# A Very Long Analysis of the Arguments Related to the Abortion Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527 "2019-07-04T18:01:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/161 "2019-07-08T13:20:46Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > This is only a problem if we use receiving information as a criteria for personhood. > > A few pages ago someone talked about a pro choice argument that said abortion was ok up until birth because that was when the soul entered the body. This argument is not that far away. I’m going to have to say that if you can’t define your criteria for personhood, it’s not a useful concept. But I have defined the criteria. I just don’t have a solution for marginal cases. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/162 "2019-07-08T13:33:31Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > But I have defined the criteria. I just don’t have a solution for marginal cases. What information? How much? What kind? ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/163 "2019-07-08T14:09:17Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > A wanted pregnancy is often a source of joy and happiness. You can’t say that pregnancy itself is an intrinsically or objectively horrible thing. Wanted sex is often a source of joy and happiness. Unwanted sex is something entirely different. We call that rape, and criminalize it. A person who can’t otherwise stop a rape from happening may or may not choose to do so, but IMO and in the opinion of many others if there’s no other way to stop the rapist they’re justified in killing the rapist. Especially if the rape will otherwise go on for months on end. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/164 "2019-07-08T14:30:24Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No. It’s not an argument from authority. I had thought evoking Einstein, would remind you about the fanciful thought experiments he used to demonstrate relativity, like riding a bike at and approaching the speed of light, or the dancing giant who was several light years tall. > > Anyhow you have made nothing more than an argument by assertion to suggest that using sci fi examples is impermissible, so you are hardly in a position to criticize my rebuttal. You have not given a rebuttal, you have simply dropped a famous name without explaining its relevance to the issue at hand. This is certainly permissible and I doubt you can point out where I implied otherwise, but it is weak. In my opinion very very weak. I can rebut with “Canada” because Canada’s lack of abortion laws demonstrates that such laws are not necessary to the functioning of a democratic society. What did Einstein ever say about abortion that we should care about? > [@](#): > > Well sure, but there are limits. A wanted pregnancy is often a source of joy and happiness. You can’t say that pregnancy itself is an intrinsically or objectively horrible thing. I have not done so. Who should decide where a particular pregnancy falls on the burden/joy spectrum? The state? The father? How about the pregnant woman? > [@](#): > > Fred might dislike his old girlfriend or former business partner so much that their mere existence causes him physical distress, depression, etc. He is not allowed to murder them in order to relieve it. If the girlfriend or partner is causing the distress from inside Fred’s body, I’ll support Fred if he decides to remove them. > [@](#): > > In order to make your position tenable and consistent, you need to argue that a fetus is not a person, or that it’s personhood is worth less than the inconvenience it causes it’s mother because not all persons have the same value, or something Ali g those lines, but it’s personhood is not an issue you can dodge. I don’t dodge it. It is irrelevant. I don’t need to argue for the negation of irrelevant characteristics. > [@](#): > > No. I addressed it above. Pregnancy is not automatically a terrible discomfort or burden. Nor is it automatically a joy, though I won’t imply you said it was. How about we let the woman decide? > [@](#): > > I would absolutely agree that the distress and discomfort of an unwanted pregnancy is real. Would you agree that a wanted pregnancy can be a source of joy? If so, pregnancy itself is not objectively bad. It depends on one values the pregnancy, right? Yes, which is why I conclude the pro-choice position is the more rational one, based on the decisions of the woman and not the characteristics of the fetus. > [@](#): > > As I mention in the OP, if you happen to be pro life but believe in an exception to rape, you don’t have a consistent stance. A fetus has no blame for the rape that brought it into existence. How it came to be is a moot point as to whether or not it has a right to life. And that right, if granted, comes into immediate conflict with the rights of someone else. In fact, granting that right seems specifically calculated to create that conflict, indeed to win that conflict at someone else’s expense. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/165 "2019-07-08T15:20:33Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I think you might be wrong. Consider: > > If i Don’t rescue you because i can’t swim and have a heart condition that’s not a deliberate act, right? We can go down the list from there starting with very good reasons not to do it, all the way down to the flimsiest of pretexts. As long as their is any pretext whatsoever for inaction there is no deliberate intent. > > Doesn’t mean such a one isn’t a shitty person, though. To revisit this point, I find the focus on “deliberate act” to be misleading. Whatever you do, on seeing the person drowning, comprises an act. You might act by standing there staring and picking your nose; you might act by throwing them a rope; you might act by running away giggling; you might act by hiding behind a bush; you might act by shouting, “Sorry, I can’t swim, and I have a heart condition!” The word “act” is misleading because we think of some of these options as more active than others. The word we should use, instead, is “choice.” When confronted with someone who requires your support in order to live, you choose what to do next. You choose to help them survive, or you choose to do something else, and they die. Whichever choice you make, it’s a deliberate choice. When you look at it as “choice,” the pregnant person is confronted with a choice somewhat similar to the choice confronted by the person watching the drowning victim. In both cases, you may choose to live your life in a way that helps them survive, or you may choose to live your life in a way that does not. They’re dissimilar in a key way, though. The drowning victim requires a moment of your time, and for most people does not significantly endanger their lives or cause suffering. The fetus requires months of time, significantly increases risk to the life of the pregnant, usually causes significant suffering. Asking a pregnant person to maintain the pregnancy for several months is a much, much greater ask than asking the passer-by to throw a rope to a drowning person. Obscuring this by saying the passer-by is asked to act, whereas the pregnant person is asked to not act, misleads from the actual situation. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/166 "2019-07-08T21:12:34Z")
On reviewing some earlier posts, specifically 143, I observe the theory that the body is property and personhood resides in the brain. Therefore it should be fine to expel a fetus at any time before its brain develops, before we have to even start considering personhood issues. That should cover the first two trimesters at least. ---
**Author:** ![Esprise\_Me](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprise_me/32/2947_2.png) [@Esprise\_Me](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprise_Me)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/167 "2019-07-08T21:18:14Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > This thread is not actually about abortion. It is about thought and reasoning, attempting to be rational. > [@Scylla](#): > > I’m not avoiding anything, and I’m not assigning rights. I’m evaluating arguments. > […] > > I haven’t figured out a way where any sort of reasonably acceptable and agreeable value system consistently allows an abortion under bodily sovereignty criteria without creating all kinds of other situations where killing of people that are violating property rights also would not apply. > [@Scylla](#): > > This is not a “is abortion good or bad, should it be legal or not” thread. > > This is just the thread where we evaluate arguments, and try to understand whether they are good or arguments, what holes can be poked in them, are the consistent, what are their dependent values, etc. > > As I mentioned in the OP, if you want to argue pro choice or pro life this is not the thread for you. So no, I am not trying to convince anybody one way or another, and in fact, if you read the OP, I come down on the pro choice side of things. Again, I find it hard to believe you are arguing in good faith, let alone that you come down on the pro-choice side, based on 1) your consistent refusal to answer my question (and several other hard questions raised by others), 2) the fact that you’re only attacking pro-choice arguments, and 3) the fact that you’ve repeatedly engaged in multiple logical fallacies even after being called on them. But beyond that, how can you evaluate arguments when you haven’t even defined the question? Your moving of the goalposts illustrates the problem with this. You say you can’t understand how we can have a value system that allows abortion without allowing murder in general, which is a practical argument about legality, but then you reject real-life examples of such legal systems as irrelevant because you never said there would be chaos if abortion were allowed while murder remains banned. You won’t let go of your absurd premise that bodies are no different than property and then claim you can’t see a distinction between bodily rights and property rights, and therefore the distinction doesn’t exist. You attack arguments for choice as if they’re arguments for the morality of abortion itself. Perhaps you need to clarify in your mind exactly what question you’re asking here. Is it whether abortion is right or wrong? Or is it about who gets to decide? You can’t have an honest discussion about the merits of people’s arguments when you don’t even understand them. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/168 "2019-07-08T22:10:27Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > If the state can’t compel a man to donate a kidney to his twin, because his body autonomy trumps the states interest in keeping a grown man alive, it has no business over riding a woman’s body autonomy to save a bunch of cells, not yet a living breathing human being. Unlike the twin, a grown man with a family. I’m actually quite neutral on the abortion debate, but the bodily autonomy argument is vulnerable to personal culpability for having sex. The zygote did not (could not) ask to be conceived, while the woman willingly had sex. That counterargument in turn does not apply to rape victims. The idea is that the woman forfeited her bodily autonomy when she consented to sex. Regarding the inequality of men and women, the counterargument is simply a flavor of anti-feminism (which I also have no strong opinion of): that men and women are inherently different, and while society should not discriminate on the basis of sex, neither does society have the obligation to compensate for the natural differences. > [@elbows](#): > > If the state can’t over ride my body autonomy to harvest my organs WHEN I’M A CORPSE, it should be self evident it has no standing to break a woman’s body autonomy because of someone else’s religious beliefs. I tend to think the state does not appropriate corpses because of the people’s religious beliefs. If we agree on that, this particular argument falls flat. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/169 "2019-07-08T22:12:42Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > If that’s your kid drowning, you’re far more likely to jump in the water to save her. Because the cost/benefit analysis is very simple to you. You are so vested in that child’s well being, that you would give your own life to save her. > > Now, if it’s someone else’s kid, you might hesitate. You might drown trying to save someone else’s kid and as a result your family will suffer for your heroics. Better be damn sure you’re a good swimmer before you go in the water. Right? > > With a nascent life, one that you’re not feeling very vested in, you might decide that the cost is not worth the benefit. I have encountered this thought problem before, and while you accurately describe _instinct_, I tend to find a different calculus to be more moral. As I see it there are two basic levels of responsibility regarding children. First, it is generally understood that a parent will do everything within their power to protect their child. Second, as I understand it every adult has a responsibility to protect all children, to an extent (which possibly doesn’t include risking harm to oneself or others). When your friend lets you take their child to the beach, your friend is delegating their responsibility to you. The unspoken (or perhaps spoken) words are “you can bring my girl to the beach, watch and protect her on my behalf, as if she were your own child”. At this point you have incurred two additional responsibilities: you are responsible to your friend for keeping your promise, and you are responsible to the girl for protecting her. In our unfortunate hypothetical both children are drowning. You are responsible to both for their protection, as if they were each your child. But you are also responsible to your friend for keeping a promise, and this tips the scales in favor of saving her daughter first. The argument can be raised that you have a responsibility to your spouse and family for protection of your own child, but I must add that this same responsibility is incumbent upon you regarding your friend’s spouse and family. A utilitarian might reach a different conclusion depending on the number of people affected by each child’s death, if there is time to consider that. That being said, in the heat of the moment I may very well forgo any rational thinking and go straight for my kid. I wouldn’t blame anybody for doing the same. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/170 "2019-07-08T22:15:31Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Parents can not only allow such care temporarily and/or informally, but can formally renounce parental rights and turn the child over for adoption or state/societal care. I believe child abandonment is still a felony in most U.S. states, with exceptions for traditional safe havens in the case of newborns (eg: churches). The state has a strong interest in holding parents accountable for their children. Adoption is fine but not guaranteed. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > It’s because this is possible that it’s reasonable to say that we don’t allow the parents to kill the child – they don’t have to kill it in order to not have to be responsible for it. That’s why abortion choice arguments don’t apply after birth. As a counterpoint, I submit a hypothetical child born with down syndrome. The doctors say he has a good chance at thirty to fifty years of life with regular checkups, but has severe mental retardation and you the parent will need to care for him for pretty much the rest of your life. He probably won’t make any meaningful contributions to society. Nobody wants to adopt. Abandonment is against the law in the hypothetical. Neither charities nor your representatives are returning your letters. What is your opinion on killing the child to avoid responsibility? How does that compare with your opinion twelve weeks into a pregnancy? I suspect you will find a difference, but your above post does not reveal it. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/171 "2019-07-08T22:17:04Z")
> [@Esprise\_Me](#): > > [E]ven if we accept your premise that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, no born person has the right to use another person’s body for survival. You would give a zygote more rights than a living child. How do you defend that? If a woman becomes pregnant, and if the object of her pregnancy is a person, that person is for a time dependant on the woman to survive. A child already born is not comparable in this regard. This is why you will see differences in the legal rights of an unborn child versus a birthed child. Citizens are a class of persons. Children are another class of persons. The unborn are yet another class of persons, assuming that the unborn are in fact persons. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/172 "2019-07-08T22:20:47Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > The owner of the body also happens to be a human life. If we’ve established (I thought we have and you agreed): > a) the primacy of ones own life over another, unless one chooses otherwise. > b) that nobody can be forced to save another human life from drowning or kidney failure - worth noting neither scenario necessarily poses a danger to you, except possibly an inconvenience of having to get out of your comfy chair. > > Both of which render the question of, “Is a fetus a person?”, moot. I don’t see the relevence of argument a) because I think most pro-life positions would prefer to save the mother if given an immediate choice between the baby and the mother (unless the mother in her right mind asked to save the baby instead). The rationale behind this is rather straightforward. Society has invested at least eleven years into the mother; society has invested at most ten months in the baby; the mother can often make more babies; the mother is more useful to society _now_ while the baby will need time and resources before it can give back to society. Even Catholics have let up on saying the babies go to limbo, so long as the mother intended on baptizing them. Argument b) is countered if one assigns culpability for pregnancy during sex, which is the traditional view. Adapted to your examples, if you push the girl in the lake, you have a duty to pull her out; if you stab her in the kidneys, you are on the hook for the hospital bill and can serve time for manslaughter if she dies. The idea is that by having sex, you created an innocent person who needs your body to survive. Therefore your body is forfeit, to the extent necessary to sustain the baby. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/173 "2019-07-08T22:22:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Bodies aren’t property, they’re bodies. They can’t be bought and sold. Even if you could sell your organs, once it’s removed, it’s no longer part of your body. So it’s not about or even related to property rights - it’s control of one’s own body. If it’s a special category, then that’s entirely expected, because one’s body is a category of its own. There might be an argument to be made in that regard, but this is not the argument. Bodies can in fact be bought and sold, see for example human trafficking or prostitution. Organs can also be bought and sold, and this practice is called organ trafficking. Your allusion to an organ no longer being part of your body after the transfer is beside the point. If I sell my car it ceases to be _my_ car. If I sell my kidney, it ceases to be _my_ kidney. Did I misinterpret you, or is there another way to make your point? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/174 "2019-07-08T22:24:08Z")
> [@Bryan Elkers](#): > > Level Three Intrusion: there’s a unwanted fetus in my body. The physical threat to me is undeniable. My range of responses increases accordingly and I can meet a doctor to have the fetus removed. It is not necessary to first declare, nor at any point declare, that the fetus is not a person. Your “level three intrusion” does not account for the fact that pregnancy is a consequence of having sex. Maybe you did account for this in saying the fetus was unwanted. But in that case, would it still be a “level three intrusion” if the fetus was conceived during consensual, unprotected sex? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/175 "2019-07-08T22:27:02Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I may not have a good argument-to-convince to offer to pro-life people, but in essence […] a fetus doesn’t have much invested yet, it really doesn’t. > > […] Were she to be strongly of the intention to have the baby, it would be a gross criminal injustice to forcibly abort her. But the injury would be to her, a violation of her investment. The fetus doesn’t really have any conscious investment to speak of. This is by far the most compelling rebuttal of a pro-life point I am aware of (that innocent babies are more deserving of life than potential harm to the mother). I find it impossible to overcome this with secular logic, but most pro-life proponents do not restrict themselves to secular logic. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Esprise\_Me](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprise_me/32/2947_2.png) [@Esprise\_Me](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprise_Me)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/176 "2019-07-08T22:29:48Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If a woman becomes pregnant, and if the object of her pregnancy is a person, that person is for a time dependant on the woman to survive. A child already born is not comparable in this regard. This is why you will see differences in the legal rights of an unborn child versus a birthed child. > > Citizens are a class of persons. Children are another class of persons. The unborn are yet another class of persons, assuming that the unborn are in fact persons. > > ~Max The fact that a person is dependent upon another to survive does not confer such obligation in other contexts. Please read the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/177 "2019-07-08T22:30:08Z")
> [@Esprise\_Me](#): > > Under what other circumstances does one person have the right to use another person’s body without their consent? There might not be any other circumstances. Pregnancy and childbirth is unique. What is the next step in your logic? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Esprise\_Me](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprise_me/32/2947_2.png) [@Esprise\_Me](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprise_Me)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/178 "2019-07-08T22:31:00Z")
There are many other such circumstances, which I laid out already. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/179 "2019-07-08T22:32:23Z")
Bryan: I’m going to respond to post #164, by explaining again, in different terms the problem as I see with your argument for the pro choice position: You have argued that it doesn’t matter whether a fetus is a person or not. If it is residing inside another person’s body that person has the right to be rid of it. You have gone so far as to say anybody living inside somebody else could be killed at the discretion of the host. Now a good argument or position typically relies on a set of agreed upon or logical common values from which it builds logically. So what Are the underlying values upon which you are building your position? It seems you value body autonomy very highly if you support killing to defend it. This is unusual. Society generally does not support body autonomy to the extent that you do and will restrict what you can and can’t do with your body for a much lower hurdle than the killing of another person. I’ve provided numerous examples. Perhaps it is that you find trespassers or stowaways especially subject to strong measures for remediation. There is a great deal of both law and moral thought concerning these, and pretty much the universal takeaway is that you don’t get to kill somebody just because they are where you don’t want them to be. So, this too is unusual about your stance. You have made it clear that you don’t Support the killing of stowaways in general, **just** stowaways inside the body of another person. That is a very special case, special enough that it doesn’t appear that it is based on any underlying values, but rather that it was created to support your stance, after the fact like a bank robber claiming bank robbing is not illegal on windy Wednesday in May when he was caught on just such a day. So, I’ve tried to ask and tried to figure out what underlying values support your position, and you have been less than forthcoming. The most root response that you have provided is that you are ok with the killing of another human being that is residing inside of another human being. That’s a pretty weird base value. **There is only one** actual application where a human being is residing inside another human being. That is pregnancy. So, you “argument” is just a bit of flippancy. You might as well have said. “I am in favor of abortion because I am in favor of abortion” Your position is just an opinion without content. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527/180 "2019-07-08T22:35:31Z")
> [@l0k1](#): > > I have a nine-year-old son. If he has some disease and needed my bone marrow to survive, I don’t have to give it to him. Courts can’t compel it, their is no law. If I died in a car accident, my heirs don’t have to give my bone marrow, because even in death I have rights over my body. Everyone in the US who isn’t an organ donor, a doctor can ask your grieving family for your organs, but they can totally say no. Everyone that has never donated blood, people die because of blood shortages. But then it is not natural for a person to need bone marrow to survive; it could not be reasonably expected that you and your spouse knew your potential child would require bone marrow when you had sex. There are some viewpoints that would at least make you pay for the marrow transplant if you knowingly brought that child into the world (knew at the time of sex and did not abort). The same goes for organs and other deficiencies. Those are unnatural or at least generally unexpected - a kidney transplant is not a natural consequence of inviting a friend out to bowl, neither is a car accident a natural consequence of driving. Contrast with sex, of which reproduction _is_ a natural consequence. There are other purposes of course - love, intimacy, pleasure - but the primary purpose is for reproduction. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-very-long-analysis-of-the-arguments-related-to-the-abortion-debate/836527.md?page=10)