6 ms·

If pregnant women have bodily autonomy, then it is their body and their choice. The argument is whether a fetus has the right to use another person’s body again

by nkrisc 4y ago

If pregnant women have bodily autonomy, then it is their body and their choice. The argument is whether a fetus has the right to use another person’s body against their own will. Otherwise we’re saying that bodily autonomy is not absolute and it’s OK to use people’s body’s against their wishes. If a woman must use her body to give life to the baby inside her, then I really don’t think it’s that big of leap to a situation where someone is compelled to give a kidney to save a life. After all, we’ve conceded that people can be compelled to use their bodies in ways they don’t desire to.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>After all, we’ve conceded that people can be compelled to use their bodies in ways they don’t desire to. We crossed that bridge a long time ago. It is criminal for a parent to starve their children, or abandon them in a hostile environment.
- roflyear 4y ago
  That's not even remotely similar and you know it.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think they are indeed similar and a framework would be needed to separate them. I'm open to the idea that they are similar but have meaningful differences. A significant portion of the US doesn't think there is a meaningful distinction.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      They are not similar. Primarily because having to take care of a kid doesn't mean you are forced to carry them inside you. Also at least in the US you can drop your baby off at any hospital no questions asked. So not similar at all. You're uneducated or trolling. If you need me to explain now these are different things you're the problem.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        No need for the hostility. At a minimum they are similar in that they are all compulsions to take action and limitations on personal autonomy. I never said they were the same. You can drop a baby at a hospital, but you can't drop them in the trash.
        roflyear 4y ago
        Your words and actions are hostile to many women in the US. Don't tell me I can't be hostile to you over the internet. Grow up.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        If this is how you talk to your allies, I cant imagine how you treat you opposition. If you find the word "similar" so hostile you can't have an conversation that contains it, there is no room for intelligent discourse.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  That’s very different. Being compelled to take some action is very different than being compelled to remove a part of your body or to put something into it, or to give a part of your body to someone else.
michaelrpeskin 4y ago
…or be compelled to take a vaccine with less than a year of safety data.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- roflyear 4y ago
  What a bad take. You were encouraged to take the vaccine, you were not forced to. You know that and you're just being dishonest.
  - michaelrpeskin 4y ago
    Yeah. I was being a bit hyperbolic. But there was lots of talk about ways to force vaccination. Including mandates for keeping your job (both in the public and private sector). You might say that a private company can do what they want (and the libertarian in me says yes) but then you need to be consistent on the other side - remember the uproar when Hobby Lobby said they didn’t want to pay for insure that provided abortion services? I’m really not taking sides here, I’m just pointing out that we should strive for self-consistency in our government regulations. And either you have a right to your body or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Nothing is absolute. You don't have the right to walk around naked. Sometimes your body autonomy is taken away in some scenarios. I don't think the vaccines should be one. Just because people talked about how to encourage vaccines being taken and were upset they were forced to work with unvaccinated coworkers doesn't mean anti abortion policies are good. You're just a troll.
      - nkrisc 4y ago
        Walking around naked is not bodily autonomy. Deciding what goes into and comes out of your body is.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
It's whether a fetus is a person afforded rights. An entirely subjective opinion, which is kind of why I don't care what the answer is.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  Fine, then the fetus has the right to vacate the womb and gestate in someone willing. The fetus can’t be given rights to the mother’s blood or use of her body, otherwise that sets a pretty dangerous precedent. If abortions can be outlawed, why not vasectomies? Or chemotherapy? My point is it doesn’t matter the status of the fetus. It’s about the right of pregnant women to have autonomy over their body.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    What is bodily autonomy? Most crimes are committed with the body in some form or another. What if I stab a knife in the air and somebody happens to be standing there? Thus it seems that the limit of my bodily autonomy ends where another person's rights begin. The thing is that a lot of people think that a fetus is a person with rights. If a fetus is a person with rights then bodily autonomy doesn't quite apply. The bodily autonomy angle seems more of an escape hatch to sidestep the subjective and unsolvable issue of whether or not fetuses are people and have rights. I'm pro-choice btw
    - nkrisc 4y ago
      Put simply: the right to decide what goes into and comes out of your body. Your knife example has nothing to do with your bodily autonomy. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate a kidney or why you can choose to get a vasectomy.
markisus 4y ago
This line of thought has been elaborated under a theory called evictionism [1]. Evictionists concede personhood of a fetus, but reject its right to reside in a womb without consent of the owner of the womb. The logic seems sound, but leads to conclusions which are objectionable by current mainstream moral standards (for example, allowing extremely late term abortions for non-medical reasons [2]). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-...
- tzs 4y ago
  > The logic seems sound, but leads to conclusions which are objectionable by current mainstream moral standards (for example, allowing extremely late term abortions for non-medical reasons. With evictions in the post-birth world, we generally require some notice before the actual eviction. I have a hard time imagining that we would not do so for pre-birth evictions considering that the consequences to the evictee are much more severe. Set that notice time to N months and you have then effectively prohibited abortions in the last N months of the pregnancy. On the other hand, that may be pointless. If a landlord evicts someone without proper notice has the landlord committed a crime or just given the evictee a cause for civil action? If it is just civil action then this approach wouldn't work for limiting late term abortions under evictionism because the injured party would be dead. Normally in the case of a dead pre-adult it would be up to the parents to sue, but since the mother would be the defendant she can't sue herself. There is presumably a father though. If he didn't agree to the abortion maybe he could sue? That's a whole different can of worms in general--it takes two to create a pregnancy, so should both have a say in termination? If so what are the results when they cannot agree on whether or not to terminate?
  - markisus 4y ago
    Your questions prompted me to skim through Walter Block's exposition of evictionism [1]. There is a sense of what constitutes a reasonable, gentle, eviction. "From these examples is derived the principle that when one evicts a trespasser, or deals with any other violator of rights, one is obliged to do so in a certain way; it must be done in the least invasive manner possible consistent with upholding property rights. If a trespasser is on your lawn and you have a bazooka, you are not entitled to blow him away - not as a first step in any case. That is far too extreme and incompatible with the doctrine of private property rights. The homeowner has the right to make sure that the outsider does not trespass further, but he must be evicted in the gentlest manner possible." -pages 21-22 When there is no possible gentle eviction, due to technological or other circumstantial limitations, Walter Block believes that one can evict even when the sure consequence is death of the tenant. "Based on the private property rights philosophy, the individual then had the right to evict the trespasser in the most gentle manner possible. If there was no gentle manner feasible, an individual's property rights to her womb transcend the so-called "right to life" of anyone else." -page 22 It looks like the world "gentle" is doing a lot of work here. One could claim, in the spirit of your comment, that a 9 month notice period for eviction is required for gentleness. In an even more bizarre twist, one could argue that an abortion is only gentle when the fetus would be then transferred to a life support system that could bring it to full term. With today's technology, this would imply an earliest date for abortion instead of a deadline. Walter Block does not, in my opinion, clarify the issue of gentleness enough in the document to settle the issue. [1] http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/b...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
googlryas 4y ago
Don't we already compel people to use their bodies in ways that may be against their wishes? Let's say I have a 1 month old. Pretty much everyone would agree I'm not allowed to murder that baby. However, I also need to care for the baby? What happened to my bodily autonomy? Why can't I fly out to vegas for a weekend and leave the baby at home to fend for itself? I have to be a ward for this little blob? Or I have to go out of my way and waste my time to find someone to care for it? Why is it my job to keep this thing alive? Why will I be punished if I neglect that job?
- roflyear 4y ago
  Are you really this stupid or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters? You can leave your newborn at any hospital in the US no questions asked if you do not want them.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    Excuse me, where exactly is my bodily freedom in that instance? I need to go out of my way to do something with my body, just so someone else will live? We've concluded that that is wrong.
    - nkrisc 4y ago
      You’re not required to give the child any part of your body. You’re misunderstanding what bodily autonomy means. By you argument, prisons should not exist.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        Wikipedia defines bodily autonomy as: > Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies I would say that part of having "self-determination of human beings over their bodies" is where their bodies are and what their bodies are doing. But fine, we can just talk about tons of other laws which don't support the concept of bodily autonomy, like anti-drug laws, seat belt and helmet laws, etc. > By you argument, prisons should not exist. No, my argument is that bodily autonomy isn't a fully guaranteed concept in our legal system. A prison is exactly another example of the case, not only the main use of the prison, but also forced invasive strip searches there, forced blood draws, etc.
tzs 4y ago
Are there any circumstances where you would be OK with compelled organ donation? For instance suppose someone needs a kidney to save their life and I am the only possible donor and suppose the reason they need a kidney is that I deliberately and without their permission did something that I knew had a significant risk of leading to someone needing a kidney. I don't know if I should be compelled in that case to give a kidney, but it seems reasonable for there to be legal pressure on me to do so (such as facing some kind of homicide charge if I do not on they die).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- metadat 4y ago
  What if you die as a result of complications from the kidney harvesting procedure? How is that fair or right?
  - tzs 4y ago
    I think a reasonable argument can be made that I should have taken that into account before doing something that destroyed their kidneys. If I've wrongfully created a situation where either an innocent person will certainly die or I have a risk of dying (under 0.06% for kidney donation) how is it fair or right that they die?
    - metadat 4y ago
      It's unreasonable to take away people's bodily autonomy. Just.. no.
      - tzs 4y ago
        What if I deliberately poison someone in an attempt to murder them, but botch it so that instead of quickly killing them it just damages their kidneys to point that they will die without a transplant, and I'm the only compatible potential donor? Wasn't my wrecking their kidneys a breach of their bodily autonomy? Why shouldn't I be required to give up some of my own bodily autonomy to reverse much of the damage I did to their bodily autonomy?
JohnTHaller 4y ago
In the US, we can't even compel people to donate a kidney to save a life after they're dead.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
We just had the case with vaccine mandates in many cases.

by nkrisc 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>After all, we’ve conceded that people can be compelled to use their bodies in ways they don’t desire to. We crossed that bridge a long time ago. It is criminal for a parent to starve their children, or abandon them in a hostile environment.

roflyear 4y ago
That's not even remotely similar and you know it.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think they are indeed similar and a framework would be needed to separate them. I'm open to the idea that they are similar but have meaningful differences. A significant portion of the US doesn't think there is a meaningful distinction.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    They are not similar. Primarily because having to take care of a kid doesn't mean you are forced to carry them inside you. Also at least in the US you can drop your baby off at any hospital no questions asked. So not similar at all. You're uneducated or trolling. If you need me to explain now these are different things you're the problem.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      No need for the hostility. At a minimum they are similar in that they are all compulsions to take action and limitations on personal autonomy. I never said they were the same. You can drop a baby at a hospital, but you can't drop them in the trash.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Your words and actions are hostile to many women in the US. Don't tell me I can't be hostile to you over the internet. Grow up.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        If this is how you talk to your allies, I cant imagine how you treat you opposition. If you find the word "similar" so hostile you can't have an conversation that contains it, there is no room for intelligent discourse.
nkrisc 4y ago
That’s very different. Being compelled to take some action is very different than being compelled to remove a part of your body or to put something into it, or to give a part of your body to someone else.

michaelrpeskin 4y ago

…or be compelled to take a vaccine with less than a year of safety data.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
roflyear 4y ago
What a bad take. You were encouraged to take the vaccine, you were not forced to. You know that and you're just being dishonest.
- michaelrpeskin 4y ago
  Yeah. I was being a bit hyperbolic. But there was lots of talk about ways to force vaccination. Including mandates for keeping your job (both in the public and private sector). You might say that a private company can do what they want (and the libertarian in me says yes) but then you need to be consistent on the other side - remember the uproar when Hobby Lobby said they didn’t want to pay for insure that provided abortion services? I’m really not taking sides here, I’m just pointing out that we should strive for self-consistency in our government regulations. And either you have a right to your body or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Nothing is absolute. You don't have the right to walk around naked. Sometimes your body autonomy is taken away in some scenarios. I don't think the vaccines should be one. Just because people talked about how to encourage vaccines being taken and were upset they were forced to work with unvaccinated coworkers doesn't mean anti abortion policies are good. You're just a troll.
    - nkrisc 4y ago
      Walking around naked is not bodily autonomy. Deciding what goes into and comes out of your body is.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

It's whether a fetus is a person afforded rights. An entirely subjective opinion, which is kind of why I don't care what the answer is.

nkrisc 4y ago
Fine, then the fetus has the right to vacate the womb and gestate in someone willing. The fetus can’t be given rights to the mother’s blood or use of her body, otherwise that sets a pretty dangerous precedent. If abortions can be outlawed, why not vasectomies? Or chemotherapy? My point is it doesn’t matter the status of the fetus. It’s about the right of pregnant women to have autonomy over their body.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  What is bodily autonomy? Most crimes are committed with the body in some form or another. What if I stab a knife in the air and somebody happens to be standing there? Thus it seems that the limit of my bodily autonomy ends where another person's rights begin. The thing is that a lot of people think that a fetus is a person with rights. If a fetus is a person with rights then bodily autonomy doesn't quite apply. The bodily autonomy angle seems more of an escape hatch to sidestep the subjective and unsolvable issue of whether or not fetuses are people and have rights. I'm pro-choice btw
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    Put simply: the right to decide what goes into and comes out of your body. Your knife example has nothing to do with your bodily autonomy. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate a kidney or why you can choose to get a vasectomy.

markisus 4y ago

This line of thought has been elaborated under a theory called evictionism [1]. Evictionists concede personhood of a fetus, but reject its right to reside in a womb without consent of the owner of the womb. The logic seems sound, but leads to conclusions which are objectionable by current mainstream moral standards (for example, allowing extremely late term abortions for non-medical reasons [2]). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-...

tzs 4y ago
> The logic seems sound, but leads to conclusions which are objectionable by current mainstream moral standards (for example, allowing extremely late term abortions for non-medical reasons. With evictions in the post-birth world, we generally require some notice before the actual eviction. I have a hard time imagining that we would not do so for pre-birth evictions considering that the consequences to the evictee are much more severe. Set that notice time to N months and you have then effectively prohibited abortions in the last N months of the pregnancy. On the other hand, that may be pointless. If a landlord evicts someone without proper notice has the landlord committed a crime or just given the evictee a cause for civil action? If it is just civil action then this approach wouldn't work for limiting late term abortions under evictionism because the injured party would be dead. Normally in the case of a dead pre-adult it would be up to the parents to sue, but since the mother would be the defendant she can't sue herself. There is presumably a father though. If he didn't agree to the abortion maybe he could sue? That's a whole different can of worms in general--it takes two to create a pregnancy, so should both have a say in termination? If so what are the results when they cannot agree on whether or not to terminate?
- markisus 4y ago
  Your questions prompted me to skim through Walter Block's exposition of evictionism [1]. There is a sense of what constitutes a reasonable, gentle, eviction. "From these examples is derived the principle that when one evicts a trespasser, or deals with any other violator of rights, one is obliged to do so in a certain way; it must be done in the least invasive manner possible consistent with upholding property rights. If a trespasser is on your lawn and you have a bazooka, you are not entitled to blow him away - not as a first step in any case. That is far too extreme and incompatible with the doctrine of private property rights. The homeowner has the right to make sure that the outsider does not trespass further, but he must be evicted in the gentlest manner possible." -pages 21-22 When there is no possible gentle eviction, due to technological or other circumstantial limitations, Walter Block believes that one can evict even when the sure consequence is death of the tenant. "Based on the private property rights philosophy, the individual then had the right to evict the trespasser in the most gentle manner possible. If there was no gentle manner feasible, an individual's property rights to her womb transcend the so-called "right to life" of anyone else." -page 22 It looks like the world "gentle" is doing a lot of work here. One could claim, in the spirit of your comment, that a 9 month notice period for eviction is required for gentleness. In an even more bizarre twist, one could argue that an abortion is only gentle when the fetus would be then transferred to a life support system that could bring it to full term. With today's technology, this would imply an earliest date for abortion instead of a deadline. Walter Block does not, in my opinion, clarify the issue of gentleness enough in the document to settle the issue. [1] http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/b...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

googlryas 4y ago

Don't we already compel people to use their bodies in ways that may be against their wishes? Let's say I have a 1 month old. Pretty much everyone would agree I'm not allowed to murder that baby. However, I also need to care for the baby? What happened to my bodily autonomy? Why can't I fly out to vegas for a weekend and leave the baby at home to fend for itself? I have to be a ward for this little blob? Or I have to go out of my way and waste my time to find someone to care for it? Why is it my job to keep this thing alive? Why will I be punished if I neglect that job?

roflyear 4y ago
Are you really this stupid or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters? You can leave your newborn at any hospital in the US no questions asked if you do not want them.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Excuse me, where exactly is my bodily freedom in that instance? I need to go out of my way to do something with my body, just so someone else will live? We've concluded that that is wrong.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    You’re not required to give the child any part of your body. You’re misunderstanding what bodily autonomy means. By you argument, prisons should not exist.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      Wikipedia defines bodily autonomy as: > Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies I would say that part of having "self-determination of human beings over their bodies" is where their bodies are and what their bodies are doing. But fine, we can just talk about tons of other laws which don't support the concept of bodily autonomy, like anti-drug laws, seat belt and helmet laws, etc. > By you argument, prisons should not exist. No, my argument is that bodily autonomy isn't a fully guaranteed concept in our legal system. A prison is exactly another example of the case, not only the main use of the prison, but also forced invasive strip searches there, forced blood draws, etc.

tzs 4y ago

Are there any circumstances where you would be OK with compelled organ donation? For instance suppose someone needs a kidney to save their life and I am the only possible donor and suppose the reason they need a kidney is that I deliberately and without their permission did something that I knew had a significant risk of leading to someone needing a kidney. I don't know if I should be compelled in that case to give a kidney, but it seems reasonable for there to be legal pressure on me to do so (such as facing some kind of homicide charge if I do not on they die).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
metadat 4y ago
What if you die as a result of complications from the kidney harvesting procedure? How is that fair or right?
- tzs 4y ago
  I think a reasonable argument can be made that I should have taken that into account before doing something that destroyed their kidneys. If I've wrongfully created a situation where either an innocent person will certainly die or I have a risk of dying (under 0.06% for kidney donation) how is it fair or right that they die?
  - metadat 4y ago
    It's unreasonable to take away people's bodily autonomy. Just.. no.
    - tzs 4y ago
      What if I deliberately poison someone in an attempt to murder them, but botch it so that instead of quickly killing them it just damages their kidneys to point that they will die without a transplant, and I'm the only compatible potential donor? Wasn't my wrecking their kidneys a breach of their bodily autonomy? Why shouldn't I be required to give up some of my own bodily autonomy to reverse much of the damage I did to their bodily autonomy?

JohnTHaller 4y ago

In the US, we can't even compel people to donate a kidney to save a life after they're dead.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

We just had the case with vaccine mandates in many cases.