5 ms·

I don't think this is the right question. The better question is one of bodily autonomy: whether someone should be compelled to keep another human being alive a

I don't think this is the right question. The better question is one of bodily autonomy: whether someone should be compelled to keep another human being alive at the cost of their own health and safety. This avoids the whole "when does life start" debate, which has been a moving goalpost for the history of abortion related law.

umvi 4y ago
So if we had artificial womb technology, should a woman have the choice to terminate the fetus if the fetus could be safely moved to an artificial womb? If so, doesn't that go beyond the scope of your post of abortion being purely about bodily autonomy? If not, whose responsibly is it to raise the child?
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Probably state or child itself. Though reasonably the child should have rights to at least mother's estate.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I think this is an interesting hypothetical, and in such a universe I suspect many women would choose the artificial womb even for children they want to keep themselves. But let me counter with another hypothetical: if we had a contraceptive device that could safely and reliably turn a woman's reproductive system on/off at the flip of a switch would "pro-life" advocates support it or oppose it?
  - voganmother42 4y ago
    Its an interesting hypothetical explored in the (excellent) Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold - I highly recommend it!
randyrand 4y ago
Seems like a side issue to me. If I forcibly put someone under my control, it should be my responsibility not to kill them. Airplane pilots have the same responsibility. Imagine if pilots forced us to fly with them, and then decided they didn’t want to carry our weight anymore! There’s good reason that is illegal.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Seems like a side issue to me. If I forcibly put someone under my control, it should be my responsibility not to kill them. That's the trouble though - unwanted pregnancies are either accidental, forced on the mother (in cases of rape), or too dangerous to continue due to unforeseen complications. That's more like waking up and finding you're medically tethered to a person that now depends on your body for survival and less like the pilot example. What's really damning of the "pro-life" movement here is their general opposition to contraceptives - sometimes including condoms. It's pretty clear that the main goal is to control sex, not preserve life.
  - randyrand 4y ago
    Apart from rape, pregnancy is never forced on anyone. In the case of the trolly problem, the law has always favored self preservation. It’s a non issue. For accidental pregnancy, It’s widely accepted that the other party (males) can only reliably choose whether or not to have sex. They have no choice in the matter post-pregnancy. I see no reason women can’t be held to that same standard. I say this all as someone that is pro-choice. But I always prefer to be principaled in my reasoning.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > “Apart from rape” The problem with this is that now the burden to prove rape is on the mother. Before she could just get the abortion, no matter the reason. What a women considers rape and what the government considers provable rape is vastly different, to the point where proving rape in court is neigh impossible (I’ve seen the process up close) unless there is damning evidence like video and a confession. So relying on rape as some sort of exception really means that women who were raped will never be able to prove to the government’s satisfaction to that fact, and will be forced to carry their rapists baby to term. He said she said doesn’t rise to a preponderance of the evidence, let alone “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I guess we should thank the GOP for just sidestepping that issue and going straight for the most extreme position possible of banning abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. Makes these questions a little more straightforward.
tantalor 4y ago
I think that's the right lens. Suppose you had a rare blood type that can prevent the death of somebody else; could the state compel you to donate blood? Or suppose we are at war and badly in need of blood donors of all types; same question.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Furthermore what about organs? There is lot of people with two functional kidneys and they don't necessarily need both... Should we start forcibly removing them and transplanting to people in need? Also other such operations like bone marrow...
MandieD 4y ago
And please remember that even a “normal” pregnancy can exact a heavy toll on the mother, physical and financial. My back hurts constantly, but even worse when I pick up my much-desired child. He’s over 25 lbs now, and I dread what the next years until he’s able to climb up into an acceptable car seat on his own are going to be like. I work part-time, and thank heavens Germany made my pre-pregnancy employer give me that option. One of the major factors in MLM prevalence in the US are the absolutely abysmal job prospects for anyone who can’t work full time - that is, many mothers of young children. My friends with preschool age kids who work full time only manage it because they have expensive daycare open from 7am - 6pm, pay nannies, and/or have spouses with less-intense (or no) jobs. This, of course, is only realistic for women with well-paid jobs. And if one of you wants to respond, “adoption,” please remember the aforementioned physical wreckage, plus work-related difficulties. Germany encouraged my employer to let me stay home the six weeks before my due date and insisted I do so the right weeks after the birth, all at just about my previous net pay. I don’t think that “slavery” is too strong a word for forcing someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, but others can call it “indentured servitude” if that makes them feel better.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > I don’t think that “slavery” is too strong a word for forcing someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, Whereas enslaved men were often forced to work fields in America, enslaved women were forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies. Forced birth and slavery go hand in hand. Fitting now that the New Confederate States of America (read: Gilead) can be distinguished by how eager legislatures are to force women to give birth to their rapists’ babies.
  - MandieD 4y ago
    And like the Old Confederacy, the New Confederacy also sees nothing wrong with forcing women to give birth only to take the baby away. Oh, sure, giving the baby up for adoption is “voluntary,” but how voluntary can it be in a country that doesn’t pay maternity leave and doesn’t effectively subsidize daycare? I, a married and well-paid IT worker, got 1800 EUR/mo for a year away from work and pay a bit over 400 EUR/mo for daycare from 7am-4pm (not quite enough to really work full time, but that’s another discussion). Until the US is at least there, adoption is not really a free, uncompelled choice in forced-birth states like Texas. I have a dear childhood friend whose birth mother was a college student who went through with the results of a foolish accident. I’m glad she did, because I love my friend, but I’m also glad that it was her choice to make; in late 70s Austin, she could have easily gotten an abortion. She was able to choose the adoptive parents, and got what she wanted for her baby: a well-off but childless Catholic family just far enough away to be unlikely to accidentally meet.
Nimitz14 4y ago
Exactly. Who cares about the fetus? It's not like any one of us is doing anything about the shitty stuff that people (conscious ones!) are going through right now in third world countries. So the whole "you're killing a human" angle is complete nonsense, life is not sacred and it is silly to act like it is. The only thing that matters here is what the mother wants.

umvi 4y ago

So if we had artificial womb technology, should a woman have the choice to terminate the fetus if the fetus could be safely moved to an artificial womb? If so, doesn't that go beyond the scope of your post of abortion being purely about bodily autonomy? If not, whose responsibly is it to raise the child?

Ekaros 4y ago
Probably state or child itself. Though reasonably the child should have rights to at least mother's estate.
AlexandrB 4y ago
I think this is an interesting hypothetical, and in such a universe I suspect many women would choose the artificial womb even for children they want to keep themselves. But let me counter with another hypothetical: if we had a contraceptive device that could safely and reliably turn a woman's reproductive system on/off at the flip of a switch would "pro-life" advocates support it or oppose it?
- voganmother42 4y ago
  Its an interesting hypothetical explored in the (excellent) Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold - I highly recommend it!

randyrand 4y ago

Seems like a side issue to me. If I forcibly put someone under my control, it should be my responsibility not to kill them. Airplane pilots have the same responsibility. Imagine if pilots forced us to fly with them, and then decided they didn’t want to carry our weight anymore! There’s good reason that is illegal.

AlexandrB 4y ago
> Seems like a side issue to me. If I forcibly put someone under my control, it should be my responsibility not to kill them. That's the trouble though - unwanted pregnancies are either accidental, forced on the mother (in cases of rape), or too dangerous to continue due to unforeseen complications. That's more like waking up and finding you're medically tethered to a person that now depends on your body for survival and less like the pilot example. What's really damning of the "pro-life" movement here is their general opposition to contraceptives - sometimes including condoms. It's pretty clear that the main goal is to control sex, not preserve life.
- randyrand 4y ago
  Apart from rape, pregnancy is never forced on anyone. In the case of the trolly problem, the law has always favored self preservation. It’s a non issue. For accidental pregnancy, It’s widely accepted that the other party (males) can only reliably choose whether or not to have sex. They have no choice in the matter post-pregnancy. I see no reason women can’t be held to that same standard. I say this all as someone that is pro-choice. But I always prefer to be principaled in my reasoning.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > “Apart from rape” The problem with this is that now the burden to prove rape is on the mother. Before she could just get the abortion, no matter the reason. What a women considers rape and what the government considers provable rape is vastly different, to the point where proving rape in court is neigh impossible (I’ve seen the process up close) unless there is damning evidence like video and a confession. So relying on rape as some sort of exception really means that women who were raped will never be able to prove to the government’s satisfaction to that fact, and will be forced to carry their rapists baby to term. He said she said doesn’t rise to a preponderance of the evidence, let alone “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I guess we should thank the GOP for just sidestepping that issue and going straight for the most extreme position possible of banning abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. Makes these questions a little more straightforward.

tantalor 4y ago

I think that's the right lens. Suppose you had a rare blood type that can prevent the death of somebody else; could the state compel you to donate blood? Or suppose we are at war and badly in need of blood donors of all types; same question.

Ekaros 4y ago
Furthermore what about organs? There is lot of people with two functional kidneys and they don't necessarily need both... Should we start forcibly removing them and transplanting to people in need? Also other such operations like bone marrow...

MandieD 4y ago

And please remember that even a “normal” pregnancy can exact a heavy toll on the mother, physical and financial. My back hurts constantly, but even worse when I pick up my much-desired child. He’s over 25 lbs now, and I dread what the next years until he’s able to climb up into an acceptable car seat on his own are going to be like. I work part-time, and thank heavens Germany made my pre-pregnancy employer give me that option. One of the major factors in MLM prevalence in the US are the absolutely abysmal job prospects for anyone who can’t work full time - that is, many mothers of young children. My friends with preschool age kids who work full time only manage it because they have expensive daycare open from 7am - 6pm, pay nannies, and/or have spouses with less-intense (or no) jobs. This, of course, is only realistic for women with well-paid jobs. And if one of you wants to respond, “adoption,” please remember the aforementioned physical wreckage, plus work-related difficulties. Germany encouraged my employer to let me stay home the six weeks before my due date and insisted I do so the right weeks after the birth, all at just about my previous net pay. I don’t think that “slavery” is too strong a word for forcing someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, but others can call it “indentured servitude” if that makes them feel better.

ModernMech 4y ago
> I don’t think that “slavery” is too strong a word for forcing someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, Whereas enslaved men were often forced to work fields in America, enslaved women were forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies. Forced birth and slavery go hand in hand. Fitting now that the New Confederate States of America (read: Gilead) can be distinguished by how eager legislatures are to force women to give birth to their rapists’ babies.
- MandieD 4y ago
  And like the Old Confederacy, the New Confederacy also sees nothing wrong with forcing women to give birth only to take the baby away. Oh, sure, giving the baby up for adoption is “voluntary,” but how voluntary can it be in a country that doesn’t pay maternity leave and doesn’t effectively subsidize daycare? I, a married and well-paid IT worker, got 1800 EUR/mo for a year away from work and pay a bit over 400 EUR/mo for daycare from 7am-4pm (not quite enough to really work full time, but that’s another discussion). Until the US is at least there, adoption is not really a free, uncompelled choice in forced-birth states like Texas. I have a dear childhood friend whose birth mother was a college student who went through with the results of a foolish accident. I’m glad she did, because I love my friend, but I’m also glad that it was her choice to make; in late 70s Austin, she could have easily gotten an abortion. She was able to choose the adoptive parents, and got what she wanted for her baby: a well-off but childless Catholic family just far enough away to be unlikely to accidentally meet.

Nimitz14 4y ago

Exactly. Who cares about the fetus? It's not like any one of us is doing anything about the shitty stuff that people (conscious ones!) are going through right now in third world countries. So the whole "you're killing a human" angle is complete nonsense, life is not sacred and it is silly to act like it is. The only thing that matters here is what the mother wants.