Hacker News Reader

Comment by human_person | Hacker News Reader

Not only that but once half of the population has lost bodily autonomy why would anyone believe that their rights are safe?

Today a woman can be compelled to use an organ in her body to keep another person alive.

What’s to stop the court from ruling that if you have 2 kidneys you can be compelled to donate one to keep someone else alive?

What happens when a deadbeat dad is the only match for a child with organ failure? Why shouldn’t they be compelled to give up an organ to keep their offspring alive?

Libertarians should be in the streets protesting the loss of bodily autonomy. And all of us should be afraid.

View on HN

One of the reasons abortion is difficult to talk about is that it is the intersection of multiple rights. The principle of bodily autonomy you mention is foundational to our conception of liberty in the US. In this case, however, it intersects with the principle that human life should not be actively ended without extraordinary reason.

Capital punishment is legal in 27 states, 20 of which support the death sentence, why is that not inextricably linked with abortion?

But it’s not. In no other case is one human forced to sacrifice their own body to keep another human alive.

The fetus is welcome to continue living. It simply can’t live in this particular womb.

If ‘pro-life’ people genuinely cared about the unborn (rather than controlling women) they would have invested in researching artificial wombs and pregnancy transfers. But they don’t.

> In no other case is one human forced to sacrifice their own body to keep another human alive.

Here's an analogy: if you're flying people somewhere in your helicopter, are you allowed to push them out, or are you required to "sacrifice" your own helicopter to keep them alive until you land safely?

> The fetus is welcome to continue living. It simply can’t live in this particular womb.

Your passengers are welcome to stay in the air. They simply can't in that particular helicopter.

> If ‘pro-life’ people genuinely cared about the unborn (rather than controlling women) they would have invested in researching artificial wombs and pregnancy transfers. But they don’t.

If people genuinely cared about helicopter passengers (rather than controlling pilots), they would have invested in jet packs and antigravity devices. But they don't.

Libertarians should be in the streets protesting the loss of bodily autonomy. And all of us should be afraid.

I agree, but I also tend to think this battle was lost when the SCOTUS refused to reject the "individual mandate". When you've reduced the notion of individual agency to the level that the State can dictate what items you must purchase, this is an entirely logical consequence.

If you take libertarinism to it's extreme like that then they should be protesting the lack of freedom of association as well but none are doing that either.

But freedom of association is legal.

No. You're legally not allowed to discriminate among customers, employees, neighbors, or renters.

Would that not be freedom of disassociation?

Regardless of what you call it, these are the kinds of ideas you get when you reject the social parts of government and go full libertarian.

Fortunately there is nothing else the state forces you to purchase so this is a very clean ideological point you are making.

Libertarians should be protesting against violence toward the unborn child... libertarianism's core principle is nonviolence towards others.

I've always held that one can make a principled, well-reasoned Libertarian argument both for OR against abortion, based on the grounds you just cited. But I've also personally always held that there is no objective, universal standard for deciding exactly when to consider that unborn entity a "child" which has rights and against which it makes sense to speak of violence being conducted. That being the case, I don't find any value in adding the specter of State violence to the mix. I'd rather leave this whole situation to the mother, her family, medical professionals and others supporters.

This is why I'm a Libertarian who largely opposes abortion on a purely personal level, but is 100% pro-choice on a political level. But at the same time, I can respect those who hold the other position based on the NAP. I'd just argue that with no objective way to resolve the dispute, it's best to not bring the State into it.

I’ve never understood this take - other than rape (in which abortion should be allowed imo), why is it a loss of bodily autonomy? Women choose to have sex consensually, no?

I don't understand your take. Do you assume that all consensual sex happens with the intention of reproduction?

The intention isn’t relevant - sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact. Other than rape, in which case agency is removed, why is conception not the point in which the choice is made?

Is your opinion that anyone can reneg on known consequences of their actions?

Don’t misunderstand, women should have a choice in what their bodies are used for. My assertion is, other than rape, they already have it with respect to having a kid or not.

I don't agree or disagree with the consequences part, but...

> sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact

Oh, I'd wish. There are people who still - in the 21st century - do not have like basic knowledge about sexual wellness and have very weird (and sometimes very dangerous) ideas about contraception, safety and risks of pregnancy. I mean, it's hard for any educated person to believe in this shit, but I've met or read some pretty insane opinions. Like people who genuinely believe really weird nonsense such as that virgins cannot get pregnant their first time. And they aren't malicious folks (well, maybe some are, of course) - just awfully misinformed.

Humanity is in a very weird place. On the one hand we've walked on the Moon and about to conquer nuclear fusion power, but on the other hand we've just climbed down from the trees and learned how to make a fire.

We're only 8 years out from "legitimate rape"! How in the world can anyone think legislators and jurists themselves, let alone young people, are receiving sufficient information about sex and pregnancy?

I think it's often misunderstood at how incredibly hard it is to stop reproduction.

For example birth control pills are 99% effective. From the NHS:

> When taken correctly, the pill is over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. This means that fewer than 1 in 100 who use the combined pill as contraception will get pregnant in 1 year.

So, if you're in a relationship for 5 years, that's 1 in 20. For my group of people I know, this matches up pretty well.

The intention isn’t relevant - sex leading to kids is hardly some unknown fact.

That's ridiculous. Many people engage in sex using contraceptives design to prevent pregnancy, but we all know that contraceptives aren't 100% reliable. So the possibility of any given sex act leading to kids is absolutely an "unknown".

And that's before getting into the point about how, in many places in the world, knowledge of (or access to) contraceptives is withheld from portions of the population to begin with. For that matter, there are some (mostly very young, I expect) who don't understand the whole "sex leads to kids" thing.

I think it's often misunderstood at how incredibly hard it is to stop reproduction.

For example birth control pills are 99% effective. From the NHS:

> When taken correctly, the pill is over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. This means that fewer than 1 in 100 who use the combined pill as contraception will get pregnant in 1 year.

So, if you're in a relationship for 5 years, that's 1 in 20. For my group of people I know, this matches up pretty well. I have one friend who has three children. They were all conceived while on birth control.

>Is your opinion that anyone can renege on known consequences of their actions?

That's usually how medical treatment works, yes. We don't tell people who fall off a ladder, slice their finger chopping vegetables, or break a bone playing sports "You knew the risk, you're just gonna have to live with the consequences of your choices"

> Women choose to have sex consensually, no? Consent to sex doesn't imply consent to pregnancy (or even the consent to carry to term after) - it just doesn't follow, even with the risks of pregnancy.

Sex inherently has the risk of pregnancy no?

It's a loss of bodily autonomy because, well, that's what bodily autonomy is. The government is compelling you to use (and risk) your body for a particular purpose.

That's a separate question from whether that loss of bodily autonomy is justified.

> Women choose to have sex consensually, no?

Well, yes, sometimes. Maybe you could be more explicit about how you think that justifies the loss of bodily autonomy?

For example, maybe you have a principle like "If you played a necessary role in the creation of a person, then you can be compelled to use your body to support their life." Do you think fathers should be compelled to donate blood or organs to their offspring?

My argument is that no autonomy is lost since the potential consequences of the actions are known beforehand.

No more or less than eating certain foods or consuming certain beverages.

> the potential consequences of the actions

Being forced by the State (ie at the point of a gun) to carry a pregnancy to term is not an inevitable "consequence". It's a choice.

Women have a long history of using abortifacients to terminate pregnancy, so there's nothing "natural" or inevitable about forced birth.

What? For most of history birth is the inevitable outcome of pregnancy. Women aren’t being forced to give birth.

Okay, so you don't know the history of medicine. That's not uncommon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

In Roman times, Silphium was such a popular abortifacient that the plant was over-harvested to extinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium_(antiquity)

The fact of the matter is that other than rape, by definition, women are consenting to an activity that will put them at high risk for getting pregnant.

Your argument is effectively that people should be able to reneg on the consequences of actions if those consequences are not desirable.

> people should be able to reneg on the consequences of actions if those consequences are not desirable

I think you've gone a little too broad with that principle. If I ask a taxi to take me somewhere, I can get out if I notice the driver is drunk. If I accidentally spill a glass of water, I can clean it up. And so on.

> "Your argument is effectively that people should be able to reneg on the consequences of actions if those consequences are not desirable."

Well, yes.

Why did you say "other than rape (in which abortion should be allowed imo)"? Either you think the foetus has value and needs to be brought to term, or you don't. That makes it seem that you aren't deciding based on the value of the foetus or the importance of all life, but rather want to assert superiority and punish women for having sex. What difference does it make to the importance of the foetus if the pregnancy was rape or not? Why does that make more difference than whether the pregnancy is wanted or not?

You can eat meat from murdered animals every day, you can pierce or tattoo your body or kill brain cells with alcohol, you have the right to return a $5 plastic toy for a refund, but if your birth control fails you can't kill 10 cells. Has it any more soul or value at that stage than the hair or fingernails you cut off without a thought, or the dead skin you shed, or the spit you spit? Why does it have more value than the woman?

> people should be able to reneg on the consequences of actions if those consequences are not desirable.

That's literally the entire basis of modern medical intervention, yes.

> For most of history birth is the inevitable outcome of pregnancy.

Induced abortion has, from documentary evidence, been a thing for at least ~3500 years, and even without induced abortion very many pregnancies historically ended in miscarriage (still the case) and/or maternal death (much less the case, now, but still a concern.)

Miscarrying is a very great point, as is still births. But my point in general is that once you’re pregnancy your body “finishing” is the inevitable outcome, intervention notwithstanding.

We do have still work to do in making the end of the pregnancy the desired one (healthy baby), yes.

> But my point in general is that once you’re pregnancy your body “finishing” is the inevitable outcome, intervention notwithstanding.

I think you mean something other than “inevitable” here, since “inevitable” means “cannot be avoided”, such that if A and B is the inevitable consequence, than B must happen with 100% certainty.

But childbirth isn't even approximately an inevitable consequence of pregnancy.

That’s a fair point.

This creeps close to an "appeal to nature". For most of human history once your heart stopped death was the "inevitable" outcome, but this is not a good argument for defibrillators being morally wrong.

You're still conflating "pregnancy" with "pregnancy that you're forced to carry to term." The former is necessarily a potential consequence of having sex; the latter is not.

I'm still curious what principles you think justify the enforcement of the latter, and especially why they don't cover things like the OP's forced organ donation scenario.

Edit: Just to expand on the first point, I think there's some circular reasoning going on here.

If the claim is "people should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term," you can't support that with "because people should endure the consequences of their actions" if "consequences of their actions" means "being forced to carry a pregnancy to term."

Because then you're just saying "people should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term because people should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term."

Following your example, if after you ate something the state forced you to digest it and outlawed inducing vomiting then you would have lost body autonomy. You're not in control of your body anymore.

> What happens when a deadbeat dad is the only match for a child with organ failure? Why shouldn’t they be compelled to give up an organ to keep their offspring alive?

If you can come up with a way to loan someone an organ for 9 months and then get it back when you're done with it, then this argument would be coherent. As is, I'd re-evaluate it if you have any intention of persuading someone on the opposite side of this issue.

Persuasion isn’t that important when the vast majority of the public already agrees with you.

Considering pregnancy can result in death (at a higher rate than kidney donation as noted elsewhere in the thread) as well as countless other long term conditions your 9 month limit doesn’t really make sense. But let’s say you could loan out a kidney for a few months, would you really find it acceptable for the state to forcibly seize your kidney to keep someone else alive?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com