A Woman's Right to her Body

[minorwork]

But that's the whole point. The foetus is not her body. It's an entirely separate, genetically distinct, parasitic organism.

Great. See if it will breathe on its own separate, genetically distinct merits then.

[seyorni]

No-one's claiming it can exist independently. Everything's interdependent, and their are degrees of dependence-independence. It's a spectrum.

But why am I going on about this? It's irrelevant. Weather something can "breath on its own" has nothing to do with weather it's a unique organism or not.

[JimmyNic]

In that case the mother's will has been rendered moot by her attacker. The attacker was as guilty as the state or any other of an intrusion against the mother's will. The mother's role is primary and so is her decision. Any other credo functions to enslave the mother to the will of the state or some other do gooder who has no business intruding disruptively into her state of affairs.

The pivotal issue is not the right of the "mother", but whether or not the fetus counts as a human being. That is precisely why there is a cut off point during the pregnancy after which an abortion is illegal, because it is judged to be the equivalent of murder. Do you disagree with that practice?

At any rate we are all "enslaved to the will of the state", if you enjoy using such provocative language, since the state is primarily a coercive body. Libertarians do all they can to prevent the state from imposing immoral coercions, but that is all that can be achieved without the outright abolition of such a body. The reason we can justify the intrusion into someone's state of affairs is in the pursuit of justice, and that a woman has fallen pregnant does not exempt her from such rules.

[seyorni]

But does a human being have a claim to moral consideration solely because s/he's human, Jimmy? If it's wrong to kill a human then it's wrong to kill in war, capital punishment is wrong, it's wrong to pull the plug on a brain-dead body.

What qualities entitle one to moral consideration, apart from merely being a member of a particular species?

[Yarn]

Adult chimpanzees are smarter than babies, so humanity has to count for something if we are to bar adult chimps equal rights.

[seyorni]

But intelligence isn't one of the factors we generally use in determining moral obligation, Yarn. We, in theory anyway, consider the bright, the dim, the senile and the juvenile to have equal claims to moral consideration.

[minorwork]

No-one's claiming it can exist independently. Everything's interdependent, and their are degrees of dependence-independence. It's a spectrum.But why am I going on about this? It's irrelevant. Weather something can "breath on its own" has nothing to do with weather it's a unique organism or not.

Was beginning to wonder why myself. You had claimed entirely separate so I guess you're recanting that part. If, as you would explore, breathing on its own has ought to do with whether a fetus is a unique organism or not, will you admit breathing on its own gives it a good start to being separate? I choose breathing with such importance because viability is dependent on independent breathing because then any other than the mother, if they so choose, can take on the role of caregiver.

[JimmyNic]

But does a human being have a claim to moral consideration solely because s/he's human, Jimmy? If it's wrong to kill a human then it's wrong to kill in war, capital punishment is wrong, it's wrong to pull the plug on a brain-dead body.

What qualities entitle one to moral consideration, apart from merely being a member of a particular species?

It's a good question. There are, I would argue, valid reasons for killing other human beings, but unborn foetuses at any stage of development do not qualify for any of them. A foetus' life may be put at risk if a mother has to have a C-section performed on her because her life is in danger, and if the foetus dies as a result that is unfortunate but the right decision was made. That is an exceptional circumstance.

There is, I suspect, a reason we refer to people as being brain-dead beyond the amusing quirks of English. The person qualifies as dead in many of the meaningful senses. I think in many of those circumstances it is correct that the life-support machine be switched off, if only to make that available to someone who has "life" still in them. However I know there are cases where a person can appear brain-dead and be entirely conscious (full body paralysis), so it probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The death penalty's flaw lies not in the argument that there are people who's behaviour is so despicable they deserve death, but in the practicalities of administering such a punishment fairly, and whether a civilised society should have such punishment. Yet I would say some people are so immoral they deserve to die, at least by my judgement.

tl;dr In the case of a conscious foetus being human should be a guarantee to life.

[minorwork]

The pivotal issue is not the right of the "mother",...

Baloney. Of course it is. Those who argue against the mother's rights would deny her the ability to choose and bear the responsibility for her own reproductive choices. Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do? If a mother, directly involved, isn't allowed THE voice to birth then why should any other be given the right to block her decision to birth? Leave her alone unless she asks for your input. You've a choice there don't you? Intrude or not? Maybe you should get permission to choose if you don't trust yourself to make the right choice.

Give a woman the right to pursue her happiness and ownership of her own body without having to make her jump thru your hoops. You want to horn in on her decisions, then you've accepted your own slavery and envy freedom of thought and action another has over their own body as a constitutional right to privacy.

but whether or not the fetus counts as a human being.

In whose opinion? Better be you're trying to persuade, else all you have left is forcefully tying a woman down and giving the abortion against her will. Or vice versa.

That is precisely why there is a cut off point during the pregnancy after which an abortion is illegal, because it is judged to be the equivalent of murder. Do you disagree with that practice?

I disagree with your analysis of Roe v Wade. I tolerate the present situation because my own opinion is moot since I am male. I support whatever my daughters decide.

At any rate we are all "enslaved to the will of the state", if you enjoy using such provocative language, since the state is primarily a coercive body.

Horsefeathers!! Well maybe you are. Sure, you've convinced me you're enslaved. Hail Caesar!! But again are you jealous of those who ignore the state's decisions because they find such decisions intolerable?

Libertarians do all they can to prevent the state from imposing immoral coercions, but that is all that can be achieved without the outright abolition of such a body. The reason we can justify the intrusion into someone's state of affairs is in the pursuit of justice, and that a woman has fallen pregnant does not exempt her from such rules.

Pursuit of justice at the expense of sovereignty over one's own body? Screw your justice, for it is only a formula to share the misery of slavery. Perhaps you should consider how to prevent injustice rather than overbearing self-righteous administration of your justice onto others personal lives you'd intrude upon for a moment then leave.

[Yarn]

But intelligence isn't one of the factors we generally use in determining moral obligation, Yarn. We, in theory anyway, consider the bright, the dim, the senile and the juvenile to have equal claims to moral consideration.

That is because they are human.

I would further suppose that if we came across another species that was as demonstrably sentient as our own, we would also consider their lower performing individuals people as well.

Degree of intelligence is a factor, but it is a necessary trait only of the species, not of the individual.

I would however, as I did early, argue that that which lacks a functioning central nervous system is not in any meaningful sense a member of a species. It doesn't matter if that "mind" is as stupid as a rat, but it has to be there. Without a mind, none of us exist regardless of whether the rest of our bodies do.

By this standard, we are all younger than our bodies but older than our birth dates.

[KayTwee]

It's absurd for any group of people to have the right to decide that their system of morality must needs supersede the rights of the individual to do what only affects them personally, for any reason.

The government is nothing but a construct of the people and other people have no right to decide what I do with my body or what you do with yours, regardless of what it is. Humans are great at dreaming up ways to protect the "sanctity of life" on one hand while unceremoniously ignoring it on the other. War is a great example, as is the death penalty. Why is the life of a human adult less precious than the "life" of a tiny glob of tissue that hasn't yet experienced conscious thought? Are the rights of women so unimportant that quality of life is not a consideration for them? Apparently so.. and shame on humanity for perpetuating it.

If men could get pregnant, this would NEVER be an issue; it would be legal (likely right up til full-term) and there wouldn't be any stigma associated with it, whatsoever. Men would neither allow themselves to be cowed into reproducing against their will nor resign themselves to their fate, they would fight to the last breath to secure their right to freedom to do as they wish with their bodies.

I say, if humanity should be so terribly concerned with protecting the life of an unwanted fetus then why not mandate that both contributors of genetic material bear an obligation to it? Both parents must be responsible, therefore if the woman must carry the child to term then she should also have the right to turn the child over to the father and allow him to take care of it without any ongoing assistance from her, having already completed the more difficult and intrusive portion of the child-rearing without assistance from him.

Anyone care to wager how long it would take for abortions to be completely and unrestrictedly legal thereafter?

[Yarn]

It's absurd for any group of people to have the right to decide that their system of morality must needs supersede the rights of the individual to do what only affects them personally, for any reason.

If you believe that the baby is a person, then it doesn't only effect you personally. The government is supposed to prosecute murder, that isn't a controversial claim. Even libertarians believe that. For the record, I am pro-choice, except for the third trimester, but that is because of when I think it becomes a person.

If men could get pregnant, this would NEVER be an issue; it would be legal (likely right up til full-term) and there wouldn't be any stigma associated with it, whatsoever. Men would neither allow themselves to be cowed into reproducing against their will nor resign themselves to their fate, they would fight to the last breath to secure their right to freedom to do as they wish with their bodies.

Polls show only a small difference between men and women when it comes to being for or against abortion being legal.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...oll030122.html

One might argue that since men are less "mothering", if their bodies were at stake they would be less accomodating. But then again, if men could be impregnated, then presumably they would also be more mothering.

As is, men do have to pay child support, even though a woman can just put the child up for adoption and be done with it. So women have less freedom than men during pregnancy but more afterwards. At least in terms of legal obligation.