Begging questions and trotting out toddlers
[Today’s guest post by Ben Williamson is part of our paid blogging program.]
It is absolutely critical that the issue dividing the pro-lifers and abortion advocates be clarified and not muddled by irrelevancies. As author Scott Klusendorf points out in The Case for Life: “If you think a particular argument for elective abortion begs the question regarding the status of the unborn, here’s how to clarify things: Ask if this particular justification for abortion also works as a justification for killing toddlers. If not, the argument assumes that the unborn are not fully human.” (The Case for Life, p. 25, para. 1). Since hardly anybody appeals to bodily rights, economic conveniences, or rights to privacy to justify killing infants and toddlers, to appeal to those circumstances in the case of abortion is to assume the unborn are not human persons.
Let me give an illustration that can help clarify this. Bob and Debbie are hanging out over coffee and the topic of abortion comes up in the conversation. Debbie says, “I think the woman should be allowed to have an abortion because what if she can’t raise the child due to her economic situation?” Bob doesn’t think that reason is good enough. “But it’s wrong to have an abortion because you are killing a child. Don’t you think that’s something the woman should consider?” Debbie, however, wasn’t very impressed with Bob’s question. She kept insisting that the woman should not be prevented from having an abortion because it was her body and her rights.
Now, what was Debbie’s underlying assumption when she said that women should be permitted to have an abortion due to financial issues? She was assuming that the unborn was not a human being without giving any argument for it. This is called begging the question. In logic, when one begs the question, he or she is assuming the very thing they are trying to prove or frontloading a hidden assumption without defending it. In philosophical issues, every assumption is open for questioning and no one is exempt.
Here is how that assumption can be exposed. Debbie tells Bob, “It’s not your place to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. It’s a fundamental right to being a woman to have an abortion.” Now suppose Bob were to turn around and say, “All right. Let’s imagine that I have a two-year-old girl who has terrible health issues and has cost us great financial distress. We are considering on killing her in the privacy of our home. It’s nobody’s place to tell us what we can do with our two year old.” Debbie will have to say that she is opposed to that because she generally believes, along with most people, that the toddler is a human being. But what was Bob’s point here? He was exposing her hidden assumption that she was not defending: that the unborn is a not a human being. Since Debbie would not use the same reasons, she gave for abortion, for killing an infant, newborn, or toddler, it follows that the real issue is not the mother’s poverty but what the unborn is.
Or sometimes you might hear someone say to a pro-lifer, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.” The reduction of the issue of abortion to choosing between different preferences has become too common in our culture. People quite readily make the abortion debate a debate over one’s own personal and private preferences. What exactly is wrong with the above line? There are at least three problems with it.
First, it does not take into account what the pro-life advocate is actually claiming. Pro-life advocates are not saying that they merely dislike abortion. They are saying that abortion unjustifiably kills an innocent and defenseless human being. So reducing the topic of abortion to a matter of taste is to fail to understand what exactly is being claimed here.
Second, the person saying that also fails to understand the difference between preference and moral claims. Preference claims are simply descriptions of a person’s state of what they like or dislike. It has little or nothing to do with what they ought or ought not do.
Statements like “I like chocolate ice cream,” “Gummy bears taste better than teddy grahams,” or “Apple pie is better than lemon pie” are all preference claims. There isn’t any demand or obligation that you could infer from any of those statements. Most of us would probably think it would be odd if I were to say “You’re wrong for liking chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla ice cream” because we all intuitively realize that the contents in that claim are purely preference-based.
Third, the statement – if meant to be an argument for abortion choice – is a bad argument because it begs the question. The statement is true only if the unborn are not human beings. But that is precisely the topic of the debate! And if the unborn are not human beings, you don’t need the argument.
So in conclusion, the central issue in the abortion debate is whether the unborn is a human being or a person. This is supported by the fact that most – if not all – reasons given to support abortion are question begging and do not address the real issue. The purpose of using a toddler as an example is to force the real issue to the forefront.
Ask if this particular justification for abortion also works as a
justification for killing toddlers. If not, the argument assumes that
the unborn are not fully human.
Wait. What?
Yes, I agree that "does this also imply I may kill my toddler?" is a good clarifying question to ask. I routinely ask, "does this also imply that I may not let my gametes die?" as a clarifying question of pro-life arguments.
But to claim that all "no"s are assuming nonpersonhood of the unborn?
A fetus is totally dependent on the person whose uterus it is using–if she does not supply it with blood and nutrients and take away its wastes, it will die. The bodily rights argument is not based on the fetus being a person or not; it is based on the fetus being uniquely and bodily dependent on a single specific other person. The relevant comparison is not "toddlers", whose care is transferable; it is "people with leukemia who need a bone marrow transplant from a single specific other person". The bodily rights argument does not say that we may kill toddlers–it does imply that the tissue match has the right to say no, not donate, and watch the recipient die as a direct result. And we let tissue donors do exactly that if they so choose. McFall's personhood is not at issue–Shimp's bodily rights were.
In the McFall case, the donation had not been made yet. Had the donation already been made and the donor wanted his organ back the results of the case probably would have been different.
And, the 'bodily autonomy' argument can be transferred to toddlers. What if a woman is taking care of her toddler and he keeps her awake at night – making her tired and 'threatening' her health (there is no one else to help and she cannot afford to pay for help) – can she kill it? Foster care you say? Well, what if a pro-abort told her she'd suffer mental anguish the rest of her life if she put her toddler in the system… Can she kill then, because certainly her 'bodily autonomy' is threatened right (her brain is part of her body and is affected). No – she HAS to do the right thing and care for her child (or get help). A woman who is facing an unwanted pregnancy should get help too. Her unborn child is her responsibility – killing it for convenience should not be a choice.
My point is, the bodily rights argument does not presume the fetus is not a person; it is a debate over whether the pregnant person has the same right of refusal that Shimp had or whether something in their situation grants the fetus rights that the person McHall did not have. The article wants to pretend that *all* pro-choice arguments rely on nonpersonhood of the fetus. This is wrong.
Unrelated to the main post, but if you want to answer I'd be curious:
How would you respond to the objection that "not donating and watching the recipient die" is not an accurate description of abortion as it is currently practiced, which involves directly killing the victim?
If it does not presume that the foetus is not a person, than it ought to be able to stand up to scrutiny if the foetus is assumed to be a person. If it does not, than the personhood of the foetus and its rights as a human being need to be addressed.
Shrimp has the right to refuse the violation of his bodily autonomy to treat McFall. McFall did not get his treatment, but he still retained his right not to be actively harmed by Shrimp.
I've further reasoned (elsewhere) that the right to refuse extends only to treatment of pathological conditions, and not to provision of psychological needs. Hence my comment regarding this above. It might be helpful to the discussion if you were willing to expand on what you mean by the 'right of refusal'.
A fetus is best compared not to a leukemia patient who is asking someone to give them bone marrow, but to a leukemia patient who has walked in and started extracting bone marrow from a potential donor without their consent. In such a situation the donor has the right to use whatever force is necessary to remove the recipient. If a surgical abortion is the best option for removal of an unwanted fetus, then it is morally permissible even though it "directly" kills the fetus.
Hmm, I'd say that's one of three reasonable responses to that question, the other two being "actually, I'm only defending abortions which don't violate the kid's bodily autonomy" and "actually, I'm also making a nonpersonhood argument". Thanks for your answer.
I have another question, if you're interested in answering. Would you say that bringing another human being into existence in an inherently needy state without their consent entails a responsibility toward them? For example, would you say that a parent who cannot find anyone willing to adopt their child has a right to abandon them? Or would you say they have a responsibility to either care for the child or pass on that responsibility to someone else?
(An aside to the aside, but I find it fascinating: This is one of my brother's arguments that no omnipotent omnibenevolent creator god exists. Such a god would have to first create us without our consent, and then fail to provide for our needs.)
What you're describing is assault, though. Making someone dependent upon you, even if you didn't intend to do so, isn't at all comparable to them assaulting you.
Hey Argent: The attempt to clarify the issue is really in light of meeting certain people who haven't heard any sophisticated defenses on both sides and so rely on sloganeering.
You rightly point out that the standard line of defense for the bodily rights argument comes from Judith Thomson. Even though her argument has been shown to have significant weaknesses from both sides, the strongest version probably wouldn't come from her essay.
But in general with your common, everyday person, I think this tactic helps to clarify the issue.
HEY EVERYONE THIS IS THE ONE WHO WROTE THIS PIECE.
I want to make one clarification that can help rid y'all's discussion of any confusion or misunderstanding.
I am NOT claiming that the tactic "Trotting out the toddler" is a parallel response to an argument from bodily rights. I realize that was a mistake I made in this piece and I want to make it CRYSTAL clear that when you see that portion, PLEASE just skip over it.
So I apologize for giving the impression that if someone gives an argument from bodily rights, that they are begging the question.
On the other hand, I do realize that many people at the street level – who haven't read Thomson's essay or a defense of her position by David Boonin – will claim that the unborn isn't a person AND that she has a right to bodily autonomy which entails having an abortion.
Obviously the latter claim will need to be settled a different way than simply trotting out your toddler.
I HOPE THAT HELPS.
Non viable unborn humans die because they no longer have the woman's body to breathe for them, eat for them, and process wastes for them. The methods used by unborn humans to extract resources from women is what I was describing to you last night in greater detail. All factual. You did not like what you heard so you accused me of being hyperbolic.
The woman owes thr zygote nothing, as it was not victimized simply by being fertilized.
Consent is revokable. If you are having sex with someone, and you ask them to stop, yet they continue, it becomes rape. Consent is not a one time thing.
Would you say that bringing another human being into existence in an
inherently needy state without their consent entails a responsibility
toward them?
(1) I've usually seen this as the responsibility counterargument to the bodily rights argument: a pro-lifer stipulates that a pregnant person who did not consent to sex has the right to remove an unwelcome fetus from her uterus, but claims that if a person with uterus has consensual sex, she has thereby lost that right.
The only analogous situations I can think of are (a) compensation for harms, and (b) child support. To claim that a zygote is entitled to use its parent's body as compensation for being placed in a position of need, you have to claim that the parent has harmed their zygote by conceiving it. I don't think that being brought into existence and then aborted before you can feel pain is worse than simply never existing in the first place, and people with gametes are well within their rights not to bring their potential children into existence.
Regarding (b), the only time when anyone is forced to support a newborn they don't want is when two parents disagree about what should be done with that newborn, and when one parent wants to take on the responsibilities of the custodial parent. Couples in good relationships don't get forced into parenthood; they work out what to do amicably. Forced parenthood is a last resort; it's not a good thing we want to do if we can avoid it. Even in the case of people in bad relationships or after bad breakups, the only way you can be forced to take on the obligations of a parent are if someone else chooses to take on themselves the greater obligations of a custodial parent. Contrast with the standard Republican pro-life position of, "I your legislator will force parental obligations upon you without doing anything at all to help you out". Mandatory child support is in no way comparable to mandatory pregnancy.
(2) I am a lot more willing to assign responsibility to parents after they have knowingly and willingly decided, "Yes, I want to be a parent." A parent of a toddler presumably chose not to put them up for adoption as an infant–and every state in the US has safe haven laws, meaning that all parents can put newborns up for adoption if they don't want to raise them.
I think that the only ethical and practical way for the government to force people to take care of their children when they don't want to–which is the correct analogue to criminalizing abortion–is to say, "If you don't or can't take care of your child, we will take them away and put them in foster care, which is tantamount to taking care of them ourselves." And that's exactly what our government does.
Your discussion of child support seems kind of irrelevant to me, because the way our laws work in regard to caring for children whose parents don't want to depends on the fact that other caregivers are available, which is obviously a crucial difference between pregnancy and other scenarios. I'm asking you to imagine a couple living in some remote place, where no other person can be found who is willing to care for the child. Do you believe such parents would have an ethical responsibility to care for their child?
"… you have to claim that the parent has harmed their zygote by conceiving it. I don't think that being brought into existence and then aborted before you can feel pain is worse than simply never existing in the first place …"
Well, I think we differ there. I think that bringing someone into existence and then killing them is a harm to them. It seems difficult to me to argue that creating-then-killing is not a harm if the person only reaches the zygote stage, but is a harm if the person is allowed to reach, say, the adolescent stage (provided you kill them in their sleep with no warning, so that the fatal act itself is not a harm, only the loss of life).
I'm not so much arguing a responsibility objection so much as I am saying that the sequence of actions of 'causing someone to be physically dependent on you, then revoking consent to use your body' is unethical as a whole, even if you can argue that the second part by itself is not unethical.
So, you're comparing an unborn child to a rapist? Sorry, the comparison doesn't work.
In a pregnancy, the donation was made at fertilization. To revoke the donation via abortion is intentional killing of a human being that is doing nothing wrong – nothing like a rapist.
I am explaining the concept of 'consent' to you.
I am sorry that your reading comprehension is so poor.
Yea, when you consent to taking care of your toddler you cannot simply change your mind, leave the toddler at home alone and go to a party. Better comparison than trying to compare an unborn child to a rapist.
Parents who do not want to parent give up their children all the time:
http://www.autismlearningfelt.com/2010/09/parents-give-up-autistic-child.html
But what if the owner of the bone marrow cause the leukemia? Sorry if I asked that before but I didn't get a notification of a a reply.Again I'm not saying the owner of the bone marrow HAS to donate the marrow but if Nef's have full moral status as moral persons there is a case for moral responsibility and compensation.
Fertilization is not the equivalent of poisoning someone so that they develop a disease.
When does "disease" become human/person? At third term?
Just ask.
wot?
"To claim that a zygote is entitled to use its parent's body as compensation for being placed in a position of need, you have to claim that the parent has harmed their zygote by conceiving it. I don't think that being brought into existence and then aborted before
you can feel pain is worse than simply never existing in the first
place,"
Very nice that is exactly what David Boonin has argued. I hope you will allow me time to reply to this in a similar way I did to him. I'm endng a 12 hr night shift so will be back after some sleep.
It doesn't need be exactly similar. One only need in principle to initiate and action that results in existential dependency due to actions willingly taken and with full knowledge it would likely place another entity with full moral value in that situation.
Whether it is a drunk driver, mugger, housing toxic waste or IMO consensual sex -leading to pregnancy- all can cause existential dependency that might only be corrected by payment of bodily compensation..
Ofc there must be grounds for moral personhood but that is contested.
Nope. The zygote is not harmed by conception, therefore, the woman is not obligated to 'make it whole'.
To gestate it = unjust enrichment.
If for whatever reason a toddler's care is NOT transferable, do the parents have no obligation to use their time, money, and bodies to provide food, shelter from harm, etc.?
Besides, the neediness of the embryo is (usually) caused by the parents' actions, unlike someone who needs bone marrow. AND needing bone marrow is an extraordinary need that requires extraordinary care. The dependent state of a fetus or embryo is simply the natural condition of human beings at that particular age, and what they need is food, oxygen, and shelter, received from the normal functioning of their own and their mother's bodies together. Born children likewise require those things, and need their parents (or someone else, IF care is transferable) to use their bodies to provide basic care.
I think trotting out the toddler can still be a response to bodily autonomy, although the argument may be more complex. We acknowledge that parents have a moral and legal obligation to provide for their toddler's basic, natural needs: food, shelter, etc. I think most people would also recognize that if parents can't transfer their toddler's care, responsibility remains with them.
Good article, by the way.
Pregnancy, as is any intimate use of your body or body parts, is an extraordinary burden and is not mere food and shelter.
Anyone can act as a caregiver. Only one person can be pregnant.
Pregnancy is highly demanding, but it is still the provision of basic care. Your breasts are intimate body parts, but surely we would require a woman to feed her child (even though breastfeeding can be tiresome and painful) if she were the only one who could do so, and care were not transferable?
The provision of child support could be argued to be higher than the burden of pregnancy as it lasts 18 years and could require the man to use use his body to work long, exhausting, or even dangerous hours. (For instance, if a man is in construction and wants to maintain a certain standard of living, to earn extra money he will have to work longer hours at a physically demanding job.)
Saying "anyone can act as caregiver" is simply dismissing the question. There are any number of possible scenarios where a person might not be able to immediately transfer the care of their born child to another person.
Breathing for someone, eating for someone, having your body sapped of it's calcium and other minerals for someone, performing all of life's metabolic processes for someone, and processing toxic biowastes for someone is NOT BASIC CARE.
If it was, parents would be required, by law to donate blood/tissue/organs to their born children. They are not. Even if the child will die. Because use of body = extraordinary burden. An unborn human is not entitled to the use of a woman's uterus. It's hers, and she decides how it, and the rest of her organs, will be used.
Use of body does not automatically equal extraordinary burden. (Extraordinary doesn't mean "huge" in this sense, it means "beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established.") If it did, requiring a man to use his body to work for 18 years would constitute an extraordinary burden, which it is not. It is difficult, yes, but it is still fulfilling basic responsibility to the child.
Donating an organ is a permanent and total loss, and pregnancy is temporary. Transfer of an organ is an artificial medical procedure, and pregnancy is the condition of two bodies functioning normally. The need for an organ is brought on by severe illness or injury, whereas the need to be in the womb for the first few months is simply a necessary part of being a human being.
If a woman has a newborn and is for whatever reason unable to transfer care, she will need to do the following to meet the baby's basic, natural, inherent needs:
She must breastfeed it, and is providing all of the baby's nutrients and minerals, all of which are of course being sapped from her own body. She would also need to at least change it's diapers and clean it's genital area, or the baby could develop an infection . She needs to keep it out of the rain and cold, and of course make sure the baby doesn't suffocate.
The difference is that, instead of using her uterus, she is using her breasts, milk ducts, arms, legs, hands, muscles, her brain to make decisions regarding care, and all of her other inner and outer body parts that either have nutrients leeched out of them or receive fewer nutrients in the first place, in order to make breastmilk and supply the extra energy required to care for another living thing.
I'm not really seeing how that's a relevant distinction. Is the uterus somehow more "yours" than all of your other body parts?
She may loose sleep and be frequently exhausted, her breasts may hurt and swell, her heart may beat harder, she may gain weight from stress, her arms may ache from carrying the baby, and she may feel emotionally unhappy about having to take care of the child.
Does any of that change the fact that, if she allows the baby to starve to death, she ought to be charged with negligent homicide?
Occupying someone's body, temporarily or permanently = extraordinary burden.
And no, your born children are not owed even tenporary use of your blood, lungs or any other body part to sustain their lives. If born children do not have that right, why should an embryo?
PS: pregnancy permanently changes a woman's body, and can in fact lead to permanent disability, injury and death.
But your born children ARE temporarily using many of your body parts, both inner and outer ones (hands, milk ducts, muscles, etc.), in order to be sustained. The law currently mandates that they are owed the use of these body parts, insofar as those body parts are required to meet their natural needs for food, nutrition, water, etc.
Do you disagree with the current law? Should parents who cannot immediately transfer care be able to abandon their children to die?
And, if your born children are not owed even temporary use of any of your body parts, why shouldn't parents be able to abandon their children even if they CAN quickly transfer care? Transferring care requires using your body to drive places, fill out paperwork, etc. I mean, maybe you've got important places to be and don't want to bother with all that.
If children have NO rights to their parents' bodies, even temporarily, then we ought to immediately abolish all laws criminalizing any type of neglect.
Caring for a child may permanently change the mother or father's body also, though these effects may not be to the same extent. Stress has effects on your heart, breasts get saggy from breastfeeding, the construction worker father I mentioned may have permanent effects on his body from working hard outdoors so much. He might develop arthritis, for instance. He's even increasing his risk of death by injury or by developing skin cancer.
Born children have no right to literally use your organs, not even temporarily, in order to sustain their lives.
If your born child suffers kidney failure, and the only way to save them is to hook them up to your kidneys so your body can perform dialysis for them, you would be within your rights to refuse.
Born children are literally using your organs when you care for them. Your heart works harder, your muscles are working for the child, your breasts and milks ducts are used, nutrients are leached from your whole body. I don't really see any reason why bodily autonomy applies more to my uterus than to all the rest of my body parts that ARE literally being used to care for the born child. Maybe the child is inside instead of out, but that's just location. In many ways childcare can be more burdensome than being pregnant.
Yes, you would be within your rights to refuse. But like I said, kidney donation is permanent (pregnancy can have permanent effects, but breastfeeding and working to provide child support could too. Pregnancy itself is temporary.), and arises from an extraordinary need brought on by severe illness or injury, and is not a natural need automatically possessed by all people at a certain stage of life. When it comes to pregnancy resulting from consensual sex, another difference is that pregnancy can and should be reasonably foreseen as a natural consequence of having sex, and the mother herself is directly responsible both for the child's existence and dependency on her. She is not directly responsible for the child's need for a kidney, and being cut open and having a major organ placed inside someone else cannot be reasonably foreseen as a natural consequence of sex.
So born children are incapable of breathing on their own, is that what you are saying?
Although most born and unborn children are similarly needy in terms of being unable to get nutrients, shelter. etc. on their own, children past viability typically can get oxygen without their guardian's help. Although like I said, the mother or father still has a responsibility to make sure the born baby doesn't suffocate, since the baby may not be able to roll over or lift their head out of water or push away something that is smothering them.
If a baby were drowning, wouldn't the parent be obligated to go save them, even if (for whatever reason) using their body to do so were difficult or inconvenient?
Say a born baby stopped breathing, and the mother quickly called an ambulance. The paramedics are on their way, but the baby is already turning blue. The mother can keep the baby's body oxygenated by breathing into the baby's lungs. She has been trained on how to do this, so there is no risk of doing it improperly, harming the baby, etc.
Would it be justified in saying that the baby has no right to use her body to get oxygen, and letting the baby die?
I'm talking about drilling into their parents blood vessels, lungs and kidneys in order to eat, breathe and process wastes.
Should your toddler be able to use your body that way? To drill into your blood vessels and take calcium from your bones to meet its own nutritional needs? To excrete into your bloodstream so you can process biowastes for it.
Well?
So? I just asked you a question. Calm down. =/
If I recall correctly, she still can decide to drink beers, wines, or alcohols while she's pregnant. But, to most prochoice people, a zef is just a parasite because it's a medical condition. Yet, I don’t understand why prochoicers would feel bothered by her choice. It's all her body and her decision to poison her non-person if she wants to.
I just don't get it that they got so mad at her for her choice if zef is not person or can't feel pain. Why should they care?
I don't understand.
So, are you saying the parents in the article should have been allowed to kill their child so that it wouldn't have to go into the system?
Because of all the discussion about bodily autonomy below, I wanted to open up to feedback something that I reasoned out. The reason why I believe we can require a pregnant woman to allow the foetus the use of her body, but that we cannot require compulsary donation of bone marrow, kidneys etc. is to do with the nature of the competing rights.
Someone who has a pathological condition exercises their right to health when they seek treatment. This right only extends to treatment that is ethically acceptable.
If abortion was illegal, it would be protecting the right of the foetus not to be arbitarily killed, i.e. its right to life.
The right to bodily autonomy is weighted against these respective rights:
Right to bodily autonomy versus right to health.
Right to bodily autonomy versus right not to be arbitarily killed (right to life).
If we say that the right not to be arbitarily killed outweighs the right to bodily autonomy, it does not necessarily follow that the right to health also outweighs the right to bodily autonomy. Hence we can keep rights in balance while criminalising abortion, without a necessary progression to requiring individual's bodily autonomy to be violated in the name of treatment.
Abortion is self defense.
The suggestion is then that the foetus, by its nonconsenual use of the pregnant woman's body, is committing assault?
Because the problem with this is that any time that consent cannot be immediately obtained, the process must be construed as assault. To use the analogy of sex, if someone willingly engages in foreplay but then loses consciousness before intercourse, and their partner proceeds regardless, assault has taken place.
So what, then, do we do with the unconscious pregnant woman?
Pro choices have babies too you know. And they love them. They have also gone through hell to bring their pregnancies to term.
A friend of mine suffered through this for 9 months:
http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/hyperemesisgravidarum.html
She nearly died. Her son is 28 now. He too is pro choice.
If parents can give up their children after they are born, they can WAIT until their baby is born and then give it up for adoption. That takes care of the "cannot afford a child" reason that many women give for having an abortion.
An assertion worth exploring. Could you please be more explicit?
Does anyone have the right to occupy and use your body without consent?
Good article. The only issue I take with it is a line from the first paragraph. No one appeals to bodily rights to justify killing infants and toddlers because they are no longer in the woman's body. Appealing to bodily rights does not beg the question — it directly addresses the question of whether or not it is permissible to kill the unborn.
Compensation is only owed if you have done harm. To make the victim whole again. Bodily compensation is never demanded, not even of criminals.
And that imaginary baby does not need to occupy your body to survive. Thus, no intimate bodily violation to care for it.
And furthermore, sex is not remotely comparable to touching a button on a baby making machine. Sex is an integral part of being human, necessary for mental and physical health, and a child need not be born every time.
If abortion is self-defense, so is infanticide.
I think you're absolutely right here, and this is the way that I respond. I find that many pro-choice people have a faulty view of what rights are, or have to come to bizarre conclusions (like the right to life doesn't exist) in order to justify their "right" to abortion on demand.
Infants don't occupy anyone's body but their own.
In most cases yes I will grant that. But Boonin uses the toxic waste analogy to help illustrate the principle of bodily compensation being consistent with other existential dependency compensation cases.
The common factor is that a situation of existential dependency has been caused by the offender and the relevance of restorative justice. Sure most cases are caused by harm but that doesn't conceptually prohibit dependency caused by creation and why Boonin used it in the first place.
Creation cases are more like existential dependency duty of care situations; say inviting someone to a house knowing a blizzard is on the way thus creating existential dependency.
Have you harmed the person by inviting them to the house. Ofc not. But if you then attempt to deny duty of care obligations re
Yeah, they do. My point is why do you feel bothered by someone if she choose to poison her non-person parasite? That's something I don't understand why.
Sorry to hear that. I hope she gets what she needs, but did she get her treatment?
No the imaginary baby doesn't need your body to survive but we were also talking about acts of creation and what obligations that creates. Why should acts that result in your body being used preclude ANY moral responsibility or in principle obligations?
What if the instead of being kidnapped the woman in the Violinist was the one who arranged for the violinist to be kidnapped and attached to her? Sure you can argue she still cannot be forced to have him remain attached to her, but she is still morally responsible for the existential dependency and compensation. So she is given a choice pay it or face a custodial sentence.
& yes sex can be seen as analogous. There is a physical act in both cases that brings about pleasure but has a chance of creating a being with arguably full moral value that is in a state existential dependency.
& yes pleasurable activities are integral to a fulfilled human existence but it would seem very strange to me that you are saying that pleasure is worth more than a healthy human life. Nor doesn't valuing human life exclude sexual pleasure. There are many ways to enjoy it without risking putting another human life at risk.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/07/begging-questions-and-trotting-out.html#comment-1475886740
"I've usually seen this as the responsibility counterargument to the bodily rights argument: a pro-lifer stipulates that…" This is ridiculous :))) He was asking you personally. Don't you have a mind of your own? that you have to use what other people say.
If you bring an actual child into the world you, and, since you have *chosen* to bring it to term, you have in essence contracted to care for it until such time as you can give it up. We don't force people to parent. We also don't force people to donate their bodies to save ANYONE.
You can feed that newborn baby formula, but you are not obligated to even give it blood if that would save its life.
No one owes an unborn human anything. Least of all their bodies. Supererogatory burden again.
And I might add, pro lifers want to apply this burden ONLY in the situation of pregnancy. What makes a fetus so special? Why must a 5 year old die for lack of an organ? Are 5 year olds worth less than embryos?
And no. She is not responsible for the violinists existential dependency. She is helping him, and that help can be withdrawn at any time. It is a logical impossibility, and a moral obscenity, to state that someone can essentially *consent* to slavery.
If I decide to carry to term, then one day that non-person parasite will (probably) turn into a person. The goal is to prevent that person from having fetal alcohol syndrome, not to protect an embryo.
Put it this way: Is it ethical to cause genetic damage to sperm or egg cells that are likely to be used? The sperm and eggs are disposable by anyone's definition, but if you know someone's going to conceive soon, it's unethical to damage their gametes in any way that is likely to have adverse effects on their child-to-be.
Because if the fetus is going to become a born child, capable of sentience and sapience, it should not suffer from lack of nurture in thr womb. That lack of nurture in the womb can cause problems ONCE BORN. And that's what I am explaining.
Duty of care does not involve bodily compensation. Unless it will ever be demanded of criminals, it is discrimination to ONLY apply it in pregnancy.
And sex is not a criminal act. Forced bodily compensation IS punishment.
If the parents choose of their own free will, consciously and deliberately, to bring a child into existence, then yes, they have a moral obligation to take care of it. If the child comes into existence by accident, and they really have NO way to transfer its care, then no, I don't think that they are obligated to take care of it.
I always get nervous around questions of, "Do parents have an obligation to…?" coming from pro-lifers, that is, people who think that it is desirable for the government to force parents to carry out those obligations. That is, I don't accept that if parents are morally obligated to care for the children they choose to have, that the government has the right to force them to do so without doing anything to help. (And I certainly don't think it's possible for the government to force parents to care about their children; you can maybe force them to go through some of the motions of care, but really, there are situations where the child is better off put into foster care and I think the government has an obligation to do that in those situations.)
I think that bringing someone into existence and then killing them is a harm to them.
(1) Pro-lifers often tell me that it's not okay to abort a fetus with trisomy-18; that a two-year life is still better than a 20-week life. So if more life is better, how is a one-month life not better than no life at all?
(2) Okay, so you claim that it's worse to be conceived and to die at age 8 weeks than it is to never exist at all. So if someone gets pregnant and has a spontaneous abortion, her embryo is worse off than if she just hadn't gotten pregnant at all. How much worse off? This article (Figure 3 in the results) found that about half of all conceptions result in loss of pregnancy. So when a couple tries to conceive, shouldn't they take into consideration the likely horrible fate of their failures? There are some medical conditions (PCOS, endometriosis, just being in your late 30s or your 40s (for women) or in your 40s or 50s (for men)) that make spontaneous abortion much more likely. If conception and abortion is so horrible, shouldn't pro-lifers be trying to discourage older women/women with endometriosis from trying to conceive?
(If you're curious, (3) no, this does not mean that parents may kill their adolescents. I can't see bringing someone into existence as anything but a minor unsolicited favor (carrying to term and raising a child is a much larger favor). Doing someone a favor without asking does not give you the right to hurt them later. On the other hand, it doesn't give you the obligation to do them more favors later. So having caused someone's existence does not change whether you may end that existence.)
If the owner of the bone marrow took an existing healthy person and put them into an unhealthy state by giving them leukemia, then the leukemia patient is entitled to some sort compensation. (See kitler's posts for a discussion of why bodily compensation is different from financial compensation; I won't go into it here.) If, on the other hand, the owner of the bone marrow did an action that had a net neutral or positive effect on someone that included causing them to develop leukemia, then no compensation would be owed.
(A better analogy would be CPR. Normally, if you deliberately break someone's ribs you must pay for their medical treatment. However, if you perform CPR on someone, even knowing that correctly-done CPR will break their ribs, you are not responsible for their medical treatment, because you have had a net-positive effect on them.)
Conceiving a zygote and then not letting it use my uterus is much closer to saving someone's life with CPR and then not paying to treat their ribs, than it is to finding a healthy person and deliberately breaking their bones.
(1) The fetus IS assaulting the pregnant person. I mean, "walking ball of first-trimester misery"? Does that sound like someone who isn't being assaulted?
(2) See my comment to Simon Jm on why "creating a zygote in a state of dependency" does not invoke the same obligation that "making an existing person dependent on you" does.
Has a woman done harm to a zef if it fails to implant or is miscarried?
Zefs can miscarry for a myriad of reasons. Even healthy ones. They can fail to implant if the woman has low body fat and is amenorrheic. Have amenorrheic women failed in giving the appropriate "duty of care" if the zygote cannot implant? If they knowingly have sex, with the knowledge that their uterine lining won't accept a zygote, are they guilty of child murder? Manslaughter? How about infertile women who keep trying to get pregnant and endlessly miscarry healthy zefs? What about women with the wrong blood type – their body will outright reject the zef. Are all of the above guilty of a criminal act if they have sex, IF an egg just happenshappens to be fertilized?
1) So I am correct in saying that you believe the hypothetical couple in the remote region have the right to abandon their toddler, so long as the kid's creation was unintentional?
2) I'm not exactly sure what reasoning you're using to back up your claim that creating-then-killing-8-weeks-later is okay, but creating-then-killing-18-years-later isn't okay. Could you elaborate?
3) I think being-created-then-dying-naturally-after-a-few-hours is a "small benefit" in a way that being-created-then-having-ones-lifespan-intentionally-cut-short-after-8-weeks isn't. I think any human being who exists has a right to live out their natural lifespan free from homicidal intervention. Would you agree?
4) I would actually mostly agree with you that "bringing someone into existence is a minor unsolicited favor" if abortion didn't exist. If bringing someone into existence didn't entail putting them into an inherently needy state which could then be used to justify depriving them of the resources they need, I would say it's a minor favor. Bringing someone into existence in a needy state isn't wrong, nor is denying someone your bodily resources, so it's possibly to make them look justified if you separate them, but taken together, putting someone into a needy state and then taking away what they need is definitely wrong.
5) Related to the 'parents should consider the failure-to-implant rate', I think a lot of the ways conceiving parents think about their children are not okay, and I definitely don't endorse them.
Erm … did you just call me he?
Lots of things that aren't assaults can be miserable. I ran a marathon this spring, and the last 10 miles or so were pretty miserable. I've had the flu, and it was miserable. I've had stress from deadlines, and it was miserable.
Are you trying to argue that you can only have obligations to someone if you have harmed them?
I'm not aware of any pro-life advocate that would legally compel a pregnant woman to donate blood or bone marrow to her unborn child.
No, but the exceptions are:
(1) A responsibility not to harm someone if it can be reasonably avoided (as distinct from a responsibility to help someone).
(2) A responsibility that is knowingly, willingly, and deliberately accepted, with the parameters specified beforehand (as distinct from an accident caused by, say, birth control failure).
(3) A responsibility imposed by someone who is accepting a more burdensome responsibility upon themselves (i.e., a custodial parent imposing child support on a non-custodial parent) in a situation where there is no good solution.
How exactly do you define "assault" versus "not assault"? Why is this a good moral distinction (why are the things you call "not assault" okay to do)?
If it does not presume that the foetus is not a person, than it ought to
be able to stand up to scrutiny if the foetus is assumed to be a
person.
Yes, and I'm convinced that the bodily rights argument does stand up to scrutiny if you make that assumption.
I've further reasoned (elsewhere) that the right to refuse extends only
to treatment of pathological conditions, and not to provision of
physiological needs.
What.
The Americans with Disabilities Act says that a person with non-standard abilities must be given all reasonable accommodations. That is, whether someone is accommodated depends only on how reasonable the accommodation is, not whether that person is "supposed to" need the accommodation or not. If a teacher gave a class of first-graders large-print assignments because they were only learning to read, and refused to give a dyslexic fifth-grader a large-print assignment because fifth-graders are not "supposed" to need large print, that teacher would be fired, and rightly so.
I think that this is the correct standard. As I understand it pregnancy is often much more physiologically stressful than marrow donation. If pregnancy is a reasonable accommodation for a person to be forced to make in order to keep another person alive, then the less-stressful marrow donation is also a reasonable accommodation. To pretend that the marrow donation may be refused because people aren't "supposed to" need other people's bone marrow is deeply ableist.
Off topic, but love the icon. 🙂
She's already donating her blood and bone marrow to her 'unborn child' as it is extracting resources from her very bones to build it's own skeleton ffs.
If someone walked up to you, drilled into your blood vessel, and started extracting your bodies' resources into their own, would you consider that to be assault?
1. Perhaps the parents in the article didn't know their child would be severely autistic.
This is why NO ONE should go into parenthood without thinking through all the possible consequences of bringing another person into this world and readying themselves for EVERY possibility of raising a disabled child. Some parents can't handle this.
2. Also, most adoptive couples are looking for healthy (read: NON-DISABLED) babies.
"They are saying that abortion unjustifiably kills an innocent and defenseless human being"
A fetus is neither innocent or guilty. A fetus is unable to think, is not self aware, and is not able to make moral judgements. Now I know the pro-birth folks like to fetishize the fetus as being able to tell Mommy that they want to live, but the truth of matter is, most feti just take nutrients from the mother, sleep and poop in the placenta. That's all a fetus does –eat, sleep, poop, and maybe kick —-they have NO ability to make moral judgements, nor do they have an ability to articulate thoughts.
Anyone who wants to describe a fetus as being "innocent" is giving fetis way too much credit.
1. Those 'consequences' should be thought of before a couple engages in consensual sex. Once pregnant though, another human being is dependent on a woman to keep it alive. The father and the mother should have a responsibility to take care of their children – born and unborn.
2. There are places that specialize in adoption of special needs kids. If those kids were not adoptable, those places would not exist.
(1) I could see an argument that if you are going to abandon your child then you have a moral obligation to do so at the first opportunity. Otherwise, yes. I know that people in cultures with no social safety net do practice infanticide (ancient Greece is a prominent example) and if they have no other meaningful way to avoid becoming parents, I don't think that they are doing anything wrong. Regrettable, tragic, and giving them early abortions or a foster-care system would be better, and birth control better still–but not wrong.
(2) It is morally permissible for me to kill an 8-week-old fetus that is inside my uterus if there is no better way to remove it and if I am not responsible for creating it. It is not morally permissible for me to kill an 18-year-old, whether I am responsible for creating it or not. My claim is that being responsible for creating the 8-week-old or 18-year-old does not change whether these things are morally permissible.
(3) I don't see why being killed is any worse than dying naturally. I don't see why a healthy 10-year-old's right not to die of homicide is any more valid than a sick 10-year-old's right not to die of a refused bone marrow transplant. Now, there are a lot of situations where someone else's rights override the sick child's rights (if the only marrow match does not want to donate, for example), but I don't see how the sick child's death is a less tragic thing than the healthy child's death.
(4) Since I don't see homicide as any worse than any other death, I don't see how creating-then-aborting is worse than just not creating.
(5) If you say, "Abortion is a bad thing and should be illegal", and you say that "IVF is a bad thing but it shouldn't be illegal", then I have to conclude that you think abortion is worse than IVF and my question about the ethics of subjecting dozens of embryos to the creation-and-spontaneous-abortion cycle stands. Do you think IVF should be illegal? What about having sex with PCOS, or at age 45?
I gave you a lot to read so maybe you missed that i said what if SHE KIDNAPPED the violinist and had him attached?
Again unlike PL's I'm NOT saying she should be forced to keep him attached, but what I maintain she owes the violinist compensation for causing the existential dependency. She has a choice to either pay it or a custodial sentence. So your slavery point is moot on both counts.
Why is that so?
You cannot have it both ways. If what gives full moral value is personhood then human babies should be treated no different than other non person animals.I can choose to obtain a kitten and are obligated to treat it humanely and care for it.
But as things stand if I choose to humanely euthanize it because I no longer want it, I can do so.
Why is that different for a baby? Bodily autonomy is irrelevant to this question. If it is supererogatory for zefs it should be the same for babies.
I would note some PC's are now saying this.
For the sake of argument if like a non person baby a Zef has full moral value it is owed the same duty of care obligations that many are more than happy placing on males who didn't want to be a parent or for that matter also took precautions.
Lastly I 100% AGREE most PL's are inconsistent on forcing it for prenatal situations and not for post natal and have argued here many times. I've argued that if PL's are going to force people to save lives by overruling bodily autonomy they must do it in other situations as well including strangers. But like many PC they narrowly apply their reasoning without seeing the bigger picture.
BUT I"M NOT PL.
I did see it claimed that 50% of fertilizations lead to miscarriages.
So what should we take away from that? For arguments sake what if all sex was for procreation that would mean unfortunately even with the best intentions ,wanting children is inherently risky. But to continue the human race that is a necessary risk we have to face.
If it was practicable and safer to do IVF ofc that would be preferable.
From the POV of any Zef that is an unavoidable hazard/lottery they must also face.
OFC one would not want to make that risk any worse in a similar vein many people see smoking or taking drugs that would cause a higher rate of miscarriage or birth defects a bad.
Somewhat like saving someone from a burning house the act can endanger the individual and often high risk but is necessary for future existence. But we would still punish a fireman who made the act unnecessarily risky say drunk on the job.
In cases where a woman would automatically miscarriage then yes if we are to be consistent she shouldn't have vaginal sex or only have vaginal sex when it is 100% safe.
Personally I would like world governments or the WHO fund a 100% proof male contraceptive and governments mandate that any sex requires the male to use it or face a custodial sentence if a pregnancy and abortion results. It would also be applicable for cases like 100% miscarriage cases.
The difference lies not in the need, but in the respective rights being exercised (right to health versus right to life). I've elaborated on this in another comment on this article, so I won't repost it here.
If you're willing to say that the bodily autonomy argument recognises the foetus as a person, are you willing to take the next step and say that it still stands even if foetal personhood carries with it all the rights that we ascribe to born persons?
Kidnapping is a crime. Ovulation is not.
I agree with you.
And no, people just can't randomly euthanize their pets. Babies can have a special protected status while not being persons. Kind of like they do now.
I would not go that far, but a foolproof male contraceptivr would be a good thing. Men need more reproductive control.
I think this would be better put as: can anyone have a justifiable need to occupy and use your body without consent? To which my answer would be, yes. It's not something that should be enshrined as a right, but it can be recognised as a need.
It could also be rephrased to ask, could it be justifiable for someone to occupy and use your body without consent without being acted against in a way that is severely detrimental to them? Again, my answer would be, yes.
Imagine a circumstance where you are standing on an unrailed balcony, with one person between you and the edge. They begin to overbalance and fall, and grab your arm to save themselves.
Alternatively, you actually push them, knowing that there's a 1 in 6 chance that they will overbalance and fall. They do, and grab your arm to save themselves.
Again, you install a rail around the balcony, then push the person, expecting the rail to stand up to their weight and prevent them from falling. It breaks, however, and they begin to fall, grabbing your arm to save themselves.
Also imagine a situation in which baby formula does not exist, and breast milk is rejected from non-first degree relatives – meaning that the mother is the only one who can feed the baby. The baby will die if the mother refuses to breastfeed it.
I hope to show by these scenarios that justifiable need for violation of bodily autonomy does exist.
Your analogies don't work.
Engaging in sex while female is not equivalent to the criminal assault of pushing someone off a balcony.
And no, we are not required to risk life or limb to save anyone. Even if they are falling from a balcony.
Not all women can breastfeed. What then?
But, they could keep you awake at night and cause you mental anguish if you put them up for adoption… What if a woman thinks her only 'self-defense' from lack of sleep and potential anguish is killing? She HAS to be responsible and put her child's safety first.
This is the along the lines of the same argument I would make, if I was arguing from your perspective. I would have three responses to it:
1. Does it suppose that anything is permissable as long as it does not impact upon the born child? For example, a women who is 38 weeks pregnant has chemicals injected in the amniotic fluid that will cause the foetus to die a slow and painful death over the next three days. It dies in utero and is stillborn.
2. Is the harm of disability (mental or physical) greater than the harm of death? In other words, is it better to be a disabled person or is it better to be dead (generally speaking). You suggested in another comment that I was coming from an ableist viewpoint, but this perspective is much closer to ableism, if not there completely.
3. I would say that it would be unethical to deliberately damage someone's gametes in a way that would cause them to either not be able to conceive, or to conceive a child with chromosomal defects. And my concern is not for the gametes themselves, but for the potential loss of the parents or the potential disability of the child. Because the gametes are not human beings, are not people. Which comes full circle back to your first statement: "one day that non-person parasite will (probably) turn into a person". If the foetus is a non-person (on which point I disagree), than the point you made is quite valid and reasonable.
Reading of your responses, it seems like you struggle with analogies. They are not meant to be an exact parallel of the situation or condition they are likened to. Instead they are meant to represent aspects of that condition. For example, in the balcony example:
The fall represents abortion.
The act of deliberately pushing someone off the balcony represents deliberately having sex knowing that there is chance conception will occur.
The railing represents the use of contraceptives.
If you are to object, you need to object to the principle represented. Which you sort of have here: "we are not required to risk life or limb to save anyone" – although that's not the question that I was using the analogies to answer. Because your action here would not be to save the person (they have already accomplished that by grabbing hold of your arm), but it would be to remove them from your arm, and consequently send them falling to their death.
If their act of grabbing your arm would result in your death, than it becomes non-justifiable. Hence the exception to allow abortions when the life of the mother is at stake.
"Not all women can breastfeed. What then?"
You've missed the point of an analogy again. The key word I used at the start is, "imagine". Real-world difficulties don't change the principle that the analogy is trying to address – a principle that you've failed to make comment on. So, now "imagine" that every woman is capable is breastfeeding.
Have you read David Boonin’s work? You use key arguments he
uses.
He uses the example of a surgeon saving a guy’s life but the procedure causes the patient to then need his kidney. But I would have thought it obvious that the original cause of the later need for the kidney, isn’t the
fault or responsibility of the surgeon but of the original disease.
Similarly if you injure someone giving CPR and accidentally break
a rib through no fault of your own then no, you aren’t morally or criminally
liable.
The main issue in the surgeon case and pregnancy is who originally
caused the existential dependency.
For the surgeon it was the original disease; for none rape pregnancies
it is by the decisions and actions of the woman and the man. Which is made all
too clear with male child support; where the male is considered morally responsible even if he took precautions or didn’t want to have any parental responsibilities.
So no your CPR analogy -like Boonin’s surgery analogy- falls
short. Responsibility, like Boonin’s Toxic waste analogy or my stem cell
machine- press a button to create stems cells with safeguards and no intent to
be a parent, but if the machine goes on to create a baby- you are still morally responsible for the original causal decision and action.
Which again is all too apparent with male child support so why not here?
😉 not currently a crime. Say you had a baby making machine, could you push the button and then just walk away with no moral resposnsbility? Don't you think if such a machine existed it would then be a crime to push the machine and walk away to let the baby die?
Why not? Both sides would be made to commit to core values. It doesn't stop sex, stops all abortions and would be reversible.
BTW does this mean you are against male child support? Hard to argue there is no moral responsibility for sex yet only force males to be responsible.
Which thing do you agree with I'm not PL lol?
Pets sure many don't but they have the legal right to do so.
So why morally do babies have this if they aren't persons? Again some PC's think infanticide is OK. Why are they wrong? You cannot rely on personhood and or parental preferences.
That analogy is horrible.
Sexuality is far more complicated than simply pushing a button on a machine.
And gestation is not the equivalent of an instant baby making device.
The sociology, biology and physiology of sex, love, and pregnancy cannot be reduced to a mere mechanical process.
Irrelevant
The underlying principles are still there. Sex for many males can be a pure pleasure seeking avenue.
Not all sex is some Tantric transcendental experience. For many females sex is a mere means to an end to seek resources or shelter.
Sex and pleasure within a relationship can exist on a higher level but the reproductive mechanisms is still there and many evolutionary psychologists will say whatever romantic feelings we have about sex and relationships, it's primarily grounded in biology and reproduction, so the analogy is quite relevant.
Any anyway even if you want to maintain this romantic POV any action in the name of romance that seriously impacts another entity with full moral status bares moral responsibility consequences.
BTW I could imagine the PC's who support infanticide using your argument not only to justify abortions due to the importance of sex in relationship; but also using similar arguments for infanticide because babies often inhibit couples having sex or quality time in their relationship.
Yes, exactly. Gametes are both not a full human organism. Only two 23 parts.
Apparently, my question is avoided. I do get that their fetuses are wanted, but they are not persons by the law /if/ they are not wanted… so she can do whatever she wants to do with her body. If prochoicers truly believe their unwanted fetuses are not capable of feel pain or think, then there is no reason to be horrified by someone's personal desicion whether it is healthy or dangerous food diet…
PS: I know, I know. Yes, I use a strong degraded language against the preborn. I don’t want to be yelled for treating the preborn like a human instead of "disease". I already dealt with that crap before, and I had enough…
I use embryo and foetus for the most part because I don't want language to become an issue – and they are accurate terms. My personal preference is 'unborn child', but it all depends on who you're talking to.
I've discussed child support in this comment and other places.
The point about CPR is not whether the broken ribs are "ultimately" due to disease. The point is that the person doing CPR has not, on balance, made the patient worse; they have made them better. We do not force people to provide compensation when they help other people, only when they harm other people. Conception is not a harm and thus no compensation is required.
1. I think that all people should have the right not to be pregnant. I am fine with restrictions for fetal pain (based on correct science and written to be as non-burdensome to people who want abortions as is reasonably practical.) At 38 weeks, a person who doesn't want to be pregnant any more can normally get an induction or C-section; I'm fine with requiring those (and I believe that is the actual standard of care) unless such laws impinge upon the rights of pregnant people who for whatever reason can't deliver normally.
2. If a pregnant woman decides, "I am going to carry this baby to term and keep it," then she has chosen to take on the responsibility for that child, and she thus has a responsibility to do her best to prevent either death or disability to that child. If she decides to put it up for adoption, and she gets help adoptive parents, I think it's pretty reasonable for her to be expected to regard herself as their babysitter and thus responsible to take the best care she can of their child.
I suppose that I have to say, no, a pregnant person should not be *forced* not to drink (and thus cause the disability of fetal alcohol syndrome) any more than she should be *forced* to carry to term. I still don't think there are that many situations where a pregnant person would choose to carry to term where they wouldn't find themselves morally obligated for some other reason to try not to cause disability.
3. I agree completely. This is the answer to DarkCougar555's question, which, if I recall correctly, is, "Some pro-choicers don't think a fetus is a person. Why are they against drinking while pregnant?"
1) Why is abandoning a child at the first opportunity any more morally permissible than abandoning a child later in life? Both because of point 2 below, and because it seems to me that taking care of a child while you feel you can shouldn't be taken as implicit consent to continue taking care of them, given that doing one favor for someone shouldn't obligate you to do more favors.
2) I'm still not sure why you think creating-then-killing-after-8-weeks is morally permissible while creating-then-killing-after-18-years is not, regarding the question of whether creation-then-killing is a harm to someone. You say in point 4 that creating-then-aborting is no worse than just not creating; why do you argue that this is true when the lifespan in question is 8 weeks but not when it's 18 years?
3) I mean I see where you're coming from and I agree that natural deaths are in a certain sense just as tragic, I just can't see them as ethically problematic in the same way. To clarify, you would argue that the sick kid has a right not to die of their illness? Would you also say that people have a right not to die of old age?
5) I would have to know a lot more than I know about IVF to say whether it should be illegal (but based on what I know, I speculate that by the time the Overton window has shifted such that banning it is at all feasible, our technological ability to take care of embryos will have advanced to the point where it's no longer ethically problematic). The answer to your last question is a) no, "sex" and PIV sex / potentially-reproductive sex are not synonymous b) but also no, because I don't think natural deaths are ethically problematic in the same way that homicides are.
my reply was to "Chalkdust"
(2) I. Have. Answered. This.
The right to life is better seen as a negative right; as I often express it, it is the right not to be arbitarily killed. Hence treatment, such a transplant, falls under the right to health rather than the right to life.
There's some worthwhile reading about the right to health here: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/escgencom14.htm. One of the important things to consider is where it talks about acceptable treatment.
We let leukaemia patients die because we don't hold the right to health above the right to bodily autonomy. But the right under question in abortion is, of course, the right to life. The leukaemia patient and the foetus have the same rights; neither may be unjustly killed, but neither are entitled to treatment by unethical methods.
Also worth considering is the difference between a leukaemia patient denied a transplant and an aborted foetus. The former dies because of inaction, the latter through an active intervention.
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for an civil and engaging discussion.
I find your first comment very interesting, and I want to make sure I've understood it properly. You would be okay with a woman who wishes to have an abortion at 38 weeks instead being required to have an induction and deliver a live child?
(For your interest's sake, in Victoria, Australia, there was one abortion carried out at 37+ weeks for 'psychosocial' reasons. So it does happen.)
Regarding your second point, one argument is that that choice is made when agreeing to sex (obviously not applicable to rape).
You might find this an interesting read: http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2013/10/sovereign-zone.html
On your third point, yes, it does answer the question about why a pro-choice individual would want the foetus protected against harm. It still doesn't answer the question regarding whether a woman can do as she pleases with the foetus, as long as it is stillborn. Your response about foetal pain is interesting. Could you elaborate further on that?
Maybe I can rephrase? Let me make sure I have this straight:
You're arguing that creating someone in a needy state and then revoking their access to the things they need isn't ethically wrong, because creating someone for a while and then killing them isn't a harm. You responded to my "I think that bringing someone into existence and then killing them is a harm" by arguing "if more life is better, how is a one-month life not better than no life at all?"
I'm arguing that putting someone into a needy state and then revoking access to the things they need is unethical, even if the first step is accomplished by creating them. Your rebuttal seems to be that creating-then-killing is "better than no life at all".
To justify the unethicalness of killing adolescents, you then argue that bringing someone into existence is a "small favor" that doesn't give you the right to harm them later on. This would seem to imply that you don't believe creating-then-killing someone is better than no life at all, after all. This is what I want clarification on. And if you've said it already maybe you could rephrase?
According to our legal system (and I think it's right), your interactions with another person are to be evaluated one by one, not based on the net effect of all your interactions.
Creating someone, knowing that they will die within a century, is still probably better for them than not creating them at all. Creating someone and then killing them at 18, similarly, is a positive net effect–but our legal system evaluates the two actions one by one, not based on net effect, and so we still do not allow the killing, because evaluated on its own it is a harm.
An unborn child has certainly done nothing to warrant being killed for.
I agree with you that 'your interactions with another person are to be evaluated one by one' in the sense that doing something good for a person doesn't entitle you to harm them later on.
However, putting someone into an inherently needy state and then revoking their access to the things they need are not 'two separate actions' in that sense. The cumulative effect is killing. An analogy would be if you were a pilot and you took some passengers up in the air, and then skydove from the plane mid-flight, leaving the passengers to crash to their deaths. When you stand trial, "bringing people up in a plane is not a harm to them, and skydiving from your own plane is not murder" is not going to be an adequate defense. First you made the passengers dependent on you, then you revoked their access to what they needed from you.
And I agree with you that having created or not created the person doesn't matter: the fact that the 'creation' act and the 'making another person dependent on you' were in fact the same act is irrelevant. I realize that in this conversation I've sometimes been talking about 'creation' when I'm really referring to 'making dependent', but the morality is a lot clearer, I think, if you separate the two effects.
There is no point to infanticide just as there is no point in starving your dog to death.
You can drop the kid off at the nearest shelter/hospital/ems/fire station and you can drop the dog off at a shelter.
In the absence of such social welfare programs, people do in fact kill their dogs and abandon/kill their kids. Pro-life countries, Brazil for example, has had a real problem with abandoned street kids. And in Cambodia, families are so poor that 12 year old girls are sold into prostitution. This is what happens when there is no safety net – people abuse and kill their children (and their animals)
http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm
I agree with you regarding your (apparent) Jainist beliefs. At least you are consistent, Simon. I would never hold the anti-abortion beliefs of a Jain in contempt, because they are at least consistent – they respect all life.
Though, Jains most definitely arent' perfect, since they kill plants to eat. And as new research has shown, plants are capable of a lot more than ever thought.
So why morally do babies have this if they aren't persons?
Eagles are protected and they aren't persons. It's also not legal to starve your dog to death.
Your wallet is not your body.
Men don't have to donate their bodies to a pregnancy (not even to save fetal life should something go wrong, what if the woman needs a kidney or the fetus will die??).
Men don't even have to PAY for the pregnancy. They don't have to pay for her lost work, or for any disabilities. What if her hospital bill is 1 million dollars? He doesn't have to split the cost. He doesn't even have to support her for the rest of her life should she become disabled as a result of the pregnancy.
And if the pregnancy kills her, he doesn't even go to jail, does he? I mean, seeing as how he ejaculated inside her, and the product of his ejaculation killed the woman then surely he is guilty of reckless endangerment, yes?
I'm fine.
What you need to understand is that people can hold two seemingly conflicting views and not have a problem with it.
It is entirely possible to view pregnancy as something horrible, yet still want a baby at the end.
it is possible to view a fetus as a *functional* parasite, yet still look forward to having a baby.
The world is not black and white, you know.
The right to life is better seen as a negative right
Using someone's body as life support is a *positive* right. And if a leukemia patient can't use your body as life support, then a fetus shouldn't have that right either.
If you are denying bodily support to the leukemia patient, or to your own toddler, you are discriminating based on AGE and LOCATION, nothing more.
Why must unborn humans have superhuman rights that no human in need has?
it is the right not to be arbitarily killed.
Arbitrary killing is walking up to a random person and shooting them in the head.
if that person is assaulting you, and the ONLY to escape is to use lethal force, then you would be within your rights to do so. Abortion is self-defense in that sense. No one, born or unborn, has the right to 1) occupy another person's body 2) assault that body without consent.
And this is why your previous analogy failed – it presumed that engaging in sex while a fertile female was a harmful act (only if conception occurs) and that it is equivalent to inviting someone onto your balcony and randomly killing them. The analogy is disanalagous and I have heard versions of it time and time again.
For your interest's sake, in Victoria, Australia, there was one abortion
carried out at 37+ weeks for 'psychosocial' reasons in 2011.
Got a citation for that. Post-viability is delivery, not abortion. At 37 weeks it could survive if removed through c-section or induced labour. Induced labour is actually the standard method of late term pregnancy termination, providing it is not too dangerous for the woman's health.
. If prochoicers truly believe their unwanted fetuses are not capable of
feel pain or think, then there is no reason to be horrified by
someone's personal desicion whether it is healthy or dangerous food
diet…
They worry about the future child that will be born and suffer, when it is capable of that.
Your analogies do not in fact work because of how you have framed your scenarios.
1) Conception does not cause harm.
2) Abortion is not arbitrary killing.
Some of the analogies that are similar to yours are:
"you invite a person onto your lawn, and then stab them in the kidney"
"you invite a person into your house, and then you shoot them in the head"
"you invite a person onto a boat, and then you randomly throw them overboard so that they drown"
————-
The issue is that sex, which can lead to conception, is not in any way a criminal cat. Conception is also not equivalent to 'inviting' someone into your house. It is a mindless biological process. We do not have full control over sperm and ovum, and even then, when we try, such methods can fail (which is also why IVF exists, women can't simply invite conception in, like you'd invite your friend to the balcony.
If you leave your window open, have you invited a burglar in? If you lock your window, but the lock is faulty, and the burglar gets in anyways, have you STILL invited him in? Should you just sit back and allow your house to be burgled since you 'asked for it' by having, gasp, windows?
The other issue with your analogy is that your balcony is not your body. If you invited your friend up to your balcony, and they stabbed you in the arm, started to extract your blood, and then tried to occupy your body in a most intimate way, you would be within your rights to push them off said balcony in self-defense. You have the right to defend yourself against assault and intimate bodily violation. Consent is ALWAYS revokable.
Yes it has. It assaults it's host to survive.
Okay. I'll try again.
Which do you draw the line between non-person and person?
For some reason, I tried to understand why they consider pregnancy as a disease because they believe the zef is a parasite.
Citation needed.
I would like to know how the woman's body willingly GIVES away so much calcium that she develops osteoperosis and loses teeth..
Can you explain that?
Pro choices don't view pregnancy as a disease. They do, however, acknowledge the toll it can take on a woman's body. Pregnancy is not a state of wellness.
Okay. If they don't consider zef as a disease, why do they call those "parasites"?
Because it behaves like one.
Dampens her immune system
Extracts resources from her body
Dumps toxic biowastes into her body
All parasitic functions
Okay. I think I'll address one point to point.
A.) "Parasite" is defined by one species that draining/feeding off the other species' health. However, in the case of pregnancy, the preborn offspring belongs to the human species as same as the mother. So, it doesn't fit this description.
B.) "Parasite" is characterized by being non-mutual. Yes, there is an organ, the uterus, that is specifically for the purpose of feeding and catering for the zef. But, for explain, there is a specific organ for the purpose of supplying blood and nutrients to worms, then it would not be parasitism. So, no, the pregnancy is not a non-mutual.
C.) Noted, parasites are externally transmitted. That means they are not internally developed within the uterus. Because the sexual intercourse would result in pregnancy, so the sexual activities are not classified as medical transmission of a parasite.
D.) Parasite is not supposed to happen. Any parasite is intrinsically bad, and in principle, it needs to be eliminated. Now, that is the principle of a parasite. However, the reproduction is supposed to happen for biological necessity. By intrinsic principle, zef is not supposed to be killed. Otherwise, it would defeat the principle of reproduction. I meant, what is the point of childbirth if it is so dangerous and very fatal? The data of childbirth would be incorrect. It have to be much more than 6 – 11 out of 100,000 deaths. 70-90 percents of fatal, high risk pregnancy issues and deaths would make more sense. But, it's only 1 percent of deaths and the other percents of high risky pregnancies are small…
E) Pregnancy is obviously not a disease or an infestation because it is not an abnormal condition, nor is it intrinsically harmful, neither. All parasitic infestations are diseases because they are harmful, or else abnormal. So, zefs cannot be considered as a parasite.
Well, if we accept zefs are mere parasites, then we should avoid reproduction and to classify the pregnancy as a illness or physical disability.
That's why I have trouble with understanding of the "pregnancy isn't disease, but zef is a parasite" claim. Which doesn’t make sense to me. Because if you agree that zefs are parasites, then you have to agree that the pregnancy is also a disease for the same thing.
Like kitler, I am more inclined to believe zygotes assaults the host mother to survive.
To blithely assume the womb is a giving, nurturing place obscures and ignores the fact that pregnancy is NOT a state of wellness for many women.
I never had hypertension until I became pregnant, and developed preeclampsia at 29 weeks.
Again one of Boonin's points about being made worse off.
& I've actually dealt with this
Here
Technically acts of creation of entities with full moral value are more like duty of care obligations where care not compensation is owed.
So maybe from now on I will call it thus via use of the creators body. & it is more similar to kinapping the violinist than say a people seed just happening to float in the door. (that analogy in its current form is flawed)
OFC you can argue it doesn't have personhood status but nor does a baby.
PC are on the horns of a dilemma argue lack of personhood and justify infanticide -which some PC now argue for- or grant full moral status and create duty of care obligations via use of their body.
But thanks anyway I see now compensation used in Boonin's Toxic waste analogy can only be used to highlight a similar principle and that rather it is duty of care obligations that are owed via use of the creators body.
Yes. Personally I would promote non vaginal sex alternatives esp anal, oral and tantric practices.
Also do a global r&d push for a 100% proof male contraceptive and require all males of breeding age to use it face potential custodial sentences if that or an abortion results.
& as I've said many times universal health care and greater financial resources for single women and poor families. Maybe make use of that 100% contraceptive necessary for such health benefits.
But pets don't have a right to life and the human species is at no current risk of extinction.
& what does developmental rates have anything to do it with full moral value? Looks like a ad hoc fallacy to me. Don't forget some PC support infanticide so would also see this as arbitrary.
If PC want to jump up and down about personhood you cannot have it both ways.
I make it a practice to never cite facts or figures which I cannot back up. So here you go:
http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/E7B8F6942838375ACA257CFD0003DA74/$FILE/Final%20for%20web%2019062014.pdf
Scroll down to page 162, 'Table 6.21b: Perinatal deaths, Victoria 2011, by PSANZ PDC and gestational age'
Induced labour may be the indicated method of late-term abortion, but in order to avoid the 'complication' of a live-born infant, an injection of digoxin or potassium chloride is often given prior to the commencement of labour,
When I created the balcony scenarios, my intention was never to make an exact parallel of conception and abortion. What it was intended to demonstrate is that there exist circumstances under which your bodily autonomy may be justifiably violated. Restating the idea of self-defense does not disprove this.
The extrapolation to abortion is then this: if there is any circumstance under which bodily autonomy may be justifiably violated, then abortion cannot be condoned solely on the basis that bodily autonomy exists. Instead it must be shown why the use of the body by the foetus is not a justifiable use.
An arbitrary act is one undertaken without sufficient reason or justification. Whether or not abortion is arbitrary is exactly what is at stake and what we are in disagreement on.
Under your window analogy, I could also defend myself against a toddler who climbed in the window and started eating the food from my pantry. But that would hardly be justifiable.
Also, if you do actually see the difference between illegal and legal as important when considering analogies, being conceived is not illegal – breaking into someone's house is.
As to consent be revocable, please see my comment elsewhere regarding this issue (in reply to one of your own).
There is no 'right to use another body's as life support.' There is a right to life, as follow:
"“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1980/23.html
There is a right to health, as follows:
"Every human being is entitled to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health conducive to living a life in dignity."
"All health facilities, goods and services must be respectful of medical ethics and culturally appropriate."
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/escgencom14.htm
Within my stance, the leukaemia patient and the foetus have the exact same rights. Neither is being denied rights that the other receives. However, abortion does deny the foetus its right to life, and hence does discriminate based on age and location.
Self-defense must be justified. If another person is poking me in the arm, I do not have the right to defend myself with lethal force, no matter how much they are annoying me. If you kill someone, you must be able to prove to the justice system that the killing was justifiable. To come to your conclusions regarding abortion, it seems like you must apply two blanket rules:
1. Any use of the body without consent constitutes assault.
2. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any assault, regardless of degree.
These, however, are up for debate. You must prove that pregnancy is an 'assault' that justifies the use of lethal force. If you could prove that to me, I would become pro-choice.
A) I said FUNCTIONAL parasite. Not a parasite in the strict biological sense, but it behaves like one.It is genetically programmed, through genomic imprinting to extract resources from the woman, at her expense.
B) Appeal to nature fallacy
C) Still more appeal to nature
D) Evolution is a tinkerer. It just happens, through luck, that more women have survived than died from pregnancy. But just because pregnancy is 'necessary' for reproduction, and just because it is 'natural' and just because it 'evolved' does not make it SAFE or HEALTHY.
E) Many parasites are in fact less invasive and harmful than pregnancy.
——–
And please, for the love of all that is good and unholy, pay attention
FUNCTIONAL PARASITE
FUNCTIONAL
FUNCTIONAL
NOT BIOLOGICAL
FUNCTIONAL
Consent is always revocable. Otherwise its slavery.
Assault is illegal.
Occupying someone's body without consent is illegal.
Abortion IS self defense.
And if the toddler started assaulting you, and the ONLY way to escape was through the use of lethal force you would have that right.
Please answer my question.
There is no such thing as an intrinsic right to life.
Developmental rates and birth = an easy, arbitrary line to set for the law
1) there is no intrinsic right to life
2) rape can cause even less damage than pregnancy. Often none (physical at least). So, do you have the right to kill your non violent 'gentle' rapist in self defense if no other avenue of escape exists?
Well, then tell me. What's your definition for parasite and disease then?
Both those examples do not involve a violation of your body or a need to protect your bodily autonomy. You can easily satisfy their need without sacrificing your body, unlike with the invasion by a zef.
Sure if you want to take that approach but so could a racist or PC who wanted to support infanticide.
At least the personhood approach is a meaningful attempt that tries to coherently justify what grounds why a person is seriously harmed if killed.
Pointing out something like a rock isn't harmed when crushed as opposed to a person with future goals and preferences is far superior than just picking an arbitrary point. That's what I want so there.
Trouble is with brute arbitrariness other can be equally arbitrary especially when dealing with essentially the same entity.
I did I said yes.
Unlike what the article states, the central issue in the abortion debate is not "whether the unborn is a human being or a person".
It is whether any individual, human or not, has a right to invade/occupy/use another person's body without their consent. I would say they don't.
Any individual loses their innate "right to life" (if they had one) once they invade another person's body. From then on, whether they live is upto the person whose body they occupy.
How many years in prison for an amenorrheic women who has sex knowing that zygotes will not implant?
5 years?
30?
Life?
If it was like a people seed of a stranger you would have a case. But it is more like bringing a baby to a house a blizzard sets in and you then want to say you have no duty of care.
The duty of care does not extend to letting the baby violate your body.
-Unlike bringing a baby to house, unwanted pregnancy is not an act of commission.
-EVEN IF it was your own actions that led to the situation, it still does not diminish your right to protect your body.
Not sure I would look for precedents for people doing things with say a 5% chance or there abouts of putting another moral person in a state of existential dependency that then goes onto cause death.
Say even if that killed a person in a coma in a hospital I would think there would be some punishment.
What if someone supplying medical supplies did an action that they knew had a 5% chance of leading to a death of a patient.
I think it would be manslaughter but how heavy the penalty would depend on precedent.
I want YOUR opinion.
What kind of prison sentence would YOU like to see?
Really what about the moral responsibility of male child support?
Regardless I've used the woman drugging a man at a bar with party drug that then goes on to cause him to want to rape her. Sure even if she is the original offender she has the right to protect her body. But after if that leads to the victims death she will be punished accordingly.
Please show me the law that states that the foetus is committing an illegal act by be gestating within a pregnant woman who does not wish to be pregnant.
I can accept that abortion is self-defence. What I question is if it is justifiable self-defence. I would like to hear someone justify killing a toddler who was 'assaulting' them.
You also need to clarify what you mean by escape. Because , to refer back to an example I gave, if someone is poking me and I can't get away from them, am I then justified in using lethal force to stop them? Because they are assaulting me.
Have you read my other comment? If so, please explain how we should respond to the pregnant woman who is unable to provide consent.
Thats like saying a kidnapping victim violates the duty of care
obligations of the kidnapper or property rights.So hardly violating.
Rather
it has be made to need to use her body to survive. Does it give it a
right to do so no.
Nonetheless she owes duty of care obligations and if
it isn't paid should be held criminally responsible.
Just like the woman
if she kidnapped the violinist and had him attached to her but then
detached resulting in his death.
No, the kidnapping situation is INTENTIONAL. Abortion is about unintended pregnancy, where you did not active place a zef in your uterus.
-What about it?
-Once again you are bringing a situation where the alleged perpetrator did something to the alleged victim DIRECTLY and INTENTIONALLY.
A zef on the other hand, is an unintended unwanted trespasser in your body. One that you did not actively & intentionally place there.
Again it would be entirely dependent of precedent.
What I try to do is use already accepted moral and legal precedents and apply them here.
That's why I started with Boonin's toxic waste analogy because it highlights the consistency of bodily compensation linked to general compensation via restorative justice.
If a offender did something that had a 5% chance of killing a stranger but we couldn't determine who was killed by his actions. But know with reasonable certainty someone did, it could be as little as 5 yrs I just don't know.
Do you think he would get off scot-free because we cannot find a body?
Does not matter if it is legal or not. If it is assault you have a right to self defense.
And pregnancy is an intimate bodily violation that has the potential to maim and kill. Birth itself is a form of torture.
If someone shoved a bowling ball size object up your insides would you consider that to be torture? Or is it just a minor tap?
I missed it. All of my disqus notifications are messed up.
A toddler usually does not have enough strength to cause harm to another body by assault, but if they somehow do, the person assaulted would still have a legal right to kill the toddler to protect their body.
A zef invariably assaults the host's body by using her blood & organs, and does cause bodily. Therefore it should be (and is) a legal right to kill a zef to protect your bodily autonomy if you so wish. Most women choose not to use that legal right.
Yes its isn't exactly similar.
The point being the victim didn't place themselves in a state of existential dependency, it was by the actions of the other party.
& this is relevant even if they had not intent. Again why is a male deemed to be held morally responsible for child support with no intent to be a parent or even if he took precautions.
Look your Honor I just put my penis in her vagina and ejaculated I didn't place any baby in her uterus.
Come on!
-If you unintentionally hurt someone in a car accident, you are not obligated to give them your organs, or any part of your BODY.
-As to child support: IMO, If a woman got pregnant and carried the pregnancy AGAINST a man's expressly stated wishes, then he should not be held responsible for child support.
However the fact remains that forced child support is NOT a violation of your body, and obviously not comparable to forced pregnancy or forced childbirth.
Do you see that you've introduced degrees of assault? A toddler is now exempt from being acted against with lethal force because they do not have the strength to 'cause harm'.
I reiterate now what I've said several time; it must be determined if gestating constitutes harm such that lethal force is justified. Simply stating that bodily resources are used by the foetus is not sufficient, as our bodily resources are frequently consumed by activities that serve the needs of others.
I think it's going to be helpful if we try to re-state the basis of this discussion as a logical argument. This would be my assessment:
Premise 1: Nonconsensual pregnancy is assault.
Premise 2: Self-defense with lethal force against assault is acceptable when no other avenue is available.
Conclusion: Therefore self-dense with lethal force is acceptable to end a pregnancy.
I question both premises, but before I go away and do some reading, I would like to know if this is reasoning that I ought to be addressing.
I'm starting to lose track of mine. There are a lot!
Actually, I think it does matter if it is legal or not. And I thought you did too, given your emphasis on legality in previous posts. For example, a police officer may use reasonable force to subdue an individual, and that individual does not have the right to self-defense. A doctor may restrain or sedate a patient for a procedure, and they do not have the right to injure the doctor in self-defense. So it matters very much.
"Birth itself is a form of torture."
I enjoyed your hyperbole here ('bowling ball' is also a bit of an exaggeration). There are few who would pretend that birth, for the most part, is a pleasant experience, but declaring it to be torture is going a bit far. However, I do agree that the pain and potential harm of the process of birth is a big part of the factors that need to be considered when talking about criminalising abortions. It hasn't swayed me in my perspective, but I definitely want to give it more thought.
It is worth pointing out that a late-term abortion is a two to three day process that ends with the induction of labour, and hence birth. If the process of birth is your deciding factor, then you have to allow that it's not applicable to abortions terminated by this technique.
Well I think it is pretty clear what the causal and moral responsibility underpinning male child support is.
So unless you are saying you think a male bares no moral or causal responsibility for pregnancy I don't understand your stance.
Regardless offenders CAN and DO bare moral and legal responsibility in cases where there was lack of intent and the result wasn't directly tied to the action.
Which isn't even the case anyway unless you think ejaculating in a woman's vagina has no causal relation to a resulting pregnancy.
My stance is in any situation where you do cause an existential dependency to a moral person- that then requires a organ donation etc- that is is entirely consistent with restorative justice, compensation or duty of care considerations.
But since we aren't commodities I would make this optional; either allow the organ transfer or face a custodial sentence.
As far as child support IMO if a woman gets to opt out of parental resposnsbility so does the male, but purely on equality grounds as things stand.
If on the other hand a Zef has grounds for full moral value it arguably then becomes a duty of care situation due to causal responsibility but unlike property use is optional. But still entails moral and legal responsibility if that duty of care isn't forthcoming.
This is all conceptually consistent with unintended duty of care obligations via direct or highly likely indirect actions, even if it involves the body.
There is nothing that automatically excludes bodily compensation or use as a viable factor in restorative justice or duty of care.
What could be prohibited is being forced to do so. & IMO if it was a everyday event would very much be already be a part of law.
OFC you can argue Zefs dont have moral personhood status but nor technically should babies.
Its not illegal for a guinea worm to take up residence in your body now is it? Therefore, you lack the right to use lethal force to evict the invader.
If Person X behaved like a zef to Person Z it would most definitely constitute assault. Extracting calcium from person z's bones, dumping toxic biowastes into z's kidneys, drilling into a blood vessel and dampening the immune system of person Z would definitely count as assault. So why are these actions suddenly not assault if produced by a zef? If you want to give zefs full personhood status, they should have the same responsibilities as persons, and those include not assaulting and torturing others.
Declaring birth to be torture is not going too far. Labour can last anywhere from 6-72 hours and the pain can be excruciating. Birth itself is a large object being pushed down a tiny hole. If a large penis can hurt, a full sized fetus can hurt more. And I havent even gotten into vaginal tearing and fistulas.
If a person were to induce any of the above side effects of pregnancy on another it would count as an assault. If a government were to inflict the above on its citizens it would be classified as torture according to Article V of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
So why the special rules for unborn humans?
A) The males in certain species of anglerfish are referred to as parasitic, though they are undoubtedly of the same species as the female.
B) Can you clarify? I find your reasoning here unclear.
C) Not sure what you mean by "externally transmitted". It's not at all uncommon for parasites to be transmitted transplacentally.
D) I object to "supposed", which implies intention. Certainly a species that does not reproduce does not survive, but this imposes no moral obligation upon any member of said species.
E) Even in cases where none of the commonly-referenced bad complications of pregnancy arise, pregnancy is nine months of extra strain of the body; even a normal pregnancy can interfere with one's activities in several life areas. It can fit the usual definition of "disability"; that it isn't considered one is making a special definition for pregnancy that doesn't apply to other conditions. This is not to say that pregnancy is inevitably disabling, only that a "normal" pregnancy without major complications can fit the definition of disability.
But why argue these minor details? Call it a parasite; insist it isn't; if it draws upon the resources of the person carrying it without return, it acts in the same manner as a parasite, which is the crucial point here.
No, I never said a toddler was exempt. What I said was: "……. but if they somehow do, the person assaulted
would still have a legal right to kill the toddler to protect their
body."
Who the invader is does not diminish your right to protect your body. All that matters is if they threaten or harm your body in a significant way.
Also, your LIFE doesn't have to be threatened in order to protect your body. Some invasions of your body may not be life-threatening (such as rape, or someone taking your blood or a kidney under aseptic conditions). You still have a legal right to refuse those invasions, and kill the invaders to protect your bodily autonomy.
Nonsconsensual pregnancy is indeed such an assault, and self defense with lethal force is acceptable.
I disagree that organ donation should be made mandatory in ANY situation. Absolutely not in cases where the harm to the victim was done accidentally and/or unintentionally. (Arguable in cases of intentional premeditated harm.)
"What could be prohibited is being forced to do so."
I agree, and the same rule should apply to pregnancy & childbirth as well as any other organ donation. Forced pregnancy is unacceptable just as forced organ donation.
Again what I'm saying is that like other duty of care or compensation situations you either provide the care or compensation or face a custodial sentence.
I'm NOT saying FORCE them to do it. If a drunk driver caused the victim to need his kidney it would be an option, not forced.
& like any other case where a host invites or places another moral person in state of existential dependency they have the option of continuing the duty of care or face custodial sentence.
This is consistent with already accepted moral and legal precepts. It is only novel in that bodily compensation or use would now also be an accepted OPTION, but never forced.
I also would grant rape exceptions.
I'm NOT Pro-LIfe.
I see the word "supply" in this description, not "suck". And, would you support killing an unborn child like the one in the picture?
http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/placenta-clinic/placenta101
If a woman is paranoid about loosing teeth as a result of being pregnant, she better do everything she can (e.g. surgery) not to become pregnant. Otherwise, unless her health is truly endangered from the pregnancy, the unborn child should have a chance to be born and have teeth of his or her own.
Nope. Not a valid explanation.
Try again.
What I tried to address:
A) Different species
B) Non-mutual relationship
C) Transmission
D) Intrinsic principle
E) Pregnancy is not a disease or infestation
I hope that clears.
Okay, if you believe zefs behave like a parasite, then you should have no problem with calling it "parasite". But, what bothers me that people can say zefs are parasites, yet they don't consider pregnancy as infestation or disease. So what is a pregnancy excatly if zef is just a non-person parasitic creature?
I haven't found a single description from a medical or pregnancy web-site that says 'suck'… they all say 'supply' or 'deliver'. (The March of Dimes website says: "delivers nutrients and oxygen to the baby"). Feel free to provide a link to a reputable website that uses the word 'suck' in relationship to the unborn child sucking nutrients from it's mother.
Nice how you evaded the question in my last post too.
As I stated before: If a woman got pregnant and carried the pregnancy AGAINST a man's
expressly stated wishes, then he should not be held responsible for
child support.
However the fact remains that forced child support
is not a violation of your BODY, and obviously not comparable to forced
pregnancy or forced childbirth.
If the only options are bodily compensation or prison, it is still a violation of a person's bodily autonomy. When the only alternative is prison it is tantamount to forcing.
I am sure this is not consistent with already accepted moral & legal precepts, considering that cruel & unusual punishments are prohibited in addition to violations of bodily autonomy.
Furthermore, the concept of "bodily compensation" is not practical for ANY situation other than forced pregnancy. All the hypothetical examples about organ donation to accident victims are well & good in theory, but not implementable due a variety of medical & practical concerns (such as organ mismatch or rejection).
Forced pregnancy is pretty much the ONLY situation this concept could be practically enforceable. Thus the whole concept seems to be just another indirect attempt to criminalize abortion.
Frankly, the only difference between pregnancy and a disease is that people sometimes willingly undergo pregnancy because they want to reproduce. It would basically be a disease for me now, if I got pregnant again, and one I would treat as soon as possible to avoid the worst effects.
Nine months of one's life is a hell of a lot to give up and labor is no picnic, either. It is not exactly a minor imposition, carrying to term.
& as I've said here if Zefs are worthy of full moral status you are abrogating duty of care obligations that would be forthcoming to other moral persons in other existential dependency situations. Whether the woman or man wants those duty of care obligations should be irrelevant.
& yes forced child support isn't the same as forced body use but I'm not advocating FORCED body use.
If anything is optional it isn't by definition forced. If a criminal is given the option of a lesser charge if he squeals on his fellow criminals he isn't being forced to do so. Sure he is forced to choose but that's not being forced to a single option. OFC the options need be proportionate and any custodial sentence given as a choice would be set on precedent.
& the reason why David Boonin did his toxic waste analogy was to show that bodily compensation -while novel- still aligns with other restorative/compensation cases. & since this applies to compensation there is no reason why in principle it cannot be for duty of care obligations as well.
Lastly even if there are NO other cases of applicable bodily compensation or bodily duty of care that is irrelevant. As long as the principles holds and is consistent with other established moral and legal norms it should be introduced.
Once women and coloured people were arbitrarly excluded from citizenship but the underlying principles meant that even while novel and without precedent they deserved the application of citizenship.
PS an no it isn't criminalizing ALL abortions. Rape and health would still be available and women like in the party drug analogy would still have the option of self defense but since she with the male caused the situation she will then be held accountable.
Youre still wrong.
nope.
" As long as the principles holds and is consistent with other established moral and legal norms it should be introduced."
My point is that the principle does not hold, and it most certainly is not consistent with established moral & legal norms. It violates the concepts of bodily autonomy, and cruel & unusual punishment.
There is no real life situation where the "duty of care" should involve violation of a person's bodily autonomy.
In response to your post below, if the zef's right to life should be honored at the expense of the host, there's no justification for a rape exception either. Zef is there through no fault of his own, and is not threatening the LIFE of another person. So the rape exception won't hold.
Anyway, no person's duty of care should ever extend to violating their bodily autonomy. And regarding zefs, duty of care is much more than just "life" or just spitting them out. If you are unable/unwilling to care for the future child, the highest care you can provide is immediate termination.
Still wrong you are
In most cases, there was no 'invading', the sperm was INVITED in and the egg was already there. No invading going on. Next lame argument, lol.
We have special rules for newborns too.. we don't give them the right to vote or drive a car. We don't let parents leave them home alone like they would with a teenager. Why the special rules for babies? Oh, because they are different? and more dependent on adults? Unborn children are dependent in a different way. Unless the woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy, no one should have a 'right' to kill an unborn child. it's selfish and it's wrong.
“My point is that the principle does not hold, and it most certainly is not
consistent with established moral & legal norms. It violates the concepts
of bodily autonomy, and cruel & unusual punishment.”
The concept of bodily compensation is fundamentally and conceptually consistent
with restorative justice. Even David Boonin who is one of the most respected PC philosophers argued that. & again it
might violate bodily autonomy if it was forced on the individual but in my
account that’s not the case. & it’s not even close to a false choice like death
or organ donation.
Like the woman & party drug analogy the woman shouldn't be able to hide behind her bodily autonomy to avoid moral consequences. It isn't a mica moral get out of jail card.
“There is no real life situation
where the "duty of care" should involve violation of a person's
bodily autonomy.”
Again there is no violation when it’s optional.
“In response to your post below, if the zef's right to life should be
honored at the expense of the host, there's no justification for a rape
exception either. Zef is there through no fault of his own, and is not
threatening the LIFE of another person. So the rape exception won't hold.”
That’s just it you aren’t even thinking things through via precedence or moral
responsibility. It is quite obvious the rape victim didn’t act or choose to be
raped therefore bares NO moral responsibility or duty of care obligations. It might threaten her life but say it didn’t; what it is doing is seriously threatening her bodily autonomy which enables her
–like in other cases- to resort to lethal force or its removal. The fact is we
do allow lethal force against innocent offenders when they threaten someone’s
life or seriously affect someone’s bodily autonomy
So the exception is quite consistent with other moral and legal precepts.
I think that abortion is sometimes self-defense. Now let's see how a self-defense plea works. Someone who has killed appears in a court established by society for such purposes. Both sides of the case are skillfully represented and all the circumstances are carefully examined. Then the jury, representing society, decides whether or not the defendant was seriously at risk of significant bodily harm. I think that abortion cases should be processed in just this way, except that the decision of society should be sought before the killing, and afterwards only as a last resort.
A guinea worm is not a human being. But you knew that already.
I'm familiar with pregnancy and the birthing process. But your descriptions make me wonder what exactly is your focus when you talk about pregnancy as assault:
Is it the degree of harm?
Is it the issue of consent?
Is it a combination of the two?
Also, where do you see the notion of intent fitting in?
I'm starting to feel like we're just talking past each and going around in circles. I also want to be able to take some time to consider the whole self-defence approach, being as it's not something I have thought about in-depth. At this stage I can't see that I will change my stance, but I do need to do more research on it to ensure that I am properly informed.
Yes, perhaps I rephrased you incorrectly. I apologise.
Some invasions of your body are legal and you do not have the right to respond with lethal force (e.g. restraint or sedation for a medical scan). The question is not whether or not pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy, but whether that violation justifies lethal force. Without addressing justification, you're just going around in circles:
'Pregnancy is assault. Self-defense with lethal force is justified because pregnancy is assault.'
Is pregnancy assault? I am very interested to be looking into this, but it will take me some time and I think the discussion here will likely have died down before I'm considered it to my satisfaction.
Is lethal force proportional to the act of gestation and birth? Intuitively, I say no. However, I want to look into this some more.
Is lethal force the only option? Again, I intuitively say no. Again, I want to look into this some more.
I've been accused of special pleading for foetuses. I don't believe that the case, but I am willing to say that I believe we ought to consider actions on foetuses differently to actions against adults, just as we ought to for actions on infants, toddlers and small children.
For example, if I woke up knowing that every day for the next nine months my toddler, without a choice in the matter, was going to run up to me every hour and kick me on the shins, I would not consider myself justified in physically acting against them. If an adult was to do the same, I would consider myself justified in responding with some force (pushing them to ground, perhaps) to prevent them kicking me.
So definitely, there is a difference in how we ought to respond to the young compared to how we ought to respond to adults. (Pretend in my example that the pain levels are exactly the same).
I think your "I would say they don't" contains a key to understanding the debate that has been going on here and in other venues, and I think that understanding the debate contains a key to clarity about the moral issues.
Two people with different moral intuitions will talk past each other if each does not directly examine his/her own and the other person's intuitions.
Within the abortion debate there is a big spectrum of what we could call ontological intuitions about the being of the unborn, and moral intuitions about the relative importance of bodily rights. Without clarity about the intuitive foundations, logical arguments, though necessary, will always proceed in a chaotic way.
I have tried to address this topic here: http://www.noterminationwithoutrepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/
Those legal & justifiable invasions you mentioned, have a specific purpose. They are either for the benefit of the person being invaded (medical) and/or for the protection of others from them (police). Invasion by an unwanted zef is not beneficial to anyone including the zef itself.
Whether pregnancy can be defined as "assault" or not, it obviously does violate a person's bodily autonomy, and protecting your body is a good enough reason to use lethal force against the invader. The closest example to unwanted pregnancy would be rape, which is also an invasion/occupation/use of your body without your consent. Even if the rape may not threaten your life, the victim still has a legal right to kill the invader to protect her body.
" Is lethal force the only option?"
What other option is there in an early pregnancy? The intent of abortion is not
necessarily to "kill a zef" but to remove it from your body, which results in their death anyway.
More importantly: If you somehow did have the ability/option to keep the zef alive outside your body, is it ethical to do so if you are not in a position to provide proper care for the future child?
"For example, if I woke up knowing that every day f or the next nine months my toddler, without a choice in the matter, was going to run up to me every hour and kick
me on the shins, I would not consider myself justified in physically acting
against them."
The difference is, the toddler is an individual to whom you made a VOLUNTARY commitment, unlike an unwanted zef or an adult stranger. When a woman chooses to give birth when she has the option of abortion, she makes a lifetime commitment to the future
child, to always put them first, and protect & care for them for as long as necessary. That involves taking some abuse from them if necessary, 🙂 among other things.
Its coercive.
Its forcing a person to choose between two violations of bodily autonomy.
Your rapist says: either you let the rape happen, or you get stabbed in the face.
Not really a choice is it?
To add to what suba said.. You can protect yourself from the toddler. Lock the child in xir room or something. Or run away.
Can't protect yourself from the violence if its inside your body.
Yeah we all know, you would force an 8 year old victim of rape to give birth even if it permanently paralyzed her for life and left such a gaping hole in her vagina/anus that she had to wear a colostomy bag for life or else shit and piss out of her vagina. We all know that you'd force this on your own child.
And we all know that you are extremely PROUD of your cruelty.
You have no moral high ground.
So you don't deny my accusation.
Excellent.
Restorative justice is to specifically repair a damage done. A car accident victim, for example, and the victims in all your hypothetical examples had their bodies damaged. The purpose of restoration is to put them back where they were BEFORE the incident happened.
How does the same principle apply to abortion at all? What damage did the host do to
the zef? All those other victims had measurable damage done to their bodies & lives, which they already had INDEPENDENT of the perpetrator. The zef never had a body or life independent of the host. A zef cannot be compensated for something it never had.
Now considering compensation for the accident victims, the purpose is to put their bodies and lives back to where they were.
Even without considering bodily autonomy: As I mentioned earlier, bodily
compensation cannot practically achieve that goal. (There's no practical way to
give your leg to someone who lost a leg, or give your spine to someone who got paralyzed. Even organ donation has a zillion limitations). So the only purpose of this theory is as a
sneaky way to criminalize abortion. However for the reasons I mentioned above, restorative justice does not apply to zefs.
If you consider the damage to the zef was killing it, how can that damage be ever restored through bodily compensation? A real life murder victim cannot get restorative justice through bodily compensation. (Mind you I am not saying
a zef is a murder victim, considering the zef was an invader and thus was killed for protection of the host's body.)
"That’s just it you aren’t even thinking things through via precedence or moral
responsibility. It is quite obvious the rape victim didn’t act or choose to be raped therefore bares NO moral responsibility or duty of care obligations. It might threaten her life but say it didn’t; what it is doing is seriously threatening her bodily autonomy which enables her–like in other cases- to
resort to lethal force or its removal. "
Really? So where are the rights of the zef in this situation? The zef in a rape pregnancy or a consensual sex pregnancy have the EXACT SAME degree of innocence. So why is it ok to kill one but not the other? Zef and woman and this case have the exact same degree of innocence, How do you choose one over the other? Furthermore, if it's fine to kill a zef in a rape pregnancy, why not the zefs in all cases where the women used contraception?
"The fact is we do allow lethal force against innocent offenders when they threaten
someone’s life or seriously affect someone’s bodily autonomy"
Exactly. That's why it is perfectly OK for a woman to remove an unwanted zef with lethal force to protect her bodily autonomy, REGARDLESS of the circumstances of the
pregnancy.
Haven't we been through this a hundred times, and it's you who keep avoiding the final point.
Your right to protect your body is NOT diminished or negated by the fact that your own actions may have led to the invasion.
If you walk in a dangerous neighborhood & get assaulted/raped, are you OBLIGATED to let the attack go on because "it was your fault for walking there to begin with"?
If a rapist walks in through the door you left open, are you obligated to get raped because "it was your fault for leaving the door open"?
I didn't say that… read my post. Doesn't sound like you're denying my accusation tough.
I don't see it as arbitrary when acting in self defense of bodily integrity nonetheless if the woman it caused it to happen there should still be moral and legal consequences for that.
Yes you did. Rape and child torture apologist is what you are.
Right to life outweighs bodily autonomy (with exceptions) after viability (in most states). It should before viability too.
A pregnancy by default DOES cause serious bodily harm. That's common knowledge.
Many women CHOOSE to accept that bodily harm and accommodate the invader at the expense of their body. That doesn't mean all women should be mandated to accept bodily harm. They should have the option to refuse the invasion and protect their body if they so choose.
Hmm my reply wasn't posted.
Quick reply this is similar to what David Boonin said with an example involving a surgeon saving a patients life but that operation then requires the patient needs the surgeons kidney.
The trouble is the surgeon isn't responsible for the patient needing his kidney it was the original disease.
Similarly if you save someones life and break a rib at no fault of your own no you aren't responsible so your analogy like Boonin's fails.
The woman is not responsible for the existential dependency if the zef, though. The fact that it cannot survive without her body is not her fault. She does not owe it anything. Continued help would be unjust enrichment.
My reply to that was lost
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/07/begging-questions-and-trotting-out.html#comment-1481957717
I guess you missed that whole legal abortion decision, huh?
You can criminalize it, but you won't stop it.
A guinea worm is not a human being. But you knew that already
Neither is a zygote. A zygote is human, a guinea worm is not. Both are mindless animal organisms.
Is it the degree of harm?
Is it the issue of consent?
Is it a combination of the two?
Also, where do you see the notion of intent fitting in?
It's partly the way the zygote survives that is assault. Drilling into a blood vessel, extracting nutrients and minerals from the person's blood tissue and skeleton, injecting them with addictive hormones, dumping toxic biowastes into their kidneys, and suppressing their immune system, if induced by other means, would most *definitely* count as assault. No doubt about it. And again, the pains of labour and birth, if induced by other means, would be classified as torture. Just because it's 'natural' doesn't make it not painful or even torturous.
As for intent, no, it doesn't matter. If a cognitively disabled person rapes you, can you defend yourself using lethal force, or do you have to let it happen because they have the mental abilities of a newborn due to oxygen deprivation at birth?
Elizabeth, I am enjoying you conversation. You remind me of me – i really like to get into the details as well. Kudos to you!
So you know, "lol" doesn't make you cute, clever OR correct.
Seriously clueless, you are
There is no 'attack' going on in a pregnancy. The woman's body freely gives the unborn child the nutrients he or she needs.
You're comparing an unborn child to a rapist… An unborn child is more comparable to a toddler that walks in through the front door – you have an obligation to keep him or her safe until you can hand him or her off to someone else who can care for it. That's a woman's responsibility during a pregnancy – keep the unborn child safe until he or she can be safely handed off to someone else if she doesn't want it. An exception would be made if her life is truly endangered from the pregnancy.
Everyone knows contraception fails, so even if a pregnancy occurs due to contraception the responsibility is there (kind of like having a screen door instead of a fully open door and the toddler still finds a way in by pushing the screen and it gives way).
The womans body does not FREELY give up resources. If it did, the zef would not inject the woman with a hormone that enables it to extract the MAJORITY of the sugar from her blood leaving little for her.
No, I just think it's the RAPIST that should be killed, not the unborn child.
You, however think someone should be able to kill a human being for 15 minutes of fame or because it's the wrong sex.
Read this…you support the torture of little girls
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2004/MarriedasChildrenWomenWithObstetricFistulasHaveNoFuture.aspx
How would you like to lose your bladder after being in labour for FOUR DAYS?
Is waterboarding actually torture if it does not leave any permanent physical marks?
She should have gotten a c-section…
An an article from ETHIOPIA justifies what Emily Letts did HOW?
You want abortion to be illegal for 8 yo rape victims even if c section is not an option.
Have a nice DAY thinking about how you get off on child torture
There is no 'injecting' or 'sucking' going. If a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy, doctors can induce to try to save the baby. Or, if that is not an option, an abortion can be done to fave her life.
The science has proven you wrong.
You're an idiot if you think that the woman's body will willingly destroy itself for a fetus.
And yes, there is injecting of hormones going on – through the placenta. How else do you think thr fetus could extract extra nutrients?
"Freely giving" implies a voluntary action that you can stop any time. Can a woman physiologically STOP feeding & maintaining the zef if she wants? NO. Therefore it's not "freely giving".
Unlike a zef, a toddler does not invade your body. A rapist DOES invade your body, like a rapist. The invader's innocence or lack of intent are irrelevant when it comes to protecting your body.
You did not answer my questions about the dangerous neighborhood or a rapist coming in through the door you left open.
WAY TO DODGE THE QUESTION! You're unartful dodger.
An article from ETHIOPIA justifies what Emily Letts did HOW?
We aren't talking about Emily Letts.
Stop trying to derail, cupcake.
We are talking about how you encourage the torture of little girls through forced childbirth.
Yeah yeah, keep trying to justify your pro-torture of rape victims stance.
You aren't convincing anyone.
It's the RAPIST who should be killed. Not an innocent unborn child.
…and the little girl who should be tortured and disabled, according to myintx
C-sections are a valid option….
Now: How does an article from ETHIOPIA justify what Emily Letts did?
Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal for a long time in this country.
Wrong…
If you're so against torture, I assume you're against abortion after an unborn child can feel pain?
How does an article from ETHIOPIA justify what Emily Letts did?
Exactly. That's why forced pregnancy & forced childbirth should never be legal, because it's SLAVERY.
Stop trying to derail the subject from your rape apologist pro child torture stance
I won't fall for it.
Fetuses cannot feel pain. At all.
Because by choosing to carry the pregnancy instead of abort, the mother made a voluntary commitment to the future child, to always put the child first, and to protect & care for them for as long as necessary. That commitment should be tantamount to a legal contract, and involves a promise not to kill the baby without good cause. ("Good cause" may include killing the child to save them from imminent and certain torture, such as some mothers have to do in war-torn countries).
It's the KILLING that is wrong.
Back in the days of slavery, ti was SELFISH slave owners that treated slaves like property – property that can be discarded like trash if they are inconvenient or unwanted. Exactly what most women who have abortions are doing.
I've shown you this a dozen times in the last year. Learn to pay attention.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00885-2
No pain felt until at least 35 weeks
Tell that to pro-abort physicians who say 24 weeks. From Salon: the " consulting medical director at Physicians for Reproductive Health, told Salon. “And what we know in terms of the brain and the nervous system in a fetus is that the part of the brain that perceives pain is not connected to the part of the body that receives pain signals until about 26 weeks from the last menstrual period, which is about 24 weeks from conception.”
"
If pro-aborts say 24, it's really earlier than that…
you're truly sick. You need professional help.
Abortion is intentional killing of an unborn child.
Slave owners treated slaves like property that could be discarded at will.
Never said that… A woman has a RESPONSIBILITY to take care of her unborn child. It is NOT slavery. It's responsibility.
Just like telling the parent of a toddler that he or she cannot leave their child alone at home – that's not enslaving the parents.That's telling them they need to be responsible.
Isn't this amusing… You come on a thread and repeat the same original points. I rebut them again & again. You refuse to address the rebuttals, say I should "get professional help" and run off.
Then you go on the next thread & repeat the EXACT SAME original points yet again, as if the conversation never happened.
Do you have a very short memory, or just enjoy mindless repetition?
Not derailing anything. Pregnant women should get all the medical help they need – including mental – to get through their pregnancy. If PP converted human extermination rooms into pregnancy centers they could help women get through their pregnancy instead of break killing records.
So, answer the question: How does an article from ETHIOPIA justify what Emily Letts did?
Good to know that you trust Salon as a source. I will make sure to cite it for now on, cuz you know that it is correct.
PS fetuses are sedated and anaesthetized in utero. Which is why babies born in an intact amniotic sac are unconscious.
PPS the information in the link I provided is the latest research and is correct.
Once again, getting pregnant is not a choice, carrying a pregnancy IS a choice. Once you make that choice, you DO have responsibility to the child. But ONLY if you make that choice.
If you didn't choose parenthood, you have no responsibly to a zef who invaded your body.
If you read the last sentence of my post….
Stop wasting my time with your pathetic attempt to derail.
You didn't rebut anything. You proposed an inhumane 'solution'. Next, you'll be saying we can kill the elderly that are inconvenient or unwanted as long as we sedate them first.
Forced-birthers wish to treat women like slaves, and force them to be breeding machines against their will.
aww… embarrassed to admit what you support? good.
A woman who wants her unborn child isn't a breeding machine. How dare you insult women. You hate women and you hate unborn children. You just want the right to kill for selfish reasons.
A parent shouldnt be able to kill a born child. They shouldn't be able to kill an unborn child either. Unless the life of the woman is truly endangered by the pregnancy, that child's right to life supercedes any so-called 'taking' of nutrients. FYI: There is no 'drilling' going on. Looks like you're a drama queen.
Abortion takes away an ENTIRE LIFETIME from a human being. That's a lot longer than 9 months.
Interesting article here on the evolution of childbirth:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/why-is-human-childbirth-so-painful/1
And birth can cause PTSD
http://www.birthtraumaassociation.org.uk
Then how does the embryo access the woman's blood supply?
Now that all your logic has failed, looks like all you have left is emotional drivel.
Want to try again? Let's start simply. "A woman who wants her unborn child isn't a breeding machine." OK, what is a woman who doesn't want a child, but is FORCED to breed by forced-birthers?
In addition to biology there are other differences between a zef and born baby. The born baby is an individual to whom you made a
VOLUNTARY commitment, unlike an unwanted zef.
When a
woman chooses to give birth when she has the option of abortion, she
makes a lifetime commitment to the future
child, to always put them
first, and protect & care for them for as long as necessary. That
involves being inconvenienced for them, and sacrificing your body for them to some extent.
That's part of VOLUNTARY parenthood, a choice they already made. It should not be forced on anyone without their consent.
Someone else's life should not trump your bodily autonomy.
You avoided this question before so I'll ask again.
Do I have a right to use your organs to sustain my life as long as it doesn't kill you?
If I tried to do that without your consent, do you have a legal right to kill me to protect your body? yes or no?
Let me start by saying you are wrong, legally and ethically in all your assumptions and analogies.
First of all let’s address the
law. The law doesn’t deal with philosophy and what-ifs, they deal with the black and white of facts. At the core of your argument is giving rights and
protections to a zef or fetus. This will never happen. Let me explain it the way my law professor did. Rights are given not by nature but by man. They are guarantees
to juridical beings. A juridical person is a fiction created for this purpose. Life is not the measure of the guarantee of rights. More specifically cognition and being able to actuate those rights. A corporation is a juridical entity but it has no pulse. Why? Because there are moving parts that resemble consciousness, thereby giving it the ability to actuate those rights. Being a member of the homo sapien race doesn’t guarantee rights. Children, criminals, those declared non compos mentis and brain dead either have no or limited rights. That’s why a zef or fetus cannot have rights. One must be aware, actuate them and [most importantly] take responsibility for their actions. That’s why children who commit crimes must be judged to stand trial as a minor or adult. As a minor the punishment is not very harsh because courts see that minors are not responsible for their actions. Adults are however. So unless you are willing to put a fetus on trial for manslaughter or involuntary homicide if it kills the mother it should never have rights.
People often think of rights as two dimensional and immobile. This is not the case. They are dynamic and
interact with one another in different circumstances. Even if you were to overcome the rights problem one must always remember that fetus inhabits a juridical person. So how far do we go to deny her rights? We have argued privacy but we are just beginning to argue security of person under the 4th amendment regarding abortion. If our framers had been so concerned about
abortion and life, why didn’t they abolish it then? It was legal until the 1860’s
when the Catholics got in and began changing the laws. Why does the forth
exist? Because the framers saw what the state could do with total power. The
crown could rescind its protection from an individual and they had no rights to
trial or protection. In essence they could torture people at will. That’s why David
Boonin’s restorative justice theory would never fly: it’s a direct violation of the 4th and 8th amendments.
Also the violinist analogy has
also been answered by the courts. The state cannot compel another to risk their
life for the life of another in this manner. If a person lets another die they will be punish accordingly. However, they have no legal duty to give their own body for them. The UK courts separated conjoined twins and let one die so the other could live. Life is not the overwhelming concern of a constitutional state. Rights are. And people die in a constitutional state.
A woman who doesn't want a child is a woman who doesn't want a child but should do the RIGHT thing and CARE about her unborn child.
Laws strongly encourage people to do the right thing ALL THE TIME. They encourage parents not to kill their toddlers – EVEN if putting the child up for adoption makes them feel like a mental slave. What does that make them? It STILL makes them responsible to do the right thing.
And zefs do not qualify as natural persons either, as far as the constitution is concerned. Natural persons are BORN.
Yes, the right thing, which is to ensure that the innocent living being will NEVER be abused/raped/beaten by a religious nut (or anyone else).
If you are unable to protect them for the next 18 years, the RIGHT thing to do is terminate, now.
"EVEN if putting the child up for adoption makes them feel like a mental slave"
So mindless zygotes and feti are SOOO special that their "right" to live overtakes the wishes of the already born, sentient woman who doesn't want to carry the pregnancy.
Your judgemental and self-righteous attitude about women who prefer to be childfree insults these women. Deny it all you want, but you ARE consigning pregnant women to become breeding machines.
Nutrients are freely given to the unborn child. In most cases, the woman's health is never truly endangered from her being pregnant. The woman can give birth and a new human being has a chance a full and productive life.
abuse, rape and beatings are horrible. killing is much worse. Children and adults can get help to get over the trauma. Once dead though, they are not ever coming back. Besides, a majority of adoptions work out. ALL abortions deny a human being a LIFETIME.
Explain, in precise scientific detail, how the woman "freely gives" nutrients to the zef, without the zef having to attach to her in any way. I assume the woman reaches out and forces her blood vessels on the zef? Is that how its done? Explain.
Regarding pain, I would appreciate more information than I have (please help), but my impression at this point is that abnormal pain during delivery usually results from a very big baby, or a small pelvis, or something otherwise predictable by doctors. If that's correct, then the risk of abnormal pain would be a good justification for some abortions, but not an argument for abortion on demand.
A well-known 2004 Guttmacher survey of women who had had abortions showed that 74% gave "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" as at least one reason, 73% gave "Can't afford a baby now." Etc. 12% mentioned "physical problem with my health."
"Pain" specifically, apart from however it MAY have figured in "physical problem with my health," was a reason that Guttmacher apparently didn't think it important to ask about; or if they did ask it, 0% of respondents said that that was a reason. According to this page —
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html
— "a space was provided to write in reasons that were not listed." Yet apparently no one reported pain as a reason.
I have NO intention of minimizing what must sometimes be terrible pain in childbirth. But no one surveyed at that time (1,209 respondents) seems to have mentioned it as a reason for their abortion.
Its not your place to judge what a tolerable amount of pain is for others. Besides, its well known that labour and birth are extremely painful.
Question: is rapr not torture if it doesn't hurt?
"Its not your place to judge what a tolerable amount of pain is for others."
If they propose to avoid or eliminate the pain by killing others, and I'm in a position to influence the outcome, then unfortunately I can't avoid judging what is a tolerable amount of pain on the one hand, and what is a tolerable amount of death on the other hand. To say nothing would be a judgment that the death is more tolerable. I've already said that sometimes it is. But is it always?
Is rape torture if it does not hurt?
How about waterboarding?
Your honor I'm not responsible for my baby starving to death it was purely due it its biology. Not my fault it cannot survive on its own. I don't owe it anything and continued care is an unjust burden. Since its an independent organism it is responsible for itself. 😉
If 2 individuals had the last to examples of a rare stamp and one individual destroyed the other person's stamp. The offender doesn't have the money to pay compensation. It would think it would be well within restorative justice for the judge to say either give the victim your stamp or face a long custodial sentence. That doesn't violate property rights.
Nor is not coercive.
Your rape example is from the view of the offender not from the victim is isn't relevant.
& I've already said it isn't even close to being a false choice.
I'm glad you are enjoying it. I'm finding it stimulating, but also frustrating, as I just don't have the time to devote to looking into these topics as I would like to.
Whether or not a zygote is a human being is one of the key questions in the abortion debate, and not so easily dismissed.
Also not so easily dismissed it the idea of 'natural'. I am so far away from the 'if it's natural, then it's good for you camp' that it's not funny. However, I don't think you can consider the concept of pregnancy without taking into account the fact that both the woman and the zygote are undergoing involuntary physiological processes. What's more, processes that each and every one of us has had to undergo in order to be here today. The fact is that is it 'normal' for a zygote to undertake the activities you describe (and the process does not change whether it is considered consensual or not), but it would be 'abnormal' for an adult to carry out such activities.
Mind you, I have to protest against your descriptions. The skeletal stores of calcium would only be accessed if there was insufficient calcium in the diet. I'm not sure what you mean by 'blood tissue', but the glucose and amino acids transported by the blood are also increased by sufficient diet. 'Toxic biowastes' include substances such as carbon dioxide, urea and creatinine, which the human body is designed to deal with and I douubt are actually toxic in the quantities that would be produced by the zef. The adaptive immune system is suppressed, but the innate immune system is boosted. It's not nearly as bad as you phrase it to be.
I agree absolutely with your example on intent (although I pictured someone sleep-walking rather than having a mental disability). I do think, however, that it mitigates the action and means that it ought to be treated differently. In what respect, I cannot say because I need to give it more thought.
“First of all let’s
address the law. The law doesn’t deal with philosophy and what-ifs, they deal with the black and white of facts.”
Yes sure but there is
a strong relationship between the law and ethical principles it isn’t all just
procedural contrivance. & I’ll bet you the law has to deal with grey areas
where it flounders it isn’t all black and white.
You should also know
the law moral agents and citizenship has
been built up over many years from very crude tribal and racial grounds to
something more universal.
The same can be argued for personhood and human
ontology which is very much contested.
RVW admitted there is no agreement of
when a person starts. So it’s a bit rich to say it could never be extended when
even the law admits its doesn’t know.
“Rights are given not
by nature but by man. They are guarantees to juridical beings. A juridical
person is a fiction created for this purpose. Life is not the measure of the
guarantee of rights. More specifically cognition and being able to actuate
those rights.”
I found it interesting
that natural persons are defined as living human beings. While in philosophy
that can also mean homo sapiens I guess the law means person. But since a baby isn’t a person it shows human non persons can be given a right to life, so in
principle it could also be extended to Zef’s. So no problem there, just like
citizen rights were extended to women and colored peoples.
“Children, criminals,
those declared non compos mentis and brain dead either have no or limited
rights.”
In some relevant areas
related to interest and what matters or will matter to it. The thing is a baby
isn’t a psychological person so doesn’t technically have a right to life under
those arguments. Sure you can arbitrarily include them but if you start doing
that others then to be similarly arbitrary.
“That’s why a zef or
fetus cannot have rights.”
They could be given
rights based on ontology or a future like ours scenario.
“One must be aware,
actuate them and [most importantly] take responsibility for their actions.”
And does a baby do
that? No.
It has even less
cognitive sophistication than many animals. Even some PC’s now see this and are now advocating infanticide. If you are basically arbitrarily giving or withholding rights you can end up with situations where groups you want included are also
excluded.
What’s saves your ass
at least in the US is that babies are given citizen rights at birth and with
that comes the right to life. But if PC want to keep jumping up and down about
lack of personhood for Zef’s one could easily see that amended and infanticide
made legal.
"Invasion by an unwanted zef is not beneficial to anyone including the zef itself"
This has left me a little confused. How is it not beneficial to the zef?
"protecting your body is a good enough reason to use lethal force against the invader"
I disagree. There have be to degrees to this, otherwise I can justify the use of lethal force for minor inconveniences.
"What other option is there in an early pregnancy? The intent of abortion is not
necessarily to "kill a zef" but to remove it from your body, which results in their death anyway.
More importantly: If you somehow did have the ability/option to keep the zef alive outside your body, is it ethical to do so if you are not in a position to provide proper care for the future child?"
If the intention is not to kill the zef, than I wonder what the lethal injections given in late-term induced abortions are for. Or why born-alive aborted babies are left to die without resuscitation attempts.
You're asking if it's more ethical to kill a 'future' child than keep it alive knowing that you as an individual may not be able to care for it? Remember you are talking to a pro-lifer :). To me, it's like you just asks if it's more ethical to kill a newborn than keep it alive knowing that you may not able to care for it.
And what about late-term abortions of foetuses that would be viable if born? Would you be willing to accept mandated inductions with live birth for foetuses are such a stage of gestation?
"the toddler is an individual to whom you made a VOLUNTARY commitment"
Let's alter is slightly. Let's say that I chose to give birth knowing that there was a one in six chance that this situation was going to happen. Does that change my level of commitment?
"When a woman chooses to give birth when she has the option of abortion"
When a woman chooses to have sex when she has the option of abstaining …
4th and 8th
"If it were
established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case
here."
Justice Potter Stewart
“If, as Justice Harry
A. Blackmun continues in his opinion in 1973, “this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right
to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [4th] Amendment”
As Potter and Blackburn
make clear if Zef’s personhood is established it gets very messy and the you have competing interests of parties not just a matter of privacy between one party – the woman- and her doctor. & what is unreasonable or cruel or unusual can be very plastic.
& again I would
argue that unlike PL’s who would force a woman or even rape victims to go to
term I don’t. So I’m not treating a woman as a commodity or forcing her to have her body used against her will. It is an option that she is quite able to decline. So I don’t see it as cruel
unreasonable. Is it unusual sure but one would think that needs to be paired
with cruelty to be relevant.
Same for the violinist
which in the original analogy said nothing about a threat to her life. I wouldn’t force the woman to stay attached she is more than welcome to do so.
But if she in my amended version, caused the violinist to be there in a state of
existential dependency and the other party has a right to life, there is a case
for duty of care and or restorative justice.
The only difference for Zef’s is that it was an act of creation so no harm was done at that instant.
It is assumed but if as others here argue it is more like a caring for a pet that could be reversed with no obligation to pass on care to other interested parties.
Combined with male child support the act of sex can lead to these obligations yet you would seem to want to arbitrarily pick and choose when that is applied.
At least the infanticide PC's are consistent on it.
The Blackmum myth:
http://m.nationalreview.com/articles/228252/blackmun-myth/clarke-d-forsythe
“Really? So where are the
rights of the zef in this situation? …….Furthermore, if it's fine to kill a zef in a rape pregnancy, why not the zefs in all cases
where the women used contraception?”
You might read up on innocent aggressors or think about when the
police use lethal force against the insane or someone under a drug induced
psychosis who is threatening the life or boidly integrity of a victim/s.
I’ve used the analogy of a woman giving a guy a party drug that causes the guy to
want to rape her. In some US states she would be within her right to use lethal
force to stop him but obviously be held accountable for his death.
Even if he
was gentle and lovingly raped her many would still grant her that right. Rape
Zefs are innocent aggressors severely compromising the rape victims bodily
integrity and like many other cases the victim has the right to use lethal
force.
Contraception? Simple she chose to have vaginal sex.
“Exactly. That's why it is perfectly OK for a woman to remove an
unwanted zef with lethal force to protect her bodily autonomy, REGARDLESS of the circumstances of the pregnancy.”
See the bar analogy above so while the woman can use lethal force -at least in some states- she would still be held accountable for drugging the male and his resulting death.
Even without considering bodily autonomy: As I mentioned
earlier, bodily compensation cannot practically achieve that goal. (There's no practical way togive your leg to someone who lost a leg, or give your spine to someone who got paralyzed. Even organ donation has a zillion limitations).
Bodily compensation like
other compensation cases wouldn’t endanger or take from the offender that which
would seriously permanently affect their bodily integrity. So obviously taking
their heart or similar organ is out of the question. Nor a leg,because it is taking a part that cannot be replaced or has a backup
and would seriously impact on the offenders life.
Are all pregnancies on par
with that? Sure we can argue about that.
So the only purpose of this theory is as asneaky way to
criminalize abortion.
LOL since I don’t
criminalize all abortions or force it on the woman your claim is baseless.
"Restorative justice is to specifically repair a damage done. A
car accident victim, for example, and the victims in all your hypothetical
examples had their bodies damaged. The purpose of restoration is to put them
back where they were BEFORE the incident happened.
All those other victims had measurable
damage done to their bodies & lives, which they already had INDEPENDENT of
the perpetrator. The zef never had a body or life independent of the host. A
zef canno t be compensated for something it never had."
Yes as I’ve posted here I’ve
evolved in my thinking. David Boonin’s toxic waste analogy is only useful to illustrate
that the use of the body while novel is still consistent with general restorative
justice principles . What I then argue is that this shows the principle of bodily
duty of care obligations can also be consistent with general duty of care
obligations on similar ground. It is only novel not inconsistent.
& yes Zefs have never
been independent but it isn’t being compensated for lost independence. As I see it creating moral persons creates
moral obligations similar but not exactly the same as other existential dependency
situations.
Choosing to have vaginal sex is not a crime though. Drugging someone is assault.
Forced pregnancy is punishment – a punishment we don't even inflict on criminals. And what if the pregnancy kills her? Then you have just handed down the death penalty for having sex while in possession of a uterus.
Take a baby to a island with not formula knowing there is a high risk of formula shortages and no alternative. Going on holidays isn't a crime, but putting the baby in harms way is.
& while you may have missed it I still give health exceptions. & once again she has the choice if it isn't life threatening to carry through with her duty of care obligations or face a custodial sentence.
Formula on trip = not intimate use of your body. Completely different. The baby doesn't have a right to your blood on thr trip.
Prison sentence for abortion = just another way to coerce women into birth
You were framing the context incorrectly. Sex itself isn't being punished.
Take a baby out of situation where it needs blood transfusions and then refuse to give blood if you are the only option and yes it is owed. But from my POV you can choose to give it or face manslaughter charges.
If that is so then all restorative justice or duty of care cases are also coercive. Child support, criminal damages etc.
I'm not framing anything incorrectly. You said "chose to have vaginal sex" as being equivalent to s woman drugging a man and then killing him once he got violent.
And denying anyone medical treatment, whether or not you are a potential donor, is a crime.
Ok since I have to spell it out chose to have sex but also choose to deny the obligations it creates. If Zefs don't have full moral worth your case stands but if they are moral persons it isn't as clear cut.
Sex is only consent to sex. Not to lose your bodily autonomy.
Get messy if you are only option doesn't it! So no in that sense you can deny them treatment.
The baby does not have a right to the woman's body and neither does the zef. The fact that the zef cannot survive without use of the woman's body is not her problem. Just like if your newborn cannot survive without the use of your bone marrow – the law can't force you to donate. Even if the newborn will die.
Great video, thanks.
There must be moral/ causal responsibility.
The reason I don't think Boonin's Surgeon analogy works is that the original cause of the patient needing the operation- that then causes him to need the surgeons kidney- is the original disease.
If a stranger or parent didn't cause the existential dependency they aren't morally responsible and therefore ow nothing. It's supererogatory.
But say if the parents had a serious genetic abnormality with a high rate of transmission I think there could be grounds for an obligation to transfer an organ or donate.
Mind you, I have to protest against your descriptions.
So? If you put a bandaid on the bruise after someone has punched you is it suddenly not assault?
And the extraction of sugar from the woman's blood can lead to permanent diabetes,, extraction of iron can lead to anemia, and yes, calcium removal can cause osteoperosis and dental loss.
The weakened immune system can rebound after pregnancy and the woman will suddenly find herself suffering from MS. And during the pregnancy, the weakened immune system leaves her vulnerable to certain illnesses that she would have been able to fight off previously.
It is still an assault any way you look at it. And the fact that the woman HAS to eat more in order to not suffer deleterious health effects DOES show that pregnancy is not a benign state, with the zef just hanging out, doing nothing.
Having a right to use something and being owed compensation or duty of care are entirely different concepts.
& being owed compensation or duty of care obligations is different forcing it on someone.
Again if a zefs isn't owed duty of care it is hard to argue a baby does and s the only obligation you have for it is a humane death if you don't want to care for it.
When someone carries a baby to term they have voluntarily entered into a contract to provide for the child. And if they cannot, they give it up for adoption, in which case someone else contracts to care for the child.
Sex is not a contract to gestate.
And carrying a baby to term or adopting a child is not a contract to donate your organs/tissue once it is born.
Unborn children are special – they are human beings, just like every other human being.
No ones 'wishes' should result in the death of an innocent child – born or unborn. Unless her life is truly endangered from the pregnancy.
Every innocent human being should have an equal right to life. That means parents need to keep their children safe. That means they cannot endanger their children. That means they cannot kill their children. That means they have a RESPONSIBILITY to care for their children. They should have that same responsibility before their children are born. They should CARE.
Says who? Maybe you would like it to be the case. And you are the one raising the pet similarities. I can get a pet and agree to care for it but I can legally also decide to kill it humanely. There is no current legal or moral obligation to pass on care.
And no sex isn't a contract to gestate I'm not saying it is. What I'm saying if you create a moral person you have moral obligations to care for it or pass on that care. Entirely different concepts.
& I agree with your last point its not about a contract in those cases. But if you caused that child to need your kidney or a woman breast feeding a baby and takes it to an island with no formula or alternatives you have compensation and duty of care obligations. No contract is need for that. There are rather general legal and moral expectations.
A woman who has trouble dealing with giving her child up for adoption can get HELP. Perhaps PP can offer free help to these women. Some women have regrets after abortion – in that case, there is nothing they can do. They cannot bring that human being back from the dead.
For every story about "I wish my mother had aborted me", I'm sure I could find several "THANK YOU MOM" stories of people who thank their birth mother for giving them up for adoption so that they have a CHANCE. Every child deserves a chance at life. The fact that some children that end up in horrible circumstances does NOT justify killing a child – born or unborn – because they 'might' end up in a bad circumstance. If you cannot justify killing a newborn for that reason, you cannot justify killing an unborn child for that reason.
The unborn child is attached to his or her mother, but there is no 'sucking' going on as you claim.
Parents have to CARE for their children – provide (FREELY GIVE) them food and shelter. That responsibility should start when their offspring is created – at fertilization.
Its just attached? Like someone holding onto your arm?
The purpose of using a toddler as an example is to generate feelings that have no place in this argument. If that l'il parasite isn't wanted, it will be vacuumed out and tossed with the rest of the biomed waste. And if cretins like the forced birth/women-as- unwilling-incubators brigade was to outlaw abortion, it would still continue. Funny how you halfwits need to make comparisons that have no basis in reality and shift the focus away from women who do not want to be pregnant or want to but cant continue the pregnancy. You're all turds, and will be dealt with accordingly.
It is safe, it is legal, it is right if the pregnant woman chooses it, and really, you are nothing but a sad and slimy little toad. I would explain six ways from Sunday how you are mind bendingly ignorant, but as you seem incapable of understanding science or using logic, any point(s) I'd make have been made (and properly cited) and they are lost on the likes of you. So go on with your idiotic agenda and save dem "babies"! Make more unwanted, unloved, abused and neglected children. It isn't like there are any children in this country waiting to be adopted. It isn't like real women are harmed by your screeching and total lack of credibility. These dumb wimins need their dull lady brains decided for them…they couldn't possibly know what's best for their own lives, right?
You can outlaw abortion, you won't stop it. I suppose the alternative is better in your warped book, huh? Punish the sluts, sell the white babies, toss the rest to the foster system, slash funding for programs that might incline a poor woman to carry a pregnancy…oooh! You're just full of fabulous ideas.
Or, you can shut your stinking pie hole and leave the decision with whom it belongs.
I guarantee I will learn to provide safe, ILlegal abortions if it becomes necessary, and there are far more people like me than you.
Gestational slavery? I just said I'm pretty sure that was ruled against awhile ago. Catch up, nutsack.
Citation please. ^
Really, I'm just mocking you. You have no place (less than no place, really) to Dare to speak for "most women". And what about the few that are left over? Who are they and why is it alright for those women to have abortions?
And perhaps you can do everyone a favor and learn some basic biology? I'm sure it's quite taxing, what with being so busy trying to systematically subjugate an entire gender, but it would really do some good.
Oh, pesky science! Bane of antichoicer's existence! A toddler is not existing within another human's body and your comparison has no merit. Try another angle, this will get you nowhere.
Irrelevant. Those of us who have a story have been born.
You didn't "reason" anything out. If I get pregnant tomorrow, that little parasite is history. Your ignorant opinion on having any say in my decision means nothing, unless you count the hassle of having to deal with cows like you. If the unborn mattered to anyone but the women carrying them, you would get a say. As you won't be carrying MY pregnancy, you would do well to stay far the fuck away from MY reproductive system.
And, many people who were ADOPTED are glad to have those stories.. .they wouldn't have them if they had been killed before they were born.
it's women who abort who are just like slave owners were. Treating their slaves like property that can be disposed of if unwanted or inconvenient.
We Have the right to abortion on demand. We don't demand you have one. Clinton? How many times have you been pregnant and what were the [specific] risks associated with each?
Unless a woman's life is truly endangered from an abortion, no one should have a 'right' to kill an unborn child.
It's people like you and Victoria Duran that need to learn basic biology. During Victoria's little rant she showed how uneducated most pro-aborts are, claiming that an unborn child at 12 weeks didn't have arms and legs.
Way to dodge the valid question. Answer the question asked, or admit you are making all of this up as you go. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Who said I was forcing my opinion? I'm STATING my opinion and voting for pro-life candidates who will continue to make laws to protect unborn children from being killed simply because they are inconvenient or unwanted.
I don't approve of violent acts. You do.
typical classy pro-abort reply. NOT
Thanks http://www.cbsnews.com/news/busting-a-myth-about-iroe-v-wade-i/
for a fuller account. I would note this individual -many other on both sides -thinks it is a bad legal decision.
I suppose another way to see it is the 14t amendment won't automatically protect the life of a innocent offender either. So even if a fetus is a person it won't change RvW.
Can you tell the difference between an unborn child conceived from rape and one conceived from consensual sex on an ultrasound at 24 weeks? Does one have 'rape baby' tattooed on his or her forehead? You support dismembering both of those human beings if the woman wants, right?
Kill the guilty rapist, not the innocent unborn child.
Guess you need a biology lesson. While you're at it, take a look at some 4D ultrasounds of unborn children at 30 weeks and see if you can say loud and proud "I support killing that". If you can, you're sick.
Hahaha! "Pro life candidates"! I secede. You just aren't worth the trouble!
For the record, working to ban a necessary medical procedure because You don't like it Is, in fact, forcing your worthless opinions on people (who would most likely kick the everloving shit out of you, should they have the misfortune of meeting you in person)
No, shitstain…I approve of legal medical procedures.
Doesn't make it relevant and you seem to miss the point that some women do not WANT TO BE PREGNANT. Fuck bringing shiny, white newborns into the world for the "deserving couples" who can't produce their own. They want to be parents? Adopt one of the thousands and thousands of children who need a home.
Ahhh, I forgot. It doesn't matter once the zef becomes a person…totally disposable then. And the (unwilling) pregnant woman? She was never very important to begin with. You a cruel and twisted bitch and you have no place among decent people. Be gone!
You can do better than that.
Are zefs attached to the pregnant person the way someone would be if they grabbed your arm?
So you're all for unwanted rape and incest babies being forced into the world, against the wishes of the only People involved the decision?
You going to be the one to tell a 12 year old pregnant victim of incest that if the pregnancy isn't physically "dangerous" enough, she'll be Forced to carry the unwanted pregnancy to term?
Ooooo! Beep, beep, it's the tone police!
Up against the wall, motherfucker!
I believe that in a debate with Matt Dillahunty, Clintob said that he would find it morally acceptable to force a teen to give birth even if the pregnancy would 100% paralyze her for life.
Zygotes –> your right not to be permanently paralyzed from head to toe
So the female slaves who aborted were as evil as thr slavers who raped them, in your opinion ?
Yes or no?
Unless the woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy, abortion isn't a 'necessary medical procedure'. It's unnecessary and its the intentional killing of an unborn child.
p.s. your language isn't necessary. It just makes your side look worse than it already is
Looks like I made someone MAD. Some people may not want to be parents to their newborns and may not want to put them in the system – doesn't mean they should be able to kill them. Once pregnant, a woman has a RESPONSIBILITY (no, it's not a curse word, lol) to CARE (no, that's not a curse word either) for her unborn child.
Adoption isn't about providing an infertile couple with a child, it's about saving the life of a human being and giving him or her a chance at life. Most babies put up for adoption as newborns – including minority babies ARE adopted. All abortions end in death. The fact that there are children in the system does not justify killing any other human being on the planet.
So, if it's not legal after viability (in most states), you're OK with that?
Oh, wow! What a diseased mind you have! You actually think a woman doesn't know if her fetus is the product of rape? What the hell are you blathering about?
Thanks for clearing up what kind of unhinged fanatic you are. The vicious sort who would tell a woman/girl she doesn't know if she was raped.
And yet…killing the rapist is alright? All life is to be protected, unless you say otherwise.
But don't lose too much sleep…there's not much room for you in this debate. A woman who does not want to be pregnant will have an abortion. The question is will it be safe and legal, safe and illegal, or your fantasy: pwecious bayyybeee murderers bleeding out in back alleys, in atonement for their slutty ways. You're beyond sickening.
Let's just repeat that for anyone who might have missed it: myintx says wimins are too stupid to know if they've been raped.
I finally got to read most of the article (not all of it yet), and have some thoughts…
It
appears that all the moral intuitions you mention are based on the
assumption that "Life is good and desirable for all; Death is the
absolute worst fate for anyone".
I contend that this assumption
is incorrect. Life is not the best for all, and death is not the worst
for all. (Otherwise there would be no such things as euthanasia or
suicide).
The worst possible fate for any sentient living being
is prolonged unmitigated SUFFERING. The "Pro-life" stance ignores the
concept of suffering, particularly for the unwanted future child.
Even
if you ignore the bodily rights of the host and concentrate solely on
the zef, forcing an unwanted zef to life would be fair ONLY if they can
be guaranteed a good life free from neglect/abuse. Which is absolutely
not the case today.
Regarding: "Any person whose risk of grave
loss of well-being is small should not be allowed to kill another who is
innocent, particularly one who is weaker than themselves”
Do you consider it wrong for humans to kill animals or plants for any reason other than food?
Why don't you go read a biology book and find out.. educate yourself on what you support – the senseless killing of unborn children.
You don't believe in violent acts?
"Kill the rapist, not the innocent unborn"
You're as inconsistent as you are idiotic.
I already know.
I am asking you.
I want to know how educated YOU are in regards to implantation and gestation.
I guess you are ignorant and don't have a clue how pregnancy works?
Well, since we have an authority in the house!….
Must be nice to make critical decisions based on an experience it's physically impossible to experience.
I should try to find that conversation.
Even with "my language", I present a side 100% rooted in fact. You , on the other hand, are an ignorant cunt.
How it works, sweetums, is:
You fuck with our rights, you're lucky all you're getting is language.
Nothing factual about your last post – it was easily refuted.
I'll bet slave owners used to say the same thing as your last sentence…
No one should have the 'right' to kill an unborn child simply because it is inconvenient or unwanted. It's selfish and it's wrong.
If you already know, you don't need to ask, because I already know too.
I know how pregnancy works. Victoria Duran doesn't. She thinks an unborn child is a clump of cells at 12 weeks. Sure she reflects the incorrect thoughts of many pro-aborts.
If you knew. You would have been able to explain, in scientific detail..
1) how the blastocyst implants
2) how it extracts nutrients from the woman's body
Since you cannot even do that, I can only conclude that you are ignorant and a liar.
Not all abortions done after 24 weeks are for fatal fetal defects or the life of the woman being truly endangered. What if the woman finds out she is pregnant late (it happens) or loses her job at 28 weeks – you OK with the killing then? or should those women do the right thing and give up their baby for adoption when it's born if they dont want it?
This addresses all three of your recent posts to me. 🙂
There are two questions here:
1.Should bodily duty of care be just as acceptable as general duty of care?
2.Does the host owe duty of care to an unwanted fetus?
I still contend bodily duty of care (i.e. any kind of action involving invasion of a person's body) is not acceptable. Not because it's novel but because it's
unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the host does not owe any duty of care to an unwanted zef. As I said, if a rapist comes in through the door you left open, are you obligated to let him rape you, or do you have the legal right kill him to protect your body despite your carelessness in leaving the door open?
"Bodily compensation like
other compensation cases wouldn’t endanger or take from the offender that which
would seriously permanently affect their bodily integrity. So obviously taking their heart or similar organ is out of the question. Nor a leg,because it is taking a part that cannot be replaced or has a backup and would seriously impact on the offenders life."
It's impractical not just due to the impact on the donor's life, but because many of
these hypothetical procedures are not medically feasible. (For example, unlike an internal organ, a limb is a combination of muscles bones tendons etc. each
with their own circulation & innervation to work independently as well as
with each other. Precisely attaching all parts of a such a complex system in a
functional manner is nearly impossible to begin with, not to mention the usual
problems with incompatibility and rejection. Such procedures, while killing or seriously compromising the donor, has VERY LITTLE chance of benefiting the recipient.
Thus it is "restorative" in name only while in reality it will be just punitive. Much better to have monitory compensation which will actually help the victim.
"LOL since I don’t criminalize all abortions or force it on the woman your claim is baseless."
Irrelevant whether it's all abortions or not. The fact remains that there are NO other situations in real life where "bodily duty of care" even remotely applies. So how is this not an attempt to get a foot in the door in the process of criminalizing abortion using outlandish hypotheticals?
I completely agree that people have a right to kill innocent aggressors to
protect their body. My problem is with your LIMITING that right. ALL pregnant women should have the right to kill the unwanted invaders of their body, not just those with rape pregnancies.
Again, in the analogy of the woman who drugged the man, she did something
actively and directly to the victim. Which is NOT the case in unwanted zefs. She
did not actively and intentionally place the zef in her uterus.
In order to be truly analogous, we need to modify your scenario. The woman did not intentionally drug the man, but he ACCIDENTALLY took a drug that she carelessly left lying around. Thus while she indirectly caused the change of his behavior, she did not actively directly & intentionally cause it. This
is the situation analogous to unwanted pregnancy.
Your the one that supports killing beings that have done nothing wrong – you're the one who shouldn't be around hamsters.
A woman's body DELIVERS nutrients to the unborn child.
Unless a woman's life is truly endangered, she should not have a 'right' to kill her unborn child – no matter nutrients are delivered to her unborn son or daughter.
Not scientific enough.
Try again.
There are at least two differences between zefs and babies, regardless of person-hood.
-Unlike a zef, a baby does not occupy another person's body, thus violating their bodily autonomy.
-By choosing to give birth when abortion was available, the woman made a voluntary commitment to the future child, to protect their life & body at all times; to ensure their safety & well-being. That SHOULD be tantamount to a legal contract not to be broken lightly.
"If it were established that
an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here."
You forget the operand “if”. Later in the argument Justice Powell explained why a fetus cannot be a person. This is an excerpt forced birthers use in hopes of overturning Roe. After the doctrine of stare decisis was declared in Casey this will never happen.
“As Potter and Blackburn make clear if Zef’s personhood is established it gets very messy…”
What you are fundamentally missing
is the court rejected the argument of a fetal person.
From the opinon:
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
This has been argued. A fetus is not a person. Furthermore the same amendment would guarantee a woman’s right to life if force to carry to term. Therefore once argued on the fourth the
restrictions will fall.
“But if she in my amended version…”
Once again it’s not up to you or me. It’s the law. The courts have decided that the state cannot force anyone to give their life or risk it, even if they placed the other in that situation. They will simply punisher her for her actions.
“BTW there is no current bodily compensation…”
Actually no there is not. Let me explain duty of care.
From Blacks.
“In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a
standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably
harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with
an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care
imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by
operation of law between individuals with no current direct relationship (familial
or contractual or otherwise), but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law).”
A zef is a part of a woman’s body and therefore is her property. How can you place duty of care upon your own property or body? While laws have been placed to enforce duty of care upon her
they are being struck down.
No a court would not compel the stamp owner to give the stamp. A court has a few options in criminal matters in regard to judgments. This would be a felony first degree criminal offence, it would be malicious destruction of property. In TX it’s criminal mischief Penal Code Section 28.03. There would be jail time [up to 20 years] and fines in consideration of the crime. In this case the court would have the damaged stamp apprised. And the convicted would have his possessions seized to satisfy the judgment. His assessed will be liquidated and assessed to the fine.
The court makes a victim whole by monetary judgments or actions equating to monetary judgments [putting property
that is in two parties’ names in one of the parties]. If there’s an encroachment on land they can make one party tear down a fence. But they cannot replace an object that was destroyed with one from the perpetrator. And they cannot do this for your person [i.e. organs].
Her rape analogy is correct. If one is coerced, whether by force or something they really don’t want to do it’s, not a choice.
You didn't refute anything.
It's necessary if the woman doesn't want to be pregnant. It's necessary if the woman's health would suffer from the pregnancy more than She (not you) decides is worth it. If you want every bun that ends up in your oven, fine. That makes (hopefully) unnecessary for You.
Since a woman had a doctor (and you aren't it), we need no more interference from you. But, then again, this has nothing to do with "life". More like your inability to accept that nobody is asking for your flawed an worthless arguments. You present no science or reason for anyone to take you seriously. And you think you make valid points, simply because you type it out. If that's what stands for research…have fun. Just stay the hell away from my medical decisions. Really, you have no right, and you're outnumbered.
Were you homeschooled?
Pretty sure it's your comprehension that's lacking. The Raped Woman knows She's been raped. If she wants the product of the pregnancy, that's her choice. Just because you or I don't know it's the product of rape doesn't mean She doesn't. So, again, you are all for forcing an unwanted pregnancy on a Raped woman. That's what you're saying. That it's not the fetus's fault, so you don't care if she doesn't want it, yes? You can say that isn't what you said (you don't make sense, so I'm not surprised you confuse even yourself), but I just read it. I asked if a woman who is pregnant as the result of rape and doesn't want to be should be able to have a safe, legal abortion, you said since you can't tell how it was conceived, if her life isn't in danger, you would force er to birth the product of rape. Your screwed up position, not mine.
I don't really understand the bandaid – bruise analogy. Can you explain further how it is representative? Perhaps then I might understand the point you're trying to make with it.
Removal of glucose from the blood doesn't cause diabetes. Gestational diabetes occurs because pregnancy hormones increase resistance of the maternal cells to insulin, and it usually reflects a predisposition. In fact, it can be very helpful (as I know personally) because it can highlight an issue that you would otherwise be unaware of. It's also important to remember that the risk factors that predispose to gestational diabetes are the same ones that predispose to diabetes type II. The only way to accurately measure whether or not it is the single factor of gestational diabetes that leads to development of type II diabetes is to take measurements before, during and after pregnancy, and to carefully exclude all confounding factors. As far as I can tell, this hasn't been done.
There used to be an old saying, 'one tooth per pregnancy'. It's no longer true. The foetus requires about 30g of calcium altogether during the pregnancy, and this is mostly in the last trimester. The recommended daily intake for pregnant women is exactly the same as that for non-pregnant women: 1000mg per day.
Total iron loss from pregnancy is approximately 1000mg. The amount of supplementation needed to off-set this is found in your normal prenatal multi. If anaeamia does occur (usually between 28 and 36 weeks), it is resolved with additional supplementation.
MS severity actually decreases during pregnancy (a beneficial effect conferred by the zef), but can increase afterwards – giving a nil net effect. However, long-term disbility is unaffected, and effects of postpartum fatigue and stress cannot be ruled out as factors.
"The old concept that pregnancy is associated with immune suppression has created a myth of pregnancy as a state of immunological weakness and therefore of increased susceptibility to infectious diseases.[8] Today, there is increasing evidence suggesting that this concept is incorrect and the immune system during pregnancy is functional and highly active.[1] We suggest that, while there may be an active mechanism preventing a maternal immune response against paternal antigens, the trophoblast and the maternal immune system have established a cooperative status. Furthermore, we propose placental–immune cell interactions create a pregnancy-supportive immune environment while still being fully capable of defending the mother and fetus against pathogens."
Pregnant women are not thought to be more susceptible to viral infections than non-pregnant woman. However, they do experience as increased severity of infection (probably due to slower clearance), usually later in the pregnancy. So I agree that this is a health disadvantage. It can however be mitigated by good prevention (vaccinate, people!) and treatment. I certainly don't see it as a sufficient harm to justify lethal force.
What about the health benefits of being pregnant?
Anytime you are using energy, you have to make sure your intake is sufficient. I don't see why that should be such a big deal in pregnancy when it's not in other situations.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I just have a few minutes right now, but can hit the main points, and see later if I should write more.
"It appears that all the moral intuitions you mention are based on the
assumption that . . . "
All intuitions as I think of them are pre-logical, and I think of the deepest of them, such as the intuition underlying the principle "Any person whose risk of grave loss of well-being is small . . .," as "hard-wired" in us. It may be possible to DESCRIBE such an intuition in words, such as "Life is good and desirable . . .," but the intuition itself is pre-logical and pre-verbal. Since it is hard-wired, even if it were incorrect in some calculation, we would be able to ignore it only at our own psychological peril.
I don't in all cases oppose euthanasia, even of someone who has not requested it, if they are not capable of requesting it.
"The worst possible fate for any sentient living being is prolonged unmitigated SUFFERING. The 'Pro-life' stance ignores the concept of suffering, particularly for the unwanted future child."
There are different pro-life stances.
"forcing an unwanted zef to life would be fair ONLY if they can
be guaranteed a good life free from neglect/abuse."
It may be possible to predict with near certainty that a particular future child will have an unhappy life; but it would be equally possible to predict the same for many two-year-olds; and we do not kill two-year-olds. There is of course much more to say about this. For one thing, its appearing logical in some way to euthanize a person would not always mean that it would be psychologically healthy for you and the human race to do so, PARTICULARLY if the person hadn't started suffering YET.
"Even if you ignore the bodily rights of the host"
My article doesn't at all do that, and you probably don't mean that it does. The article attempts to dismantle the bodily-rights argument.
"Do you consider it wrong for humans to kill animals or plants for any eason other than food?"
There is self-defense, of course, and a need to kill plants when we build an airport. I consider it wrong for humans to kill animals or plants for fun.
What I'm saying if you create a moral person you have moral obligations to care for it or pass on that care.
Yes. REASONABLE duty of care, NOT full bodily compensation.
No contract is need for that. There are rather general legal and moral expectations.
See above. Nothing that requires body tissue or organs is considered 'reasonable duty of care' it is considered supererogatory, and is NEVER required, and will NEVER be required.
I don't really understand the bandaid – bruise analogy. Can you explain further how it is representative?
You are saying that an action performed upon your body by someone or something else doesn't qualify as assault if you are wearing a helmet or can put a band-aid on the wound.
Eating extra food during a pregnancy doesn't change the fact that something else is 1) occupying your body 2) extracting resources from your body.
Is rape not rape if the rapist wears a condom?
Is a parasite not a threat if it only causes mild discomfort? I mean, if that intestinal worm is absorbing all of the nutrients from your food you can just eat more, right?
Nope, it's YOUR comprehension skills that are lacking… Re-read my post.
Abortion is NOT safe for the unborn child. No matter how an unborn child is conceived, it should have a chance at a full and productive life. If PP converted their killing clinics to counseling centers they could actually help pregnant women make it through their pregnancy. Help them understand that the unborn child is a victim of the crime – just like they are. Many women who have conceived via rape do keep their babies. Some put them up for adoption. Rebecca Kessling was conceived via rape – you want to tell her she shouldn't be here?
of course, you know that abortion because of rape is less than 1% of all abortions… Don't want to talk about women who abort for 15 minutes of fame or women who abort to hide the result of an affair do you? Nope.. cause you're too embarrassed to admit what you support, eh?
Unless the woman's life is endangered from her pregnancy, abortion isn't 'needed' and it isn't a 'medical decision'. It's an elective procedure that kills an unborn child.
If you don't want to hear my valid arguments you can go away 🙂 I have a right to voice my opinion. I have a right to vote for pro-life candidates that will pass laws to protect unborn.
I am NOT outnumbered. A majority of people want abortion generally illegal after 12 weeks – that means they are fundamentally against Roe V Wade. You are the one that is out numbered. A small minority of people support killing at any point in a pregnancy for any reason – only 14% of people think abortion should be legal for any reason in the last trimester.
I will be honest that I didn't have the time to read everything here. That said:
"Even in the case of people in bad relationships or after bad breakups, the only way you can be forced to take on the obligations of a parent are if someone else chooses to take on themselves the greater obligations of a custodial parent."
I don't think that this is particularly relevant here, considering that one's parent's obligations here are voluntary while the other parent's obligations here are involuntary. Just because Person A voluntarily does something does not mean that Person B should be forced to do something, even if it is lesser than what Person A voluntarily did. If one is arguing against involuntary obligations here, then it doesn't make sense to support involuntary obligations of any kind.
Also, as a side note, you previously argued in favor of legalized abortions by pointing out the biological differences between cis-males and cis-females and by arguing that we should seek to mitigate the impact of these biological differences. For instance, you also mentioned about how we provide wheelchair ramps and whatnot to make it easier for wheelchair-bound people to move somewhere.
Anyway, if you are arguing that we should create as much gender equality as possible, then doesn't it make sense to give *all* males a child-support opt-out after sex? After all, if females have a unilateral opt-out from child support through abortion, then if one aims to create as much gender equality as possible, shouldn't one likewise give *all* males such an opt-out after sex? If you will state that there are more important things than creating as much greater equality as possible, then politically anti-abortion people can likewise use that same argument to justify implementing abortion bans which affect cis-females but not cis-males.
"That is, I don't accept that if parents are morally obligated to care for the children they choose to have, that the government has the right to force them to do so without doing anything to help."
But the government does sometimes provide help, such as with welfare and whatnot.
I agree with your point here in regards to infants, and this is what I consider to be a possibly good thing to attack pro-choicers on. After all, if we are sure that human infants have equal or inferior mental abilities to some non-human animals (chickens, pigs, and/or et cetera) before a certain age, then why exactly would it be morally unjustifiable to give parents the choice to painlessly euthanize their infants in the event of a shortage of adoptive parents?
The type of donation.
Feeding and watering my cat until I can drop her off at the SPCA is a small imposition.
If she was inside my body, that is a huge imposition.
Sure, but my point still stands; it is illegal to kill or abandon unwanted children or to sell them into prostitution, including in Brazil and other countries. Thus, if someone does that in these countries and the authorities discover this, then these people will get prosecuted for doing this.
My point here was about the legalization of painless elective infanticide in the event of a shortage of adoptive parents. Something being legal is obviously not the same as something being illegal.
"(3) A responsibility imposed by someone who is accepting a more burdensome responsibility upon themselves (i.e., a custodial parent imposing child support on a non-custodial parent) in a situation where there is no good solution."
Why exactly should this be an exception for this?
And how exactly does one impartially draw the line between a small imposition and a huge imposition?
Authorities often look the other way.
In Cambodia there is a burgeoning virgin trade. Poor families sell their little girls to rich political leaders and police to be raped for a week or two.
In Africa, girls are married off asap as sex slaves to older men.
Maybe, but I doubt that this is always the case.
Feeding my cat = small burden
Letting my cat occupy my body and use all of my organs = huge burden
"Also do a global r&d push for a 100% proof male contraceptive and require all males of breeding age to use it or face potential custodial sentences if that or an abortion results."
Couldn't this be hard to enforce?
Also, we already have castration.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/virginity-for-sale-cambodia-sex-trade
You didn't answer my question; how exactly can one impartially draw such a line? Else, someone else can draw the line at a different location and it would be just as valid as your line.
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html
Just because the law draws a line somewhere does not necessarily mean that this line is impartial. Else, it would be an example of the appeal to authority fallacy or something along these lines.
The point is to read the article and understand the REASONING behind it.
Thanks for sharing this link.
That said, though, your point here wouldn't apply to countries with good law enforcement.
(And as a side note, even if I supported infanticide, I would only support doing it painlessly, as opposed to making human infants suffer or making it legal to abandon human infants and whatnot.)
OK–I have read this article.
However, in regards to the top of this article, it is worth noting that there is a historical precedent for forcing people to *risk their lives, health, and/or well-being* for the sake of others–it is called the draft. Or do you oppose the draft in *all* cases?
Also, thinking outside of the box here, theoretically speaking, any time that Person A is forced to save Person B's life, there is a potential threat to Person A's life since Person B can kill Person A at some point in the future. Granted, this is extremely unlikely for obvious reasons, but my point here is that being forced to save one's life is never appears to be free of threats and/or potential threats for the person who is doing the saving.
As for the second part, I agree with this ruling itself, since Shimp was not responsible for creating a situation with a dependent individual. That said, I disagree with certain parts of this judge's analysis.
What exactly are your views in regards to a case where there is a hospital mix-up and Person A's kidney and/or whatever has accidentally been donated to Person B without Person A's kidney. Should Person A be able to use whatever force if necessary to take back his/her kidney and/or whatever from Person B?
"Accidentally conceiving a child by having your birth control fail is not the same thing as a real decision."
And yet, in practice, you treat it as a real decision for males.
"On the other hand, it doesn't give you the obligation to do them more favors later."
Except when it comes to forcing cis-males to pay child support.
Thus, you appear to be inconsistent in regards to this.
That is an interesting question. At a minimum, a court of law would be justified in forcing Person B to give it back. I would say that Person A would be justified in using whatever means necessary to take back his/her kidney. If I were sitting on a jury, I wouldn't convict Person A.
Out of curiosity–are you politically pro-choice?
As a side note, this situation does appear to might have some parallels to abortion in the sense that the act being performed is active killing as opposed to letting die.
I am politically pro-choice.
There are certainly a number of ambiguities involved in the question. For example, while I wouldn't convict Person A for trying to get his/her kidney back, I probably wouldn't convict Person B for defending themselves either.
True enough, but if we actually had a world where there were no legal restrictions on abortion, analogous measures could be taken for men. See, for example, http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make_fatherhood_a_mans_choice_partner/
First of all, I think both of these intuitions or ideas are pretty common: "If it's natural, then it's good for you (from a health standpoint)" and "If it's natural, then it's moral (and therefore psychologically uplifting)." I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, that we have to be very cautious about these ideas, but that they can't just be dismissed.
I have been thinking a lot about the intuitive content of such ideas — without much result. Regarding the interplay of intuition and logic in general, I have thought as best I could here:
http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/
Suba gunawardana has started replying to the thoughts of that article (below the post of his that is highest on this page, which begins "Unlike what the article states . . ."). I had written to him:
"Within the abortion debate there is a big spectrum of what we could call ontological intuitions about the being of the unborn, and moral intuitions about the relative importance of bodily rights. Without clarity about the intuitive foundations, logical arguments, though necessary in their right place, will always proceed in a chaotic way."
"Intuitions about the significance of 'natural'" could have been added to that statement.
"What if someone supplying medical supplies did an action that they knew had a 5% chance of leading to a death of a patient."
Actually, that happens all the time. Practically every time a doctor prescribes a medication, in fact. But doctors are rarely prosecuted when the medication winds up killing the patient.
Honestly, I am willing to support greater abortion access for everyone who wants one in exchange for giving cis-males some kind of opt-out from paying child support (for the record, Chalkdust's arguments here could lead to the conclusion that there needs to be a child support opt-out in *all* cases, whereas I can certainly settle for a more limited opt-out). However, I don't think that this will be a serious possibility, at least not anytime soon. (As a side note, there has also been at least one case where a male victim of rape has been forced to pay child support.) Based on the current legal situation and reality, as far as I know, unfortunately the only way for men to have consensual sex with any woman that they want to *and* be 100% guaranteed that a pregnancy will not occur will be to get castrated and possibly to utilize hormone replacement therapy afterwards. This might sound extreme, but it might be a true and accurate statement.
(For reference, I used to be politically anti-abortion, but now I am rethinking my position on this issue and trying to figure out where exactly I should stand.)
A case MIGHT be made here. However, in the analogous situation of, say, the famous violinist, one is not obligated to remain hooked up just because they originally volunteered. In real life, things change, and what was originally voluntarily undertaken becomes too much of a burden.
I see where you are going here, but at the same time, I wonder if your objection here can only be applied to cases where you didn't know all of the details in regards to you being hooked up to the Violinist with certainty (in other words, you might have been told that the Violinist only needs one month to recover rather than nine months). In such cases, I could perhaps see a strong case in favor of allowing one to unplug the Violinist due to the fact that he or she was not completely aware to what he or she was consenting to.
"What if one supports allowing 5-year-olds to demand the use of someone else's body parts in certain cases as well?"
Then they don't have the stigma of hypocrisy that is characteristic of the PL movement that wouldn't support it.
Make a case. Specify the circumstances, the limitations, etc., etc., and put it up for public debate.
Even in cases where the person knew it would be nine months, the right to unplug would still apply. What a person doesn't know isn't limited to fraudulent assurances (it would only be a month). It is the entire future. I might very well allow myself to be hooked up to the violinist, assuming I had the time and other resources to do so. But I could also see myself changing my mind and demanding to be released in light of new conditions that arise.
Either the Salon article itself or one of the links talked about the rape case as an example of how unjust the current system could be. One of the links proposes just a system of opting out for males. It should also be noted that the only 100% guarantee for women that pregnancy won't occur is the removal of the ovaries and/or uterus. That is something that is overlooked by the anti-abortion crowd.
In non life and death -no choice- situations? We after all accept high risks if the there is no choice.
Or would you be happy with a mechanic or cook etc doing a job for you knowing that there was a 5% – 20%chance of it killing you or a family member?
What about Taxi driver crossing a swollen river or bridge -when ther was alternatives when there was a 5% -20% of being swept away or it falling?
Would you say they should walk away if they took precautions and never intended to harm your family?
The individual cases would have to be on their merits. That is the problem with your analogy. Details make a difference.
You are approaching it the wrong way. It doesn't need big brother enforcement. Like most other laws the society is educated about it and men told use the contraception, but if a non health related abortion results you could face jail time as an assessor to manslaughter.
Either that or try anal or oral sex.
Somewhat like child support in some countries. The law isn't there to stop men having unprotected sex rather says you will be help resposbilie if a woman has the child.
Some PC are indeed finally arguing this right now. They cannot have it both ways.
Again I'm NOT saying it is forced. It would be unreasonable IMO -that is why I'm not PL- to force it on a woman. Rather it is an option in line with other compensation or duty of care considerations.
I see no reason why a persons body allows them to avoid compensation or duty of care obligations. Or in other words harm or place another moral person in a state of existential dependency and get away with it because it involves their body.
We highly value liberty but will take that away if you harm another moral person.
& yes as things have historically been done there is no bodily precedent but as David Boonin argued there is nothing in principle that says the body cannot there as an option or alternative for a custodial sentence.
& if you hadn't noticed even if we exclude bodily compensation or duty of care one can argue if Zefs are moral persons the act of creation itself whether in a artificial womb or uterus creates duty of care obligations. So a woman could be punished on those grounds alone if she then neglects its duty of care.
I don't think so it would be quite normal in criminal law to look at whether the offender harmed a person, what sort of risk was involved, the foreknowledge and the causal mechanism that lead to the harm.
There is no conflict of rights. The right to life does not include a claim on someone else's body parts. Therefore the fetus is not unjustly killed when a woman has an abortion.
You are improperly confusing the right to health care to the right to health. A leukemia patient in need of a marrow transplant will just as certainly die without it. If I am not forced to give my marrow, then neither am I forced to gestate a fetus (assuming I had that capability). What applies to one applies to the other.
Ok but can you tell me that it could never be legislated to allow that?
& I don't think that your blanket statement about coercion is correct. I would imagine it is illegal to coerce a offender to provide information in a plea bargain but it happens. They have a choice of a harsh penalty or provide information for a lesser punishment.
Exactly–the details. There are also going to be matters of intent, knowledge, and best practices. Our doctor prescribing a medication that happens to kill the patient will not likely be prosecuted. But if there was malice involved, that's a different story. Cooks are not likely to be prosecuted for spreading disease if they had no way of knowing they were contagious. A cab driver crossing a swollen river or bridge when there are alternatives could be seen as violating best practices and therefore probably would be prosecuted.
I like this as I do think most PL's think the legal aspect is a simple aspect to overcome.
I will reply in more detail; going to have a break 2nyt.
But I would say sure we have to deal with things as the laws stand now. But just as things have changed in the past with new moral or scientific arguments.
Yes so I would ask how is a male thought to be morally and legally liable for child support for an action result he didn't consent to or may even have taken precautions?
How is that different from pushing a button for a stem cell therapy but there was a small chance of getting a if baby?
Can he just walk away and let the baby die if he is the only available caregiver?
Will reply tomorrow.
We keep going back to treating having sex while female as a criminal act.
Bodily compensation = an intimate violation. It is slavery. You are not talking about mere duty of care – you are talking about criminalizing sex…for women.
And what if the woman dies from the pregnancy that she was coerced into gestating as part of your "duty of care". Is the death penalty part and parcel of this " duty of care"?
(1) One of the big problems most liberal pro-choice people have with conservative pro-life people (which, sorry, is still the majority of the pro-life movement) is the way they want to criminalize abortion…and don't want to do anything at all whatsoever to help the people whose lives they have just made much harder, usually because they don't want the minor inconvenience of higher taxes. Yes, it's an involuntary obligation, and I agree that we should have more opt-out options than we have now, but I still maintain that forcing someone to remain pregnant and refusing to accept any resulting inconvenience to yourself whatsoever is far more morally objectionable than forcing someone to make monetary payments as a result of your decision to do something harder.
(2) The pregnant person gets to decide whether the child will be born or not. And I think that if the two parents disagree, giving her the choice because she's the one who has to deal with the physiological consequences is appropriate–the only other options are "either parent can choose abortion" and "either parent can choose carrying to term". The second is forced pregnancy and thus u
"You must not have sex with anyone if you don't want to be pregnant" is much more restrictive than "You must not have sex with anyone you don't trust to give you a say in whether she has an abortion if you don't want to be a parent."
Welfare is often inadequate, and a lot of "pro-life" conservatives want to cut what welfare there is.
This sounds like Person B is the recipient of stolen or misappropriated property, and I see no reason not to use the stolen property precedent, i.e., to state that Person A has a right to have their own kidney back.
Thus, it *does* (unless perhaps a cis-male is castrated) make sense for these pro-choicers to tell cis-males that they shouldn't have sex with any fertile cis-female if they don't want to risk being forced to pay child support afterwards.
Thanks for your answer in regards to this.
Out of curiosity–would you support forcing Person B to undergo surgery to give Person A his/her kidney back, or would you simply support punishing Person B in some way if he or she refuses to give Person A his/her kidney?
Fair point, unfortunately.
There are already 484 comments here so someone probably already said this, but just in case:
I do see people use bodily rights to justify the killing, or at least letting die, of born persons. That's what Thomson's Violinist argument is all about.
Also, it bothers me when pro-lifers respond to a bodily rights argument with an analogy about a house. Your house isn't your body, and property rights are not equivalent to bodily rights. I think making that comparison shows a misunderstanding of bodily rights arguments.
Human, not necessarily a full human being. Frankly, the death of an early embryo/fetus is not something that I give much moral weight to.
I would. At the very least, Person B would owe Person A compensation. And of course, both persons would have a claim against the hospital.
"Yes so I would ask how is a male thought to be morally and legally
liable for child support for an action result he didn't consent to or
may even have taken precautions?"
In practice, it is done on pretty much the same grounds which "pro-lifers" use to deny abortion to women. Biology is destiny. It is just as unjust.
Already addressed that too, many times, on other threads. Can you bring some NEW points for once?
How is it not beneficial to the zef? Because it is unwanted, and has very little chance of a good life if forced to be born. (Life is not all that matters, quality of life is. All children deserve a GOOD life free from neglect/abuse, complete with love & resources. Unwanted children don't get that).
"I disagree. There have be to degrees to this, otherwise I can justify the use of lethal force for minor inconveniences."
Sure there can be degrees. But if you agree non-lethal rape is an invasion worthy of lethal force to protect your body, then the same rule applies to pregnancy, a GREATER & more prolonged invasion than rape.
"If the intention is not to kill the zef, than I wonder what the lethal injections given in late-term induced abortions are for."
Late term abortions today are done NOT for convenience but in cases of wanted pregnancies gone wrong, such as fetal defects. What's the point of keeping a defective fetus alive at great health risk to the mother?
"Or why born-alive aborted babies are left to die without resuscitation attempts."
To the best of my knowledge this is a lie perpetuated by pro-life fanatics. I have never seen any independent sources confirming this, & would like to see if you have some. Regardless, even if true, what's the point of resuscitating a traumatized fetus if there's no one to care for the future child? (To torture it a little bit before it dies anyway?)
"To me, it's like you just asks if it's more ethical to kill a newborn than keep it alive knowing that you may not able to care for it."
As I already said, a newborn has a voluntary commitment behind them, which should be tantamount to a legal contract. An unwanted zef doesn't.
Now let's imagine for a moment that it IS a newborn with such a commitment, you are the ONLY person available to care for it (desert island?) and you are terminally ill/injured, about to die in a few hours. Is it ethical to leave the baby to starve to death or be slowly eaten by ants? Personally I would say absolutely NOT. If I were that baby & somehow had a say I would be screaming "kill me now!"
Same principle for any vulnerable individual in your care, including a zef. Unless you can guarantee that they will be protected and cared for (by yourself or another reliable person) leaving them to the mercy of a hostile world is worst act of irresponsibility & cruelty.
“I like this as I do think most
PL's think the legal aspect is a simple aspect to overcome.”
If it were a simple aspect to
overcome it would have been done so by now.
“But I would say sure we have to deal with things as the laws stand now.”
Yes, women need the freedom to have on demand abortions up to birth. And we are improving from the old way of relying on religion to shape the law. But we have a long way to go. The HL ruling shows how justices still use religion to craft opinions.
“Ok but can you tell me that it could never be legislated to allow that?”
Legislators can pass any silly laws they want, and they do. If they are challenged they won’t hold up.
“BTW how is it different that if a…”
Because a court is limited on how it can make a party whole. Your analogy is actually what courts of equity [chancery] did in the past, and exactly why they are almost extinct. The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England and Wales that followed a set of loose rules to avoid the slow pace of change and possible harshness (or "inequity") of the common law. The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of equity, including trusts, land law, the administration of the estates of lunatics and the guardianship of infants. They had the power to seize property and give it to others. It was a disaster. Higher courts had to constantly sort out their mess. Often in doing rough justice they disregarded established law and enriched one party or bankrupted another. Or they would seize property they thought was owned by one individual but wasn’t.
Now they can seize property to satisfy fines but to make absolutely certain established laws aren’t violated [and flood the courts] they simply liquidate the estate and reimburse the victim.
“I would imagine it is illegal to coerce a offender to…”
The two are not the same. Plea deals are used to ferret out the “worst wrong doer”. And many legal minds believe it is unethical.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/04/no-i-am-not-interested-in-punishing.html#comment-1378863072
What tort law actually says regarding duty of care.
Please clarify. Are you linking to article in an attempt to rebut my contentions that individual cases would need to be decided on their individual merits and that details make a difference? If so, I would say that Unicorn Farm's comment adequately addresses those issues in favor of my contentions.
I don't think you are reading what i say.
It isn't the act itself but the result combined with the act.
Example a man having sex while he knows he is HIV positive. Having sex isn't the problem it is the result of the sex when he knew there was a chance he would be harming the other party.
Also once again I include health exceptions so your last point is moot.
I am supporting you.
These people don't have a clue about duty of care and tort law
Its holding women strictly liable for having sex. With the threat of either forced gestation or prison. Both are punishment.
No its holding her liable if she doesn't care for the person she created. OFC there must be grounds for a Zef to be a person or given personhood status but as babies show it can be done for non 'person' humans.
If it were being punished for sex all sex male and female would be punished. Your point fails.
The lesson that you have been given on tort law by multiple people disagrees with your conclusion.
Points I would make is that people on both sides think RvW is a bad legal decision and secondly laws can be changed or thrown down.
We have had even the constitution changed when the underlying principles where shown to be inconsistent or prejudiced. I'm arguing they are prejudiced here and need changing not that my position is consistent with current law.
We have the right to rape. We don't demand you rape anybody.
Do you see how absurd this argument is? I have never been pregnant. I have also never been a slave or in need of a slave, yet I still think I have the right to speak out against it.
I have actually spent the last four years intensely studying the issue, so you're mistaken.
Instead of name-calling, why don't you present an argument?
Abortion is *sometimes* a case of self-defense, but rarely. You can't justify all abortions as self-defense. Otherwise, you could justify infanticide as self-defense in the off chance your child would grow up to kill you.
So women don't have the right to make private medical decisions?
You might have a point if unborn human beings were like the alien in the Alien movies. Since this is reproduction, and the woman and man are responsible for the child's existence and placing the child in a state of dependency upon the woman, it is the woman who waives her right to bodily autonomy. Your argument would entail that we should allow someone to drag someone else onto their property, then shoot them for being there.
Already addressed this point elsewhere on this thread.
If you "drag someone onto your property", you did something actively and directly to that person, with intent. An unwanted pregnancy is an ACCIDENT. The women did not actively and intentionally place a zef in her uterus.
And tort law has nothing to do with RvW.
I suggest you read Rainbow Walkers replies to you/ along with the essay that I provided you with from the tort lawyer.
Your argument is that pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sex, and that if a woman has sex, she is liable for the results should she become pregnant, and that if she refuses to gestate, she has to spend 5+ years in jail for the crime of getting an abortion.
No matter how much you deny it, you are essentially punishing women for having sex while fertile.
When it involves only themselves they do. But just like the woman who had the violinist attached-willingly or unwillingly- to her it can be argued its still her medical decision but she will be punished if she then harms another moral person.
I've read it and as I've said I'm not talking about current law or tricks to change it. The constitution was changed before to make it consistent with wider principles and it could be done again.
I will be trying to get more information from legal people to get more grounding on this.
& again if it was just about sex a woman would be punished even if she went to term. She wouldn't be so saying it just about sex is simply incorrect.
Let me start from the end. Your last statement brings up a very interesting point.
"Animals may be killed in self-defense, of course, and there is a need to kill plants when we build an airport.] I consider it wrong for humans to kill animals or plants for fun. [Edit: Where it is possible to get optimum nourishment from plants, I consider it wrong to kill animals for food. Sometimes animals may be killed as euthanasia.]"
You consider it wrong to kill animals & plants for fun, but acceptable to kill them for other reasons such as our necessity and convenience. (which has a wide range 🙂
Considering that animals & plants are just as innocent as zefs, couldn't one say that "It's wrong to kill zefs for fun, but OK to kill them for our necessity and convenience"?
I am sure there is practically no one who has abortions for fun. But for other reasons, shouldn't it be legal and acceptable jut like killing animals & plants?
Now for the rest:
True that intuition is hard-wired, and one of the strongest hard-wired
instincts is for survival. That doesn't mean it's always the right or best option. When the only alternative is severe
& unmitigated suffering which would eventually end in death (as in concentration camps, or factory farms for animals), the better option is a quick death now. Much of the time the individual faced with suffering doesn't realize this due to the
hard-wired survival instinct.
"I don't in all cases oppose euthanasia, even of someone who has not requested it, if they are not capable of requesting it."
True, and just as euthanasia ends existing suffering, abortion prevents future suffering.
"It may be possible to predict with near certainty that a particular future child will have an unhappy life; but it would be equally possible to predict the same for many two-year-olds; and we do not kill two-year-olds."
If a woman chooses to give birth when abortion was available, that means she
made a voluntary commitment to the future child, to always put them first, and to protect & care for them as long as necessary. That commitment should be tantamount to a legal contract, and involves not killing them for any frivolous reason. However in rare instances where the only alternative is certain suffering
(such as imminent rape/torture by enemies in a war situation) killing the child for their own protection becomes not
only justifiable but necessary IMO.
"For one thing, its appearing logical in some way to euthanize a person would not always mean that it would be psychologically healthy for you and the human race to do so, PARTICULARLY if the person hadn't started suffering YET."
Again, if the suffering is almost certain, I think it is irresponsible NOT to
euthanize. And such is the case with unwanted children, considering the
depressing stats on child abuse/neglect; and the fact that the numbers of children needing homes are far greater than the numbers of responsible caring adults available to adopt them. Unless & until that situation is corrected, adding more children to an overburdened system only exacerbates the suffering.
A lot of for this amateur philosopher to take in but I am seeking legal advice 😉
Would you be open to giving me the contact and see how the law deals with thought experiments?
The most obvious and I think the most common example of an abortion justified by self-defense would be an ectopic pregnancy. I had in mind this kind of situation.
My main point was: If we're going to use the legal term "self-defense," then let's approach an abortion where that claim is made just as we do all other cases where that claim is made — through some social institution resembling a court. In a normal self-defense plea (for instance George Zimmerman's), we don't declare that the defendant alone can make a unilateral decision.
Hi. I have thought about this question as best I could at this link:
http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/
(In particular, search for Special-Rights Pleading. See also "Pro-choicers who use the bodily-rights argument do grant the personhood of the unborn for the sake of argument . . ." & "When pro-choicers base their arguments on scenarios that are certifiably unjust only according to our intuitions, they unconsciously proclaim the primacy of intuition.")
That post contains new material on at least these topics that you and I discussed before:
– bodily autonomy
– the role of intuition
– a particular paragraph by Judith Jarvis Thomson (in the appendix).
Here is some reading on the right to health:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/escgencom14.htm
It includes "The right to health in all its forms and at all levels contains the following interrelated and essential elements … Health facilities, goods and services have to be accessible to everyone without discrimination"
So if any individual uses any other individual's body parts without their consent, they can be justly killed?
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. 'Natural' absolutely cannot be applied as a arbitrator of what is good and moral – otherwise cancer would be good. However, the physiological aspect of pregnancy has strong implications for the self-defense argument, and the idea of proportional or justified force – intuitively and legally.
I enjoyed reading your article. I was particularly struck by the ideas of 'outrage transfer' and the points you made under 8b. I look forward to being able to read it again with more time to consider it deeply.
I have been referring to both preventative and reparative measures. You have emphasis the bodily consequences that a woman undergoes as a result of pregnancy – I point out that most of these bodily consequences either do not have to take place or are of minimal effect. Regardless of which, the degree of harm and it's means of mitigation are important. If the harm can be mitigated by a benign act rather than the application of lethal force, is not more reasonable to expect this to be the appropriate course of action?
The nature of rape does not change, just as the nature of pregnancy does not change. So if you wish to make an argument for self-defense in the case of the pregnancy, I believe you would better working from the nature of pregnancy rather than any harm caused.
“I am not in principle opposed to late-term abortion bans
provided…”
For convenience, let’s define late-term abortions as after 24 weeks
gestation. At this point, the premature
infant has about a 10% chance of surviving (although this goes to up around 35%
if a strong interventionist approach is taken).
Chances of long-term disability (often pulmonary disease or neurological
defects) are fairly high. In this
situation, should labour induction be available on demand?
On point five, I think it would be helpful if the medical
establishment could create a different phrase for the process by which a foetus
which has died in utero is removed (it would probably also help women who have
had to undergo this process).
So what exactly is that that you think would make forced
delivery appropriate in late pregnancy?
Is it to do with the status of the foetus? Or is it more about taking the least harmful
course of action available? I note that you discuss the bare minimum of harm
later on.
“I'd like to know more
about this Australian woman who had a 37-week elective abortion.”
I’d like to know more as well, but I know nothing except what I
have presented here. But I can imagine
that the doctors (it has be signed off by at least two doctors according to
law) being presented with a women who was distressed by the concept of being a
mother, rather than the thought of being pregnant. In which case, this would not be mitigated by
induction of labour and adoption/fostering of the child. Given that it was so late, I actually suspect
it may have been one of two things: either her circumstances suddenly changed
(e.g. death of a spouse), or she developed/relapsed a mental illness.
“I will say that I am in the "right of refusal" camp
and not the "sovereign zone" camp.”
That’s good – you seem too sensible to be in the Sovereign Zone
camp J.
“Regarding the right to life-sustaining
treatment vs. the right not to be deliberately killed:
It is possible to have an abortion that does not
"deliberately kill" a fetus but merely "withholds
treatment" … Mifepristone (the early-term abortion pill), similarly,
just evicts the embryo without killing it directly.”
I think it goes further than withholding treatment, because of
the direct actions taken to cause the extremely premature infant’s predicament
in the first place. For example, you don’t
have an obligation to provide treatment to someone who is lying injured in the
street. But that doesn’t make you less
culpable for their death if you were the one who hit them with the car in the
first place. A medical abortion may not
directly target the embryo’s body, but it does place it within an environment
that it cannot physically survive in. To
claim that it is not deliberately killing is akin to locking an infant in a
cupboard and then claiming that its inability to get food bears the
responsibility for its death. Hence I
would consider carrying out actions that you know will lead to death just as
morally unacceptable as carrying out an action that immediately causes death.
I’m fairly sure providing a physiological need at the level suited
to the development of a healthy recipient does not constitute life-sustaining
treatment. It’s like saying that I’m
providing life-sustaining treatment to my children by giving them food.
“Would you mind telling me
where you derive your morality from? In your view, what makes an action right
or wrong?”
I’m happy to say that I am a Christian, but that doesn’t mean
that I’ve switched my brain off as to what constitutes right or wrong. It’s difficult to pinpoint what does make
actions so, but a quick response would be that all actions should value life,
and all actions should respect equality.
So I take it child support is punishment for males having sex?
Thanks. Though I don't have enough scientific background to come to a conclusion yet about any of these points, your post at least helps me see that some of the things we hear about the harm done by pregnancy do not go unchallenged.
Though you already hinted at your time limitations in a reply to me elsewhere on this page, maybe you have some information at your fingertips:
"What about the health benefits of being pregnant?"
Do you in fact have some information about this, and could you point me to some of it? Besides its relevance for the abortion debate and interest for me on that count, I know a woman who is writing about the science of the psychological and perhaps health benefits of the motherhood of infants, and the bonding and communications that develop. She might be very happy to get any similar information in terms of the motherhood of the unborn. But don't spend time doing new research for her sake, because it's also possible that she is already knowledgeable.
Thanks for these replies both about my comments and about the article. If you do look at the article again, I'd like to hear any further response you may have.
"I think it goes further than withholding treatment, because of the
direct actions taken to cause the extremely premature infant’s
predicament in the first place. For example, you don’t have an obligation to provide treatment to someone who is lying injured in the street. But that doesn’t make you less culpable for their death if you were the one who hit them with the car in the first place. A medical abortion may not directly target the embryo’s body, but it does place it within an environment that it cannot physically survive in. To claim
that it is not deliberately killing is akin to locking an infant in a
cupboard and then claiming that its inability to get food bears the
responsibility for its death. Hence I would consider carrying out
actions that you know will lead to death just as morally unacceptable as
carrying out an action that immediately causes death."
Unfortunately, there is no other way to remove a prenate from a woman's womb except by taking a direct action that will result in the death of the fetus. I have on more than one occasion proposed that if the prenate could be transferred, say to another person or to an artificial womb with no more risk or inconvenience of unrestricted abortion, I would be happy to require it. As it is an abortion is the only proportionate response available to a woman who desires to end her pregnancy. As in a situation of self-defense, killing the attacking party may be morally regrettable, but that doesn't necessarily make it morally unacceptable.
"I’m happy to say that I am a Christian, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve switched my brain off as to what constitutes right or wrong. It’s difficult to pinpoint what does make actions so, but a quick response would be that all actions should value life, and all actions should respect equality."
I was in a strictly moral level conversation with someone who opposed abortion in almost all instances. He asked me what situations would I deem abortion morally permissible. I answered with a straight face, "When the abortion would be pro-life."
"You have emphasised the bodily consequences that a woman undergoes as a
result of pregnancy – I point out that most of these bodily consequences
either do not have to take place or are of minimal effect."
I find that kind of attitude incredibly dismissive. Who are you to say of someone else that a bodily consequence is of minimal effect? You're not the one experiencing it!
"Regardless of which, the degree of harm and it's means of mitigation are
important. If the harm can be mitigated by a benign act rather than
the application of lethal force, is not more reasonable to expect this
to be the appropriate course of action?"
When it comes to ending an unwanted pregnancy, there is no other appropriate course of action other than an abortion. So long as that remains the case, you have no room to maneuver even for those who would otherwise agree with you.
"The nature of rape does not change, just as the nature of pregnancy does
not change. So if you wish to make an argument for self-defense in the
case of the pregnancy, I believe you would better working from the
nature of pregnancy rather than any harm caused."
The nature of pregnancy is that another organism is inside your body, draining your nutrients and dumping toxic waste back into your body. Carrying the pregnancy requires suffering through a number of symptoms and poses a non-zero threat to your life and health. If any other being were to do to you without your consent the things a prenate does to a pregnant woman, it would be called assault, if not attempted murder and the right to self-defense would be recognized almost universally.
I stand corrected about you confusing the right to health care to the right to health. Otherwise, I stand by my comments. Neither the right to life nor the right to health includes a claim on someone else's parts. If any individual attempts any other individuals body parts without their consent, the target individual is within their rights to defend themselves accordingly.
Hi. Sorry I seemed do have just dropped out of that conversation. To put it politely, life happened. Do you want to continue that conversation where we left off? Or use the newer article as a new starting point? Even before personal matters required my attention, I was starting to feel like our conversation needed something of a reboot. I see you tried to do that before writing the new article, but I never had a chance to respond.
In any case, on a preliminary reading of your new article, I would say that you have made some improvements, but that they don't really overcome the objections I had over the course of our conversation.
It's not up to you, or anyone else, to decide how much risk a person should expose themselves too.
Swimming with sharks is relatively safe, statistically. So is hang-gliding. Doesn't mean I can decide, for you, that such activities are safe, and throw you out of an airplane or into a boat. And this 'mitigation' you speak of is irrelevant – a rapist can wear a condom, that doesn't make the bodily invasion ok. And you can wear a helmet when I throw you out of the plane – that doesn't make it ok.
Why don't you tell me about the 'nature' of pregnancy. Tell me what makes it such a *special* case, please. I can't wait.
And she can unplug the violinist at any time because he has no right to her body – regardless of whether or not she chose to let him use her body or it was forced on her.
To deny her the right to make her own medical decisions in regards to her health and wellbeing is to treat her, and women, as a class, as second class citizens.
It is punishment for sex, because what activity can lead to pregnancy should a woman choose to engage in it? Sex, of course.
So, if a woman has sex, and she accidentally becomes pregnant, her choices are…
1) jail or
2) coerced gestation
Both of which are, essentially, holding women liable for having sex. The ONLY way for women to completely avoid jail time or forced bodily compensation are to abstain from sex for life or have a complete hysterectomy.
Still wrong.
It is about holding women liable for having sex, since sex can lead to pregnancy, so the ONLY way for her to avoid 5-30 years in prison for zygote murder or the alternative, coerced gestation (to avoid 30 years in jail) is to either abstain from sex for life or get a complete hysterectomy.
Having sex while a fertile female is not equivalent to recklessly endangering someone with an HIV infection.
Again, conception does not = harm.
And your health exceptions are moot, since there is literally no guaranteeing that a given woman will survive a pregnancy. A 'normal' pregnancy can go from zero to nearly dead overnight, and a woman can bleed to death form post partum hemorrhage. In fact, the #1 killer of pregnant women is bleeding to death after birth.
And pregnancy itself is a medical condition, it does affect the woman's health, and her health overrides any potential life of a microscopic cell.
I gave you the link to the other thread.
On the other hand, we don't usually require a court's pre-clearance before engaging in self-defence (though arguably Trayvon Martin would still be alive if we did). The judgment of whether an act was justified as legitimate self-defense is always made after the fact.
Another question has been nagging at me..
If we follow PL logic – why should a woman even have the right to self-defense in the case of ectopic pregnancy/eclampsia etc?
I mean, if she is at *fault* for putting an 'innocent unborn baby' in harm's way, why should it have to pay with it's life if things go south? If the prenate is harming her, it's HER fault for placing it in a position where it could harm her, right? Why should it have to pay with it's life because she had sex?
Like, if I kidnap you TG, and put you in a 'state of need' and then I start to die because of that, what right do I have to kill you in order to save my life? Should I not accept my fate? is this not the RCC view on things?
You're right that I was being a little poetic, or, some might have suspected, sloppy when I said ". . . JUST as we do all other cases . . ." But we would require pre-clearance, wouldn't we, if we thought doing so could save even some lives?
Hi, thanks for your reply.
"Do you want to continue that conversation where we left off?"
When I informed you that there was "new material," what I meant, on the most undemanding level, was "You might want to continue the conversation and see if your views still seem to you to withstand the opposition." If you ask what I would prefer, that is, what I would ask as a favor if invited to, I would say that I don't think our discussion would go on interminably, to no avail to either of us. I think we're close to at least getting down to a few irreconcilable differences that we could agree to be such, and that we could both understand why they are irreconcilable. If we could do that, then from my side I would at least know that you didn't have some argument left, or some argument I had failed to understand, that would be fatal to my position.
If you would like to take a stab at moving toward that point, I would propose starting like this: I make a list of my few points that I think are stronger now, or think that you failed to completely address before, and ask: "Did you see this and digest it before saying 'they don't really overcome the objections I had'" — ?
I would put a copy here and a copy on my blog, and you could answer where you liked.
When I said above "at least these topics," I should have listed also "moral absolutes." I have now offered a theory of moral absolutes. That is one of the points on which I would like to ask, "Did you see this and digest it and reject it, and if so why rejected?"
Before "just dropping out," you did send a preliminary reply to my last previous arguments to you. That reply was February 24, 2014 at 11:50 pm, and my last substantive arguments before that had been on February 15, 2014 at 3:43 pm.
I honestly don't know whether that question can be answered at a level of general applicability. In matters of self-defense, there simply isn't time to obtain a preclearance. Perhaps (and let's understand that "perhaps" is in all caps, in bold font, underlined, and italicized) a case could be made of most other instances. Yet, what is war if not the preclearance to kill whomever the State declares the enemy? That certainly doesn't save any lives!
. I bet that during its last few months in the womb, a child experiences a lot of happiness.
No, because they are anaesthetized and sedated whilst in the womb. Unconscious. I guess if you view 'oblivion' as happiness, sure.
A hypothetical response would be that correcting an ectopic pregnancy isn't truly a case of self-defense. It is a case of doing something or both parties will die. The prenate will die regardless, but the mother's life can and should be saved.
A Catholic might say along the lines that killing the prenate is not the intent of correcting an ectopic pregnancy, but merely a regrettable side-effect. Whatever the exact terminology, a Catholic would invoke the principle of cooperation with evil. I don't know exactly how the principle would apply to your thought experiment. Depending on which part of the teaching is stressed, a decision could theoretically go either way.
An overview of the teaching can be found at http://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=139.
"Adoption isn't about providing an infertile couple with a child, it's
about saving the life of a human being and giving him or her a chance at
life."
If that was really true, infertile couples should be jumping with enthusiasm to save the lives of the little human beings already in the foster care system instead of wish and hoping for a new white baby.
No need to put a copy here. Go ahead and start what you proposed and send me an e-mail.
" I make a list of my few points that I think are stronger now, or think
that you failed to completely address before, and ask: "Did you see this
and digest it before saying 'they don't really overcome the objections I
had'" — ?"
I would consider this an acceptable starting point, especially for the purpose of identifying irreconcilable differences. However, I still be free to add to that list things I felt you didn't address or understand.
What would you like to do about things where I felt your argument has been improved, but I feel still doesn't overcome the original objection? Save it for a later time once we've hashed out the irreconcilable differences?
Reproductive freedom is limited to your own body, and should NOT include
the freedom to neglect and abuse children.
Besides, parenthood
requirements can be implemented very easily without violating bodily
autonomy. If ANY responsible job involving the care of other
individuals requires training and certification, why not parenting?
This is a copy & paste of my thoughts on a potential plan from another thread:
Why is there so much child abuse? Because the number of children needing care is FAR GREATER than the number of responsible caring adults available to provide care. The result? Many many children end up with irresponsible uncaring adults, whether they are biological foster or adoptive
parents.
What’s the best solution? Equalize the numbers. How? Ensure that parenthood is not every
idiot’s RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE to be earned only by those able, willing and eager to care for children as long as they need. i.e. responsible caring
people. In other words, withhold the privilege of parenthood from irresponsible uncaring people. With the following
steps:
Prevent unintended pregnancies by: Mandatory sex education at an early age; provide free contraception, vasectomies and tubal ligations to all who want them; Discontinue all the rewards associated with breeding.
Anyone who wishes to become a parent (biological, foster or adoptive) should prove their fitness by: proving financial stability; being free from substance abuse; having a record clean any violent crime; and passing a psychological fitness test.
Anyone who becomes unintentionally pregnant despite the free contraception & still wishes to CARRY the pregnancy: should prove their fitness first, or give the child up to an adoptive parent who has proved their fitness.
Instead of trying to catch & punish the abusers and
rehome abused children, these measures will prevent abuse before it ever happens. IF parenthood is treated as a privilege to be earned, eventually there
will be far fewer children, and every child will be valued, loved & cherished. Also there will be far fewer pregnancies, and no need for abortion.
A majority of the kids adopted in this country are minority children, so your claim that couples just want white babies is FALSE.
Not every older child in foster care is adoptable – many are waiting to be reunited with their families. Also, many couples are worried they might not be able to meet the mental health needs of some of the children in the system. That is NO EXCUSE to justify killing unborn children.
The body being killed in an abortion isn't 'youru body' either.
Never hear of anal oral or mutual masturbation? Also I've advocated a space race type effort on 100% proof male contraception.
So your thinking is locked in and not thinking of alternatives.
Also in your replies I don't see a reply to my question about male child support being punishment.
Pls address that!
“Why not? We should just let them suffer instead so you can feel better?”
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Let me illustrate with an example. Homelessness is a societal problem. Is it right to solve this problem by killing those who are homeless?
“Courts have already determined the zef isn’t a person.”
It’s a oft-used examples, but the courts also used to believe that slaves weren’t persons deserving of rights. It’s not so easy to dismiss the issue that is at the heart of the abortion debate.
“Zef don’t “carry out” actions. They aren’t cognizant.”
That was kind of my point.
“It’s a little broader than that”
So under what category of justifiable self-defence do you classify abortion?
“She never said the first paragraph you inserted”
Go back to your own link and look under the sub-heading, “Can you tell me more about the "these people need to get their act together" argument?”
I do not intentionally lie.
“ Psychosocial reasons can have many different meanings, including suspected mental illness on the part of the mother.”
Yes, and if you’ll read my comment, you’ll find that I suggested that as a possible reason. The point was that the foetus was healthy.
“We’ve got another data cherry picker.”
How so? I was responding with specific data to a specific question. I’m sorry you weren’t able to find it, but I checked my link and it works. Try again, scroll down to the bottom of the page and choose the tab ‘Maternal, perinatal and infant mortality’. But if that really is too much work, here is a link to a specific report, with the excerpt I quoted to be found on page 24 of the report (page 28 of the online PDF):
http://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/990ec78047edf7be9d739df22c7c1033/MatPeriInfant+Mortality+SA+2009-Operations-POU-20110815.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=990ec78047edf7be9d739df22c7c1033
“Most were medically necessary or were actually miscarriages”
Both South Australia and Western Australia collect specific data on abortions. Miscarriages and ‘terminations’ are clearly differentiated in their data.
In 2011, 96.2% of terminations were performed for ‘mental health’.
http://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/71a4600041ffdcb9957dbdf8b1e08c6d/13103.1-Pregnancy+Outcomes+Report-FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=71a4600041ffdcb9957dbdf8b1e08c6d
Page 54 (56 on the online PDF), under ‘4. The reason for termination’
I don’t believe I mentioned abortion safety.
“The link doesn’t exist. Furthermore it never happened and couldn’t have happened.”
The link does exist, and it worked when I tested it. If you prefer, you can search for “Jessica Jane NT born alive” and go to the very first link. It is the same report. It happened because it was an induction of labour abortion, not a dilation and extraction abortion.
“This makes no sense. If a woman is incarcerated she has the right to get medical treatment and if she is illegally held this wouldn’t matter.”
It’s an analogy. You have to use your imagination. And how does the morality of killing the infant change if she was held illegally?
“That’s because you don’t give a **** about it.”
I care deeply. You have no idea.
“Spoken like someone who has never suffered or missed a meal.”
You say this having no idea if I have ever suffered or missed a meal. And you think I condone child abuse? It sickens and distresses me more than I can say. But given a choice between practising social eugenics and instead trying to increase support, interventions and care for those in need, I’ll take the latter.
You don’t help yourself by accusing me of lying and making things up when I’m able to back up my statements. Neither do you help yourself by making generalised (and grossly incorrect) accusations about my attitude towards other people.
Your emphasis has been the 'harm' that a pregnancy causes to the woman. The reasonable assumption is that you believed that this harm played a significant role in justifying lethal self-defense. If that is not the case, please tell me.
Thanks. There's not much public discussion about their happiness-capability, but quite a bit about their pain-capability. Pain-capable would mean conscious. What is your source that they are completely unconscious?
"If any individual attempts any other individuals body parts without their consent, the target individual is within their rights to defend themselves accordingly."
It sounds so beautifully simple when you put it like that. Would you mind sharing what you meant when you wrote 'accordingly'?
“Unfortunately, there is no other way to remove a prenate from a woman's womb except by taking a direct action that will result in the death of the fetus.”
Agreed (for pre ex utero viability abortions)
“I have on more than one occasion proposed that if the prenate could be transferred, say to another person or to an artificial womb with no more risk or inconvenience of unrestricted abortion, I would be happy to require it.”
Assuming risk includes risk to the prenate, agreed.
“As it is an abortion is the only proportionate response available to a woman who desires to end her pregnancy. As in a situation of self-defense, killing the attacking party may be morally regrettable, but that doesn't necessarily make it morally unacceptable.”
It is proportionate? I think that is what I have been trying to ask.
Could you explain to me the difference between morally regrettable and morally unacceptable, please? I don’t want to make any assumptions.
"When the abortion would be pro-life."
Maybe I’m tired (actually, I know I’m tired), but I don’t entirely understand what you meant here.
I've bookmarked it, and will 100% go back to it, because it contained some very good food for thought.
I would additionally ask if a woman with absolutely zero negative bodily consequences as a result of being pregnant (she feels healthier than she ever has before) still has right to abort. If so, the self-defense argument is clearly based on something other than bodily harm, in which case we should be talking about that – whatever you would have it – rather than what pregnancy does to the woman's body.
The main biological ones I've found are:
– remission from auto-immune conditions.
– decrease of lifetime risk for various cancers.
I read suggestions of benefits for risk of heart disease, but I haven't had the time to check the research on this yet. And I imagine it would be worth looking into psychological benefits as well.
"Assuming risk includes risk to the prenate, agreed."
That is something I hadn't really considered before. I basically worked under the assumption that a chance at survival is inherently less risky to the prenate than no chance of survival at all. Did you have something in particular in mind with this stipulation?
"It is proportionate? I think that is what I have been trying to ask."
Understand that I am using proportionate in roughly the same sense as Thomas Aquinas' of the permissibility of self-defense (Summa Theologica II-II.64.7). Basically, one of the factors regarding whether an act of self-defense is (morally) lawful is whether the act is "out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful."
So: Whereas an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy, not to mention other burdens, and Whereas the *only* means currently available to end the violation is a direct action that results in the death of the prenate, Therefore an abortion is an proportionate response.
"Could you explain to me the difference between morally regrettable and
morally unacceptable, please? I don’t want to make any assumptions."
I will try. Morally (un)acceptable should be taken as equivalent to morally (un)justified. Something that is morally regrettable is something that ought to be mourned even though it is the result of a morally justified action. Killing in self-defense may be morally justified, but the result (the dead person) is still lamentable from a moral point of view.
I hope that is a little clearer than mud.
"Maybe I’m tired (actually, I know I’m tired), but I don’t entirely understand what you meant here."
My friend need me to explain as well. At the time (I've since modified my views somewhat), what I meant was that an abortion would be morally permissible if it enhanced life overall. For example, lets take a reason women have cited that, in my experience, has been much maligned: to complete one's education. But whereas education is the foundation both for a woman’s total well-being and for laying the groundwork for successfully raising a family when she is ready for it, I would consider having an abortion in order to complete her education to be pro-life because it enhances the well-being of both the mother and her future children.
Thanks. When I received this reply of yours in my email, I didn't look closely at what you were replying to, and thought you must be replying to my first reply to you, in which I had mentioned "Dismantling." So when you then first replied about "Dismantling," I thought that was your second reply, and I thought my reply to that would be enough.
Anyway, you were able to understand in "Dismantling" what my replies would be to your above points, weren't you?
"I would additionally ask if a woman with absolutely zero negative bodily
consequences as a result of being pregnant (she feels healthier than
she ever has before) still has right to abort."
There is no such thing as absolutely zero negative bodily consequences as a result of being pregnant. How she feels about her health is another matter.
But, yes, given your hypothetical, she would still have the right to abort.
"If so, the self-defense argument is clearly based on something other than bodily harm, in which case we should be talking about that whatever you would have it – rather than what pregnancy does to the woman's body."
I should have originally clarified that I was responding as someone in that position might. Although my moral stance on abortion has a self-defense element in it, I shy away from it in my political stance. On that level, the right to bodily autonomy is the only sufficient reason for abortion to become or remain legal.
"It was not meant to be a dismissive attitude, and I am sorry if you read
it that way. It was a specific response to a very negative picture of
pregnancy."
I accept your statement of intent and apology.
Actually, I have my own reservations about arguments that seek to either maximize or minimize the threats of pregnancy. That the threat to the life and health of the woman is nonzero is enough to make carrying a pregnancy her choice alone.
"I’m curious, where does this ‘toxic’ idea keep coming from? It’s the
waste products of cell metabolism – no different from what our own body
cells produce and our body is fully equipped to handle."
Those waste products are toxic. This why we don't normally eat feces or drink urine. *Normally* our bodies are equipped to handle the waste we produce. But if something goes wrong, such as kidney failure, those wastes can kill you–hence "toxic."
"Getting out of bed in the morning poses a non-zero threat to my life and health. Looking after my infant with a cold poses a non-zero threat to my life and health. Heck, changing a nappy (diaper for the Americans) poses a non-zero threat to my life and health. It’s not really a sufficient justification for lethal force."
Let me correct myself here. In the context of speaking as one who might use the self-defense argument, I should have said "Carrying the pregnancy requires suffering through a number of symptoms and the risk of disability and death.
That alone may not might not rise to be sufficient threat to justify lethal force, but taking all the symptoms and risks together, arguably it would. As I said, "“If any other being were to do to you without your consent the things a prenate does to a pregnant woman, it would be called assault, if not attempted murder and the right to self-defense would be recognized almost universally.”
I expect you are attempting to have me clarify when you asked, "The right to lethal self-defense?" This is a point where I wouldn't want to presume an answer for someone making that argument. MY response would be self-defense sufficient to nullify the threat.
"It sounds so beautifully simple when you put it like that. Would you mind sharing what you meant when you wrote 'accordingly'?"
Subject to the doctrine of proportionality as explained in another comment.
"I think you took the wrong meaning from my analogy. Let me put it more
simply – if a woman knows that she will experience an unwanted pregnancy
unless she kills an adult (it’s not realistic, I know, but the
principle is there), would she be justified in killing the adult to
protect herself from the pregnancy?"
I would like to take a stab at this question and see where it leads, but I don't think I understand it properly. Who is the adult? A third party? Someone trying to rape her? That is a detail that makes a big difference.
True; of course, I am unsure if there is a solid case (from the perspective of morality) to force males to pay child support unless personhood begins at conception/fertilization.
Here is a video on this:
https://www.youtube.com/user/WarThemedRevolution
I would like to please hear your thoughts and/or criticisms on this, if possible.
Couldn't this argument also apply to financial obligations, though?
"It should also be noted that the only 100% guarantee for women that pregnancy won't occur is the removal of the ovaries and/or uterus. That is something that is overlooked by the anti-abortion crowd."
I don't think that anti-abortion people are ignoring this fact. In fact, I am interested in hearing your thoughts in regards to whether or not elective ovary and/or uterus removal is ethical (in your opinion).
I have neither the time nor the inclination to participate in a discussion which consists of me providing sources, and you either ignoring or misreading them, and then accusing me of lying. For the edification of anyone who happens to read this, I will post my sources, and then leave it there. If and when you are willing to have a respectful and civil discussion, I will be more than happy to oblige.
http://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/about+us/health+statistics/pregnancy+outcome+statistics
Scrolling to the bottom of the page, you will find two tabs;
– The tab on the left is Pregnancy outcomes, and it lists reports from 2001 to 2011. These reports include data on pregnancy terminations in South Australia, such as number, reasons and gestational ages.
– The tab on the right is Maternal, perinatal and neonatal mortality, and it also lists reports from 2001 to 2011. Excepting the 2010 and 2011 report (where the it was not reported separately), it includes information on perinatal and neonatal deaths from pregnancy terminations, as well as maternal complications from pregnancy terminations.
http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/E7B8F6942838375ACA257CFD0003DA74/$FILE/Final%20for%20web%2019062014.pdf
This is the Victorian maternal, perinatal and neonatal mortality report for 2010-2011. It contains information on maternal complications/deaths from pregnancy terminations and perinatal/neonatal death from terminations.
http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/courtsupp/coroner/findings/other/babyj.pdf
The is coroners report into the death of Jessica Jane, a baby born alive at an estimated 22 weeks gestation after an induction abortion, in the Northern Territory of Australia in 1998.
http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/susan-robinson/
This is an interview with Dr Susan Robinson, a late-term abortionist, where she discusses late-term abortions of healthy foetuses.
Sorry, it's not a very fleshed out analogy. Neither is it a very realistic one. But I've been thinking it over, and maybe I can recreate it to make it easier to contemplate (though still fantastical):
Imagine that at the moment of conception, the man and women responsible are tethered together in some biological fashion (here my imagination has taken a break, but feel free to suggest your own ideas on how this might look). This tether means that the zef takes its nutrition from parents (I realise some may object to the term, but for simplicity's sake, it is what I will use), and that both therefore experience the symptoms and risks of pregnancy and birth. The only way for the pregnancy to be ended is for the tether to be broken, but unfortunately the nature of the tether means that one parent will die if it is indeed broken.
Do either parents have the right to break the tether and free themselves from both the zef and the other parent, even though it would result in the death of both?
Thank you for a civil conversation!
“Actually, I have my own reservations about arguments that seek to either maximize or minimize the threats of pregnancy. That the threat to the life and health of the woman is nonzero is enough to make carrying a pregnancy her choice alone … Carrying the pregnancy requires suffering through a number of symptoms and the risk of disability and death … That alone may not might not rise to be sufficient threat to justify lethal force, but taking all the symptoms and risks together, arguably it would”
(I hope my cut-and-paste hasn’t affected your meaning). So can I ask, is the concept of bodily harm caused by the presence of the zef that could justify lethal self-defence, or is the concept of violation of bodily autonomy – with or without harm? In another comment you made, it seems as though bodily autonomy is the more important element to you. Is there any situation in which you deem it not sufficient to justify abortion?
You also mentioned (in the same other comment) a moral stance and a political stance. Can you tell me the difference between the two?
“Those waste products are toxic. This why we don't normally eat feces or drink urine. *Normally* our bodies are equipped to handle the waste we produce. But if something goes wrong, such as kidney failure, those wastes can kill you–hence "toxic."
Faeces are bad to eat because of bacteria – bacteria that belongs in your lower gut and not in your mouth. Urine is safe to drink to a point, but becomes problematic because of the concentration of solutes that effects the osmotic (water) balance in the different body compartments (I’m sorry if that sounds pretentious – I’m not sure how else to put it). However, I wouldn’t feel like I was using the term correctly if I referred to the waste products of the foetus as ‘toxic’ because (a) bacteria is irrelevant, as it is not present in a healthy pregnancy and even if it were present, would be much too large to diffuse across to the maternal circulation, and (b) anything – in a sufficient volume and in a pathological situation – could be toxic. We don’t usually refer to carbon dioxide as toxic, yet in respiratory failure or in a sufficient volume, it is. Vitamin C is an important nutrient, and yet is toxic in high doses. But we don’t tell people with colds to take some ‘toxic vitamin C’. While not accusing you or anyone else here of being deliberately misleading, I really do feel that it’s a term misused in order to negatively portray pregnancy.
“That is something I hadn't really considered before. I basically worked under the assumption that a chance at survival is inherently less risky to the prenate than no chance of survival at all. Did you have something in particular in mind with this stipulation?”
It’s just when I’ve come across or considered this concept in a pro-life context, it’s always been under the suggestion that abortion becomes redundant because care can be transferred, and there is therefore no excuse to kill the prenate. Because it has been in a pro-life context that would require the woman to carry the pregnancy to term if the technological was not available, the assumption would be that the risk of transfer is to be compared to the risk of a normal gestation. If however, it were a choice between that and abortion, the allowable risk to the prenate becomes much much higher, as you say.
“So: Whereas an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy, not to mention other burdens, and Whereas the *only* means currentl y available to end the violation is a direct action that results in the death of the prenate, Therefore an abortion is an proportionate response.”
You may have answered a question I asked in another comment. So violation of bodily autonomy + physical burden of pregnancy + lack of other option = justifiable killing of prenate?
Is there a link to the Thomas Aquinas article? I would like to read it.
“I hope that is a little clearer than mud.”
Quite clear, thank you.
“An abortion would be morally permissible if it enhanced life overall. For example, lets take a reason women have cited that, in my experience, has been much maligned: to complete one's education. But whereas education is the foundation both for a woman’s total well-being and for laying the groundwork for successfully raising a family when she is ready for it, I would consider having an abortion in order to complete her education to be pro-life because it enhances the well-being of both the mother and her future children.”
I think the struggle I have with this is that it appears to be pro-some lives and not pro-all lives. In an ideal model, pregnant woman would be well-supported and have options available so that unplanned pregnancy can be incorporated without diminishing her ability to achieve what she wishes in life. I acknowledge that this ideal model does not exist, but abortion not only fails to provide a long-term solution to this lack, but intuitively may be responsible for holding back its development.
I not sure how one could walk away from the stance that creating a human person does create special obligations, until that is care can be transferred.
If we had a baby making machine and you started the process and had a viable Zef growing happily in an artificial womb, I think many people would say once it has started that bestows on the initiator special obligations.
Being owed compensation isn't the same as having a right to use something. & your stance totally ignores moral responsibility.