic ..
Alex:In the third and fourth paragraphs you present the chaotic practical implications of the 'extraction'. Indeed, it is convenience and practicality that legitimizes abortion. We should just admit it.
AS:I admit it. I don't see a problem here. If pro-lifers got their way and extraction was possible and thus we made extractions legal and abortion illegal, we would not have enough resources to maintain life (which is how it is going to be someday anyway...it's just that with extraction it would happen much much quicker). So then again, is it 'moral' to kill off people by way of starvation? Indeed it is not an easy solution...I just wish more thought was given toward other things rather than the 'cute adorable little baby.' As I don't think an adult would get the same sympathy from pro-lifers, in fact I know they wouldn't. Once the cute adorable baby grows up, then few care about it's welfare...in fact...some people don't mind making them into slaves, or seeing them starving in the streets, or being abused by the system. When the baby grows up and cease to be cute...the 'moral' majority seems to disappear.
O Alex: Ok, but why do you say that pro-lifers would be ‘getting their way’ if ‘extraction’ was possible? Would you prefer the option of abortion still? The killing?
If ‘extraction’ was possible, women would be extremely careful in their contraception habits, because it would kill them to have their kid raised by others when they could be raising it on their own. But you are a woman and I’m not, so I can’t be adamant in my opinion.
So, the cost of this ‘extraction’, in my opinion would get less and less. But please, don’t bring up money when we talk about the lives of babies, fetuses whatever you want to call it. In the western world, we spend like crazy, anyway..
Alex:In your next paragraph you mention the incubator as a slave, but we can extend this and ponder if we have the right to kill or neglect anyone fully dependent on us. Does this apply to infants or elders? When getting help isn't an option?
AS: No I said the woman was an incubator/slave for the ideals of the pro-lifers. I don't think you can group infants and elders into the same category as the fetus as they are separate and apart from another body. Anyone can take care of them...so I think the choice whether or not to do so is voluntary. But let me ask you something...do you think it would be moral to force someone to take care of the elderly?
Alex: If the person had a basic role in creating their existence or even more, their helplessness I would certainly suggest it..
Thanks for the food for thought, i think rationalism should replace all -isms by the way..
Cheers!
.