We need to drop the "my body my choice" cliche. The entire crux of the disagreement is whether it is really just your body, or whether it is two bodies.
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.
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.
A significant portion of the US doesn't think there is a meaningful distinction.
If you need me to explain now these are different things you're the problem.
You can drop a baby at a hospital, but you can't drop them in the trash.
If you find the word "similar" so hostile you can't have an conversation that contains it, there is no room for intelligent discourse.
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.
Plenty of people are still not vaccinated by choice.
This is not quite correct. Some people were vaccinated against their will. Some old folks homes in the EU vaccinated residents even if they did not consent, for example.
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.
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
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.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-...
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?
"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/b...
You cant invite someone out on a boat ride and then evict them while out at sea in the "most gentle manner feasible". The degree to which conception equates to invitation is certainly debatable, but it is an elephant in the room.
Similarly, if the trespass is allowed for long enough, questions of adverse possession and de facto easements come into play.
Before birth, he may sue for his sperm, or the equivalent, back. The truth is before birth absolutely nothing is physiologically required of the father. Yes, there’s clearly a cultural role for the father before birth, but that’s not actually necessary for the woman to give birth. They really don’t enter into the equation. After birth, sure, there’s plenty of precedent for that and I won’t argue that here.
Regarding evictionism, I have to admit that I too find the idea of very late term, elective abortions distasteful. However, the act of giving birth itself is very dangerous for women, so just because her pregnancy has been without complication doesn’t mean she won’t die giving birth.
Being pregnant can kill you. Giving birth can kill you. Birth and pregnancy are mortal dangers. We need to let women choose themselves over their baby if that’s what they desire.
And of course the truth is most will choose to have the baby. If reducing the number of abortions was ever the real goal we’d have free contraception for everyone and the state would pay for all pre-natal and birthing medical expenses.
There’d still be some, but there’d be far, far fewer.
A live birth is much less dangerous than the flu so this isn't really a good argument. I agree that women should be able to commit abortions, at least for the first trimester or so, but I wouldn't say that the danger of live birth is a good motivation for it. The most important reason is to give women who aren't ready to be mothers yet more time to prepare so they are ready and actually want the child before they give birth.
I don’t think it matters. Women do die from it. It is the woman’s choice to take that risk or not, regardless of how big or small that risk is.
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?
You can leave your newborn at any hospital in the US no questions asked if you do not want them.
You’re misunderstanding what bodily autonomy means. By you argument, prisons should not exist.
> 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.
I will state my point directly:
To me, arguing that a person has no obligation to care for an unborn human they created is no different than arguing that a person has no obligation to care for a 1 month old they created. I don't see the process of birth as some factor in determining whether someone is a human or not. Please note this is entirely separate from the concept of when someone is a human. I'm all for abortions of non-human-yet things should the mother be desirous.
Except, in our society you do not have that obligation. Just leave them at the hospital.
Of course, you will have to create odd situations where this doesn't work to support your flawed argument, because you're a luddite and have a smol brain.
There are FUCKING ZERO situations outside of abortion where you can give up your care for the baby while pregnant, nevermind the many other differences where pregnancy is much more serious for the mother than having a 1mo old.
He covers the issue of parents having to care for children and concludes that they would not be legally required to do so. Go ahead and go to Vegas for a weekend and if the baby can't figure out how to survive on its own that's not legally your problem.
His argument for why this would not lead to the large number of baby deaths by neglect that probably most people reading this are sure it would is that adoption would not be regulated in his ideal libertarian state. There would be a totally free market in babies. You could make a lot more than you'd ever win in Vegas in a weekend by first putting your unwanted baby up for sale.
I don't find his arguments very convincing, but it is interesting if you treat it more as an intellectual puzzle than how you would actually set up a society.
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).
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?
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?
They believe: Marriage is between a man and a woman only. Sex is for procreation only between married couples. And the only reason someone would need an abortion is because she either had sex out of wedlock like a harlot, got herself raped, had an affair, or something else untoward. As such, she deserves punishment, not the baby (and definitely not the man). Contraception only helps women get away with this stuff.
And if you think this stuff all weirdly leans towards giving the man in the relationship full control: Bingo. I'm sure these assholes will eventually get around to picking apart Title IX and women's suffrage if they get through their starter list, here.
So, no, the crux of the argument isn't the number of bodies involved one or two — it's whether adult Americans, with the full fundamental freedoms of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be allowed to have sex how they want and with whom they want.
The abortion part is the only part that really gets traction, which is why that's what they focus on.
That's a component of the disagreement, but it certainly isn't all of it or even most of it.
But abortion, this one relatively narrow, highly-specific thing. That they're all over. Why?
1. You're talking about a coalition like it was one person monomaniacally organized around one idea, which us unlikely to give true insight about that coalition.
2. It also feels that you likely have a distorted view (e.g. taking a oversimple slogan, interpreting it through your views, then misunderstanding the people who use it by imposing your interpretation on them).
3. Also, there are likely subsets of that coalition that actually believe very close to how you think they should (e.g. my impression is the Catholic Church is pretty close).
The entire disagreement is a made up political wedge that is held by a minority of a particular religion which for the most part is actually against their very own holy book. A book that is full of actual "baby" killing and not just lumps of unborn cells which actually weren't recognized by any religions as a "baby" until someone decided to apply their "go forth and multiply" attitude which also bans all forms of birth control, as well as sex for any purpose other than reproduction.
And in the end, its terrible policy, and will do nothing to reduce actual abortions. Given it only slightly inconveniences those with means, and likely results in an even worse maternal death rates as women are pushed to the point of mortal jeopardy before being provided health care (and if you don't think a large number of the terminations are due to either failures of fetus to develop properly/etc then your living in a larger fantasy) as is happening in TX now. A place where there are actual legislators suggesting that women having abortions should now be given the death penalty.
Calling the anti-abortion croud a 'minority of a particular religion' I think is also an understatement - according to polling c40% of Americans would consider themselves 'Pro-Life' (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). IMHO it's better to 'strong-man' the other sides arguments (I think you are over simplifying the pro-life viewpoint and are too quick to dismiss their views - let's remember that neither side has an absolute moral truth, and that it's possible to be educated, rational and pro-life).
I personally absolutely support a woman's right to get an abortion, and am from the UK, but looking from afar at the debate in the USA it seems more like a war of slogans than a rational discussion.
AKA there are plenty of "conservatives" who are horrified by the decision.
The whole point from OP though is just that nuanced debate isn't possible in a world where soundbites rule.
I know several people that are "pro life" in the sense that they would not get an abortion themselves. They call themselves "pro life". But they also don't try to restrict the choices of others and don't think abortions should be illegal.
(i.e. You could support women getting abortions, but also believe that this should be determined democratically at the level of the state)
This is why things are much more nuanced than simple soundbites can manage to handle!
- Do you agree with having abortions?
- Do you think abortions should be regulated at the federal level?
- Do you think abortions should be legal?
probably many other dimensions.
- Do you think abortions should be determined by legislature rather than the judiciary?
(i.e. Roe vs Wade was tenuous from a legal perspective, and IMO a supreme court shouldn't be able to make it's own laws up which I think this veered into, even though I 100% agree with a woman's right to abortions!).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/393275/steady-americans-not-roe...
The UK is, of course, not immune to this on its own culture war issues.
In any debate, people should at the very least be talking about the same thing
This is a huge part of the "debate". The two sides aren't even talking about the same issue because they haven't agreed on common language defining what the issue even is.
There isn't a 'correct' answer you can just reason your way to when conflicts of values are involved, because people with different value systems have different initial premises.
I think OP's point was that they should articulate their position rather than rely on soundbites, particularly soundbites that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
For instance, 'My Body, My Right' could also be a slogan for allowing very late-term abortions.
That's part of the challenge. A non trivial portion of the pro-choice camp do in fact support unrestricted late term abortions.
i.e. They are designed so anyone can read them and fit their already held beliefs onto them. There is a some kind of interpretation of 'My Body, My Right' that can fit to almost any view on the whole political spectrum.
Largely because most late term abortions were the result of nonviable pregnancies. The laws in many of these states have already made that an uncomfortable proposition as women were given the choice of trying to bring obviously defective pregnancies to term, stillbirth is still a thing, and is particularly high in many of the sh$&thole states where women don't have good prenatal care.
I personally saw what it did to a woman I knew personally a few years ago. Due to TX's incredibly stupid laws, when the ultrasounds came back that the baby basically didn't have 1/2 a brain, sever spina bifida, and a few other details I don't remember. The woman was given the choice of trying to carry it to term at risk to her life, or abort it. And due to the timing, literally had to decide that day, then had to listen to its heartbeat, and listen to a bunch state mandated christian propaganda, sit around for 24 hours and then was allowed to terminate. All this bullshit magnified her sorrow. Losing a child one wants is bad enough, having to put up with a bunch of state mandated bullshit designed to make you feel bad and f*&k with your head? Criminal.
Without those laws, she probably would have waited at least a couple days to come to terms with the whole thing. I'm guessing some women in less clear cut circumstances might have waited to see how it develops until it was obviously nonviable resulting in a later term abortion.
The real criminals here are the ones in the legislature, and should be held responsible for the pain and suffering they cause.
I'm not making the argument that they shouldn't.
Rather, we were discussing the interesting situation where people that don't believe in unrestricted late term abortion use the same phrase.
It is interesting because it can ratchet up disagreement by signaling a more extreme position than they actually hold.
Pro-life and pro-choice are such poorly defined positions that someone with a middle option can easily classify as either
Not really. That’s a pseudo-philosophical framing that anti-abortionists prefer, because it hides the real world consequence of their little thought experiment: forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies, and to raise unwanted children.
“One vs two body” is little more than semantics. Fact is, carrying pregnancies and raising the resulting child is the heaviest burden that a citizen can ever carry for the state. The state has no way to adequately compensate the citizen for such service, so instead they offer the freedom of choice. That’s the implicit social contract behind abortion policies; it’s got nothing to do with anyone’s metaphysical interpretation of a pregnant woman’s anatomy.