Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

[PRmerger]

That’s what abortion is: a taking of what does not belong to one’s self. (namely, another’s self)
So a prochoicer must believe in the right to take, if they are to be consistent and not merely arbitrary.

Yes, that’s another route one could take with this question.

But my point is that asking “Do you believe in a man’s right to take?” is a useless question.

Just like asking “Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose?” is inutile.

We need to finish the sentences.

"Do you believe in a man’s right to take…his dog on a walk?? Why, yes I do!

But “Do you believe in a man’s right to take…sex from a woman without her consent?” Why, no. No, I don’t.

Just like if we finish this sentence:

“Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose…to take her employees out to dinner?” Why, yes I do!"

But “Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose…to kill another human person?” Why, no. No, I don’t.

 

[MPat]

A “proof” is restricted to an axiomatic system.

Tough luck.

So much for your principle then.

Not all societies subscribe to the principle of “having dominion over our bodies”, but most Western societies do. You are not allowed to use the body parts of a freshly diseased person, unless there was a prior consent. And there is no “general principle” across all societies and across all ages… but there is here and now.

I see that you agree - you have no rational way to get any general principle.

All that is left is power.

And I am sure that you would object very strenuously if some would want to take your kidney against your will.

That’s an interesting wording isn’t it?

Yes, I can object - in the sense of offering rational arguments. You can only complain that you don’t like it or resist.

Thank you for conversing with me Vera. We have fundamental disagreements, and I am going to leave them as is. Agree to disagree. Best wishes!

As you can see, “secular arguments” don’t achieve much either.

After all, as you have seen, in the end the opposing side has no rational reasons to support its position - it is only supported by “I like it.” and power.

Thus, for example, in theory it would be possible to take point of “Vera_Ljuba” that humans cannot be forced to donate a kidney even after death, and to point out that human embryos should at the very least outrank human corpses (being alive etc.). But in practice… What’s the point? The supposed general principle will be instantly abandoned (it wasn’t supported anyway), and personal preferences with power (that is, all that is left for that kind of atheist) align differently in those cases.

That is, assuming we won’t just see “doublethink” in action. Or a distraction (for example, a declaration that it is we who are not rational).

Perhaps just getting in position to pass laws is one of the strongest “secular arguments”…?

 

[PRmerger]

I for example, cannot use your body, and extract your bone marrow to save my life, without your consent.

But let’s say I *engaged in some behavior *that resulted in your *requiring *my bone marrow in order to live. (Let’s just think hypothetically here, or appeal to the domain of science fiction. As a thought experiment only).

Do you think it would be moral for me to say: while it’s *nice *for me to offer you my bone marrow, I am under no obligation to donate it to you.

 

[minkymurph]

But let’s say I *engaged in some behavior *that resulted in your *requiring *my bone marrow in order to live. (Let’s just think hypothetically here, or appeal to the domain of science fiction. As a thought experiment only).

Do you think it would be moral for me to say: while it’s *nice *for me to offer you my bone marrow, I am under no obligation to donate it to you.

The bodily autonomy argument was discussed at length on another thread.

For me the bodily autonomy argument is interesting in terms of a thought experiment, but has no substance in terms of application in accordance with the realities on the ground.

It lacks substance for the following reasons:

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right. The law restricts what we can do to our bodies in many ways.

The law restricts when and where we can procure the services of another to what we wish to our bodies - and for good reason. We may be willing to donate bone marrow but the hospital may refuse to cooperate for good reasons.

Having an abortion requires procuring the services of another to do what wants to one’s body. Placing the hospital under a legal obligation to perform an abortion on the ground ‘I have the right to do what I wish to my body’ would be highly problematic to say the least. Should the hospital be legally obliged to remove an offending body part in instances of body dysmorphia on the ground the person has a right to do what they wish to their body?
Should a tattooist be legally obliged to tattoo someone for the same reason?

In terms of ‘using another’s body’ pregnancy is unique in this regard and there is no realistic comparitor. Thus unique laws are justifiable.

In a hypothetical scenario where someone voluntarily engaged in an act they knew in advance might result in someone else using their body to stay alive, but when it became a reality they wanted ‘detached’ on the ground it was not the outcome they wanted, I would say you would need a court order before a hospital would intervene in a manner that would result in ending the life of the one using the body.

In conclusion, this line of argument is an interesting thought experiment, but it is one that will never get off the page.

 

[minkymurph]

At the risk of sounding a prude, I do think contemporary society adopts a blase approach to sex and reproduction, and rights and accountability in general.

‘Blame and Claim’ culture - When something ‘bad’ happens someone else is to blame and no personal responsibility is accepted.

I recently read a case in which the plaintiff sued her employer for damages on the ground she injured herself on a light bulb whilst engaged in sexual intercourse with a colleague.:hypno:

She was able to bring this cause of action as it occurred whilst on a course her employer required her to attend that involved staying in a hotel over the weekend, Thus, they owed her a duty of care. I personally would have kept the matter to myself. That said, were it not for plaintiffs such as these where would I get my entertainment?

There are many circumstances in life in which we engage in actions that run the risk of an outcome we do not want. The approach to the abortion issue presented here can be interpreted as, ‘I want to have sex. I don’t want to get pregnant. If I do get pregnant I want someone else to make the outcome I didn’t want go away.’ This is problematic in that it indirectly endorses a blase approach to sexual relations and pregnancy.

 

[minkymurph]

At the risk of sounding a prude, I do think contemporary society adopts a blase approach to sex and reproduction, and rights and accountability in general.

‘Blame and Claim’ culture - When something ‘bad’ happens someone else is to blame and no personal responsibility is accepted.

I recently read a case in which the plaintiff sued her employer for damages on the ground she injured herself on a light bulb whilst engaged in sexual intercourse with a colleague.:hypno:

She was able to bring this cause of action as it occurred whilst on a course her employer required her to attend that involved staying in a hotel over the weekend, Thus, they owed her a duty of care. I personally would have kept the matter to myself. That said, were it not for plaintiffs such as these where would I get my entertainment?

There are many circumstances in life in which we engage in actions that run the risk of an outcome we do not want. The approach to the abortion issue presented here can be interpreted as, ‘I want to have sex. I don’t want to get pregnant. If I do get pregnant I want someone else to make the outcome I didn’t want go away.’ This is problematic in that it indirectly endorses a blase approach to sexual relations and pregnancy.

Cont.

In my part of the world the Child Support Agency was established to track down absent fathers for the purpose of paying maintenance to relieve the financial burden on the State.
The good thing about the CSA is there are now fathers actively and productively involved in their children’s lives who would not have been prior to it’s establishment.

The undesirable side effect is that in order to continue to claim benefits, some women have claimed they do not know who the father of their baby is - and they have come with some very creative and imaginative circumstances such as; I do not know who the father of my baby is as I was being sick out of window at the time. :hypno:

If this is not adopting a blase approach to sex and pregnancy I don’t know what is. Rights attract accountability and the accountability element is sadly lacking today. A right should not be advocated unless personal responsibility is equally advocated.

 

[PRmerger]

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right. The law restricts what we can do to our bodies in many ways.

Yep. Egg-zactly.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.

There are no absolute rights. “Rights” are granted by governments.

For me the bodily autonomy argument is interesting in terms of a thought experiment, but has no substance in terms of application in accordance with the realities on the ground.

For the time being, the Western governments would treat one as a criminal, if they wanted to take blood from someone, if the person did not consent. Of course such laws could be changed. If the government would declare a state of emergency and would introduce “temporary” measures that would make it mandatory to donate one’s blood or bone marrow, then the “bodily autonomy” argument would be declared null and void. But, for the time being it is alive an well.

 

[minkymurph]

There are no absolute rights. “Rights” are granted by governments.

There are absolute rights - in a legal sense and this is the sense in which I meant bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.

The fact legal rights are granted by governments was not in dispute.

For the time being, the Western governments would treat one as a criminal, if they wanted to take blood from someone, if the person did not consent.

Not necessarily - implied consent operates concerning many medical procedures and may be relied on before a court.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Is general consent to parenting consent to undergo parenting which turns out to be unexpectedly abnormal, dangerous or painful?

If we determine that parenting is, indeed, more painful than expected, is it permissible to:

-kill the child and thus eliminate the source of the pain

-remove oneself from the environment

noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/rq4vjd/20-great-songs-about-bad-dads
parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/megan-babytalk/mom-decides-parenting-not-her-and-leaves

You have really great questions!

I think the only time parents can kill their child is in self-defense, when less extreme options will not work or are not thought of in the moment.

But I believe parents have the right to remove themselves from their child at any time. Inducing delivery is the least damaging way mothers do this during pregnancy–they have nothing less extreme. Thus the dilemma.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

1. Contraception is an act. Acts can be morally evaluated.
2. Contra-ception is an act which violates the full order of sexuality. Sexuality is ordered unitively and procreatively.
3. Abstinence is not an act, let alone a sex act, and so abstinence is not contra-ception.

Maybe it’s not an act, but it’s a premeditated, purposeful course of action to prevent pregnancy, so I say it is a contraceptive.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Is consent to parenting irreversible or ongoing?

Consent to parenting is ongoing. Parents can surrender their children to foster care/adoption anytime as I understand it.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

I have a question for Prochoicer David Boonin (and all others are of course free to respond):

Do you believe in a man’s right to take?

(This is a corollary to the question: do you believe in a woman’s right to choose?)

Having read his book, I know he would say yes and no, depending on what the man is taking. He does not support a man’s right to take in the sense of rape. He does support a man’s right to take control of his life and go to college. Etc, etc.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Yes, that’s another route one could take with this question.

But my point is that asking “Do you believe in a man’s right to take?” is a useless question.

Just like asking “Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose?” is inutile.

We need to finish the sentences.

"Do you believe in a man’s right to take…his dog on a walk?? Why, yes I do!

But “Do you believe in a man’s right to take…sex from a woman without her consent?” Why, no. No, I don’t.

Just like if we finish this sentence:

“Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose…to take her employees out to dinner?” Why, yes I do!"

But “Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose…to kill another human person?” Why, no. No, I don’t.

 

[PRmerger]

You have really great questions!

I think the only time parents can kill their child is in self-defense, when less extreme options will not work or are not thought of in the moment.

But I believe parents have the right to remove themselves from their child at any time. Inducing delivery is the least damaging way mothers do this during pregnancy–they have nothing less extreme. Thus the dilemma.

Not sure what dilemma you’re talking about?

When is it permissible to kill an innocent human child?

 

[PRmerger]

Consent to parenting is ongoing. Parents can surrender their children to foster care/adoption anytime as I understand it.

But killing the child because you don’t want to be a parent would be…wrong, correct?

 

[PRmerger]

Consent to parenting is ongoing. Parents can surrender their children to foster care/adoption anytime as I understand it.

Also, I am curious–if consent to parenting is ongoing, are there some reasons you think would be frivolous for denying this consent?

That is, let’s say someone wanted to be on a reality TV show, and having kids was an impediment to being cast in this show, would you think it a perfectly licit reason to give up one’s children to foster care?

 

[PRmerger]

Having read his book, I know he would say yes and no, depending on what the man is taking. He does not support a man’s right to take in the sense of rape. He does support a man’s right to take control of his life and go to college. Etc, etc.

Egg-zactly.

One has to finish the sentence.

"I believe in a woman’s right to choose…

…her makeup brand".

"I do NOT believe in a woman’s right to choose…

…to kill her baby".

 

[CrystalMayner66]

The bodily autonomy argument was discussed at length on another thread.

For me the bodily autonomy argument is interesting in terms of a thought experiment, but has no substance in terms of application in accordance with the realities on the ground.

It lacks substance for the following reasons:

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right. The law restricts what we can do to our bodies in many ways.

The law restricts when and where we can procure the services of another to what we wish to our bodies - and for good reason. We may be willing to donate bone marrow but the hospital may refuse to cooperate for good reasons.

Having an abortion requires procuring the services of another to do what wants to one’s body. Placing the hospital under a legal obligation to perform an abortion on the ground ‘I have the right to do what I wish to my body’ would be highly problematic to say the least. Should the hospital be legally obliged to remove an offending body part in instances of body dysmorphia on the ground the person has a right to do what they wish to their body?
Should a tattooist be legally obliged to tattoo someone for the same reason?

In terms of ‘using another’s body’ pregnancy is unique in this regard and there is no realistic comparitor. Thus unique laws are justifiable.

In a hypothetical scenario where someone voluntarily engaged in an act they knew in advance might result in someone else using their body to stay alive, but when it became a reality they wanted ‘detached’ on the ground it was not the outcome they wanted, I would say you would need a court order before a hospital would intervene in a manner that would result in ending the life of the one using the body.

In conclusion, this line of argument is an interesting thought experiment, but it is one that will never get off the page.

The fact hospitals oversee bone marrow transplants doesn’t mean abortion should be banned. The fact pregnancy is very unique doesn’t mean abortion should be banned. And I don’t think anyone should be legally obliged to perform either surgeries or tattoo procedures–the provider must agree too. Abortion by court order, is this not what Roe V Wade is? All interesting points, but not a resounding, logical consensus for why all abortions should be banned rather than seen as a right to bodily autonomy and kept legal.

Also, the right to do anything to my body is different from I have the right to refuse to be a life support machine. The later statement is Boonin’s position, and far stronger than the first. The first position is inherently flawed, as it would make fetal torture or purposeful fetal deformation a moral right.

 

[PRmerger]

All interesting points, but not a resounding, logical consensus for why all abortions should be banned rather than seen as a right to bodily autonomy and kept legal.

What about this reason: it is wrong to kill an innocent human life.

And the life inside the womb is a human life.

Therefore, abortion, which kills an innocent human life, should be illegal.