An Absolute Right to Abortion?

[MrFrankZito]

The following is a "letter to the editor" that I wrote, which was published in my city's newspaper. In this letter, I advocate for an absolute right to abortion. Read it through, and then share your thoughts.

Even though some Democratic senators have warmed to him, and the filibuster threat seems increasingly unlikely to materialize, I remain highly suspicious of Judge Samuel Alito. Apparently, Alito “respects” the Roe v. Wade precedent; unfortunately, affording that landmark decision respect does not equal pledging to defend it. Though Alito has voted “pro-choice” on the majority of abortion cases he has heard, he did so as a circuit court judge rather than as a Supreme Court justice. On the Supreme Court, he could craft new precedents, rather than having to enforce those already existing.

Undoubtedly, this is one of the most consequential issues facing this country today. The Supreme Court must recognize that a woman’s body, and what grows within it, is that woman’s property, over which she may exercise complete autonomy. The only other option is to grant the government ownership over our bodies, which, despite some Democrats’ assurances, I fear Alito might well do.

 

[toddjh]

The following is a "letter to the editor" that I wrote, which was published in my city's newspaper. In this letter, I advocate for an absolute right to abortion. Read it through, and then share your thoughts.

I think you commit the error that most strongly pro-choice people do, which is a failure to realize that the primary issue is not a woman's right to control her body, but the point at which the fetus is regarded as a person with legal rights.

If the fetus is regarded as a person, then the issue is not simply one of medical responsibility. One person's right to live trumps another person's right to privacy, and so preserving the fetus's life is more important than allowing the woman to undergo a medical procedure.

As far as I'm concerned, this is more or less the only relevant issue in the abortion debate. The debate should not be centered around issues of privacy, but rather on a clear and rational discussion of at what point, if any, the fetus is deserving of personhood.

Jeremy

 

[Earthborn]

What the roo said.

Also: just because in libertarian philosophy one's body is one's property and that having property means having complete authority over it, does not mean that this is how things are actually organised in the world. It also does not mean that other views on property are can be dismissed as irrelevant and thus that these libertarian concepts can be declared as 'absolute'.

 

[Seismosaurus]

One person's right to live trumps another person's right to privacy, and so preserving the fetus's life is more important than allowing the woman to undergo a medical procedure.

I disagree that this is a given. In my mind, even if a foetus could be considered a person then its legal right to life would not trump the woman's right to control over her body.

As an analogy - if a person is dying of failing kidneys then that does not give them the right to force me to donate one. My right to control over my body supercedes whatever right to life they might have.

 

[toddjh]

As an analogy - if a person is dying of failing kidneys then that does not give them the right to force me to donate one. My right to control over my body supercedes whatever right to life they might have.

You make a good point overall, but I don't think that analogy is applicable to the abortion situation, because in your example the passive decision results in the person's death, while in the abortion example the passive decision results in the fetus surviving (probably). To me, there is a huge difference between refusal to render assistance and a deliberate attempt to do harm.

An abortion is an active attempt to kill the fetus. If the fetus is considered a person, I don't see how that doesn't meet the definition of murder.

Added to that is the fact that the woman was most likely a willing participant in the act which created the fetus to begin with. I'm not saying that's a compelling factor, but it should be taken into consideration. Unless the man or woman was using extreme methods of birth control (condoms combined with the pill, for example, or sterilization), the mean time between failures is expected to be less than the length of a woman's childbearing years, and so the odds are good that an unintended pregnancy will result at some point.

Jeremy

 

[Santa666]

I disagree that this is a given. In my mind, even if a foetus could be considered a person then its legal right to life would not trump the woman's right to control over her body.

As an analogy - if a person is dying of failing kidneys then that does not give them the right to force me to donate one. My right to control over my body supercedes whatever right to life they might have.

This analogy is not quite the same. If it is determined that a foetus is a person and afforded a legal right to life, then, because it cannot speak for itself, the court will be its voice. Your example demonstrates a CHOICE from both ends of spectrum. Without an entity to give it a CHOICE, an unborn child must rely on others to defend it. On a second note, if a foetus really is a person, then we are no longer debating control ONLY over the mother's body. We would then we discussing two individuals, both of whom have the ultimate right to life, which does indeed supercede the right to privacy.


Santa

 

[RandFan]

I disagree that this is a given. In my mind, even if a foetus could be considered a person then its legal right to life would not trump the woman's right to control over her body.

As an analogy - if a person is dying of failing kidneys then that does not give them the right to force me to donate one. My right to control over my body supercedes whatever right to life they might have.

Poor analogy. Could a mother kill her one year old because being a mother is stressful? The right to control your body doesn't give you the right to terminate another.

I agree with Tod.

 

[American]

There are no rights, only strong wills and those freedoms conferred to the weak by the strong.

Documents, lawyers, constitutions, speeches, and poetics will not change this - though the right to bear arms was so intended to do just that.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I accept that the analogy is flawed, but it still demonstrates that saving a life does not take precedence over freedom and choice in all circumstances. It's not a given that saving a life trumps personal freedom.

To toddjh, I don't think we should just automatically classify the killing of a foetus as murder because it is a Human - murder is a legal term, and there are occasions on which we may kill people without it being murder. At risk of more flawed analogy, we can kill in self defence, in war, or the state execution of a criminal. Even if we accept the foetus as Human, the question would become one of how we would choose to categorise the killing of a Human foetus, it wouldn't automatically fall into one category or another.

RandFan, I don't think your analogy is a good one either. The mother of a one year old who is stressed has the option of simply putting the little tyke in care, she doesn't have to kill it. But the pregnant woman has only the option of abortion or pregnancy, at least early in the term. She can't walk away from it and leave others to deal with it. (Come to that, I don't think it would be easy for anybody to come up with a good analogy that wasn't horribly contrived.)

Personally, my feeling is that pregnancy is such an all-encompassing, intrusive thing that the state has no right to force anybody to go through it for any reason, even the saving of a Human life.

This actually raises a troubling point that has occurred to me on occasion. There are occasional efforts to push back the time limit on abortion on the grounds that the foetus can survive outside the womb now that technology has advanced. But technology will eventually advance to the point where you could take a fertilised egg straight out of the fallopian tube or uterus via some ten minute keyhole surgery and stick it in an artificial womb where it goes right through to term. So would abortion be justifiable under those circumstances,? My gut level emotional response is yes, it should, the woman's right to control over her body is absolute. But I'm not sure how I would justify that on logical grounds.

 

[Luciana]

I believe that third-trimester abortions should happen for any reason the woman wants. If the woman wants to abort because...

a) It's not the right time,
b) I don't love the father,
c) I don't know who the father is,
d) It will make me fat and I don't want stretch marks

Anything, really. All of the above are legitimate reasons not to have a baby. In short, if the woman does not want a child, she should not have it. If I agree with those reasons, it is not relevant.

After the third trimester, the fetus is developed enough to even look human. It is not independent, but a baby is certainly there. So, after that, only if the pregnancy involves a health risk for the woman or there is a really serious birth defect. I expect that in the first three months the woman will have made up her mind whether she wants the baby or not.

Seismosaurus - in your scenario, there is the problem that the woman might not want her egg to be used. It is still hers, her DNA, and she should be able to deny it from being used to create a new life.

 

[toddjh]

To toddjh, I don't think we should just automatically classify the killing of a foetus as murder because it is a Human - murder is a legal term, and there are occasions on which we may kill people without it being murder. At risk of more flawed analogy, we can kill in self defence, in war, or the state execution of a criminal.

Sure, but I don't think the latter two apply here. As for self-defense, I'm not opposed to allowing abortion if the pregnancy represented a serious health risk. Apart from that, though, it seems pretty clear cut to me.

Personally, my feeling is that pregnancy is such an all-encompassing, intrusive thing that the state has no right to force anybody to go through it for any reason, even the saving of a Human life.

You make it sound like the government randomly inflicts pregnancy on people. In the vast majority of situations, the woman chooses to engage in behavior that entails a significant risk of pregnancy. Like I said in my previous post, unless the woman (or man) is using heroic birth control methods, there is a good chance she'll end up pregnant sooner or later. I can't summon up a lot of sympathy for people who engage repeatedly in risky behavior and then act surprised when the worst case scenario eventually occurs. Isn't there a legal concept which states that people are assumed to intend the likely outcomes of their actions?

If they were using birth control that shouldn't be expected to fail over the course of a woman's reproductive years, that might be different, but I don't think many people fall into that category. For starters, not many people opt for such extreme methods, and second, for obvious reasons, not many of those people are in a position to need an abortion.

This actually raises a troubling point that has occurred to me on occasion. There are occasional efforts to push back the time limit on abortion on the grounds that the foetus can survive outside the womb now that technology has advanced. But technology will eventually advance to the point where you could take a fertilised egg straight out of the fallopian tube or uterus via some ten minute keyhole surgery and stick it in an artificial womb where it goes right through to term. So would abortion be justifiable under those circumstances,? My gut level emotional response is yes, it should, the woman's right to control over her body is absolute. But I'm not sure how I would justify that on logical grounds.

I would justify it by saying that there is no rational basis for regarding a single fertilized egg as a person, regardless of whether it can be supported by an incubator. There is no brain, no nervous system, nothing that is unique to human biology, and so there is no particular reason to be concerned about its welfare.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

After the third trimester, the fetus is developed enough to even look human.

After the third trimester, the fetus is developed enough to be born.

Typos aside, I agree with everything you said, and I think most rational people feel the same way. I have no problem with banning third-trimester abortions just to be on the safe side. Apart from health concerns, there's no good reason for a woman to have an abortion that late anyway: five or six months is plenty of time to make up her mind.

Jeremy

 

[Seismosaurus]

You make it sound like the government randomly inflicts pregnancy on people.

Inflicting, no - but forcing the continuation of pregnancy is precisely what the government would be doing. And not randomly, universally.

In the vast majority of situations, the woman chooses to engage in behavior that entails a significant risk of pregnancy.

So? Everybody engages in risky behaviour of all kinds, every day. That doesn't mean the government has a right to force people to accept the consequences. If I get run over by a car the government can't ban hospitals from treating me on the grounds that I took the risk so I have to take the consequences. (I feel very positive about that analogy. I think I may have turned a corner with that one.)

Like I said in my previous post, unless the woman (or man) is using heroic birth control methods, there is a good chance she'll end up pregnant sooner or later. I can't summon up a lot of sympathy for people who engage repeatedly in risky behavior and then act surprised when the worst case scenario eventually occurs. Isn't there a legal concept which states that people are assumed to intend the likely outcomes of their actions?

The government expends resources rescuing people who go mountain climbing or diving, don't they?

I would justify it by saying that there is no rational basis for regarding a single fertilized egg as a person, regardless of whether it can be supported by an incubator. There is no brain, no nervous system, nothing that is unique to human biology, and so there is no particular reason to be concerned about its welfare.

Nevertheless, a very large number of the anti-abortion folks out there do believe exactly that. If artificial wombs were invented tomorrow, I think the pressue to ban abortion would be great indeed.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I believe that third-trimester abortions should happen for any reason the woman wants. If the woman wants to abort because...

a) It's not the right time,
b) I don't love the father,
c) I don't know who the father is,
d) It will make me fat and I don't want stretch marks

Anything, really. All of the above are legitimate reasons not to have a baby. In short, if the woman does not want a child, she should not have it. If I agree with those reasons, it is not relevant.

I agree with this. The woman's reasons don't affect the argument at all in my view.

Seismosaurus - in your scenario, there is the problem that the woman might not want her egg to be used. It is still hers, her DNA, and she should be able to deny it from being used to create a new life.

But that's just it - if we use "it can live independant from the mother" as the criteria for the abortion cutoff, then in my artificial womb scenario the egg is fertilised so it must already be regarded as a Human life independant from the mother. She wouldn't have any say in the matter.

 

[Luciana]

After the third trimester, the fetus is developed enough to be born.

hahahaha! Developed enough to look like my knee, I could say.

Yep - third trimester abortions should be entirely prohibited. Well, if carrying on the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother, then do a C-section and carry a premature baby home. I knew such a case. The mother found a small malignant tumor and had to go through chemotherapy, so she hurried the birth of the child.

 

[Luciana]

I
But that's just it - if we use "it can live independant from the mother" as the criteria for the abortion cutoff, then in my artificial womb scenario the egg is fertilised so it must already be regarded as a Human life independant from the mother. She wouldn't have any say in the matter.

If human cloning ever becomes routine, then leaving my saliva in a coffee cup is a waste of human life!

But still, even if egg can live independently, as in, be fertilized/developed outside a female body, it is still her DNA. No one but the person should decide what to do with it. It would still be the woman's right to say "no, I don't want this developed".

 

[toddjh]

Inflicting, no - but forcing the continuation of pregnancy is precisely what the government would be doing. And not randomly, universally.

Well, this is a difficult issue. In my mind, it's the woman's body forcing the pregnancy to continue. The government would simply be protecting the life of the unborn person.

So? Everybody engages in risky behaviour of all kinds, every day. That doesn't mean the government has a right to force people to accept the consequences.

Sure it does; it happens in dozens of courts every day. It's perfectly fine to minimize the consequences, but the responsibility is still there.

If you drive drunk and smash into someone's car, you're responsible for the damage. You may not have intended that to happen, but it's a reasonable consequence of your risk you took by driving drunk, and so you're responsible. I don't see why that responsibility shouldn't apply when the risk you take is one of accidentally creating a human life.

But like I said, I have no problem with minimizing the consequences, if that's possible. I'm not opposed to abortions in the first trimester; in that situation, the woman is still responsible for the consequences, but there wouldn't be that many consequences left.

In any event, I don't think "But I didn't mean to get pregnant!!" is a valid reason to end a person's life (assuming once again that the fetus is a person), any more than "But I didn't mean to kill that pedestrian!!" is a defense against vehicular manslaughter.

The government expends resources rescuing people who go mountain climbing or diving, don't they?

Yes, but they don't kill people to do it. And if it were up to me, they should bill the victims for the cost of the rescue...are you sure they don't?

Nevertheless, a very large number of the anti-abortion folks out there do believe exactly that. If artificial wombs were invented tomorrow, I think the pressue to ban abortion would be great indeed.

Possibly. I don't think it'll ever happen, though. At the very least, there will always be some states which allow abortion.

Jeremy

 

[MrFrankZito]

I think you commit the error that most strongly pro-choice people do, which is a failure to realize that the primary issue is not a woman's right to control her body, but the point at which the fetus is regarded as a person with legal rights.

If the fetus is regarded as a person, then the issue is not simply one of medical responsibility. One person's right to live trumps another person's right to privacy, and so preserving the fetus's life is more important than allowing the woman to undergo a medical procedure.

As far as I'm concerned, this is more or less the only relevant issue in the abortion debate. The debate should not be centered around issues of privacy, but rather on a clear and rational discussion of at what point, if any, the fetus is deserving of personhood.

Jeremy

I analyze this issue in a very different way than most. For me, the entire notion of "personhood" is a philosophical tangent leading essentially nowhere. It's not concrete; it's abstract. The government doesn't do well with abstract.

In my view, a person should have total autonomy with respect to his/her body, as well as what grows inside it. Whether the entity inside my body is a tumor, pheasant or person, that entity is my personal property by virtue of the fact that it is growing within my body. Only when the entity leaves my body does it become autonomous and no longer my property. Yes, looking at things through this prism, I was my mother's personal property for 9 months, analogous to a book or a shoe.

Because of this reasoning, I oppose every conceivable abortion restriction. I oppose parental consent, parental notification, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory counseling, partial-birth bans and every other potential restriction that could be conceived of. I can safely say that I am more pro-choice than 50% of NARAL members, at least. And, for me, it all comes down to personal ownership over one's body, and everything growing within it.

 

[Seismosaurus]

If human cloning ever becomes routine, then leaving my saliva in a coffee cup is a waste of human life!

But still, even if egg can live independently, as in, be fertilized/developed outside a female body, it is still her DNA.

It is? The DNA of the child is distinctily different from that of the parent. It's 50% the same as hers, but changing every other word in a book gives you a completely different book.

No one but the person should decide what to do with it. It would still be the woman's right to say "no, I don't want this developed".

You could use that argument at any point up to birth.

Edited to add : I'm going to bed now folks, see yall tomorrow...

 

[Ziggurat]

Undoubtedly, this is one of the most consequential issues facing this country today.

This is the part of your letter I'm going to take issue with. I don't think it is that consequential an issue, for two reasons.

First, improving technology will make it easier and easier to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. If the decision to avoid pregnancy becomes simple, easy, and reliable, then from a practical standpoint there's simply going to be no serious need to defend the right to an abortion. Passions may continue to be inflamed, but even now, with things like the morning after pill, the very question of abortion rights is less important than it used to be. And frankly, that's a good thing.

Secondly, even supposing Roe v. Wade gets overturned, most states are likely to keep abortion legal. Before Roe v. Wade, states were moving in the direction of legalization, and even if a few make it illegal in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling, they're going to be under increasing pressure as time goes by to legalize it, because that's what most of the public wants. In other words, a worst-case scenario really isn't apocalyptic.