[RD] Abortion, once again

[Sommerswerd]

Thinking it about it some more... pregnancy does not make the fetus and/or unborn child a "willing passenger" and thus accomplice/accessory to every act of the mother. Or alternatively, a pregnancy does not make them a kidnapped/wrongfully imprisoned person.

Pregnancy is a very special situation, where special/different rules, morals, considerations are understandably deemed appropriate. Analogizing pregnancy, or attempting to analogize it, to other situations, is always going to be fraught with problems, non-sequiturs, etc. Its not that you can't do it, but the analogies will often tend to be problematic... too problematic in many cases, to be applicable.

 

[Samson]

The anti-abortion crowd are clearly coming from a rational point of view:

Kristina Karamo has the endorsement of former President Donald Trump in her bid to become Michigan’s next Secretary of State:

“When people in other cultures, when they engage in child sacrifice, they didn’t just sacrifice the child for the sake of bloodshed,” Karamo said later in the episode. “They sacrificed the child cuz they were hoping to get prosperity and that’s precisely why people have abortion now. ‘Because I’m not ready. I don’t wanna have a baby. I don’t feel like it. I don’t have time. I wanna make more money. I want my freedom.’ So you’re sacrificing that child hoping to get something out of their death, which is your freedom, your happiness, your prosperity.”
​

and

“If a person has demonic possession — I know it’s gonna sound really crazy to me saying that for some people, thinking like what?!” Karamo said in September 2020. “But having intimate relationships with people who are demonically possessed or oppressed — I strongly believe that a person opens themselves up to possession. Demonic possession is real.”
​

Further she accused couples who cohabit before marriage of “open[ing] the door” to people who “want to normalize pedophilia.” She has accused the Democratic Party of “totally being taken over by a satanic agenda” and called incumbent Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D-MI, who she will face in the general if she wins the primary) “a very evil, evil, evil woman.”

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You note only your interpretation.

i can work with what is posted, not with things that aren't. can call it something other than handwaving, but it still wasn't addressed despite me saying it is the only thing that can justifiably make this procedure special, and the thing that made the comparison relevant (compelled action to the alleged benefit of others). 100% chance of dying vs extremely tiny is a different cost/risk proposition, too.

Given that you are neither Canadian nor someone who is capable of getting pregnant, I don't see why your side trip into vaccine mandates is relevant.

consistency of argumentative position.

Honestly, there is NO comparison between the two that makes any sense especially when you consider that the vast majority of the "my body, my choice" anti-vaxxer protesters are the SAME people who will happily wave signs and picket hospitals and clinics and smugly harass and vilify women and girls

i just pointed out a stance that (somewhat poorly) squares the reasoning they're using (depending on their precise stance wrt abortion), which you didn't address. it didn't go away a moment later. that argument is still central to this discussion.

In the matter of pregnancy, I have no worries whatsoever that I will "catch" this.

that's not what makes the comparison relevant.

As long as it's understood that not all women are fit to be mothers. Many aren't, and unfortunately some of them either don't know this or don't care.

the problem is that answering "who gets to decide" with "the state" tends to result in atrocity. the usa went down that path once, and those rulings were used as inspiration/justification for ww2 era eugenics of the worst kind. even the state doing literally nothing at all in this sphere is an improvement over that.

If a definition's inconvenient, then people will change the definition. Just work backwards from the preferred outcome

it happens all the time, but at the end of the day words still need to have meaning that constrains anticipation. i get that people try to change definitions to create confusion though.

Corporations are people, and they can be "killed" at will.

this isn't true in a practical sense, and this definitely isn't the place to detail why that is.

 

[Lexicus]

It's exactly as "dehumanizing" as believing abortion should be illegal lmao

Tbh just seems like a fair trade to me. Wanna criminalize abortion? Fine, mandatory vasectomies for all men that can be reversed if the man is deemed responsible enough not to cause an unwanted pregnancy. I don't see the issue with that at all.

This argument is also hilarious because despite it being basically exactly the same as banning abortion as soon as you say the words "mandatory vasectomy" suddenly all the men in the conversation care more about bodily autonomy than "uNbOrN hUmAn LiFe"

 

[Samson]

this isn't true in a practical sense, and this definitely isn't the place to detail why that is.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that there is a binary feature "personhood" that is useful in this place to determine rights such that we can determine if an entity has personhood, and use that feature to determine if the entity has rights. You agreed in your post above that it is not absolute, such that "whether [one person gets rights or just desires prioritized over others] appropriate or not depends on context". I then pointed out that this also applies to the right to life, in the case of corporate personhood. It seems to me that this demonstrates that the argument that the abortion question can be reduced to purely one of personhood is not correct.

I do certainly agree that we should be discussing features entities have, and how they relate to what rights and responsibilities these entities should be afforded. I just disagree it comes down to any simple binaries from which all rights can be determined. It seems obvious that the current legal definition of personhood, which as I point out includes corporations, is any such useful binary classification in this case.

I can see the argument that "human personhood" is a feature that we could use to determine right to life specifically, but it seems to me that this is circular. It would be clearer to everyone and functionally identical to do without the "human personhood" label and discuss directly if an entity should have a right to life in any particular circumstance by considering the pro's and con's of giving said entity that right.

 

[João III]

This argument is also hilarious because despite it being basically exactly the same as banning abortion as soon as you say the words "mandatory vasectomy" suddenly all the men in the conversation care more about bodily autonomy than "uNbOrN hUmAn LiFe"

Really it's just a hilariously bad argument. It's only exactly the same if you don't think about it critically. It would be an encroachment on the body of the male just as abortion is an encroachment on the body within the womb. The vasectomy argument really isn't as clever as you or Twitter like to think it is.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your argument, as I understand it, is that there is a binary feature "personhood" that is useful in this place to determine rights such that we can determine if an entity has personhood

that's not quite it. my stance is that we must select some point after which legal personhood exists (even if just as a practical legal matter), while (many pages ago now) acknowledging we don't have a good objective basis for pinpointing an exact point in time to set that legal personhood point. there are times where it makes no sense (prior to/just after conception), and one where it is mandatory (birth already happened).

we're not "using this to determine rights". we are "determining a point after which rights exist", then basing legal protections/policies on that choice. we are doing that with laws even if we don't say we're doing that, because that's the reality.

corporations don't have the same rules as individuals in law. that includes but isn't limited to "right to life" or other basic rights. there must be more useful analogies for life arguments than something that doesn't have any living cells whatsoever.

I do certainly agree that we should be discussing features entities have, and how they relate to what rights and responsibilities these entities should be afforded. I just disagree it comes down to any simple binaries from which all rights can be determined.

the alternative is some kind of partial-human definition with partially human rights for a fetus or something. i don't think this helps or will make setting/keeping policy better or easier for anybody (including the mother). i could be convinced otherwise if presented some model that makes sense, but i would be surprised.

It would be clearer to everyone and functionally identical to do without the "human personhood" label

i don't think that's true. for the purposes of human law, that label is special. we have a very good reason to draw the line for when that line gets crossed. if you think multiple lines/labels works better, maybe it's true, but i haven't seen such a model previously.

 

[Samson]

that's not quite it. my stance is that we must select some point after which legal personhood exists (even if just as a practical legal matter), while (many pages ago now) acknowledging we don't have a good objective basis for pinpointing an exact point in time to set that legal personhood point. there are times where it makes no sense (prior to/just after conception), and one where it is mandatory (birth already happened).

we're not "using this to determine rights". we are "determining a point after which rights exist", then basing legal protections/policies on that choice. we are doing that with laws even if we don't say we're doing that, because that's the reality.

corporations don't have the same rules as individuals in law. that includes but isn't limited to "right to life" or other basic rights. there must be more useful analogies for life arguments than something that doesn't have any living cells whatsoever.



the alternative is some kind of partial-human definition with partially human rights for a fetus or something. i don't think this helps or will make setting/keeping policy better or easier for anybody (including the mother). i could be convinced otherwise if presented some model that makes sense, but i would be surprised.



i don't think that's true. for the purposes of human law, that label is special. we have a very good reason to draw the line for when that line gets crossed. if you think multiple lines/labels works better, maybe it's true, but i haven't seen such a model previously.

I do not see that this is disagreeing with me in any way, except for: "if you think multiple lines/labels works better, maybe it's true, but i haven't seen such a model previously" - In this post you acknowledged that this is the case now.

 

[El_Machinae]

If a definition's inconvenient, then people will change the definition. Just work backwards from the preferred outcome

I think working back from preferred outcomes is basically the way we do everything? We cannot perceive objective morality. I will grant that some people would like to impose a morality, regardless of consequence. Like, they would prefer a world with no theft even if it meant that billions of people end up in starving serfdom.

But it is like figuring out the health value of foods. We describe the food is healthy if it can cause a healthy outcome. Everybody still knows that you need to modify consumption to be sane

 

[Sommerswerd]

Your argument, as I understand it, is that there is a binary feature "personhood" that is useful in this place to determine rights such that we can determine if an entity has personhood, and use that feature to determine if the entity has rights. You agreed in your post above that it is not absolute, such that "whether [one person gets rights or just desires prioritized over others] appropriate or not depends on context". I then pointed out that this also applies to the right to life, in the case of corporate personhood. It seems to me that this demonstrates that the argument that the abortion question can be reduced to purely one of personhood is not correct.

I do certainly agree that we should be discussing features entities have, and how they relate to what rights and responsibilities these entities should be afforded. I just disagree it comes down to any simple binaries from which all rights can be determined. It seems obvious that the current legal definition of personhood, which as I point out includes corporations, is any such useful binary classification in this case.

I can see the argument that "human personhood" is a feature that we could use to determine right to life specifically, but it seems to me that this is circular. It would be clearer to everyone and functionally identical to do without the "human personhood" label and discuss directly if an entity should have a right to life in any particular circumstance by considering the pro's and con's of giving said entity that right.

How we define "person" in this context seems to obfuscate the real underlying issue. The argument that @TheMeInTeam for just one example, keeps referencing, is that "persons" have rights, so therefore if a fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child is a "person", they have rights, which have to be considered, particularly to the extent that they conflict with the rights of the woman carrying them in her body, and cannot be totally subordinated to the rights, needs, wants of the woman, because they are both "persons" with "equal" rights.

My problem with this approach, is that it ignores the practical reality of what a pregnancy is and how it works. You have one living thing existing totally inside the mother. The degree to which that living thing is separate from the mother can certainly vary, depending on numerous factors, but the notion that the rights of the mother would be subordinate to the thing living entirely inside her, is unworkable, as a practical matter.

So it really does not matter if the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child is a "person", all that's doing is just renaming it, in order to, by simple semantic declaration, obfuscate the practical reality that you have one entity, existing totally inside another, and the unworkable absurdity of subjecting the rights of the mother carrying the entity, to the rights of the entity being carried.

The real issue then, is whether it makes sense to subjugate the rights of the entity doing the carrying to the rights of the entity being carried, existing totally inside the entity doing the carrying. For that to make sense, there has to be a sufficient reason/justification for subjecting the mother's rights in that way. I'd be interested to hear what justifications people have for that.

 

[Gorbles]

Really it's just a hilariously bad argument. It's only exactly the same if you don't think about it critically. It would be an encroachment on the body of the male just as abortion is an encroachment on the body within the womb. The vasectomy argument really isn't as clever as you or Twitter like to think it is.

Not mentioned: any encroachment on the body of the birth parent.

Weird. I'd imagine this is why people have to fill in the blanks with assumptions, because of your (and others') consistent refusal to explicitly elaborate.

consistency of argumentative position.

On a completely different subject, with a different legal context. This isn't in any way an application of consistency.

 

[Lexicus]

Really it's just a hilariously bad argument. It's only exactly the same if you don't think about it critically. It would be an encroachment on the body of the male just as abortion is an encroachment on the body within the womb. The vasectomy argument really isn't as clever as you or Twitter like to think it is.

What is the actual difference between forcing a man to get a vasectomy and forcing a woman to undergo a whole pregnancy and give birth? Oh, right, I'll tell you: a man getting a vasectomy is far less invasive, far less inconvenient, has far less physical effect on his body than a woman going through a whole pregnancy.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think I have quite a different take. Every time I look at it, it seems that reversible vasectomies for boys is much less of an interference than forcing a woman to go through pregnancy. Like, obviously it's a regulatory nightmare. But the two Harms are just miles apart

So it really does not matter if the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child is a "person", all that's doing is just renaming it, in order to, by simple semantic declaration, obfuscate the practical reality that you have one entity, existing totally inside another, and the unworkable absurdity of subjecting the rights of the mother carrying the entity, to the rights of the entity being carried.

The real issue then, is whether it makes sense to subjugate the rights of the entity doing the carrying to the rights of the entity being carried, existing totally inside the entity doing the carrying. For that to make sense, there has to be a sufficient reason/justification for subjecting the mother's rights in that way. I'd be interested to hear what justifications people have for that.

Hand waving away a lot of individual cases (which are granted) in the majority of cases, the mother is forcing the fetus into existence as a person. Yes, it takes effort to stop the process. But it also takes effort to stop a bowling ball from rolling down the stairs after I bumped it.

In general, we give the person creating the risk a greater duty than the person suffering the risk.

Every analogy fails, but I once grabbed a coma patient and injected him with amphetamines (he was expected to die in a coma, and this was a novel treatment. I had good reason to expect that it would wake him, but I hid that. Locally, he was considered legally dead) While he was still in a coma, I handcuffed him to myself and started swimming across a lake. Part way through the trip, he gained consciousness and started thrashing. So, I sawed off his arm with a hacksaw. Obviously, I made it.

Honestly, I did him a favor by bringing him back to consciousness in first place. And if he hadn't thrashed, we would have had a great vacation.

Obviously that hand waves away a lot of factors. And the analogy doesn't factor in the male ejaculation as a precipitating event. This analogy doesn't factor in an unconsenting ejaculation. And I'm fine with that. It's a totally different story

 

[João III]

I think working back from preferred outcomes is basically the way we do everything?

Let me try an example. Say I define life as beginning at conception and I respect human life. That could then be problematic if I wanted to support abortion access. But if I'm more interested in respecting abortion than human life, I'd have incentive to redefine life as beginning at birth, no?

Not mentioned: any encroachment on the body of the birth parent.

Weird. I'd imagine this is why people have to fill in the blanks with assumptions, because of your (and others') consistent refusal to explicitly elaborate.

I don't make people "fill in the blanks", they choose to assume; and I was quite extensive and explicit in elaborating earlier in this very thread and I'm met by the same snide remarks regardless

 

[Sommerswerd]

Every analogy fails, but I once grabbed a coma patient and injected him with amphetamines (he was expected to die in a coma, and this was a novel treatment. I had good reason to expect that it would wake him, but I hid that. Locally, he was considered legally dead) While he was still in a coma, I handcuffed him to myself and started swimming across a lake. Part way through the trip, he gained consciousness and started thrashing. So, I sawed off his arm with a hacksaw. Obviously, I made it. Honestly, I did him a favor by bringing him back to consciousness in first place. And if he hadn't thrashed, we would have had a great vacation.

I don't follow this analogy at all or how it applies. I'd like to know if you can explain it more.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hand waving away a lot of individual cases (which are granted) in the majority of cases, the mother is forcing the fetus into existence as a person. Yes, it takes effort to stop the process. But it also takes effort to stop a bowling ball from rolling down the stairs after I bumped it.

This is certainly the kind of thing I wanted to discuss. I see this as a fault-based argument, ie., "its the woman's fault for getting pregnant, so she has to bear the consequences... at her peril." Another, even less polite way of looking at this particular argument it, is "if these ***** don't want to have babies they should keep their ***** legs closed" which is something akin to the GOP donor who made the comment about "birth control pills", being "The gals just need to hold a pill between their knees" or something along those lines.

As you can see, I see that sort of position as essentially boiling down to enforced sexual morality. Do you agree?

In general, we give the person creating the risk a greater duty than the person suffering the risk.

Hmmm, but see Gun violence victims v. Gun manufacturers... In any case "creating risk" goes back to fault, which again is essentially enforced sexual morality, unless I am missing something.

Obviously that hand waves away a lot of factors. And the analogy doesn't factor in the male ejaculation as a precipitating event. This analogy doesn't factor in an unconsenting ejaculation. And I'm fine with that. It's a totally different story

I don't think I agree that it's a totally different story. I think the issues are related. I think that a lot of the abortion divide does boil down to weaponizing sexual morality against women, but then handwaving it, lessening it, or treating it like an afterthought, or separate issue when it comes to men.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't make people "fill in the blanks", they choose to assume; and I was quite extensive and explicit in elaborating earlier in this very thread and I'm met by the same snide remarks regardless

Everyone at one point or another has to repeat themselves. I agree it's tiring, but it's necessary especially in threads that go for tens of pages or more.

As for "snide remarks", again, we're 66 pages deep (on this thread alone, nevermind any other). Everyone has an idea of each others' positions. If there's a misrepresentation and you're not interested in clearing it up for whatever reason, then it's going to remain misrepresented. For example:

Let me try an example. Say I define life as beginning at conception and I respect human life. That could then be problematic if I wanted to support abortion access. But if I'm more interested in respecting abortion than human life, I'd have incentive to redefine life as beginning at birth, no?

A better phrasing of this example would be (substituting "I" for "you" here): "Say I respect human life more than a parent's choice to abort, I'd have incentive to redefine life as beginning at conception. That could then be problematic if I wanted to support other rights relating to the birth parent. But if I'm more interested in respecting abortion than human life, I'd have incentive to redefine life as beginning at birth."

You keep on missing out parts of the comparison(s), parts of the analogies. You may not like how I'm rephrasing your words, you may find it in poor faith, or taste, or whatever. But I'm trying to illustrate how the two halves of the argument are being given different weight (by you). People have incentive for any number of given positions to define the terminology and framing in a way that benefits them. People do this all the time. By weighting one "side" with an incentive to modify language, but not weighting the other side to do the same (when they absolutely do have incentive) you give the impression that you perceive it as one-sided in that regard. Am I misrepresenting you? Is this not fair criticism?

 

[sophie]

As you can see, I see that sort of position as essentially boiling down to enforced sexual morality. Do you agree?

Particularly when for people making this argument "getting an abortion" is not considered an acceptable "bearing of the consequences"

 

[Sommerswerd]

Particularly when for people making this argument "getting an abortion" is not considered an acceptable "bearing of the consequences"

Precisely so, because they do not regard getting an abortion as a sufficient consequence for the woman's sexual immorality... they regard it instead as escaping the consequences. For them the woman needs to be, to quote Obama, "punished with a baby" to create a deterrent to women engaging in this sexual immorality.

 

[El_Machinae]

My analogy is that forcing someone into a risk changes burdens. I'm allowed to shuck boots while I'm swimming, but if I drag someone along and then kill them, the consequences are different. Violating someone's bodily integrity

This is certainly the kind of thing I wanted to discuss. I see this as a fault-based argument, ie., "its the woman's fault for getting pregnant, so she has to bear the consequences... at her peril." Another, even less polite way of looking at this particular argument it, is "if these ***** don't want to have babies they should keep their ***** legs closed" which is something akin to the GOP donor who made the comment about "birth control pills", being "The gals just need to hold a pill between their knees" or something along those lines.

As you can see, I see that sort of position as essentially boiling down to enforced sexual morality. Do you agree?.

Yes and no. Yes, in that it can be used that way. No, in that I am not. Keep in mind, I support Canada's 'until birth' system, because of the risks of not. But this idea that consenting adults aren't 'at fault' is just bonkers.

It's just a fact of nature that we force people into existence. Gravity exists as well. There's a history of policing women's bodies, but these things are still true. I think it creates a dilemma, and pretending otherwise is just ... wrong. Creating the risk changes the allocation of responsibility.

There are many opportunities to prevent forcing a fetus into personhood, and the imposition of barriers are the problem. Heck, these barriers not only hurt women, but also hurt the fetuses that are forced into existence and then suffer whatever late desperation occurs. Every barrier is the problem, but it's not the fetus who created the risk. No more than my thrashing passenger created the risk to my swimming.

The risks of pregnancy can't be fairly allocated and there is massive misogyny around it. But reassignment of risks from the creators to the created doesn't work.