A Very Long Analysis of the Arguments Related to the Abortion Debate

[Max_S]

@Esprise_Me

The fact that every one of us required a woman to endure a pregnancy and childbirth in order for us to come into existence is not an argument against legal abortion.

Right, UltraVires used that as a rebuttal to Scylla’s pro-life response in [POST=21734816]Post #110[/POST].

@Esprise_Me

Until recently, every person had to begin with sex; that doesn’t make rape OK.

Agreed.

@Esprise_Me

A woman can consent to sex and she can choose to carry a child. No one else gets to make that choice for her.

This is of course the subject of debate.

@Esprise_Me

And your baseball analogy misses the mark by a mile. Consenting to sex is not agreeing to carry a pregnancy to term. The analogous situation would be if you went to a baseball game and got hit by a foul ball, and the state denied you appropriate medical treatment for the resulting concussion, knowing your death might result.

It ceases to be analogous if an exception is made when medically necessary to save the mother’s life.

@Esprise_Me

Oh and people sometimes kidnap people and take them to baseball games against their will and lie about their victims consenting, so as a practical matter, your ban on treatment for concussions will probably end up affecting some people who hate baseball. But you love baseball and would hate to miss out, so screw those people who might get screwed.

This ceases to be relevant if an exception is made for rape victims.

~Max

[iiandyiiii]

@Max_S

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.

Human trafficking and slavery are widely agreed upon to be immoral and illegal. Prostitution is not the selling of one’s body, but rather selling a service.

[Scylla]

@Max_S

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.

I don’t think the culpability argument is a good one. Presumably the woman was not signing off on a pregnancy when she had sex.

Similarly, if I am out weedwacking and I slice my leg open by accident, the hospital does not refuse me treatment under the grounds that I surrendered my body autonomy by weedwacking since slicing your open is a possible consequence of that action.

They treat the unwanted condition.

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

Human trafficking and slavery are widely agreed upon to be immoral and illegal. Prostitution is not the selling of one’s body, but rather selling a service.

It is Scylla’s argument that one’s body is “special” because it belongs to one’s self. This seems to be the basis for Scylla’s morals.

If your counterargument is that the selling of bodies and body parts is immoral (and I agree with you over Scylla), from where do you derive that?

~Max

[Max_S]

@Scylla

Similarly, if I am out weedwacking and I slice my leg open by accident, the hospital does not refuse me treatment under the grounds that I surrendered my body autonomy by weedwacking since slicing your open is a possible consequence of that action.

Ah, but what is the purpose of weedwacking? Is it to slice open one’s leg? No, it is to remove weeds.

What then is the purpose of sex? The natural purpose? I submit to the board, the natural purpose of sex is reproduction.

~Max

[Scylla]

@Max_S

This ceases to be relevant if an exception is made for rape victims.

~Max

What grounds could we have for an exception? If a fetus is a person how could we justify killing it for the crime of a third party?

[Max_S]

@Bryan Elkers

And it’s irrelevant how the trespasser got onto your property - even a welcomed and invited guest can become a trespasser the moment the landowner decides that he is and the guest refuses to leave, or else they’d be risking permanent tenants every time they hosted a dinner party.

As UltraVires pointed out, it is not irrelevant. If there is a deadly blizzard outside, you cannot eject the guest. The “consent” argument says pregnancy is nine months of deadly blizzard.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Scylla

What grounds could we have for an exception? If a fetus is a person how could we justify killing it for the crime of a third party?

Well, those who make an exception for rape only override the woman’s bodily autonomy because of consent for sex. Without the consent, the life of the child is secondary to the wishes of the woman.

This is ignoring those many who hold inconsistent positions or compromise for political reasons.

~Max

[Scylla]

@Max_S

Ah, but what is the purpose of weedwacking? Is it to slice open one’s leg? No, it is to remove weeds.

What then is the purpose of sex? The natural purpose? I submit to the board, the natural purpose of sex is reproduction.

~Max

That’s an oversimplification. It is counts bonding and pleasure as it’s purposes, sometimes it’s purpose is to demonstrate power.

[Max_S]

@Scylla

That’s an oversimplification. It is counts bonding and pleasure as it’s purposes, sometimes it’s purpose is to demonstrate power.

There’s a few ways I could respond to this. From an evolutionary perspective, bonding and pleasure are secondary to the critical function of reproduction.

Posters here have indicated that survival of the species at some point overrides the woman’s rights to bodily autonomy. Even a utilitarian will have to acknowledge that without people, morals are useless.

~Max

[Max_S]

@elbows

It’s not about if it’s a life, all lives are equally worth saving surely.

That’s not a given. I’ve seen pro-choice arguments in this thread which say not all lives are equally worth saving, and barring religion, I tend to agree with them.

@elbows

If women are indeed equal under the law they should not be compelled to save a life either. They either have full agency over their bodies or they don’t, which is it?

One argument is that women waive that right when they have consensual sex. I know I’m being repetitive here but I’ve been away and missed the thread up to this point.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Scylla

That’s an oversimplification. It is counts bonding and pleasure as it’s purposes, sometimes it’s purpose is to demonstrate power.

The notion that love requires sex is patently false. I know lots of older couples who genuinely love eachother and live happy lives in retirement, who cannot have sex.

There’s a lot who still have “sex” anyways, but there are many who don’t. Some of the elderly still predate the sexual revolution.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Bryan_Ekers

You can call the fetus a person all you like, but I wouldn’t give anyone or anything license to do what a fetus does to the woman hosting it, in defiance of the woman’s consent. If a fully-formed adult (undeniably a person by any existing legal standard) was going to inflict pain and discomfort comparable to a pregnancy on someone else for months, I would not tell that someone that they are obliged to just take it. If a fully-formed adult person doesn’t get that right, why does a fetus, be it a person or not?

The only response is that the woman gave her consent by having sex. Whether she actually said or thought “I want to be pregnant for nine months” is irrelevant, as the act of sex is understood to involve the risk of pregnancy.

The danger to others argument is a weak argument though. Twisting that logic to obtain forced pregnancies (rape) is way over the line.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Bryan_Ekers

Why should the “danger to others” argument only work in one direction?

It shouldn’t. Most pro-life advocates make exceptions if abortion is medically necessary to save the mother’s life. Many pro-life advocates also make exceptions if abortion is medically necessary to prevent serious injury - which injuries count as “serious” is contentious, though.

If that’s your beef, have at it. You will probably find a warm reception among the pro-life crowd.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Bryan_Ekers

But you can seek to end the distress, right? You are not operating under a legal obligation to let it continue, I assume.

Well yeah, the pro-life movement is to establish that legal obligation. Here is one possible rebuttal to the bodily autonomy argument:
[ol][li]The fetus has a right to live[/li][li]The fetus’s right to live requires its use of your body[/li][li]Therefore the fetus has a right that requires its use of your body[/li][li]In this case you consented to having sex[/li][li]Consenting to sex is a waiver of your absolute right to control your body with regard to pregnancy, should it take (barring medical necessity)[/li][li]Therefore you waived your absolute right to control your body with regard to pregnancy, should it take (barring medical necessity)[/li][li]You waived your absolute right to control your body with regard to pregnancy should it take, barring medical necessity[/li][li]In this case you conceived a child[/li][li]Therefore, you waived your absolute right to control your body with regard to pregnancy, barring medical necessity[/li][li]you waived your absolute right to control your body with regard to pregnancy, barring medical necessity[/li][li]In this case there is no appropriate medical necessity for abortion[/li][li]Therefore, you waived your absolute right to control your body with regard to pregnancy[/li][li]If you waived your absolute right to control your body with regard to pregnancy, the fetus’s right to live trumps your absolute right to control your body[/li][li]You waived your absolute right to control your body with regard to pregnancy[/li][li]Therefore the fetus’s right to live trumps your right to control your body.[/ol][/li]
Possible weaknesses include point #1 which is to my knowledge a religious conclusion, #4 for rape or forced pregnancy (which is rape), #5 if one argues for a right to have sex, and #11 for a variety of specific complications to pregnancy.

I personally don’t see an inherent right to have sex, which is why in my opinion the real abortion debate is over assumption #1. The abortion debate is either a debate between religion and secularism or two different theologies, in either case the question is “what constitutes a person?”.

~Max

[UltraVires]

@Bryan_Ekers

We don’t have to apply trespassing law, but it is among the more useful and relevant analogies, and one that men are more likely to grasp if the challenges of pregnancy remain inconceivable (no pun intended) to them. While there may be conditions under which a trespasser can be ejected, no-one doubts that he can be removed, the landowner is not trapped without remedy.

And it’s irrelevant how the trespasser got onto your property - even a welcomed and invited guest can become a trespasser the moment the landowner decides that he is and the guest refuses to leave, or else they’d be risking permanent tenants every time they hosted a dinner party.

It is not at all a relevant analogy. Again, trespassing is a socially undesirable action. You cannot say that all people from all societies from all times have committed an undesirable action that should be punished by law, or that everyone’s very existence is malum in se.

Oh, but some women wanted a child? Is that a kudos or pat on the back for the fetus? Did the fetus or later/now a person choose that outcome? If I break into someone’s house, but it turns out that they don’t mind, did I still commit a crime? (hint: yes I did). Should society be segregated into two classes based upon initial crimes of birth: those born of expected pregnancies versus those who were not? Under this thought, it is astounding that the left decries the treatment of illegitimate children, yet supports the execution of all unwanted children under a trespass theory.

Your second paragraph highlights why it is a piss poor analogy. There is no other situation in life where you can invite a person in knowing that the person must stay there for nine months for his very life, and then kick him out prior to that. For your analogy to be apt, you must agree that legal abortion should be possible for any reason, any whim of a pregnant mother, up until the moment of live birth, no restrictions on late term abortions.

And if the “trespasser” survives, then you may let him or her fend for itself, right? If I eject a guest from a dinner party and he makes it through the snowstorm, do I have to care for him for the next 18 years?

Under your theory, there would be no duty to care or no child neglect laws so long as you expressed an intent to eject the child prior to natural birth. And even if you have a natural birth, but really didn’t want the child, isn’t that the same as the trespasser voluntarily leaving before you could eject him? You have no duty then, right?

Or, is the trespasser analogy a bunch of nonsense?

[Max_S]

@UltraVires

There is no other situation in life where you can invite a person in knowing that the person must stay there for nine months for his very life, and then kick him out prior to that.

Hmm, possibly the six-month fishing expeditions in the north Pacific… could invite someone, then realize they are a jerk and tell them they must leave the boat by dawn… in the middle of the ocean…

~Max

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

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.

Everything up to this point was bullshit, because…

@Max_S

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

…suddenly you’ve worked out your moral framework.

“Instinct”, it’s a hell of a thing.

[Scylla]

@Max_S

The notion that love requires sex is patently false. I know lots of older couples who genuinely love eachother and live happy lives in retirement, who cannot have sex.

Love does not require sex. I agree. Never said it did. One purpose for sex is bonding is what I said. A thing can have many purposes. There is no “main” purpose beyond the one it is currently serving. You may say the main purpose of your penis is as a sex organ, until you really have to piss. Evolution is a tricky bitch and she loves to make things serve as many purposes as possible.

[Scylla]

I have no chance against someone who can type that fast.