Forest

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Possible controversial opinion:

Pro life is recognition of two axioms:

1) human life has intrinsic value, and you need a a damn good reason to end it.
2) human life begins at an earlier date than abortions are allowed.

I'm broadly of this opinion. I recognise that a woman's bodily autonomy is important and that there are sociological risks to infringing on that. However I also feel that a humans right not to have its life ended weighs heavily against the right of someone else to end it, even their own mother.

For me it's shades of grey. It's clearly wrong for a mum to kill her newborn baby, or her baby just before it is born. Equally I reject the common prolife view that humanity starts at conception.

For me there's no fixed start to human life -- it is emergent.

I am confident, however, that at 24 weeks we're talking straight up murder. Babies have survived from 21 weeks, and potentially could durvive far earlier. They have a rudimentary brain far earlier too.

My current judgement, subject to evidence based review, is before 8 weeks is definitely fine. 8 to 16 weeks, there should be strong reasons and counselling to mum to make her aware of the balance of life vs choicr. After 16 weeks, unless mum will die, the imperative not to murder means abortion is unethical.

I respect the right of others to make different judgements, and believe in the rule of law through a sound government should decide society's laws.

However, this is my personal ethical judgement.

Bodily Autonomy is the principle human right. Saying you can infringe upon it puts into question all other rights. Babies have bodily autonomy but cannot apply it as it requires active will. You can't assume a baby wants to survive. And even if it could talk it couldn't understand the question. Its also extremely unlikely though admittedly debatable that fetus' can even feel pain. Mothers however can feel pain and can even die without access to life saving abortion procedures and medicine.

Putting life above bodily autonomy and staying consistent logically would require you to completely alter your current world view as well. Are we to ban everything deemed scientifically unhealthy for us? Will we be mandated our 10 minutes of sun, or become a felon if we don't apply sunscreen? I'm not saying you're suggesting those ridiculous things but we have to follow life as the ultimate maxim to its logical conclusion.

You might say well bodily autonomy applies while conscious and life applies while unconscious. I would argue that is arbitrary and also not true. Once a child is born its completely owned by the parent. Children aren't allowed to do anything without parental consent. The only thing they can't do is kill them (violence and neglect is acceptable to a certain degree).

York Zionia wrote:

You make some good points in your post, but I take issue with this statement, as well as your example with John's kidney transplant.

My question is, at what point does the right to bodily autonomy vest in a human? Conception? Birth? Age of Majority? Ever? Every law that has ever existed restricts what humans can do with their bodies (and therefore, body autonomy).

It doesn't matter when it vests because bodily autonomy can by definition only exist with will. You can't grant permission or deny access to your body while unable to communicate or contemplate it.

York Zionia wrote:

Further, at what point does one's "body" matter end? Or to what point can you reasonably, legally lay claim to matter that is considered "your body" and therefore have legal, autonomous control? Just the extent of your person? That would be a narrower view than I'd take.

My view on the extent of "body" a person is entitled to full, legal autonomy over is any matter originating from the body containing DNA that hasn't been willfully or freely relinquished. So, saliva on a fork at a public restaurant? No longer your body, since you've freely given that saliva up in order to eat, and left the fork there willingly. What about plasma you've decided to donate to a relative that needs it for an operation? I'd argue that plasma belongs to you, even after it's been removed from your body until the point it's been used in the procedure for your relative--for its proper purpose. Therefore, the medical professionals transferring the plasma from you to your relative have to respect your autonomy over your body while performing the procedure, and cannot do anything with your plasma that hasn't been expressly authorized.

You don't get to decide what bodily autonomy is. Its a specific concept. Any perversion of the concept is simply something else. You can only agree or disagree on whether its a human right and whether its a primary right or you believe it should be ceded in X circumstances.

York Zionia wrote:

Now, to illustrate my point, I'm going to use your example of the kidney transplant, because I believe your premise is flawed--that the state is forcing individuals to sustain life at the expense of their own bodily autonomy. This is because the state (at least in the US) has not forced anyone to perform *the required actions* that result in pregnancy. Therefore, using your kidney transplant example, the abortion debate looks more like this:

John is having kidney failure and needs a transplant. You volunteer to donate your kidney to John. Prior to the procedure to remove your kidney, your doctor advises you of the potential terminal and non-terminal risks associated with removing your kidney, so you are well aware of anything and everything that could possibly go wrong. He even provides you with a list of things you could do the week leading up to the procedure that could reduce the risks associated with kidney removal (eating certain foods, avoiding certain activities, etc.) so that you are at minimal risk during and after the procedure. You do all the things on the list and still agree to the procedure. A week later, the procedure is performed, your kidney is removed, John receives the transplant, and all is well.

But low and behold, a week after the procedure, you start to experience symptoms of one of the non-terminal diseases your doctor warned you about prior to the procedure--despite doing everything he recommended and knowing of all the risks associated with the procedure. The only way to remedy the condition is to get your kidney back.*

*(Not necessarily the case, because you could wait for another donor to come along, and you could live with some discomfort while taking medication, since its a non-terminal disease, but since we're intentionally limiting everyone's choices, as in most abortion scenarios, we'll do the same here... i.e. no chance for adoption).

However, luckily for you, there is a law that allows you to force the recipient of your donated organs to give them back up to 12 weeks after the procedure (or at any point in time after the procedure, depending on how pro-choice you really are), regardless of the effect to the done. So being a pro-choice, pro-body autonomy individual, you force that parasite John to undergo the required procedure to remove your kidney. You get your kidney back, you're no longer suffering the disease, and--unable to find another donor in time--John dies shortly thereafter.

The state hasn't forced pregnancy on anyone, its entered into freely by performing certain *acts* (at least the overwhelming majority of the time) with full knowledge of the risks and potential consequences, even with preventative measures in place. This is true for every living species on the planet. Technically every birth that's ever occurred is a "forced" birth since birth is the natural consequence of pregnancy. So one cannot force birth unless one forces pregnancy, and that just isn't the case for the vast majority of pregnancies.

This is a misunderstanding of the example. The example exists to show what could happen without bodily autonomy as a primary right. You may think the premise is flawed because it doesn’t mirror the current result of the repeal of roe V. wade but when you’re discussing logical arguments at this level we haven’t even gotten there yet. A person wants to do something with their Body and the state is physically preventing them from doing so. That is an unequivocally a violation of bodily autonomy.

Thus the first thing you need to decide is whether you A) Believe in Bodily Autonomy as a primary right or B) Believe that it can be ceded for X reasons. Maybe there is someone insane out there who believes no one has bodily autonomy at all. Let us hope no one here is like that though.

If you believe in Bodily Autonomy as a primary right from which all other rights are derived, then you can’t possibly support the end to any abortions. You seem to believe it can be ceded, which then opens the question of when it applies and when it doesn’t, and why it should apply differently logically. It would be difficult to untangle your belief that only fetus’ can subvert their mother’s bodily autonomy.

I’ll show you. Let us go back to the kidney example. Let’s say now that John is the son of a mother. And John needs her kidney. Is it right to force her to give her kidney to john? John is still her child after all. I am sure you will come back with many disagreements.

Life before bodily autonomy – This has been gone over. Simply if life is more important than bodily autonomy, I could force you to do horrible things we all know are absurd that you definitely don’t want to do to save lives.

Flawed Premise – You mentioned below that you believe forcing someone to give a kidney is not the same as preventing someone from getting an abortion. It isn’t the same, but both require bodily autonomy. So what we are doing is logically reducing your position to its base parts. It doesn’t matter that they aren’t the same situation as someone else can use your logic to force John’s mother to give him a kidney.

John isn’t a fetus’ – What is special about a fetus that makes it necessary to cede bodily autonomy? Is it because its defenseless and unconscious? What happens if John becomes critical and now is unconscious and defenseless. Does he gain access to his mother’s body now?

York Zionia wrote:

Now, going back to what I mentioned earlier--regarding the bounds of "bodily autonomy" and the example about the fork in the resturaunt--I brought that up because a unique set of DNA is created at the moment of conception. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has already developed a completely unique and complex set of genetic material that is distinguishable from the mother carrying it. Who's to say that fetus/unborn child can't have autonomy over its DNA, effective against 3rd parties, the moment that DNA comes into existence?

Sure, the unborn cannot express an opinion, at the time, on what he/she wishes to do with their DNA (body)--but we already have (somewhat) arbitrary laws denying persons under the age of majority from entering into business contracts, or buying certain items, working under the presumption that those who do not seek to contract/buy do not wish to do so--and even if they did, would be denied from doing so if under a certain age. So how can any 3rd party make decisions interfering with the genetic material of a fetus, when that fetus hasn't freely given its express permission to do so?

You get into quite a predicament here because the baby also hasn’t granted you permission to birth it or touch it or do anything with it.

The thing is that the abortion question isn't a cosy after dinner debate between intelligent and educated people, with clever examples, trolley problems and premises P1, P2, and P3. It's about children being born into circumstances where nobody has the capacity to care for them so they grow up with few chances to do anything except repeat the same sh1tty cycle. It's about the end of dreams, careers and relationships. It's about psychological trauma, shame and bitter regret for the road not taken.

I think most people could agree that abortions are bad in the sense that it would be better if fewer of them happened. As has been said, this is best achieved through there being fewer unwanted pregnancies. The idea that the state can deal with undesirable consequences by simplistically banning them is beyond infuriating. How can you get better outcomes through the return of backstreet and DIY abortions, or by ensuring children are born unwanted into circumstances social services may later need to remove them from? By widening already yawning inequality by restricting abortion to those with the means to travel? I will never understand America, the land where owning an assault rifle requires less regulation than owning a uterus.

Banning stuff isn't taking a position in this philosophical debate, it's snuffing out the discussion. This is the process whereby, if armchair philosophicy is your thing, you decide what you'd do if it was you. Maybe later when the chips are down you even stick to it. A ban means that what you think doesn't matter.

My partner and I always felt we'd never go for an abortion and we declined the tests for fetal abnormalities on the grounds that we were going ahead either way. It wasn't a premise P1, P2, P3 kind of thing but it was a stance we felt had a certain dignity, a dignity it would have been stripped of by government compulsion. How crass it would be to presume to impose that choice on everyone.

My mother worked in a London gynaecological hospital before abortion was legalised in Britain. She always felt that after dealing with the aftermath of coathangers and bleach she had little appetite for philosophy.

I'll quick throw my bit in here, in part because I can personally relate to FV's stance on this, given it was my first and long-held standpoint until I learned more about this (and still mostly agree with), but also because some of the other points raised have definitely given me more to think about.

Forest Virginia wrote:

With all due respect, if you support killing a fetus near the end of a pregnancy, you are down right disgusting - in my view that's no difference than tossing a new born in a dumpster.

This part has always been confusing to me. I certain as heck agree - for the most part, and would've agreed 100% a couple years ago with how little knowledge I have on the matter. That said, I've also been told by folks in the WA (sad source to get this from, I know), and particularly Sanctaria I believe, that really late-state abortions are not so much a guaranteed death as an early-induced birth. I still agree that's probably not right under most circumstances, but assuming the baby is not particularly likely to have major complications, and particularly if the mother's health is genuinely at stake, I could see it being a viable possibility; but realistically, it's one of those instances of "Gosh, I really don't know enough about this" and I myself haven't done enough research to even know what to think personally. Still, it seems a dad more nuanced then "baby killing ree!", though feel free to correct me otherwise. ;p

Forest Virginia wrote:

Lastly, I would like to comment on what sparked all the debate. The US Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal. Rather they left the issue up to the states. Personally I wish this would be the case with more issues especially on the economic side of things. Smaller federal government is better. The people at the local and state level know better what they need and prefer than casting a blanket over the entire country.

I'm glad they technically stepped away from some states' rights, although personally I wish they would've done that with other things instead. I can appreciate protecting civil rights over state rights, and I also believe the "fed" is often surprisingly lenient when it comes to enforcing things otherwise legalized (see: marijuana). But states are an important part of our checks and balances, and the amount of blatant ignorance of our 10th amendment in many circumstances is a little worrisome if I may be frank.

I'm still a little worried about states outright banning abortions (as Texas already practically did not long before the court overruling anyway), though. One could argue that if it was that important, an individual would find a way to either visit or outright move to another state to have an abortion there. It's definitely difficult - especially if you're dirt-poor, where this is maybe the biggest problem. Just missing a paycheck, much more finding a viable time and affordable way to another state, is imaginably quite difficult (as I see Uan's touched on). And yeah, it absolutely would have a negative effect on our already rampant inequality.

Last word of note: I'd argue that states already had significant freedom to regulate abortions to a certain degree, such as within periods of time or under certain circumstances (health, rape, etc.). I frankly don't quite get where allowing states to outright ban it remotely comes in handy.

Uan aa Boa wrote:

It's about children being born into circumstances where nobody has the capacity to care for them so they grow up with few chances to do anything except repeat the same sh1tty cycle. It's about the end of dreams, careers and relationships. It's about psychological trauma, shame and bitter regret for the road not taken.

Bigger point here... yeah. Not to mention we're at around the world population limit and are swiftly running out of resources and are likely heading toward a period of significant die-off as-is anyway, but that as an aside, the suffering due to a lack of resources and people willing to actually care for them (arguably related) is enough of a reason. Although, I personally wouldn't use that as a reason for an abortion past a certain period; after all, those neglected are largely still with us for a reason. (I'm ready for a contentious debate about that.)

Uan aa Boa wrote:

My mother worked in a London gynaecological hospital before abortion was legalised in Britain. She always felt that after dealing with the aftermath of coathangers and bleach she had little appetite for philosophy.

*Sigh...* Yeah, that's a really depressing issue - and one where I can sadly understand why it's done. One could theoretically argue that doing it legally would encourage more abortions, but I'd argue that it largely means getting them done faster (thus less tragically) and more safely. I'd still hope that, given the relative ease of going from one state to another in the US, it wouldn't be as big of an issue as it may've been in the UK, buuuut... yeah, that might just be the largest reason why I'm a bit nervous about it being banned anywhere.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Final note: While the Roe vs. Wade overruling allowed states to ban abortions, wasn't there also some... deeper implications? I've heard a little bit about it potentially having major implications about right to privacy in general, although I'm not too enlightened on the matter. Don't suppose anyone else could shed a little light on that for me?

Jutsa wrote:

Final note: While the Roe vs. Wade overruling allowed states to ban abortions, wasn't there also some... deeper implications? I've heard a little bit about it potentially having major implications about right to privacy in general, although I'm not too enlightened on the matter. Don't suppose anyone else could shed a little light on that for me?

a bunch of things are based on roe, or use the same precedents as roe, such as gay marriage and legal contraception. and technically interracial marriage. It took alabama 4 days following roe's overturning to use the court's own words to work to get transgender healthcare banned.

Justice Thomas already said that they should look into the court ruling which legalized gay marriage.

Also, abortion is about healthcare, which is a federal issue, not state one.
Gun control is still up for debate whether it is state or federal issue. If it's a conservative state, it's a state right. but if you are in a liberal state, then it is federal. We know this, cuz the supreme court struck down a state law which was in place to reduce handgun ownership.

Rhodevus wrote:

a bunch of things are based on roe, or use the same precedents as roe, such as gay marriage and legal contraception. and technically interracial marriage. It took alabama 4 days following roe's overturning to use the court's own words to work to get transgender healthcare banned.

Justice Thomas already said that they should look into the court ruling which legalized gay marriage.

Also, abortion is about healthcare, which is a federal issue, not state one.
Gun control is still up for debate whether it is state or federal issue. If it's a conservative state, it's a state right. but if you are in a liberal state, then it is federal. We know this, cuz the supreme court struck down a state law which was in place to reduce handgun ownership.

Mmhm, I'd note that "health" is a traditional police power, which is a state issue. You can make arguments about the necessary and proper clause or whether we should really let this stop us (I basically think the Constitution's enumeration of powers at this point is pretty obsolete regardless, and I dislike the Supreme Court, which has made besides Dobbs a number of terrible decisions recently), but I would note anyway that abortion is not healthcare in this case, because the question of whether to allow it or not is about a moral argument, not an argument about the practicality of it on the level of healthcare. And morals, again... are a police power, and thus the jurisdiction of the states (again, in theory that I don't care about too much, but let's not misstate).

Sorry about double posting, but there were more responses after my last :P

Edit: One more point, I also don't think "men don't have to deal with the consequences" is a valid argument, either. The fact that some group gets away with something doesn't make it acceptable for another group. That said, I actually agree with Uan aa Boa's post to the degree that absolutely I think a fully consistent pro-life position necessitates strong protections for pregnant women and new mothers and as far as possible ought to hold men responsible for the situations they put women in.