[RD] Abortion, once again

[TheMeInTeam]

So if I stab you and ruin both of your kidneys, it should be legally mandatory for me to be your kidney donor, I presume. (If compatible.)

I'm not being snarky here. I presume that's what you mean. I disagree, actually.

On what basis would you disagree? This hypothetical is a closer to the abortion arguments than the one presented in the article, though there is still something of a difference in agency leading up to the situation.

The point is consistency - if one universally thinks bodily autonomy is something that is debatable, we're getting closer to what the matter is dealing with, even if the right to life is also involved in the fundamentals.

Bodily autonomy *must* be debatable, because there are possible actions in the framework of autonomy that reduce or remove the autonomy of others, even generally. If the law does not constrain autonomy to at least some extent, individual actions will instead, and sometimes in ways we don't like/are net negatives for society (like creepy dudes tying people up and tossing them in a basement...we probably should deny the choice to do that).

Some of the tone when discussing responsibility is outright icky, as if the people involved are Children of the Porn. Usually the women in question actually care about getting pregnant, y'know, taking measures against it, and holding back, because they know the consequences of unprotected sex. Thinking they don't care about these things is a real insult to female intelligence.

Some people might claim (with or without basis) that x particular person doesn't care. But it's an insult to *everyone's* intelligence, including that of women, to claim that pregnancy isn't 100% preventable as a choice. The only exception is rape.

I'm not saying early term abortions shouldn't be allowed. I would say that on balance, they should be allowed, for multiple reasons (including rare occurrences like your example story, but not limited to them). But let's not pretend that more than the tiniest % of pregnancies arise from anything but the choice of the people having sex.

You seemed to be implying earlier that male labour/earning was what their stake was based on? Did I read that correct?

Yes, and that it is compelled, with penalty of being literally locked up if not provided. Being locked in a room limits bodily autonomy a lot compared to normal baseline for adults, so while the man's stake is less than the women's (since she can also potentially see jail time for non-compliance/neglect/etc in addition to immediate physical risks) it's preposterous to claim he doesn't have one until the child is born.

Obviously, once the fetus reaches wherever you draw the line for personhood, the fetus also has a stake in this decision, though can't make any choices regarding it.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

It's out of scope for this thread anyway. There are already threads on it where we could argue over it, but I'm not inclined to right now. Its relation to abortion isn't strong enough to rope in extended discussion about it here. Same for welfare state in general (which seems to have led to a lot more abortions happening, but is tangled with a ton of other factors), it doesn't really address the ethics or legality of the procedure itself.

 

[Farm Boy]

But, on the other hand, it means that we cannot make obvious errors when pushing back aggressively, because obvious errors mean that our opinions can be discounted easily. In an ideal world, eventually we'd get closer and closer to a morally justifiable middle.

What, like people in some states intentionally putting in late-term exceptions over financial and social anxiety, and then some other states firing back with 6-weeks bans? Yeah, the diphorsehockys are winning this one presently in the US.

 

[El_Machinae]

What, like people in some states intentionally putting in late-term exceptions over financial and social anxiety, and then some other states firing back with 6-weeks bans? Yeah, the dip****s are winning this one presently in the US.

They are. And, unfortunately, one of those 'compromises' above is worse than the other, and the best I can do is honestly try to discover which is worse.

 

[Farm Boy]

Gross.

 

[Yeekim]

As @Gorbles pointed out, even if the question of what constitutes personhood is answered, there's the further question of which person's interests should be prioritized.

If it is a life-threatening situation, those of a mother, for several reasons.

So if I stab you and ruin both of your kidneys, it should be legally mandatory for me to be your kidney donor, I presume. (If compatible.)

I'm not being snarky here. I presume that's what you mean. I disagree, actually. But yea, I can at least respect that position.

Yes, that's what I mean. We can even add the additional complication that for some reason your kidney is the only kidney in the world that could save me.
Care to elaborate why you would not agree though? Might be impractical to enforce, I guess... but at least in principle seems fair and reasonable?

But it's an insult to *everyone's* intelligence, including that of women, to claim that pregnancy isn't 100% preventable as a choice.

The only 100% certain prevention method is total abstinence though, which is by no means a reasonable choice.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The only 100% certain prevention method is total abstinence though, which is by no means a reasonable choice.

Or being old enough. How reasonable it is will vary person to person too. But to me it's largely academic, because I'm not against early-term abortions, especially not when good faith effort was made to prevent pregnancy. My only objection would be if someone is using abortion as a substitute for birth control on state $$$, but from what I understand that's rare enough not to worry about too much.

 

[Angst]

Yes, that's what I mean. We can even add the additional complication that for some reason your kidney is the only kidney in the world that could save me.
Care to elaborate why you would not agree though? Might be impractical to enforce, I guess... but at least in principle seems fair and reasonable?

To put it as shortly as possible, I don't think harvesting organs from convicts is a good path to go down, regardless of where the organs go.

Autonomy can be stripped, but there's a clear line to draw between limiting freedom of movement and freedom of action, and then actually drawing things out from their bodies themselves for use value.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, the use of 'value' there just basically points out how non-appropriate the Violinist argument is to the discussion (except for a rarity of cases that should be rarer).

In an abortion, it's necessarily true that one entity is draining from another, regardless. But the key word, 'values', requires not only a nod to 'personhood', but actually requires what I deem to be an essential component of the discussion, consciousness.

Now, for other reasons, we deem it unwise to say that we can use the organs of assaulters in order to help repair their victims, but that's a practical consideration more than anything. I mean, I'm allowed to kill an assaulter to protect my kidneys, so it's a bit weird to say I may not take one of his to restore mine

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, we will let you kill him, but you couldn't later enforce the situation where you both live.

 

[Gorbles]

If it is a life-threatening situation, those of a mother, for several reasons.

It doesn't have to get to life-threatening for the risk of the threat to be real. It simply is.

 

[Yeekim]

It doesn't have to get to life-threatening for the risk of the threat to be real. It simply is.

I am confused now. Threat of what to be real then?

 

[Gorbles]

I am confused now. Threat of what to be real then?

Your qualifier is that "if" it happens to be a life-threatening situation, assuming I'm reading you right. This is the wrong way of looking at it. By the time it's gotten to a life-threatening situation, it's already arguably too late. The point of the mother's life being relevant factoring into a choice of abortion is because the threat is real and can emerge in a variety of ways - even if it ultimately doesn't for any one pregnancy.

 

[Akka]

I've a rather simple take on the situation.
If it lacks a brain, it's not a person. A person is about being able to feel and to think, without the required organ there is no real debate about personhood.
I don't see the point nor the value to affect severely a person life for a clump of cells.

Once a fetus exists (uncoincidentally, the difference between a fetus and an embryo is about the development of critical organs), it becomes more muddled, but up to this point I don't see any argument that don't take roots either in "let's punish the floozy for her promiscuity" or religion, neither being actually solid enough for something as serious as superceding someone's right on their own body.

 

[Yeekim]

Still confused... @Gorbles - are you then saying that because a pregnancy may theoretically threaten a mother's life, abortion can always be justified by the need to protect mother's life, with no further assessment of the situation required?

 

[Gorbles]

Still confused... @Gorbles - are you then saying that because a pregnancy may theoretically threaten a mother's life, abortion can always be justified by the need to protect mother's life, with no further assessment of the situation required?

Insofar as we're discussing the choice aspect of it, yes. Hence, pro-choice (vs. anti-choice).

 

[Yeekim]

Insofar as we're discussing the choice aspect of it, yes. Hence, pro-choice (vs. anti-choice).

This feels rather disingenuous. Similar to shooting a random bystander "in self-defense".

 

[Gorbles]

This feels rather disingenuous. Similar to shooting a random bystander "in self-defense".

But it's not random. And this is before we get onto everything that happens to a woman's body during pregnancy that can affect her life permanently regardless. The threat isn't random, it's specific to carrying a pregnancy to term, for the mother.

To compare it to a shooting is what feels disingenuous, personally. I'm all for people being responsible with birth control and so on, but the reality is that doesn't always work out (and isn't 100% guaranteed in any one instance anyway). Some things also only become discoverable (even as a potential - and not current - threat) once pregnancy is underway.

The reality is being pregnant can harm the mother, or even cost her her life. You can decide to prioritise that however you wish.

 

[Yeekim]

But it's not random. And this is before we get onto everything that happens to a woman's body during pregnancy that can affect her life permanently regardless. The threat isn't random, it's specific to carrying a pregnancy to term, for the mother.

To compare it to a shooting is what feels disingenuous, personally. I'm all for people being responsible with birth control and so on, but the reality is that doesn't always work out (and isn't 100% guaranteed in any one instance anyway). Some things also only become discoverable (even as a potential - and not current - threat) once pregnancy is underway.

The reality is being pregnant can harm the mother, or even cost her her life. You can decide to prioritise that however you wish.

If the mother wishes to abort, she should be able to do so at will, for whatever reason, during early stages of the pregnancy.

However, once she has permitted the fetus to develop long enough to be considered a person, rights of that person also need to be considered. After that point, risk to her health should be higher than normal/previously expected, to serve as a justification for abortion.

Going back to my analogy - yeah, it is not a random bystander, more like a guest that has been invited to your house. And even though there surely have been cases of such guests assaulting and killing the host with no previous display of threat, this alone would not be good enough justification to claim self-defense.

 

[Gorbles]

However, once she has permitted the fetus to develop long enough to be considered a person, rights of that person also need to be considered.

Sure, but I think we're going in circles here. A lot of the argument seems to revolve around the consideration of the fetus as a person, and when a cut-off that works for the vast majority of pregnancies is considered viable.

The problem is that legislation (and religious intervention) is overwhelmingly tipped towards restricting a woman's choice in this matter - not opening it up further. That's generally what inspires any discussion on this topic.

 

[Fippy]

And still everyone here is glad that his/her mother didn't feel like aborting, funny how perspectives can change when they affect yourself.