5 ms·

Well, that's not "THE pro-life position", it's an extreme example of a pro-life position (nut-picking, effectively). A more moderate pro-life position argues th

Well, that's not "THE pro-life position", it's an extreme example of a pro-life position (nut-picking, effectively). A more moderate pro-life position argues that consensual sex constitutes a waiver of the right to forego birth (except in cases where birth puts the mother's life at great risk--for some value of "great").

tsimionescu 4y ago
I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. Even less so among those who also oppose classes of contraceptives that immediately kill fertilized eggs, such as the Catholic Church. Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Edit to add: the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. It seems like you're conflating "pro-life" and "people who want to ban abortion entirely". The pro-life position includes people who want to ban abortion in the general case even while allowing abortion for exceptional cases. > Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Agreed, but that doesn't refute pro-life people having rape exceptions (multiple groups can allow for rape exceptions). > the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology Can you source this claim about the majority of pro-life campaigners (also, why does that seem indicative of pro-life people in general)? Also, even if it's accurate, I don't think it constitutes proof of much--in particular, they could hold that it's not the government's job to provide sex education or free contraception (I personally favor the government providing both of these, by the way). In any case, rather than arguing about ONE pro-life position, it seems like it would be better to acknowledge that there can be multiple specific positions within a movement. I'm certainly happy to concede that the pro-life movement includes many people with extreme positions, why can't we agree that it includes some more moderate positions as well?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The pro-life position includes people who want to ban abortion in the general case even while allowing abortion for exceptional cases. Yes, but pro-life people are more likely to see “balancing mortality risks” cases as exceptional than “circumstances of parenting” cases. Just like people opposed to deliberate homicide in general are more likely to see “self defense” as an exception than “the existence of the person killed reminded me of a bad thing that that person didn't cause”. Rape victims are an issue that resonates particularly strongly with people who see the central issue as one of the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy, not those who see it as about the fetus as a human life.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      I'm not following. In particular I'm not sure what you mean by "circumstances of parenting" that would make it comparable with "balancing mortality risks" with respect to exceptionality. > Rape victims are an issue that resonates particularly strongly with people who see the central issue as one of the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy, not those who see it as about the fetus as a human life. There are some pro-life people (per the parent's claim) who believe that a child's life is so precious that it overrides the mother's right to bodily autonomy even in rape cases; however, this doesn't mean that they care less about rape victims than people who care about bodily autonomy--for example, they could care the same amount (or even more), but value unborn life even more. Notably, the loudest (most popular?) pro-choice claim is that unborn children don't constitute human life, that they're mere "clumps of cells", so all we can say (at least as far as it concerns people who hold this view) is that they care more about rape-victims than they care about "clumps of cells" which isn't strong evidence that they care a lot about rape victims.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Sure, I agree that it is not the only pro-life position, but it is also not an extreme position among pro-life people (per some Pew research that someone else was quoting, approximately 37% of pro-life people don't make exceptions for rape, 36% do consider rape an exception, and 27% say it depends, whatever that means). I also think it's reasonable to expect that those who actively campaign to ban abortion are more likely to have more extreme positions than those who simply passively accept these positions. I also think their positions are very relevant, as they have proven to have more sway over public policy than the majority of the population - so combating their arguments is more improtant than combating the beliefs of the more silent pro-life majority.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
> consensual sex constitutes a waiver of the right to forego birth This is the part I'm most interested in exploring. Absent a debate about "life", under what pretext does this construction arise? It's hard not to view it as a post hoc rationalization of a just world fallacy. Are there any other ways to construct the consequence of a waiver of the right to forego birth that stems directly from the act of sex? Some sort of sex teleology? Something else?
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > under what pretext does this construction arise? I'm not sure if I understand your question, but the general rule is that the person with agency also bears responsibility (this is a widely-held axiom). In this case, we have parents who have agency to predictably create a life which depends on carriage and birth, and thus responsibility to provide carriage/birth (obviously biological realities preclude an identical share of the responsibility between parents). > It's hard not to view it as a post hoc rationalization of a just world fallacy. Are there any other ways to construct the consequence of a waiver of the right to forego birth that stems directly from the act of sex? Some sort of sex teleology? Something else? Again, not sure if I understand your question.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Thanks for taking the time to try help me understand this. I feel like analogizing here might confuse rather than clarify, but I'm thinking of other cases where agents taking actions waive their rights and how those waivers are socially justified. For example contracts bind people in ways that limit their rights. Ex: if you and I enter a futures contract for you to purchase wheat from me at a certain price, there is a constraint placed on each of us - me to pay you the money, and you to deliver the wheat. The reason we socially allow such contracts of obligation is to facilitate commerce. We allow for other waivers of rights for other reasons. What is the underlying social reason for the agency-responsibility regarding pregnancy? I'm genuinely asking with the understanding that there may be multiple reasons, but I don't have an internal sense of agency-responsibility toward pregnancy that apparently others do. Under what principles is such a responsibility formulated? This possibly confuses things more, but we socially recognize that some rights are non-alienatible, ex: you cannot voluntarily enslave one's self in a legally meaningful way. So there do seem to be some limits to which rights people can consent to void.

tsimionescu 4y ago

I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. Even less so among those who also oppose classes of contraceptives that immediately kill fertilized eggs, such as the Catholic Church. Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Edit to add: the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology.

throwaway894345 4y ago
> I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. It seems like you're conflating "pro-life" and "people who want to ban abortion entirely". The pro-life position includes people who want to ban abortion in the general case even while allowing abortion for exceptional cases. > Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Agreed, but that doesn't refute pro-life people having rape exceptions (multiple groups can allow for rape exceptions). > the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology Can you source this claim about the majority of pro-life campaigners (also, why does that seem indicative of pro-life people in general)? Also, even if it's accurate, I don't think it constitutes proof of much--in particular, they could hold that it's not the government's job to provide sex education or free contraception (I personally favor the government providing both of these, by the way). In any case, rather than arguing about ONE pro-life position, it seems like it would be better to acknowledge that there can be multiple specific positions within a movement. I'm certainly happy to concede that the pro-life movement includes many people with extreme positions, why can't we agree that it includes some more moderate positions as well?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The pro-life position includes people who want to ban abortion in the general case even while allowing abortion for exceptional cases. Yes, but pro-life people are more likely to see “balancing mortality risks” cases as exceptional than “circumstances of parenting” cases. Just like people opposed to deliberate homicide in general are more likely to see “self defense” as an exception than “the existence of the person killed reminded me of a bad thing that that person didn't cause”. Rape victims are an issue that resonates particularly strongly with people who see the central issue as one of the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy, not those who see it as about the fetus as a human life.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    I'm not following. In particular I'm not sure what you mean by "circumstances of parenting" that would make it comparable with "balancing mortality risks" with respect to exceptionality. > Rape victims are an issue that resonates particularly strongly with people who see the central issue as one of the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy, not those who see it as about the fetus as a human life. There are some pro-life people (per the parent's claim) who believe that a child's life is so precious that it overrides the mother's right to bodily autonomy even in rape cases; however, this doesn't mean that they care less about rape victims than people who care about bodily autonomy--for example, they could care the same amount (or even more), but value unborn life even more. Notably, the loudest (most popular?) pro-choice claim is that unborn children don't constitute human life, that they're mere "clumps of cells", so all we can say (at least as far as it concerns people who hold this view) is that they care more about rape-victims than they care about "clumps of cells" which isn't strong evidence that they care a lot about rape victims.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Sure, I agree that it is not the only pro-life position, but it is also not an extreme position among pro-life people (per some Pew research that someone else was quoting, approximately 37% of pro-life people don't make exceptions for rape, 36% do consider rape an exception, and 27% say it depends, whatever that means). I also think it's reasonable to expect that those who actively campaign to ban abortion are more likely to have more extreme positions than those who simply passively accept these positions. I also think their positions are very relevant, as they have proven to have more sway over public policy than the majority of the population - so combating their arguments is more improtant than combating the beliefs of the more silent pro-life majority.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

> consensual sex constitutes a waiver of the right to forego birth This is the part I'm most interested in exploring. Absent a debate about "life", under what pretext does this construction arise? It's hard not to view it as a post hoc rationalization of a just world fallacy. Are there any other ways to construct the consequence of a waiver of the right to forego birth that stems directly from the act of sex? Some sort of sex teleology? Something else?

throwaway894345 4y ago
> under what pretext does this construction arise? I'm not sure if I understand your question, but the general rule is that the person with agency also bears responsibility (this is a widely-held axiom). In this case, we have parents who have agency to predictably create a life which depends on carriage and birth, and thus responsibility to provide carriage/birth (obviously biological realities preclude an identical share of the responsibility between parents). > It's hard not to view it as a post hoc rationalization of a just world fallacy. Are there any other ways to construct the consequence of a waiver of the right to forego birth that stems directly from the act of sex? Some sort of sex teleology? Something else? Again, not sure if I understand your question.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to try help me understand this. I feel like analogizing here might confuse rather than clarify, but I'm thinking of other cases where agents taking actions waive their rights and how those waivers are socially justified. For example contracts bind people in ways that limit their rights. Ex: if you and I enter a futures contract for you to purchase wheat from me at a certain price, there is a constraint placed on each of us - me to pay you the money, and you to deliver the wheat. The reason we socially allow such contracts of obligation is to facilitate commerce. We allow for other waivers of rights for other reasons. What is the underlying social reason for the agency-responsibility regarding pregnancy? I'm genuinely asking with the understanding that there may be multiple reasons, but I don't have an internal sense of agency-responsibility toward pregnancy that apparently others do. Under what principles is such a responsibility formulated? This possibly confuses things more, but we socially recognize that some rights are non-alienatible, ex: you cannot voluntarily enslave one's self in a legally meaningful way. So there do seem to be some limits to which rights people can consent to void.