Pro-Choice Arguments

[Diven]

Excellent argument! This is similar to an argument I stated a few months ago, but I was not convinced anyone took it seriously, so I stopped posting. But I can now see that someone cares about the rights of the pregnant woman, so I feel empowered to post again.

The argument in favor of abortion on the grounds of the the rights of the pregnant woman can be condensed as follows:

1. A pregnant woman is a human being.
2. All human beings have ownership rights over their own body (what you call "bodily integrity").
3. It follows from #1 and #2 that a pregnant woman owns her own body.
4. A person's blood is part of his or her body.
5. It follows from #3 and #4 that a pregnant woman owns the blood in her body.
6. A person's blood contains nutrients that are to be spent only in accordance with its owner's wishes. No one other than the owner has the right to decide how the nutrients in his or her bloodstream are spent, regardless of whether another's life depends on the nutrients in that bloodstream.
7. It follows from #5 and #6 that a pregnant woman has the exclusive right to determine how the nutrients in her bloodstream are spent, even if her decision results in the death of someone else.
8. The life of the fetus inside the pregnant woman depends upon the nutrients in the bloodstream of the pregnant woman.
9. It follows from #7 and #8 that the pregnant woman has the exclusive right to determine whether the nutrients in her bloodstream are spent on the life of the fetus.

Believe me: I really, truly, honestly don't know how to make the argument any clearer that that. If it was tedious to read, believe me--it was tedious to write, but I wrote it in such a way to make it as clear and airtight as possible. I truly cannot find any flaw in the above argument; I encourage the reader to try and find a flaw.

If there is no flaw, then we may conclude, once and for all, that a pregnant woman has the right to abort if she so desires. Whether or not the fetus has any rights is absolutely irrelevant; even if the fetus is a human being, and even if it has all of the rights of a 21-year-old (ha!), it still does not have the right to deprive its mother of her property, which includes the nutrients in her bloodstream. No one has the right to deprive a person of their property--not even a fetus.

The flaw in your argument is number 6. The nutrients in the blood are not part of the woman's body, they do not make up "bodily integrity". What are you basing this right on? Clearly I wouldn't have the right to demand the oxygen out of a woman's bloodstream, but that is because the means to acquire it would require an unnatural intervention. It would require violating bodily integrity. The woman's body works with the placenta in order to provide oxygen and nutrients to the child in a natural way. It does not violate bodily integrity. We have laws that require parents to provide basic needs to children, which would include food and access to oxygen. Can you explain why a woman should have a right to disrupt the natural flow of oxygen and nutrient to the developing child it requires to live?

 

[mercutio1562]

interesting stuff.

 

[Diven]

We also have laws that protect parents in the case that they are unable to meet the basic needs of their children. We allow them to cease care and hand them over to a agency or person who can. There's no harm, no foul, no penalty. This ensures that not only every parent is a willing parent, but every child is suitably cared for.

In the case of pregnancy, maintaining the basic need of the fetus comes at the expense of the woman. It impacts her health, her wellbeing, her lifestyle... Everything. If a woman is unwilling or unable to make that compromise, she needs the ability to opt out, for her best interests and the best interests of any resulting child. An abortion is her no-fault opt out, since one cannot transfer a pregnancy to somebody else. A fetus's care can't be taken and put somewhere else.

What is the difference between these two "opt-out" plans? In one every child is suitably cared for. In the other the child's life is terminated. In the first case the mother is providing care by handing over the child to someone who can care for it when she is unable. From my perspective unfortunately because a pregnancy cannot be transferred, and thus the only way to ensure the life and health of the child is to carry it to term then I feel that is what must be done. Unless there is a significant health risk, i.e. potentially fatal or leading to permanent disability, I cannot think of a reason why the rights of a woman over the period of 9 month would supersede the right to life of the child. Society needs to be responsible to limit the burden of the mother during the pregnancy, and to assist in catching up for the time lost.

Also, the main point of my post was to show the flaw in bodily integrity argument. A woman's body adapts to support the pregnancy, and no blood or organs are taken by the child. No one has presented an argument as to why oxygen and nutrients in the bloodstream and it's distribution right remain exclusive to the woman.

 

[Diven]

Which reflects the key difference in that a child's life has begun post-birth, and hasn't yet before it's born.
...
And the reason the rights of a woman are more important than the fetus would be that the woman is a living, breathing, born human being with rights. She is biologically independant, she has consciousness and self-awareness, and she's a legal entity. A fetus is not biologically independant, has no consciousness and self-awareness, and is a legal entity only because the woman is. The rights of a non-sentinent being that exists only because it is within another person, and grows and proceeds in its development only because the woman lives do not trump the rights of a person that it's in.

Scientifically there is no denying that a fetus, or even a zygote or embryo is living and is human. Technically it isn't breathing, but it is accomplishing cell respiration through the oxygen provided by the mother. I don't see how biological dependence impacts right to life. Consciousness and self-awareness (Personhood) is debatable, and is also debatable that it would matter. (All us now sentient beings were once in that state.) Legal entity is irrelevant as we get to choose what has legal entity.

There's no way for anybody to "catch up" for time lost during a pregnancy, no way to fix changes to the body that are with you forever, the changes in health, changes in lifestyle...

Specifically I'm referring catching up with schooling and being able to return to there jobs. Obviously that is time they won't ever get back, but few humans use time so effectively that, someone who choose to carry their child to birth before giving it up for adoption couldn't have a life very similar to one who choose to have an abortion, or never had an unplanned pregnancy.

I need some elaboration on the specific changes, health issues, and lifestyle changes that you are concerned with. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I simply am unaware of any that are of significant risk or are of significant magnitude, (and for health risk wouldn't be detected) that would feel justify ending the life of the unborn. Though of course there will be challenges that are very real, and are reasonable fears.

A woman's body adapts to support pregnancy, and that adaptation compromises her heath, changes her body, and impacts her health and wellbeing forever. Women die having babies. Women die during pregnancy. That's why she has the choice of if she wants to go through that risk or not.

Why does the oxygen and nutrients in the bloodstream remain exclusive to the woman? Because she's the one who took them in, it's her body. It's the same reason that I can't pound on your door, go up to your wife, and demand she give me a kidney.

I've already stated that I accept abortions if the woman's life is at risk, or if she faces permanent disability. I don't think fear of death due to complications in pregnancy is a very common reason women choose to have an abortion unless the problem has been identified, or they have known someone who has died due to complications.

No, the reason you won't be able to demand my wife for a kidney is because no-one exist who would be call my wife . In seriousness, I've already explained the difference between sharing organs and sharing nutrients. The majority of women stay in a state that would be considered healthy while these adaptions occur. The process of sharing the nutrients is little different then excess nutrients being extracted by the kidney and expelled through urine.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Tropical Wilds,

Which reflects the key difference in that a child's life has begun post-birth, and hasn't yet before it's born.

That’s nonsense a child can be born prematurely and its life begins, the life is ready to be born just before its born. The life starts at conception, without conception there will be no birth, with conception there naturally will.
The pro-choice thinking seems to have the idea that the mother is somehow doing the foetus a favour, this is one of the most selfish things I have heard, the foetus only came into existence because the mother and the father conceived, it didn’t have a say in it, its not the foetus fault.

And the reason the rights of a woman are more important than the fetus would be that the woman is a living, breathing, born human being with rights. She is biologically independant,

That cant be right, you leave a new born baby alone and see it die, the baby isn’t biologically independent either.

The woman has no rights, if the woman has willingly conceive with a man its their responsibility and the woman will bear the child. Pro-choice is in my view complete ignorance.

 

[rcorlew]

Here is just one example of hypocrisy in laws:

• • • MCL 750.90a Intentional conduct against a pregnant individual; resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth resulting in death or great bodily harm to embryo or fetus; degrees of punishment

• • • MCL 750.90b Intentional conduct against a pregnant individual; resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth resulting in death or great bodily harm, serious or aggravated physical injury to embryo or fetus

Note that all 50 states have laws just like this that punish any action resulting in miscarriage or still birth. How can this be, only humans get this preservation of life protection under the law right, you don't go to jail for eating a hamburger or broccoli.

 

[lux et lex]

Which reflects the key difference in that a child's life has begun post-birth, and hasn't yet before it's born.



There's no way for anybody to "catch up" for time lost during a pregnancy, no way to fix changes to the body that are with you forever, the changes in health, changes in lifestyle...

And the reason the rights of a woman are more important than the fetus would be that the woman is a living, breathing, born human being with rights. She is biologically independant, she has consciousness and self-awareness, and she's a legal entity. A fetus is not biologically independant, has no consciousness and self-awareness, and is a legal entity only because the woman is. The rights of a non-sentinent being that exists only because it is within another person, and grows and proceeds in its development only because the woman lives do not trump the rights of a person that it's in.

Also, the main point of my post was to show the flaw in bodily integrity argument. A woman's body adapts to support the pregnancy, and no blood or organs are taken by the child. No one has presented an argument as to why oxygen and nutrients in the bloodstream and it's distribution right remain exclusive to the woman.

A woman's body adapts to support pregnancy, and that adaptation compromises her heath, changes her body, and impacts her health and wellbeing forever. Women die having babies. Women die during pregnancy. That's why she has the choice of if she wants to go through that risk or not.

Why does the oxygen and nutrients in the bloodstream remain exclusive to the woman? Because she's the one who took them in, it's her body. It's the same reason that I can't pound on your door, go up to your wife, and demand she give me a kidney.[/quote]

This is exactly it.

And I'd have to counter brightmorningstar to say that the pro life (err...anti choice) view is complete ignorance and the name is a fallacy in and of itself. You're willing to bomb clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions...sounds really pro life to me. No pro choice advocate ever killed a pro life advocate for their beliefs.

I'm a volunteer at our local abortion clinic. It's my job to safely escort her into and out of the clinic away from the protesting masses who have been known to hurt and throw things at women entering and exiting the clinic. I've never seen a woman come in there and say this was the easiest decision she's ever made.

 

[lux et lex]

I didn't say anything that wasn't true...

 

[rcorlew]

And I'd have to counter brightmorningstar to say that the pro life (err...anti choice) view is complete ignorance and the name is a fallacy in and of itself. You're willing to bomb clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions...sounds really pro life to me. No pro choice advocate ever killed a pro life advocate for their beliefs.

Very few pro-lifers have ever done any of the things you describe.

You may want to check this link and doa search for more occurrences of anti-pro-life behavior.

http://www.gargaro.com/otherside.html

 

[lux et lex]

Because i would trust a "pro life" website to present unbiased information....

 

[Libre]

There are very good and sound legal reasons why the choice lies with the mother. And good and sound moral reasons as well. They extend beyond the issue of abortion. They are the basis of legal abortion, and the reason why it will stand as law.

 

[Ave Maria]

If a woman is raped and she fears pregnancy, she should be given the morning after pill (Plan B) as soon as possible. Unfortunately, many religious hospitals will not allow this. That is why the Freedom of Choice Act is a good idea. It would force such hospitals to allow the patient access to all treatment options.

If a woman is raped and gets pregnant, there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting an abortion. It is the woman's body. She shouldn't be forced to carry around a fetus for 9 months. That is just cruel.

Also, I have no problems with abortions in any case. It is the woman's right to get an abortion.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

This is exactly why the choice should be left up to the woman. If a woman chooses to carry the child of her attacker to term that's fine, but one should be forced to do so against her will.

I have two problems with this:

1. The abandonment of moral absolutes. Victimization is not justification for sin.

2. This completely ignores the rights of the child.

 

[UnderHisWings1979]

"This is exactly it.

And I'd have to counter brightmorningstar to say that the pro life (err...anti choice) view is complete ignorance and the name is a fallacy in and of itself. You're willing to bomb clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions...sounds really pro life to me. No pro choice advocate ever killed a pro life advocate for their beliefs.

I'm a volunteer at our local abortion clinic. It's my job to safely escort her into and out of the clinic away from the protesting masses who have been known to hurt and throw things at women entering and exiting the clinic. I've never seen a woman come in there and say this was the easiest decision she's ever made."

Not exactly true. Please be careful when making such generalizations. I do not support bombing clinics. In fact, I would agree that those actions are more reprehensible than abortion. However, pro-life protesters have been killed before, it just doesn't get the same publicity. That aside, attacking the morality of a few individuals who hold a view does not negate the view (like saying that because a boat of environmentalists tried to board a naval aircraft carrier and open fire on it, we should ignore environmentalism).

 

[Libre]

I have two problems with this:

1. The abandonment of moral absolutes. Victimization is not justification for sin.

2. This completely ignores the rights of the child.

Moral absolutes? Then all killing should be wrong. Including war. And, even in the Old Testament, the unborn child had no special status. Today many Jews do not see abortion as sin. Some do, of course. But abortion existed in primitive forms from way before the time of Jesus, and He said nothing about it.

True Christianity is not about absolutes, but about relationship with Jesus. Living in the power of the Holy Spirit, and growing in our knowledge of Him. It's not laid out in rules, and can be very individual and subjective. And it is definitely not a life that the unregenerate can live. They neither have the power nor the desire to do so. The best way to counter abortion is to make disciples. Care for the abandoned and needy. Not pass laws. And not pass by. But instead be His hands and feet.

 

[Ave Maria]

I have two problems with this:

1. The abandonment of moral absolutes. Victimization is not justification for sin.

2. This completely ignores the rights of the child.

I am just going to respond to point number 2. I hate to tell you this but when it comes to abortion and pregnancy, there is no child involved. There is only a fetus involved and that fetus has no rights.

 

[lux et lex]

I am just going to respond to point number 2. I hate to tell you this but when it comes to abortion and pregnancy, there is no child involved. There is only a fetus involved and that fetus has no rights.

I couldn't say this better myself.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

I am just going to respond to point number 2. I hate to tell you this but when it comes to abortion and pregnancy, there is no child involved. There is only a fetus involved and that fetus has no rights.

Is there an argument in there? From a philosophical stand point, a fetus is a human being because it has within it the nature of a human person, even though not all its "abilities" have come into actuality, it is dignified nonetheless. I noticed you are Catholic, well so am I...so I'm willing to explain to you Catholic Arguments if you want that work from reason to support why a fetus is a life if you are interested.

 

[LightHorseman]

Universal implanon implants for all consenting 16 year olds, replaced every two years until declined or requested removed.

End of problem.