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

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

I will stop pushing the primary purpose thing and just say reproduction is a natural consequence of sex.

Dying is a natural consequence of having uncontrolled diabetes. Should we refuse to treat diabetes unless the person can prove they never willingly ate any cake?

Falling down and hurting oneself is a natural consequence of going outdoors when it’s icy. Should we refuse to treat broken legs if they occur because somebody fell on the ice?

@Max_S

Consent can’t be withdrawn after the fact. One can withdraw consent for future acts, even acts that would be in the immediate future, but if the semen is already deposited nothing can prevent insemination.

Consent is not being withdrawn after the fact for anything that’s already happened. Consent either was never granted, or is being withdrawn for the future, for continuing with a pregnancy beyond whatever point it’s progressed to.

@Max_S

if she was having consensual unprotected sex during ovulation and relied on the man to pull out as the only form of contraception, that is also stupid, for both of them.

Are you under the delusion that women always know when they’re ovulating, or more accurately whether they might ovulate at some point within the next several days?

Aside from that issue: yes, I agree that if either partner’s unwilling at that point to start a pregnancy it’s stupid – partly because they don’t know whether she might be going to ovulate. But I disagree that it improves matters in any way to insist that stupid behavior is a good reason to require pregnancy.

In addition, circumstances can change after the sex act. Maybe three days later the man gets busted for pedophilia (which the woman hadn’t known about) and is going to jail. Maybe one of them just loses their job. Maybe the couple discovers that one of their existing children has a condition that’s going to require huge amounts of extra time and attention. I can think of dozens of reasons why one might think on Tuesday that pregnancy wouldn’t be a problem and on Friday realize that it would.

@Scylla

’ once it sprouts and takes root it is pretty much going to be an oak tree in the normal course of events.

Nope. Not unless it’s sprouted in hospitable soil. In the normal course of events a whole lot of sprouted acorns don’t make it to oak tree.

And a blastula doesn’t continue on to become an embryo unless it finds a hospitable womb; nor does it continue on any further unless the womb remains hospitable. In the normal course of events, that often doesn’t happen. The availability of safe medical abortion just means that we add to the multiple possible ways in which the womb may be or become inhospitable the possibility that it’s in a woman who doesn’t want it to host a pregnancy at that time.

@Max_S

No, I wouldn’t. Right now I’m talking about consensual, unprotected sex. They admit it was unprotected. Yes, that’s unrealistic, but it is possible and I’m trying to probe your mind.

Two things:

For one, it’s entirely unrealistic to contemplate a law which requires medical personnel to figure out whether people are lying about having used protection.

For two, see my response to that issue just above.

@Scylla

medicine can and does fix common undesired consequences that are an unwanted result of actions.

Yup. Including undesired pregnancies.

@Scylla

I guess a pro life person would go to town us for this. I.E. if human life is not “sacred” and we can kill because pregnancy is inconvenient, than we can kill for basically any reason.

Oh, nonsense.

Even if the zygote etc were a person, that would only be an argument that could be given by a total pacifist, who believes that if a human is allowed to kill anyone for any reason whatsoever that’s such a slippery slope that it must never be allowed.

Plus which, I am getting very sick of that word “inconvenient”. The impact of an unwanted pregnancy on the pregnant woman (and possibly on her other dependents) goes way beyond “inconvenience”.

@Max_S

T I say, assuming the fetus is a person, they don’t have the moral right to get an abortion unless the mother’s life or health is in actual danger, and the state of pregnancy alone does not qualify. I would like to know why you disagree, assuming the fetus is a person (has the right to live).

I disagree on two grounds, either of which is sufficient on its own: one, that the zygote/blastula/embryo/at least at most point fetus is not a person; and two, that the state of pregnancy alone does qualify, and only the mother (and her doctor, if we mean physical health) can judge whether it does so as only she knows the state of her mind.

@Max_S

If it makes you feel any better, nobody in this thread has admitted to being pro-life.

Maybe not. But there are most certainly people in this thread determinedly and consistently arguing anti-choice positions.

[Annie-Xmas]

Does anyone think killing a (supposed) person who is inside your body is the same as killing a person who is outside your body?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Annie-Xmas

Does anyone think killing a (supposed) person who is inside your body is the same as killing a person who is outside your body?

I find the reluctance to recognize this distinction a tad baffling, myself, every time someone asks “What’s so special about pregnancy?”

[thorny_locust]

Especially since society in general recognizes the much briefer insertion of another person into one’s body against one’s will, in the case of rape, as a very serious and traumatic imposition.

[Scylla]

@QuickSilver

Intentionally or not, people are dancing around the subject that there is deep and personal guilt associated with choosing the abortion root. But bad as that may be, at least it can be done in relative secrecy. Carrying out a pregnancy to term not only requires a tremendous personal sacrifice, but the huge potential for social shame when you give the baby up for adoption. To say nothing of the thought that there is a child out in the world that you gave up and most reasonable people would be at the very least haunted daily by the idea. I think you can follow that thread to it’s many unfortunate outcomes for all parties involved in such an arrangement. Not all negative, I admit, but enough for most to wish to avoid it.

Good points, and there is little to disagree with. One sort of important niggle is that not everybody considers abortion a big deal. There are some that use it as a form of birth control (I know one that has a physical problem both with most contraceptive devices and the pill,) as a result, she’s had multiple abortions and doesn’t think much of it. Too, there has also been an attempt to normalize abortion almost as some kind of rite of passage, I.e. “shout your abortion.”

Wrong way to look at this, IMO. Addressing:

1. Either the fetus is punished or the woman is punished. Someone suffers. In the case of the latter, insult is added to injury. Some people are able to overcome it. Some not. In the case of the former, I submit that the fetus does not have agency nor appreciable (sufficient) awareness to suffer.

Right. But as a society aren’t we supposed to be looking out for the people who are helpless and can’t speak for themselves? Isn’t allowing one person to suffer better than allowing another to die?

(This again presumes the stance that a fetus is a person with full human rights. I understand your stance, which is that this is not the case, (the whole DVD player discussion). My stance is that it a person entitled to human rights, but we are going to ignore that.)

2. I think you underestimate the severity of the decision to abort. I think women (and men who respect/love them) live with that decision as well. It is not, in my opinion, inconsequential.

I imagine that like most things, it runs the gamut.

[Scylla]

@Annie-Xmas

Does anyone think killing a (supposed) person who is inside your body is the same as killing a person who is outside your body?

The person getting killed.

[Scylla]

Annie:

I’m not being flippant. I just don’t see what that has to do with it, assuming you believe that a fetus is a person.

I try try to be consistent in my thinking, and am generally distrustful of arguments that seek to change the category of an activity by the addition of an unrelated factor.

I.e. I think a rape on a date where the guy was really nice, but maybe drank too much, and got too excited to take no for an answer, but then was really nice afterwards, is a rape. The rape is the same as the rape where a stranger attacks and beats a random woman to rape her.

The rapes are the same. The only difference is that in the second example the rapist is also guilty of assault and battery.

In this instance it makes no difference wether a fetus is killed inside a womb or removed first and then killed.

[Max_S]

@Scylla

My point is simply that in the entire category of violations in which people are where they are not supposed to be, killing them tends to be very strongly and specially disallowed as a consequence, even under dire circumstances. If pregnancy is different, what is so different.

I think you are wrong here. There are moral frameworks, specifically secular moral frameworks, by which it is acceptable to kill the stowaway or trespasser if keeping them alive presents too much of a burden. If the choice is between irreparable harm to yourself and irreparable harm to the stowaway/trespasser, you usually have the right to choose who is harmed. Why? Because it is usually the trespasser’s fault that you are both in that situation, and more importantly, it is not your duty to voluntarily suffer irreparable harm due to the trespasser’s actions.

There are exceptions, such as when you yourself invite the trespasser but fail to account for a foreseeable natural consequence of that invitation, i.e. you invited them and a blizzard which you knew was coming prevented them from leaving on time. I think pregnancy counts as such an extreme circumstance, because in no cases is it the fetus’s fault that they exist, and in non-rape cases, it is in fact partially the mother’s fault.

@Scylla

Similarly, I see a contradiction in the idea that life is not as sacred as one’s body autonomy in a Carr before the horse the thing, I.e. it suggests that killing you is less of a thing than cutting your hair against your will.

Bodily autonomy is a freedom, and if it is granted it becomes a liberty. Are you aware that a large chunk of the population values liberty over life? How else can we justify our national existence, which sprang not from a threat of annihilation but taxation without representation?

@Scylla

Systems that punish third parties with death for the crimes of others violate pretty basic values more fundamental to society than body autonomy, and therefore are fruitless.

I suspect those basic values are the same which you rejected in your original post. Please do elaborate.

@Scylla

It produces another unacceptable result, in that forcing people to live with the consequences of their actions especially where biology is concerned has become something of an alien concept in modern society and particularly on this board, and I see no chance of my arguing it successfully, so again, I took another route rather than try to go down a road that pushes a value few seem to have.

Argumentum ad populum, my friend. The question is this: what are you trying to accomplish with this thread? Are you a mere judge constrained by the arguments presented at bar? Or are you a philosopher in search of truth?

@Scylla

The doctors accepted a duty of care when they accepted service in the hospital. That duty of care specifically precludes killing your patients.

Accepting that duty has the requirements that one act both prudently and diligently in the discharge of that duty. They, in fact, did neither…

Now that is an agreeable argument. I would say if an fetus is a person, consensual unprotected sex amounts to accepting one’s duty to care for that fetus.

@Scylla

Intrinsic value of human life would be the biggee.

Very well, I will hold you to that same standard when considering the life of a fetus, if the fetus is a person.

@Scylla

Also, the recognition that suicide is often a transitory desire, and people who do not or are unable to act on their impulse often recover from what inspired them to be suicidal and lead normal lives.

There is a pro-life argument not yet mentioned in this thread which says abortion is often a transitory desire, that mothers who abort have regrets and those who do not abort do not have regrets. I don’t think that argument is worth serious consideration, it is falsifiable but I think it is so unplausible that I won’t bother searching for an appropriate survey.

@Scylla

I go with always wrong. Suffering and pain is a condition of life. Humans tend to be terrible judges of what constitutes intolerable as few in western society have any experience with anything remotely close. Killing is a final decision where if one puts it off, it still remains an alternative.

Very well, so you would reject the utilitarian’s mercy argument because in your opinion, humans are unqualified to play God. I can respect that opinion, but I suppose this was a pointless digression because in the first line of argument it is the mother’s suffering, even tolerable suffering, which moves her to abort the fetus.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Bryan_Ekers

No, I don’t accept the conditional. If a person was doing to someone what a pregnancy does to a woman and that someone wanted it to stop, I support their right to choose to stop it.

I think your restatement might be materially different. The fetus is not doing, it’s mere existence is the cause of pregnancy; further, in our hypothetical it is the woman and the man who caused the fetus’s existence.

The consent theory is based on the argument that the woman (and her partner) brought the pregnancy upon herself. I request a rebuttal which addresses that point, you can either dispute it or explain why it doesn’t matter. I suspect that the only reason it doesn’t matter is because the fetus is not a person, which theoretically makes the bodily autonomy argument fluff in certain situations.

@Bryan_Ekers

And I support your right to choose otherwise, even if you would not do the same for me.

And I support your right to choose otherwise, if you have that right according to law. In making the law, I support your right to choose otherwise.

If you are in a courtroom right now and I am the judge holding an emergency injunction hearing, if the Eighth Amendment was scrapped, or if you caused the predicament and do not dispute the accusation that a reasonable person would expect your acts to create the current predicament, then barring some other legal stratagem I may well rule against you.

@Bryan_Ekers

And various state governments are taking and extending that authority regarding abortion, so you can quibble and dodge the hypothetical all you like; the reality persists.

As I said, various state governments do not have the absolute authority to force parents to donate their kidneys due to some freak accident of nature, nor to punish them for failing to do so. The Eighth Amendment is still the law of the land and the punishment must match the crime. If there is no culpability, there is no justification for such a measure; even if there is culpability, there is no justification for such a measure if alternatives are available; even if there is culpability and no alternatives, I don’t know if that justification calls for the death of the parent to save the child.

Regarding abortion and the state governments, I can only point out that the state’s authority is limited by the rulings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may plausibly change their mind, but this is the consequence of our system of government and lack of a clear, unambiguous, and Constitutional basis for protecting women’s reproductive rights.

~Max

[Max_S]

@QuickSilver

Intentionally or not, people are dancing around the subject that there is deep and personal guilt associated with choosing the abortion root.

I would put this under the pragmatic argument for abortion rights, which is the prong I find most convincing. I think I previously listed you alongside Scylla and myself under the pragmatic argument for pro-choice. My major focus in this thread (and the other abortion threads) has been examining the bodily autonomy argument. That is why I haven’t addressed pragmatism, and I don’t plan on addressing it as a devil’s advocate because I find it convincing.

If there is a rebuttal to be made, I suspect it will necessarily involve religion. The same goes for personhood at conception or before brain activity (late second trimester I think).

~Max

[Ludovic]

@QuickSilver

choosing the abortion root.

Pennyroyal?

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

The consent theory is based on the argument that the woman (and her partner) brought the pregnancy upon herself. I request a rebuttal which addresses that point

Read the thread, please.

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

Dying is a natural consequence of having uncontrolled diabetes. Should we refuse to treat diabetes unless the person can prove they never willingly ate any cake?

Falling down and hurting oneself is a natural consequence of going outdoors when it’s icy. Should we refuse to treat broken legs if they occur because somebody fell on the ice?

You are forgetting the “consent” part of consent theory, and I find these counterexamples unconvincing.

Having uncontrolled diabetes is not something we think of people as causing, as far as culpability goes. There might be an argument that eating too many sweets too often without exercising causes diabetes. I’m no expert on diabetes and it would take a lot of convincing for me to say a diabetic brought their condition upon themselves, that a reasonable person in their situation should have known better. Without that culpability there is no waiving of the right to bodily autonomy, and even then it is far far from clear that they forfeited their life. Note that my scenario made an exception for the life of the mother.

Regarding the next example, it would be more appropriate to say something like running on ice while wearing bowling shoes. You almost have a point there, but I have a competing train of thought that says upon repeated injury the person ought to be prevented from wearing bowling shoes during icy conditions or pay for their own medical care. If instead of injuring one’s self, one injured a child bystander who now needs some sort of organ transplant, by all means Mr. Doe ought to feel the wrath of the law. If this injury to the child was somehow natural and expected of every human being, if instead of the organ transplant the child just needs to use Mr. Doe’s body until she becomes somewhat self-sustainable, then we are talking about pregnancy, and the law need not get involved unless Mr. Doe asks to terminate the kid.

@thorny_locust

Are you under the delusion that women always know when they’re ovulating, or more accurately whether they might ovulate at some point within the next several days?

No, and neither am I under the delusion that contraceptives are failproof or widely available and that all women have been educated about contraception and sex. I’m trying to start with the smallest concession, so please don’t fight the hypothetical, which cannot logically apply to most women.

@thorny_locust

But I disagree that it improves matters in any way to insist that stupid behavior is a good reason to require pregnancy.

… I can think of dozens of reasons why one might think on Tuesday that pregnancy wouldn’t be a problem and on Friday realize that it would.

Do not forget that this is assuming the fetus is a person with a right to live. Consent theory alone is not enough to overcome bodily autonomy - even if the woman expected sex to result in pregnancy, if the fetus is not a person she still has the right to abort (excepting possibly a paternal rights argument, which I think is weak considering the woman is the one going through pregnancy and childbirth). If the fetus is a person though, and the woman had sex despite having a reasonable expectation that sex results in pregnancy, to me that is wrong. She doesn’t have the right to kill an innocent person because she failed her own gamble, excepting certain medical necessities.

@thorny_locust

For one, it’s entirely unrealistic to contemplate a law which requires medical personnel to figure out whether people are lying about having used protection.

You are getting ahead of my argument. I’m not saying there should be a law such as that, I’m just putting those facts into the hypothetical to make the case for a very narrow conditional concession.

@thorny_locust

I disagree on two grounds, either of which is sufficient on its own: one, that the zygote/blastula/embryo/at least at most point fetus is not a person; and two, that the state of pregnancy alone does qualify, and only the mother (and her doctor, if we mean physical health) can judge whether it does so as only she knows the state of her mind.

Good, good! I won’t address your first grounds for rejection since that is the conditional upon which the hypothetical is based, and I am seeking but a conditional concession. As I have stated before I think the personhood argument must be at earliest somewhere around 24 weeks if we leave religion out.

Your other argument is interesting, and I admit that I don’t know much about the risks of pregnancy. Obviously the maternity mortality ratio is higher than the abortion mortality ratio, but my uninformed gut feeling is that maternal mortality would drop sharply if you exclude patients with a number of risk factors such as young age, uterine or cervical abormalities, previous caesarean section, multiple previous births, obesity, diabetes, hbp, etc. If someone could convince me that despite offering exceptions for the above conditions pregnancy is still significantly riskier to the mother’s life than abortion, which is not risky at all, and that a reasonable person would not expect such complications (likely), I would have to abandon this line of argument.

As I said to Mr. Ekers, if that’s your beef, have at it.

@thorny_locust

Maybe not. But there are most certainly people in this thread determinedly and consistently arguing anti-choice positions.

Are there? It surely isn’t Scylla, who claimed to be pro-choice in the original post. Neither is it me, who claimed to be neutral (really, I am!) in post #168 and said I find pro-life unconvincing without religion in post #175. I might not have said it here but I am not a religious person.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Annie-Xmas

Does anyone think killing a (supposed) person who is inside your body is the same as killing a person who is outside your body?

I don’t think it’s the same, but if there really is a person inside your body I don’t think it is always OK to kill them.

~Max

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

Read the thread, please.

That was directed towards Bryan Ekers, who hasn’t offered a rebuttal to my satisfaction for reasons listed up that subthread.

Your rebuttal I just responded to.

~Max

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Max_S

I think your restatement might be materially different.

There is no restatement, it’s the same position I’ve advanced several times in this thread.

The fetus is not doing, it’s mere existence is the cause of pregnancy;

This makes no sense to me at all. The fetus is not some passive piece of inert cargo. Please spend a few minutes on a medical website that lists the numerous and often unpleasant aspects of pregnancy.

further, in our hypothetical it is the woman and the man who caused the fetus’s existence.

That’s not an element in the hypothetical I’ve been proposing and I am indifferent to your attempts to forcibly insert it. The question is not really that difficult to grasp:* is it acceptable for the government to demand you donate a kidney to your child against your will?*

[ul]
[li]It’s implied this is fully legal and has passed all hurdles including SCOTUS, so appealing to the judiciary or the constitution is moot.[/li][li]I don’t care if the child was conceived during an act of consenting sex or rape.[/li][li]I don’t care if contraception was used and failed.[/li][li]I don’t care if anyone involved is on Medicaid (! - I have no idea why you brought this up).[/li][li]I don’t care if you would obey the law or not, the question remains do you find such a law to be acceptable?[/li][/ul]

The consent theory is based on the argument that the woman (and her partner) brought the pregnancy upon herself. I request a rebuttal which addresses that point, you can either dispute it or explain why it doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter because I’ve seen no evidence that it should. Lots of people bring lots of stuff on themselves, do we deny them remedies out a sense of moral superiority or something?

I suspect that the only reason it doesn’t matter is because the fetus is not a person, which theoretically makes the bodily autonomy argument fluff in certain situations.

Heck, for the duration of this post, I’ll indulge the idea for the sake of argument and stipulate that the fetus is a person. Now demonstrate that a person should have the right to reside inside the body of another person who doesn’t want it there.

And I support your right to choose otherwise, if you have that right according to law. In making the law, I support your right to choose otherwise.

It turns out I do since I live in Canada, though it’s not a right I’m biologically equipped to exercise. American women have my sympathy and support on this issue, for what it’s worth.

I don’t know if that justification calls for the death of the parent to save the child.

There is no demand in the hypothetical for the parent’s death, just the parent’s kidney. The surgery to remove the kidney includes a nonzero risk of death, and of course the parent might not have a second kidney (or a healthy enough second kidney) to take up the slack, but too bad - this is a hypothetical state that values the lives of children more than the rights of parents. Acceptable?

[Max_S]

@Bryan_Ekers

There is no restatement, it’s the same position I’ve advanced several times in this thread.

I’m sorry for the confusion, the top part of that post was in reference to my hypothetical while the bottom concerned yours. Mine is two people having consensual unprotected sex. Yours is about the state demanding my kidney. I thought this dichotomy went back eight or nine posts up the sub-thread, to post #306.

@Bryan_Ekers

This makes no sense to me at all. The fetus is not some passive piece of inert cargo. Please spend a few minutes on a medical website that lists the numerous and often unpleasant aspects of pregnancy.

Admitted, the fetus causes many aspects of pregnancy which are often unpleasant and sometimes dangerous. But as far as culpability or fault goes, the fetus is innocent. The point of my hypothetical is that the mother, by consenting to and engaging in sex, brought the fetus into existence. It wasn’t all her, but she had a part in it and the fetus did not. If the sex was unprotected, and the fetus is a person, I think barring some unusual circumstance the mother should have reasonably expected a potential consequence of her actions to be fertilization. Then if the fetus (or zygote) is a person and has the right to live, because the mother’s actions caused the predicament of pregnancy, she is not at liberty to terminate the zygote unless it presents an immediate and irreparable danger to her life and health.

@Bryan_Ekers

That’s not an element in the hypothetical I’ve been proposing and I am indifferent to your attempts to forcibly insert it.

See above, I thought you were talking about my hypothetical.

[quote=“Bryan_Ekers, post:356, topic:836527”]

The question is not really that difficult to grasp:* is it acceptable for the government to demand you donate a kidney to your child against your will?*

[ul]
[li]It’s implied this is fully legal and has passed all hurdles including SCOTUS, so appealing to the judiciary or the constitution is moot.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

My response to this has not changed: “And if I had no rights to sue for, unless I am already a rebel against the government I would go ahead and accept death as a righteous punishment for my own cowardice. If I had a problem with the rules, my chance to reject them had already passed.”

In my consideration of the law, as opposed to my reaction to being in that situation, I would say the law is immoral because it doesn’t make exceptions in cases where a reasonable person has no culpability for the child’s predicament. In my opinion that is unjust, the penalty ought to fit the crime, and without culpability there is no crime, therefore no penalty. My personal sense of duty would go beyond that, but not necessarily to the point of death. I would not advocate for a law that imposed that duty upon all.

[quote=“Bryan_Ekers, post:356, topic:836527”]

[ul][li]I don’t care if the child was conceived during an act of consenting sex or rape.[/li][li]I don’t care if contraception was used and failed.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

You don’t, but in my moral analysis of the hypothetical law, it matters. If there is no corresponding right to match, then legally it doesn’t matter.

[quote=“Bryan_Ekers, post:356, topic:836527”]

[ul][li]I don’t care if anyone involved is on Medicaid (! - I have no idea why you brought this up).[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

Here in the states lots of single mothers (lots of families in general, I think it’s 1/4 of all families with children) are on Medicaid, since we don’t have universal health coverage like our enlightened neighbors from the Great White North. So cost is a factor in my analysis.

@Bryan_Ekers

[ul][li]I don’t care if you would obey the law or not, the question remains do you find such a law to be acceptable?[/li][/ul]

Morally, I don’t. But assuming I do not join an insurrection against the government, I would submit to the law all the same.

@Bryan_Ekers

It doesn’t matter because I’ve seen no evidence that it should. Lots of people bring lots of stuff on themselves, do we deny them remedies out a sense of moral superiority or something?

…yes, I think we do, if we ignore the religious who don’t.

@Bryan_Ekers

Heck, for the duration of this post, I’ll indulge the idea for the sake of argument and stipulate that the fetus is a person. Now demonstrate that a person should have the right to reside inside the body of another person who doesn’t want it there.

In my hypothetical, a reasonable person in the mother’s position would have expected conception and pregnancy as a natural consequence of unprotected sex. Therefore the mother, by consenting to unprotected sex, is at least partly responsible for her own pregnancy. Now, after conception, the mother wants to abort the fetus. It is admitted that the fetus is causing the mother discomfort, but in this hypothetical there is no evidence that the mother has a significant chance of death or irreparable harm to a major bodily function. Assuming the fetus is a person, we can say the mother wants to kill an innocent person because her own actions made that person dependent on her, and this dependency is limiting her bodily autonomy and causing discomfort. I say that is not a good enough reason to kill an innocent person.

@Bryan_Ekers

It turns out I do since I live in Canada, though it’s not a right I’m biologically equipped to exercise. American women have my sympathy and support on this issue, for what it’s worth.

They have mine, too. I lean slightly towards pro-choice myself.

@Bryan_Ekers

There is no demand in the hypothetical for the parent’s death, just the parent’s kidney. The surgery to remove the kidney includes a nonzero risk of death, and of course the parent might not have a second kidney (or a healthy enough second kidney) to take up the slack, but too bad - this is a hypothetical state that values the lives of children more than the rights of parents. Acceptable?

See above.

~Max

[QuickSilver]

@Ludovic

Pennyroyal?

:smack:

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

You are forgetting the “consent” part of consent theory, and I find these counterexamples unconvincing.

I find the entirety of your consent theory unconvincing. Nor do I particularly expect you to be convinceable; there are undoubtedly other people reading this thread, including I expect some who are not posting and some who aren’t logged in.

@Max_S

Regarding the next example, it would be more appropriate to say something like running on ice while wearing bowling shoes.

You don’t need to be wearing bowling shoes to slip on the ice.

@Max_S

If this injury to the child was somehow natural

Injuries from falling down are entirely natural and quite common. Injuries from having a falling person land on you are less common, but they’re certainly natural.

And, yet again (please read the thread) the claim that something is “natural” is a very bad argument. Exposing born infants and leaving them to die is entirely “natural”. Dying of all sorts of things we can now cure is entirely “natural.”

@Max_S

If this injury to the child was somehow natural and expected of every human being,

It is most certainly not expected of every human being to become pregnant. Let alone to become unwillingly so.

@Max_S

Your other argument is interesting, and I admit that I don’t know much about the risks of pregnancy. Obviously the maternity mortality ratio is higher than the abortion mortality ratio

I wasn’t talking only about direct risk to life from the pregnancy. I was talking about all sorts of potential physical, economic, and/or emotional damage; both short-term (as in during the pregnancy) and long-term (as in how the rest of the woman’s life, and those of her current dependents if any and potential future dependents, may be affected.) All of those risks will vary from person to person; so in addition an average rate would be inapplicable.

[Delayed_Reflex]

To Bryan Ekers - do you support the removal of a conjoined twin that will result in the guaranteed death of one, because the other twin no longer wants to allow the use of his body?