Spun off from this thread, John Mace brought up an interesting topic for conversation. To wit:
I’m frankly torn. On the one hand, I sympathize greatly with Kimstu:
On the other, Mace brings up valid concerns:
I honestly don’t know which way I lean in this one. Thoughts?
.
If she is ugly, the answer is obvious.
I should note that I’m about as firmly pro-choice as you can get. I don’t think abortions should he legal, safe and rare. I just want them to be legal and safe. It’s none of my business how rare they are. I don’t care if women abort because the can’t afford the baby, don’t want a baby girl, or don’t want a baby with blue eyes. It’s the woman’s choice, period.
With the caveat that we’re not talking about late term abortions where the fetus is viable. I think that brings in a whole new set of ethical issues.
I posted as follows in the other thread before noticing this spinoff:
I think making abortion-for-hire illegal should involve canceling the financial transaction it is based on. So a woman who got paid $10,000 by your hypothetical billionaire to have an abortion would have the money taken away. I’m not sure whether you consider that “punishing the woman”.
What possible grounds can there be for a ban on it?
It’s weird, but so what? I can pay a guy to go get a haircut. You may cavil over the morality, but legally, no difference.
I’m not a huge fan of abortion. I’m more of a fan of put on a condom or learn to birth control. It’s not that hard. I vote right but I’m in favor of free contraceptions on demand.
But paying a woman to abort her child I think is evil. If it’s absolutely necessary to have an abortion you do what you need to do. But to entice someone to kill a human or an ape solely for money is depraved.
Really? Can you literally employ people for the sole function of undergoing unnecessary major medical procedures? Would it be legal to pay somebody $10,000 to, say, get their leg amputated (perhaps because you like pirates and want to see more peg-legged people in the world)?
IANAL and I genuinely don’t know the answer to this.
And if hiring people to have abortions is legal, then why is it illegal for them (or anybody else) to sell the resulting fetal tissue?
If you’re allowed to have abortions for profit, then why can’t you also profit from the byproducts of abortions?
Well, you can pay to have someone stuff silicone bags in your girlfriend’s chest. If you’re really into one legged women, could you pay someone to saw off her leg while they’re at it? I suspect the only barrier there is getting a qualified medical professional to agree to do it. Because it’s certainly illegal for just anyone to amputate a limb - that’s practicing medicine without a license. I’m pretty sure amputations aren’t much more regulated than, “Make sure you get a doctor to do it,” and then leaving it up to the doctor’s discretion if the procedure is medically necessary or not.
Getting back to the OP. I’m really not seeing the moral dilemma here. Has anyone in this thread ever cut a check to Planned Parenthood? If you have, I’m not really seeing the moral distinction between you and our hypothetical billionaire. You’ve both provided abortions to women who couldn’t afford them. The only difference is, he’s also helping out with the car payments, and maybe a new TV.
But even that’s beside the real point, here, which is this is a really stupid plan. For starters, there were 730,000 abortions in the US in 2014. That’s the number of women who were willing to pay to have an abortion, or at least get one for free - and you’re offering not just free abortions, but ten thousand dollars on top of it? That’s seven billion dollars right there, just on the payouts - it’s not factoring in the cost of providing the actual abortions. And that’s just the people who would have had abortions anyway. You haven’t reduced the world population, just your net worth. Add to that price tag some number of women who wanted to have abortions, but for whatever reason were not able to get them. You’re actually reducing the global population at this point, although by how much (and for how much) I have no idea. Regardless, it probably would have been cheaper and more effective to just open a bunch of free abortion clinics across the South.
No problem with this. Women should have total control over their own bodies, including abortions for whatever reason they deem appropriate.
This, essentially.
Paying women to have an abortion is creepy and weird, but I can’t come up with a reason to call it immoral. Abortion is based on the idea that people can do what they want with their own bodies, providing they don’t hurt anyone else. If a fetus is not a separate human life, women can dispose of them as they please. If they decide that the ten grand is enough to compensate them for the minor risks of an abortion, so be it. No different than (as mentioned above) buying breast implants for your girlfriend.
And logically, the same can be said of selling fetal body parts, or necrophilia. Or, God help us, both.
Suppose some rich pervert wants to buy a fetus so he can skull-fuck it. Is that immoral? Who is being hurt if he does?
Regards,
Shodan
“Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!”
Fetal tissue is primarily used for stem cell research, which frightens many people for some reason. If it turns out that fetal tissue can be used to clone replacement organs, where is all of the fetal tissue that will be needed come from? The women I have known who had abortions were very distraught after the procedure, and I believe that one of them carried a child to term and kept him, even though she did not want to be with his father, because she could not bring herself to have another abortion. So, I have to question if there would be a widespread interest in getting an abortion in return for monetary compensation.
What will happen when we develop an artificial womb? No more dead babies, just toss it into the robo mama, and soon you have a child. Would that be alright? Or is the element of ‘punishment’ lacking? So many right wing people seem to feel that having a child is the punishment that women who live in sin should experience. This does not say much about their attitude for the child. And would we save every baby, or just the cute ones?
I think an argument can be made that in some cases, introducing commercial transactions into individual personal choices is immoral.
To turn the hypothetical around somewhat, suppose that a woman accidentally gets pregnant by a man who she knows doesn’t want to be a father. She tells him that she’ll have an abortion if he pays her $10,000. Otherwise, she’ll choose to have the baby and sue him for child support, and he’ll be on the hook for way more than $10,000 over the years.
Is her behavior immoral? If so, why? She’s in a situation where she has control over an asset that many men would find very valuable: namely, the ability to terminate a pregnancy whose outcome would otherwise probably be very costly to the man. Why shouldn’t she exploit that asset to its fullest financial advantage?
If everybody is morally entitled to maximize their financial advantage in every situation as long as they don’t actually break the law in doing so, then I don’t see a valid argument against trying to make a profit in this way off one’s willingness to have an abortion.
Personally, I feel that such behavior would be immoral. I think a woman has the absolute right legally to choose an (early-term) abortion for whatever reason she wants it. But that doesn’t mean that all possible reasons for abortion are equally valid morally.
For example, I don’t believe it would be moral for a woman to deliberately get pregnant and have an abortion just to piss off abortion-rights opponents. And I don’t believe it would be moral for a woman to use her abortion rights as a bargaining chip to bid up a payoff from the father of her fetus.
Similarly, I don’t believe it’s moral to encourage women to use their abortion rights as commercial opportunities. Let individual women make their own choices about abortion as a personal decision, and don’t try to distort their decisions by commercializing them.
I understand that you believe these cases would be immoral - can you explain the principle on which you base that belief?
Why is it immoral to have an abortion just to piss off abortion-rights opponents?
That’s not a gotcha, by the way - I can’t come up with a principle that says buying a fetus so you can skull-fuck it is immoral either. You aren’t hurting a person - a fetus isn’t a person, especially a dead one, and never was a person. You aren’t hurting the mother, providing she voluntarily agreed to sell you the fetus. Let’s leave out economic exploitation, in order to make it clearer - suppose she is comfortably middle-class, but wants the money for a nice vacation, and decides that the minor risk and inconvenience of the abortion is worth it.
What is the principle that makes it immoral?
Regards,
Shodan
If the rich guy is serious about population control, he ought to support women’s health & education around the world. Educated women with greater economic opportunity tend to have fewer children.
From the Texas Observer:
Things have gotten worse since that study because Texas continues to punish PP over those lying videos. Contraception is only part of the services offered but the rich guy’s money would go much farther trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I don’t know if his offer is “moral”–but it’s a sick power play that avoids helping a larger number of women. And the men in their lives & the children already born.
Basically, “pregnancy and potential human life a serious matter unsuitable for contexts of frivolity or greed, even if not individually deserving of full human rights as separate individual”.
On the same principle, I think it’s even rather unethical for couples not to use contraception during sex if they know full well they don’t want a baby. Pregnancy is some serious shit medically speaking, and the potential to gestate and eventually produce another human being is some REALLY serious shit philosophically, emotionally, socially and financially speaking.
Nobody should be deliberately and gratuitously getting into that situation if they do not genuinely desire to make and have a baby. And nobody should be trying to interfere with somebody else’s private and personal decision about getting into that situation, via economic exploitation or in any other way.
I don’t know that it would be worthwhile to make a law even if it ought to be (which I doubt).
If the hypothetical billionaire were truly concerned with the global population, he would focus his contributions more intelligently and effectively per birth avoided. There are many locations world-wide that are underserved when it comes to birth control. Or, if his worries were targeted at per capita GHG emissions rather than simply births, he could offer targeted financial incentives in either the highest per capita emitting nations or those emerging economies having the sharpest population growth curve.
Either way, $10,000 per birth avoided is inefficient. It’s overpaying by one to two orders of magnitude.
Thanks for your response.
Anything more is going to sound like a gotcha, and I don’t want to do that.
Regards,
Shodan