I agree with the result of your conclusion but I disagree with your central premise. We do have laws to protect rights in the future. Those laws, though, don’t protect individual rights, they protect the rights of the society as a whole.
I the case of the fetus, it is arguable as to when the fetus gains rights of its own, but I don’t think that a newly fertilized egg immediately gains rights. Something like the morning after pill, abortion at 6 weeks, or even abortion at 12 or 20 weeks doesn’t constitute “murder in self defense” in my mind. I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere before that even becomes a consideration.
Once you do cross that line, though, we do get to your argument and your logic holds I think.
my body, my choice is all the logic we need. Don’t try to argue or draw debates. It will only divide it will only give them some sort of sense that their argument holds water. There is nothing but ‘my body, my choice.’
I don’t think that your argument is going to win back women’s right to choose. “My body my choice” in the way that you are using it, with no gray area or caveats, implies that abortion should be legal up to the time of birth. That’s going to be a tough idea to get agreement on, even from many people who are pro-choice.
I am pro-choice but, if we want women to be able to choose for themselves, we do need to argue I good faith and make some reasonable compromises I think.
Who do you think is carrying a baby for nearly 9 months then saying “Well, I better get that abortion in now before it’s too late!”
This doesn’t happen the way you’ve implied. People who are aborting with no fault don’t wait till near full term. And when an abortion does happens that late term, as rare as it is, it’s always because of an unviable fetus or an at risk of death mother. We absolutely should help people in those situations, and any restrictions on abortion, any ambiguity or vagueness in terminology, even directed only at late term abortions, can and will be used to prevent care to those who really need it.
I actually thought about saying exactly what you’re saying but didn’t want to muddy my argument. My point is, even if it should be a choice between a mother and her doctor, that argument isn’t going to win the day. Too many people will point to later term abortions as an argument against full-on “my body my choice”. It is too easy to convince people that is allowing murder…
What is actually does is leave the choice of abortion up to birth between a pregnant person and their doctor, up until birth. I can’t go into a doctor and demand whatever treatment I want because it’s my body.
It really doesn’t matter because doctors are not going to abort after viability because of their oath to do no harm. The only abortions at that time are a threat to the mother or the birth would be closely followed by death from a severe disease or defect.
Laws that require a second opinion are the only logical compromise because anything else will negatively impact many, many women with no positive outcome for the potential future person. Even that is a compromise and will have a negative impact, but at least it would still be limited to a medical decision and not some legal criteria written in a way that doesn’t fit each pregnancy.
That said, very few doctors actually perform late term abortions anyways (even though these are almost universally due to complicating medical scenarios and not for funsies).
That is a little nitpicky. The article you linked says medical schools do have doctors take the hippocratic or similar oath. The relevant part from the hippocratic oath is pretty much what people think of when they think “do no harm”:
“I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.”
Your stance is not incompatible with mine; my meta stance is solely that there is a discussion to have. As opposed to the person in this thread pretending like it’s an objective fact instead of a societal judgement.
I do not specifically carve out an exception for late term abortion because no one is actually waiting 6 months before deciding whether to carry to term. The people getting late term abortions are doing it because they must due to medical reasons.
I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.
If hypothetically speaking I bury a land mine in a field-- does it matter if the person who eventually dies because of my actions was born before or after I buried the mine? Is when they were born in relation to my actions relevant at all?
I don’t know if land mines are part of it, but there are munitions that are considered a war crime to be used because the are likely to harm someone in some unspecified future.
You’re cherry picking their argument to prove your point btw.
They compared the mother’s current life (and possible other children by proxy) with the value of a potential future person.
Your argument ignores the burden being placed on the mom and her family. Also, you’re conflating the gift of life a mom gives a child with the moral responsibility of not leaving weapons around.
Do you see the difference? You’re turning pregnancy into an obligation or a responsibility. Sound like any talking points you hear on the right?
I am not arguing against choice at all; I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” is not a rational argument for whether or not it deserves protection under the law.
I followed the thread and saw where you are coming from.
People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.
And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.
And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.
Can you do me a solid and quote the exact place where I did this? It wasn’t my intent and I want to take care not to make the same error in the future.
People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.
Yes, I am saying that you can still be pro-choice while believing that a zygote has rights.
I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.
You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life. Your hypothetical doesn’t address this because not leaving dangerous things around for others to find is a responsibility, not a right. In other words, you pitted your responsibilities vs. a future person’s right to live and that’s a much different debate than pitting rights against one another.
As to your last comment, you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to her bodily autonomy. Because this is the exact argument pro-birthers are using to justify incest and rape births.
Yes but a mine can kill a real life person who can be injured or die which has a real world negative effect on society. A person having an abortion has no impact on society outside of some lame thought experiment. Have you read this famous essay about the morality of requiring someone to continue a pregnancy?
I was only pointing out that we do care what happens to people even if they haven’t been born at the time the actions take place. Because many people believe, in error, that “the zygote hasn’t been born yet” is evidence that we should not care what happens to it.
I agree with the result of your conclusion but I disagree with your central premise. We do have laws to protect rights in the future. Those laws, though, don’t protect individual rights, they protect the rights of the society as a whole.
I the case of the fetus, it is arguable as to when the fetus gains rights of its own, but I don’t think that a newly fertilized egg immediately gains rights. Something like the morning after pill, abortion at 6 weeks, or even abortion at 12 or 20 weeks doesn’t constitute “murder in self defense” in my mind. I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere before that even becomes a consideration.
Once you do cross that line, though, we do get to your argument and your logic holds I think.
my body, my choice is all the logic we need. Don’t try to argue or draw debates. It will only divide it will only give them some sort of sense that their argument holds water. There is nothing but ‘my body, my choice.’
I don’t think that your argument is going to win back women’s right to choose. “My body my choice” in the way that you are using it, with no gray area or caveats, implies that abortion should be legal up to the time of birth. That’s going to be a tough idea to get agreement on, even from many people who are pro-choice.
I am pro-choice but, if we want women to be able to choose for themselves, we do need to argue I good faith and make some reasonable compromises I think.
Who do you think is carrying a baby for nearly 9 months then saying “Well, I better get that abortion in now before it’s too late!”
This doesn’t happen the way you’ve implied. People who are aborting with no fault don’t wait till near full term. And when an abortion does happens that late term, as rare as it is, it’s always because of an unviable fetus or an at risk of death mother. We absolutely should help people in those situations, and any restrictions on abortion, any ambiguity or vagueness in terminology, even directed only at late term abortions, can and will be used to prevent care to those who really need it.
I actually thought about saying exactly what you’re saying but didn’t want to muddy my argument. My point is, even if it should be a choice between a mother and her doctor, that argument isn’t going to win the day. Too many people will point to later term abortions as an argument against full-on “my body my choice”. It is too easy to convince people that is allowing murder…
What is actually does is leave the choice of abortion up to birth between a pregnant person and their doctor, up until birth. I can’t go into a doctor and demand whatever treatment I want because it’s my body.
It really doesn’t matter because doctors are not going to abort after viability because of their oath to do no harm. The only abortions at that time are a threat to the mother or the birth would be closely followed by death from a severe disease or defect.
Laws that require a second opinion are the only logical compromise because anything else will negatively impact many, many women with no positive outcome for the potential future person. Even that is a compromise and will have a negative impact, but at least it would still be limited to a medical decision and not some legal criteria written in a way that doesn’t fit each pregnancy.
Doctors do no take an oath not to do harm. That’s a myth:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/first-do-no-harm-201510138421#:~:text=While some medical schools ask,the Hippocratic Oath at all.
That said, very few doctors actually perform late term abortions anyways (even though these are almost universally due to complicating medical scenarios and not for funsies).
Sure and I’m all for that - I just know that’s a pervasive myth
That is a little nitpicky. The article you linked says medical schools do have doctors take the hippocratic or similar oath. The relevant part from the hippocratic oath is pretty much what people think of when they think “do no harm”:
“I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.”
Your stance is not incompatible with mine; my meta stance is solely that there is a discussion to have. As opposed to the person in this thread pretending like it’s an objective fact instead of a societal judgement.
I do not specifically carve out an exception for late term abortion because no one is actually waiting 6 months before deciding whether to carry to term. The people getting late term abortions are doing it because they must due to medical reasons.
I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.
If hypothetically speaking I bury a land mine in a field-- does it matter if the person who eventually dies because of my actions was born before or after I buried the mine? Is when they were born in relation to my actions relevant at all?
We don’t retroactively go and punish soldiers for setting mines, nor their commanders. So, no, it doesn’t matter
I don’t know if land mines are part of it, but there are munitions that are considered a war crime to be used because the are likely to harm someone in some unspecified future.
And people still use them when they see fit, with little repercussions.
I don’t see your point, sorry.
You’re cherry picking their argument to prove your point btw.
They compared the mother’s current life (and possible other children by proxy) with the value of a potential future person.
Your argument ignores the burden being placed on the mom and her family. Also, you’re conflating the gift of life a mom gives a child with the moral responsibility of not leaving weapons around.
Do you see the difference? You’re turning pregnancy into an obligation or a responsibility. Sound like any talking points you hear on the right?
I am not arguing against choice at all; I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” is not a rational argument for whether or not it deserves protection under the law.
I followed the thread and saw where you are coming from.
People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.
And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.
Can you do me a solid and quote the exact place where I did this? It wasn’t my intent and I want to take care not to make the same error in the future.
Yes, I am saying that you can still be pro-choice while believing that a zygote has rights.
You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life. Your hypothetical doesn’t address this because not leaving dangerous things around for others to find is a responsibility, not a right. In other words, you pitted your responsibilities vs. a future person’s right to live and that’s a much different debate than pitting rights against one another.
As to your last comment, you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to her bodily autonomy. Because this is the exact argument pro-birthers are using to justify incest and rape births.
And we’re saying that you can make the point without dog-whistling your republican friends.
Is my semen the land mine in this metaphor? And a vagina is the field? Or am I missing something here?
Yes but a mine can kill a real life person who can be injured or die which has a real world negative effect on society. A person having an abortion has no impact on society outside of some lame thought experiment. Have you read this famous essay about the morality of requiring someone to continue a pregnancy?
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
I was only pointing out that we do care what happens to people even if they haven’t been born at the time the actions take place. Because many people believe, in error, that “the zygote hasn’t been born yet” is evidence that we should not care what happens to it.