An Absolute Right to Abortion?

[toddjh]

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.

The problem with this approach is that it defines personhood entirely as a social construct. I reject the idea that killing a person is wrong only to the extent that they are part of social group. Killing a human is wrong simply because a human has a biology which makes him an intelligent being. It would still be wrong even if he was the last person alive and there was no social group to be a part of.

Jeremy

 

[UserGoogol]

Actually, even if you assume that fetuses are full persons, (which I do not) I can still see how this argument can work from a slightly straw-mannish interpetation of Libertarianism.

It is accepted by some libertarians that it is unethical to force a person to give up their property rights in order to save a person's life. Arguably, the same effect is at play here. You have one person (the fetus) who needs access to the property of another person in order to live. (The mother's uterus.) Even if the mother does not own the fetus, she does own her uterus, and thus does she not have the right to kick a freeloader off her property?

(Now that I think of it, this argument might only apply to certain kinds of abortions, where the fetus/embryo is simply flushed out of the body, and not abortions where the embryo is actively killed. It's one thing to kick someone off your property, and it's another thing to kill them while they're on your property.)

Of course, I neither accept that fetuses are people nor that straw-mannish interpretation of libertarianism, but doesn't the logic hold up if you accept those assumptions?

 

[Ed]

Could a woman have her baby killed during birth when it is in the birth canal?

 

[toddjh]

Even if the mother does not own the fetus, she does own her uterus, and thus does she not have the right to kick a freeloader off her property?

Not if she's responsible for creating the freeloader and making him completely dependent on her in the first place.

In any event, even if it were legal, I'd still argue it would be pretty damn unethical to throw someone out into the snow to die.

Jeremy

 

[MrFrankZito]

The problem with this approach is that it defines personhood entirely as a social construct. I reject the idea that killing a person is wrong only to the extent that they are part of social group. Killing a human is wrong simply because a human has a biology which makes him an intelligent being. It would still be wrong even if he was the last person alive and there was no social group to be a part of.

Jeremy

We might have reached our central point of disagreement. As an evolutionist, I recognize that there is ONE tree of life. Every species is a branch or a branch from another branch. Humans are one species, just like any other. So, to me, humans, moths, grass, pheasants, beavers and dinosaurs are all inherently equal. We are ALL on the same tree. So, I have a tremendously difficult time assigning "sanctity of life" exclusively to humans. Subjectively, to me, human lives are more valuable by virtue of the fact that I'm human. Objectively, we're all equal by virtue of the fact that we are all on the same tree of life. I think the notion of "personhood" springs from the fallacy that humans are objectively more valuable than, say, a blade of grass.

 

[toddjh]

Subjectively, to me, human lives are more valuable by virtue of the fact that I'm human. Objectively, we're all equal by virtue of the fact that we are all on the same tree of life. I think the notion of "personhood" springs from the fallacy that humans are objectively more valuable than, say, a blade of grass.

So how do you know whether to confer this subjective preference on another being? You need to define "human." Is another being human because he is biologically similar to you? Genetically similar? Socially similar?

I hope you can see the problems inherent with the latter two. Genetic similarity would preclude abortion right from the start. And using social status to determine humanity...well, I hope I don't need to explain why that's a bad, bad idea.

Even if you only attach value to humans because you're one yourself, biology is the only rational means to determine who else is human. We can narrow it down further: it's specifically the brain which determines humanity, unless you're prepared to side with the Terri Schiavo nutjobs. So it still amounts to the same thing.

Jeremy

 

[peptoabysmal]

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".

Following this argument, wouldn't the father have equal rights? Unless feminists have learned to reproduce asexually, it takes two sets of DNA.

Roe v. Wade was a stretch of implied right to privacy in the Bill of Rights that was established in Griswold v. Connecticut (a case about laws concerning contraceptives). The Constitution doesn't specify rights concerning either privacy or DNA. I believe most judges would agree that substantive due process, which is in the Constitution, would include protection for both privacy and DNA. The same rights for due process are considered "fundamental rights."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not if she's responsible for creating the freeloader and making him completely dependent on her in the first place.

Like you've been told, that "responsibility" is a dubious philosophical construct. If I drive responsibily I risk killing other people under unusual circumstances but I'm not responsible, even though such circumstances will eventually come up for somebody. As a society we just accept a tolerable level of risk. But even that comparison it too generous to your position, since even if I drive irresponsibly I am still entitled to medical care if I am injured.

In any event, even if it were legal, I'd still argue it would be pretty damn unethical to throw someone out into the snow to die.

If it's a fetus we are talking about then I would say it is less unethical than shooting a lamb in the head because you want to eat it, or shooting a bird in the head because it is eating a crop you are trying to grow.

Fetuses and infants have none of the characteristics that make adult humans more morally important than squid. They're precious in a certain sense, but they aren't people in the morally important sense.

Edited to add: If we developed the technology to pull a fetus out of a woman and implant it in Toddjh, how many unwanted fetuses would you feel obliged to save from the terrible cold snow if you had to carry them around yourself?

 

[toddjh]

Like you've been told, that "responsibility" is a dubious philosophical construct. If I drive responsibily I risk killing other people under unusual circumstances but I'm not responsible, even though such circumstances will eventually come up for somebody.

Because the risk of such a thing happening due to circumstances within your control is probably very small. Killing someone in the course of responsible driving is unlikely enough that it can't be considered an expected consequence of your actions. On the other hand, using common birth control methods, the risk of having or causing at least one unintended pregnancy in your lifetime is not so small. In fact, it's roughly 50%. That's definitely well into the "expected consequence" range.

As a society we just accept a tolerable level of risk. But even that comparison it too generous to your position, since even if I drive irresponsibly I am still entitled to medical care if I am injured.

And here we see the breakdown of the car crash analogy. Abortion is a unique situation since it requires that another person die (again remembering that we are, for the sake of argument, accepting that the fetus is a person). Simple metaphors do not do justice to the complexity of the abortion debate.

If it's a fetus we are talking about then I would say it is less unethical than shooting a lamb in the head because you want to eat it, or shooting a bird in the head because it is eating a crop you are trying to grow.

Fetuses and infants have none of the characteristics that make adult humans more morally important than squid. They're precious in a certain sense, but they aren't people in the morally important sense.

Again, my position in this thread is predicated on the hypothetical notion that the fetus is a person deserving of legal rights. I don't personally think that's true, at least until the late stages of pregnancy, but pro-lifers do, and so it's more useful for pro-choice arguments to address their position rather than mine.

Jeremy

 

[RandFan]

If it's a fetus we are talking about then I would say it is less unethical than shooting a lamb in the head because you want to eat it, or shooting a bird in the head because it is eating a crop you are trying to grow.

Fetuses and infants have none of the characteristics that make adult humans more morally important than squid. They're precious in a certain sense, but they aren't people in the morally important sense.

You mean they aren't more morally important to you. Of course by your logic people we can add to the equation are the retarded, autistic, senile, etc. What is "morally" important? Is the BTK killer morally important? Is any mass murderer or murderer for that matter "morally important"?

You seem awfully glib about human life. I certainly don't share your view. You say it is precious in a certain sense? What sense?

Oh, hold on, you said

...infants have none of the characteristics that make adult humans more morally important than squid

Humans eat squid. People are starving in some areas. Overpopulation is a problem in many areas. Maybe you have found a solution. In all seriousness, based on your logic, why not?

 

[Bone_Vulture]

Edited to add: If we developed the technology to pull a fetus out of a woman and implant it in Toddjh, how many unwanted fetuses would you feel obliged to save from the terrible cold snow if you had to carry them around yourself?

An interesting question, I must say!

Personally, I believe in full self-control over one's body. The government is free to protect the life of the fetus after it has been removed from the womb of the unwilling.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You mean they aren't more morally important to you.

I would go a lot further than that, I'd say they aren't morally important under any system of moral values that stands up to scrutiny.

Of course by your logic people we can add to the equation are the retarded, autistic, senile, etc. What is "morally" important? Is the BTK killer morally important? Is any mass murderer or murderer for that matter "morally important"?

In the briefest possible terms, what is important is that which is going on between the ears of a normal adult human that is not going on between the ears of a Labrador or a parrot.

So sufficiently retarded, senile or otherwise permanently brain damaged humans do not make the cut. Serial killers do. Is that a problem? I don't see it. There are plenty of reasons to kill or imprison serial killers without having to indulge in the pretense that they are not as human as you or I.

You seem awfully glib about human life. I certainly don't share your view. You say it is precious in a certain sense? What sense?

It's not important in and of itself, it's important because it is important to a human being with thoughts and feelings.

Oh, hold on, you said Humans eat squid. People are starving in some areas. Overpopulation is a problem in many areas. Maybe you have found a solution. In all seriousness, based on your logic, why not?

It's an unhygienic and inefficient solution, and it would lead to a future world which is horridly suboptimal compared to a future world we might get to if we addressed the problems of overpopulation and starvation in a sensible manner.

 

[Ed]

Fetuses and infants have none of the characteristics that make adult humans more morally important than squid. They're precious in a certain sense, but they aren't people in the morally important sense.

Could you be specific about what this morally important sense is?

 

[Cleon]

Secondly, even supposing Roe v. Wade gets overturned, most states are likely to keep abortion legal.

Unless it's banned at the federal level. Which, given the recent attempts to ban certain abortion procedures (specifically, intact dilation & extraction), is entirely possible once RvW is overturned.

 

[RandFan]

I would go a lot further than that, I'd say they aren't morally important under any system of moral values that stands up to scrutiny.

This is just rhetoric. But I do appreciate your opinion. I can't see any reason to agree and you certainly have given us none.

In the briefest possible terms, what is important is that which is going on between the ears of a normal adult human that is not going on between the ears of a Labrador or a parrot.

To you and to you only.

So sufficiently retarded, senile or otherwise permanently brain damaged humans do not make the cut. Serial killers do. Is that a problem?

It's a problem only in that you speak in generalities and I have no idea whatsoever how you derive your standards.

I don't see it. There are plenty of reasons to kill or imprison serial killers without having to indulge in the pretense that they are not as human as you or I.

No more pretense than to pretend that babies are not human as you or I.

It's not important in and of itself, it's important because it is important to a human being with thoughts and feelings.

But this does not tell us anything. It is and it isn't, which is it and why?

It's an unhygienic and inefficient solution, and it would lead to a future world which is horridly suboptimal compared to a future world we might get to if we addressed the problems of overpopulation and starvation in a sensible manner.

You make unsubstantiated claims. It is nether unhygienic nor inefficient. Take baby, boil, eat. Couldn't be any more hygienic or efficient.

Why would it lead to a world that is horridly suboptimal. Odd choice of words. Please explain?

Humanity isn't a scoreboard. We don't decide who is human and who is not human based on a scale. You and other eugenicists might but the vast majority of the rest of us don't for one very good reason. History has demonstrated time and again that it is very easy to change the scale and those who are human today can easily become subhuman tomorrow.

 

[Ed]

Why would it lead to a world that is horridly suboptimal. Odd choice of words. Please explain?

Gut, clean ... you left those out.

 

[toddjh]

Edited to add: If we developed the technology to pull a fetus out of a woman and implant it in Toddjh, how many unwanted fetuses would you feel obliged to save from the terrible cold snow if you had to carry them around yourself?

None, because I don't personally consider fetuses to be people in a meaningful sense. Even if I did, I didn't engage in any activity which created a substantial risk of pregnancy. No responsibility implies no obligation.

I might still do it, though, if I didn't have any post-"birth" responsibility.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

Personally, I believe in full self-control over one's body. The government is free to protect the life of the fetus after it has been removed from the womb of the unwilling.

How unwilling could the woman have been if she engaged in activity which she knew, sooner or later, would likely result in pregnancy? The fact that she changed her mind once she got the bad news doesn't alter the fact that she put herself in that position to start with. If you decide to play blackjack, you can't say you were unwilling just because you happen to lose.

Cases involving rape and/or the use of highly effective birth control excepted, of course.

Jeremy

 

[Bone_Vulture]

How unwilling could the woman have been if she engaged in activity which she knew, sooner or later, would likely result in pregnancy? The fact that she changed her mind once she got the bad news doesn't alter the fact that she put herself in that position to start with. If you decide to play blackjack, you can't say you were unwilling just because you happen to lose.

I fail to see how this assumption rules out abortion; it sounds more like a puritan, judgmental "if you don't want babies, don't have sex" approach. I doubt that any sane woman considers abortion a practical form of contraception, it's simply the final line when pre-emptive solutions, like condoms and e-pills fail.

 

[RandFan]

Gut, clean ... you left those out.

So true. As one raised butchering chickens and rabbits I should have known better.