Like this one?
First, I don’t think most people would agree with this. If I am about to fall off a cliff, and I can save myself by grabbing your hand, in such a way that places you in no danger whatsoever, I have no right to do so?
Second, it seems to me that the statement “you never have the automatic right to use someone else’s body” is logically equivalent to “no one ever has any obligations to anyone else.” A right on your part to use me equates to an obligation on my part to you. “Body” seems redundant: is there a way of using someone else that doesn’t involve their body in some way? And what is an “automatic right” as opposed to some other kind of right?
I think there’s a difference between " There is nothing wrong with me grabbing your hand to keep from falling off a cliff if that doesn’t put you in danger" and " You have an obligation to stand at the end of the cliff without walking away so that I can grab you" . Because you are correct, there really is a corresponding obligation for every right. And there’s also a difference between a moral right or obligation and a legal one. It is entirely possible for me to believe that you have a moral obligation to not walk away from the end of the cliff , touch my forehead or donate your organ to me even as I believe there should not be a legal obligation for you to do so. And while I’m sure plenty of people will agree that there is a moral obligation to do those things, I’m not sure that many will agree that there should be a legal obligation , backed up with the possibility of prison or monetary damages for those who don’t meet that obligation.
Yes, I think you’re right to distinguish between moral obligations and legal obligations. (And maybe also between the legal obligations that we do have, under current law, and the legal obligations we should have.)
Likewise, I don’t care about the thoughts of a man who will never carry a child to term, especially if you believe the ridiculous notion that a woman who has already carried the burden of pregnancy for 7 months is suddently going to “get bored with it.”
A woman who is 7 months pregnant has committed to that child. She wants it. If she decides she needs an abortion, it’s becomes something has gone terribly wrong. She’s already decided to let go of a child she wanted more than anything. The only obligation is for busybodies to stay the hell out of her business and let her make a hard decision without interference.
If we take this analogy in isolation, it’s not a very good analogy, because pregnancy can change your body/health forever and actually kill you.
However, that specific analogy is not a faithful representation of Thomson’s overall argument. Her argument is that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life. If you have a “right to life”, but it depends on the creation of a right to violate my bodily autonomy, then it doesn’t matter if you’re born or unborn, your right to life is inferior to my right not to be violated.
The “right to life”, if it exists, is not supreme to all other rights.
You can’t know for certain that it places the other person in no danger. They may have extremely brittle bones, severe arthritis and a lack of strength, or any number of conditions. They are the ones who get to determine if there’s no risk, not you.
To go back to the original analogy, what if it wasn’t Henry Fonda putting his hand on your forehead that saved you, but you grabbing Henry Fonda’s balls? It doesn’t place him in any danger whatsoever. Why shouldn’t you have a right to do that? I think that should be pretty clear.
The analogy is invalid.
Maybe not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s? Maybe talk about the situation honestly.
I will sum it up. Because of the extra risk and responsibility, women have the absolute right to a consideration period whether to take a pregnancy to term. This consideration period does not last for the term of the pregnancy. At some point prior to birth, the consideration period is over and the woman DOES have the responsibility at that point to take proper care of the fetus. Because she’s already been granted the prior consideration period, she’s already had the right to opt out. Since men don’t have the same sorts of risk and responsibility, they don’t get the same sort of opt out. Don’t like the mother of your children? Don’t have sex with her.
Yes, we live in a society with some responsibility to others, and that can vary. Someone is drowning in the water. You see them. If you can’t swim, your personal responsibility to try and save them may be limited. But if you can go and get someone that can save the person, you should do so. The higher your skill level, the more responsibility you have to help such a person. If you’re a paid lifeguard, you have the most responsibility. Choosing the moment that someone is drowning to go on break or quit your job is worse than others not acting. Because you applied for the lifeguard job, took the training, and have had much time to do your own opt out. And you didn’t, so you don’t get to at the moment when you are needed.
Why? I just don’t see why time is any factor here. It may not be until very late in the pregnancy that physiological complications become apparent, to give just one example. See my sex versus rape analogy from earlier. That seems to be routinely ignored by the “yes abortions BUT…” crowd.
This issue can’t really be addressed, in my opinion, by abstract hypotheticals, because it is thoroughly grounded in the way women’s bodily autonomy has been violated throughout history. Until 1994 it was legal to be raped by your husband, for God’s sake, and my great state just ended child marriage this year. Nobody ever asked women what they wanted to do with their bodies. They served at the pleasure of men, whether for sex, household labor or as broodmares. And still today we are comfortable violating women’s bodies further as long as we deem her life or health as tolerable risks for whatever morality play we are presenting for the day. The key point here is that there are still men - and many women - willing to sacrifice other women’s bodies without respecting not only their bodily autonomy but the very notion that a woman can be put in charge of such an important decision. It’s the worst kind of condescension, and it should be called out for the misogyny it is.
Late term abortions of a healthy fetus from a healthy mother probably don’t exist; and are vanishingly rare if they do. Late term abortions are because the fetus and/or mother are not “in a healthy fashion”.
No, they’re not. They’re obligated to give the child up for adoption according to recognized procedure if they’re unwilling to raise it.
Parents who wish to retain parental rights are of course required to provide support.
Birth parents who give a child up for adoption are not necessarily shitty, bad people. I think it’s kind of shitty to say that all of them are.
Or, worse – that a woman carrying a fetus who will die in pain shortly after birth, and may well be in pain in the womb, must continue to carry that fetus through the rest of its death by torture.
(I think existing laws do allow removal of dead tissue after the fetal heartbeat has stopped. This however is often too late for the mother’s health, and not kind to the fetus if it’s advanced enough to be able to feel distress.)
I’m female. I have never borne a child, and don’t think I’ve ever been pregnant. I also completely agree with you.
I think I’ve rather gone off on these boards at somebody who used the term “inconvenience” for pregnancy and delivery.
I have a cousin who is aggressively pro-life, who often used the term “inconvenience” to describe it. She has since had a child, and it’s funny I haven’t heard her use that word again.
Your sums are way off base, late term abortions are extremely rare, and are always, or nearly always, because the pregnant person or fetus is seriously at risk. The number of late term abortions that happen because the pregnant person is bored or changed their mind is truly small or non-existent. You don’t need to write laws about this because doctors won’t do it, and medical ethics boards wouldn’t allow one.
So, you can take your silly hypotheticals elsewhere. Bringing in societal responsibilities seems off-topic to me.
Anti-choice people started by banning late-term abortions and worked their way all the way to overturning Roe. Your hypotheticals are unrealistic and support an anti-choice agenda. If you’re really pro-choice, you’d think about how your arguments are supporting the anti-choice side, using their language and their hypotheticals, to discuss a situation, if it happens at all, is vanishingly rare.
Yes, the pro-life, anti-choice people did what they did. So why exactly do you want to repeat what didn’t work before. This 1971 argument was made, it didn’t work and people fought against it. So try it again? Why?
The analogy fails because in the given case the person dies if Henry Fonda does nothing. If a pregnant woman does nothing, the fetus may well eventually come to term. In fact, the woman actually has to have a procedure for this not to happen, though there are certainly plenty of cases where an early term pregnancy doesn’t make it. But if you’re going to make an analogy for abortion, maybe make one where someone is taking a specific action instead of doing nothing.
Maybe try honest arguments this time. This analogy is a dishonest argument. It doesn’t fit was is actually happening.
The point of acknowledging actual responsibility is to focus on what you really want. Poll after poll shows a sliding scale for early term versus late term abortion. I will again give the example of a working lifeguard not saving a drowner being completely different than a non-swimmer who is in the presence of other people that can help the person more. Because acknowledging reality argues a stronger case.
Carry on with whatever you want. In my opinion, ignoring legitimate factors didn’t work last time and won’t work again. Feel free to disagree. Some women dump born kids in garbage cans. It is documented that this happens. Arguing that it never in fact happens, or that it happens so rarely that we can pretend that it doesn’t… I prefer a more honest approach.
You’re fighting the hypothetical.
The point of my example is that I don’t think that a right to bodily autonomy always and inevitably supercedes a right to life. If one person’s life can be saved at the cost of a minor and insignificant violation of another person’s bodily autonomy, I’m for saving the life.
If the violation is not minor and insignificant, that’s another story, and I don’t know where the line is drawn. But it’s not just a matter of Right A trumps Right B whenever they are in conflict.
It really is that simple. You don’t have the right to someone else’s body. You don’t have the right to decide what is a “minor and insignificant” intrusion on their bodily autonomy (assuming they haven’t committed a crime).
Other people aren’t your resources.
Nor do I have the right to someone else’s life.
Legitimate factors such as serious problems with the pregnancy that aren’t discovered until late in term?
Seems to me that you’re the one ignoring legitimate factors.
Of course you do. That’s not some untouchable third rail in law or morality. If someone’s trying to kill you or someone else, it’s broadly agreed that you have the right to kill them. The so-called “right to life” is highly contingent upon many things.
I think I have a better analogy–kidney donation. It’s discovered that you are a perfect match for someone else who really needs a kidney or they’re gonna die. Nowadays kidney donation is a very low risk procedure BUT it’s a major surgery with all the attendant risks of surgery up to and including death and even if it goes off perfectly what happens if a few years down the road YOU have an issue that causes your one and only kidney to stop functioning? Does anyone have the right to demand you assume the risks of surgery and possible danger down the road? What if it’s a family member? What if it’s someone you hate? Are there any mitigating factors that make it imperative that YOU be forced to give up your kidney for someone else? Should you be shamed forever if you decline?
Pregnancy and childbirth is a lot closer to donating a kidney and running the risk of not having a functioning one later on if something goes wrong. The fact that maybe all will be well and you CAN function with one kidney doesn’t make it okay to force you to donate.