[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Katganistan]

This question of mine -- rather an interesting equivalent about bodily sovereignty v. preserving life at all costs, I thought -- never got answered. I open it up to other pro-lifers:

So, just to move on that "there is a societal interest in people not dying", and go back to my point about McFall v Shrimp, would you like to overturn that ruling?

A direct yes/no answer: would you like to make it legal to force a person to -- against their will (despite any concerns about their health, because anaesthesia carries risks as does the procedure; despite the time they'd have to take out of their lives to do it; over any religious objections they may have) -- have to donate bone marrow to a born, compatible party?

Would you like to be forced to donate bone marrow to a compatible party?

(And this comparison is pretty direct. The ruling was even made only a few years after Roe v. Wade)

EDIT for clarity: McFall v Shrimp dealt with two first cousins: Robert McFall had anaplastic anaemia. His only match (and best shot of survival -- a bone marrow donation would have given him a 50-60% chance of survival) was his first cousin, David Shrimp. McFall sued Shrimp in an effort to force him to donate and lost (the judge stated forcing someone to donate bone marrow "would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn."). McFall subsequently died.

Ah. So to sum up:
1) Bodily Sovereignty does exist.
2) The law recognizes that it exists.
3) The precedent has been set that NO ONE can force another to donate their body for another person's benefit.
4) The precedent further involved family members, ergo the argument that the woman OWES IT to her unplanned/unwanted fetus to give up her health, her calcium, her time, and her body is in fact counter to existing law.

[The Free Joy State]

This question of mine -- rather an interesting equivalent about bodily sovereignty v. preserving life at all costs, I thought -- never got answered. I open it up to other pro-lifers:



EDIT for clarity: McFall v Shrimp dealt with two first cousins: Robert McFall had anaplastic anaemia. His only match (and best shot of survival -- a bone marrow donation would have given him a 50-60% chance of survival) was his first cousin, David Shrimp. McFall sued Shrimp in an effort to force him to donate and lost (the judge stated forcing someone to donate bone marrow "would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn."). McFall subsequently died.

Ah. So to sum up:
1) Bodily Sovereignty does exist.
2) The law recognizes that it exists.
3) The precedent has been set that NO ONE can force another to donate their body for another person's benefit.
4) The precedent further involved family members, ergo the argument that the woman OWES IT to her unplanned/unwanted fetus to give up her health, her calcium, her time, and her body is in fact counter to existing law.

Actually, the McFall v Shimp ruling contains an additional handy comparison with the pro-choice/pro-life argument.

While making the ruling, the Judge, Judge John P. Flaherty Jr., admitted to being uncomfortable with his own ruling (saying he actually found the cousin who refused to donate "morally indefensible" in the judgement), but that he could not order Shimp to endure an intrusion of his body (with the quote cited before).

I think that's quite a useful mirror for the many pro-choicers (including me) who are personally uncomfortable about abortion, but simultaneously acknowledge that it's unethical to try and control the bodily choices of others.

Here's the actual judgement. Really interesting reading. This is another extract:

For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence.

[Katganistan]

*nod* That does indeed describe my position then, The Free Joy State. I am personally uncomfortable with abortion; I might not have chosen it for myself had I had an unplanned pregnancy, but I absolutely will not support someone else to be forced into risking health, financial situation, life, mental health and reputation for a third party's feels.

[Frievolk]

Ah. So to sum up:
1) Bodily Sovereignty does exist.
2) The law recognizes that it exists.
3) The precedent has been set that NO ONE can force another to donate their body for another person's benefit.
4) The precedent further involved family members, ergo the argument that the woman OWES IT to her unplanned/unwanted fetus to give up her health, her calcium, her time, and her body is in fact counter to existing law.

Actually, the McFall v Shimp ruling contains an additional handy comparison with the pro-choice/pro-life argument.

While making the ruling, the Judge, Judge John P. Flaherty Jr., admitted to being uncomfortable with his own ruling (saying he actually found the cousin who refused to donate "morally indefensible" in the judgement), but that he could not order Shimp to endure an intrusion of his body (with the quote cited before).

I think that's quite a useful mirror for the many pro-choicers (including me) who are personally uncomfortable about abortion, but simultaneously acknowledge that it's unethical to try and control the bodily choices of others.

Here's the actual judgement. Really interesting reading. This is another extract:

For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence.

I would support this position if I did actually find myself personally uncomfortable about abortion. For all intents and purposes though, I follow the "her body, only her choice" position.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm pro-choice, as long as the parents aren't aborting on discriminatory grounds such as the child's gender or perceived disability.

[Vassenor]

Looks like SCOTUS punted the question of whether states have the right to block Planned Parenthood services from Medicaid programs.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Looks like SCOTUS punted the question of whether states have the right to block Planned Parenthood services from Medicaid programs.

Shame about what that means for the Eighth Circuit though.

[Vassenor]

Looks like SCOTUS punted the question of whether states have the right to block Planned Parenthood services from Medicaid programs.

Shame about what that means for the Eighth Circuit though.

How so?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Shame about what that means for the Eighth Circuit though.

How so?

One of the cases dealt with whether people could sue the state for excluding PP from medicaid. SCOTUS kicking it back meant it held up the lower court rulings, and the 8th circuit was the only one that said nyet to the idea.

Basically means those affected states can cut PP from medicaid coverage without legal repercussions, if I read that part correctly.

[Zex]

Abortion is a dumb issue and it is objectively brought further down by the "people" who partake in it. This is not an issue worth my political activism in either direction.

[Zex]

How so?

One of the cases dealt with whether people could sue the state for excluding PP from medicaid. SCOTUS kicking it back meant it held up the lower court rulings, and the 8th circuit was the only one that said nyet to the idea.

Basically means those affected states can cut PP from medicaid coverage without legal repercussions, if I read that part correctly.

Good, lower taxes, this is how the debate on abortion should be framed.

[Keuliseu]

I am happily pro-choice. In any circumstance.

[Mardla]

I don't believe in human rights, so you gotta elaborate in the nature of the rights you are referring to.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I don't believe in human rights, so you gotta elaborate in the nature of the rights you are referring to.

It would be a moot issue. If you don’t believe in human rights you have no cause to favor either side.

Though in this case the OP focuses on rights enumerated in the US constitution.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

One of the cases dealt with whether people could sue the state for excluding PP from medicaid. SCOTUS kicking it back meant it held up the lower court rulings, and the 8th circuit was the only one that said nyet to the idea.

Basically means those affected states can cut PP from medicaid coverage without legal repercussions, if I read that part correctly.

Good, lower taxes, this is how the debate on abortion should be framed.

Okey, how ‘bout “There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without disrupting anyone’s access to such services, and executing those policies would save more money than is spent.”?

Best O’ both worlds, neh?

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

In a conflict of rights between a woman and a zygote/fetus/etc, who do you side with?

The really frustrating thing about questions like this is that with education, economic stability, meaningful health care, and access to affordable and safe birth control, there is no conflict; people could who do what/whom-ever they like and abortion wouldn't be a thing.

[<sigh>]

But, baring the painfully obviously correct solution,my personal response goes roughly in the following phases:

1. Before any theoretical capacity for the perception of pain on the part of the fetus: The Mother unconditionally
2. Between the point of said theoretical capacity and independent viability of the fetus: The Fetus conditionally (where life and limb is on the line, abortion is both necessary and reasonable)
3. Post-point of independent viability: The Fetus unconditionally.

If previous experience can be relied upon, phase 1 means I hate children and am going to Hell, and 2 means pro- and anti-choice force alike have hitched half my limbs each to mutually opposing horses about to set off at a gallop. Opposition to 3 probably generally means support for infanticide, which, thankfully, is relatively rare all around.

Meanwhile, I'll be over here in the land of free and safe contraception where the issue is mostly moot.

EDIT: On second thoughts, sane and safe access to contraception doesn't actually obviate the question of abortion, precisely because the problem of the wanted pregnancy gone life-threateningly awry still remains. I mean, contraception obviates abortion most, but not, unfortunately, all of the time. So I guess it's a legit question after all. Also, I should probably clarify that the above phases don't actually describe my opinions regarding the legality of abortion. I question the morality of abortion outside of life-saving need in phase 2 above, but I cannot shake the sneaking suspicion that attempts at legal remedies will make things far, far worse. The is probably why I'd turn to free and plentiful contraception raining down everywhere as the preferable non-punitive solution.

[Menassa]

Does a zygote/fetus/human etc. have a right to use their mother's body to stay alive?

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

Does a zygote...have a right to use their mother's body to stay alive?

Since a zygote almost certainly lacks any capacity to suffer the loss of any such supposed right, I would venture that no such right exists.

Does a fetus...have a right to use their mother's body to stay alive?

To the extent that a fetus is capable of suffering pain (of the sort perhaps likely to be encountered in the process of being aborted), possibly yes. At least until the point at which the fetus is effectively independent viable, or can be supported separately from the mother (which as medical technology improves, will be at a sooner and sooner point). At which point the duty to fetus can be transferred to another guardian.

Does a human...have a right to use their mother's body to stay alive?

The duty of a parent/guardian to safeguard a child is generally recognized, although it is transferable. "Adoption" is just the process described in the previous point above, but applied to the infant born and up.

[Menassa]

Does a fetus...have a right to use their mother's body to stay alive?

To the extent that a fetus is capable of suffering pain (of the sort perhaps likely to be encountered in the process of being aborted), possibly yes. At least until the point at which the fetus is effectively independent viable, or can be supported separately from the mother (which as medical technology improves, will be at a sooner and sooner point). At which point the duty to fetus can be transferred to another guardian.

So a fetus has the right to use someone else's body to stay alive?

Does a human...have a right to use their mother's body to stay alive?

The duty of a parent/guardian to safeguard a child is generally recognized, although it is transferable. "Adoption" is just the process described in the previous point above, but applied to the infant born and up.

So if the human is a child, it has a right to use the mother's body to stay alive? While if the human were not the child of the body it would not have such a right?

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

So a fetus has the right to use someone else's body to stay alive?

Maybe. To the extent it is capable of suffering a loss, primarily in the perception of pain, I would tend toward thinking yes, the fetus has rights that must be considered. I would, however, warn that any such rights cannot be absolute because they inevitably run up against the rights of the host body in certain life-threatening situations (ectopic pregnancy is the go-to, but by no means exclusive, example).

Any answer to this question cannot be as simply as "the fetus has rights, therefore abortion bad." Whatever God might think, Nature has not blessed us with such simple solutions.

So if the human is a child, it has a right to use the mother's body to stay alive? While if the human were not the child of the body it would not have such a right?

I think we might be in danger of getting lost in semantic arguments about what is a "child" or "human" or whatever else here. We should avoid this, because these labels are largely beside the point. I will fully grant that the entity in question, beginning at the zygote, is fully human and a child. I believe my response concerning its rights, as described above, still holds.

[Mardla]

I don't believe in human rights, so you gotta elaborate in the nature of the rights you are referring to.

It would be a moot issue. If you don’t believe in human rights you have no cause to favor either side.

Though in this case the OP focuses on rights enumerated in the US constitution.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee any rights which conflict with another person's rights. It only protects u from the Federal gpvnmt

[Menassa]

So a fetus has the right to use someone else's body to stay alive?

Maybe. To the extent it is capable of suffering a loss, primarily in the perception of pain, I would tend toward thinking yes, the fetus has rights that must be considered. I would, however, warn that any such rights cannot be absolute because they inevitably run up against the rights of the host body in certain life-threatening situations (ectopic pregnancy is the go-to, but by no means exclusive, example).

Any answer to this question cannot be as simply as "the fetus has rights, therefore abortion bad." Whatever God might think, Nature has not blessed us with such simple solutions.

So the fetus may have a right to use another's body to stay alive against the will of that person?

So if the human is a child, it has a right to use the mother's body to stay alive? While if the human were not the child of the body it would not have such a right?

I think we might be in danger of getting lost in semantic arguments about what is a "child" or "human" or whatever else here. We should avoid this, because these labels are largely beside the point. I will fully grant that the entity in question, beginning at the zygote is fully human and a child. I believe my response concerning its rights, as described above, still holds.

You had mentioned child in the context of parental duty which I reciprocated. The Parent of said child, has to give up their body for the fetus to the extent that the life of the parent is not threatened? Is that what you are saying.

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

So the fetus may have a right to use another's body to stay alive against the will of that person?

In some situations, maybe yes. In other situations (as where the fetus presents a direct threat to the life/safety of the host), probably not.

[Menassa]

So the fetus may have a right to use another's body to stay alive against the will of that person?

In some situations, maybe yes. In other situations (as where the fetus presents a direct threat to the life/safety of the host), probably not.

What makes the fetus have a right to use anything against anyone's will? Assuming the fetus is a full grown person, would we say that this person has the right to use other's to stay alive?

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

In some situations, maybe yes. In other situations (as where the fetus presents a direct threat to the life/safety of the host), probably not.

What makes the fetus have a right to use anything against anyone's will? Assuming the fetus is a full grown person, would we say that this person has the right to use other's to stay alive?

If the fetus can suffer a loss (which, at its stage of development, will primarily be the perception of pain) then it probably holds that others, including the host, are obligated to refrain from inflicting such pain without good reason. This, arguably, means that the fetus has rights against another's person. A "full grown person" has the same rights, for largely the same reasons; you are perfectly within your rights, for instance, to restrain me from randomly punching you in the nose. You have a legitimate claim against my person.