Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrystalMayner66
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
The right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person. So just because the fetus depends on the woman’s body for life, doesn’t mean he has a right to be there or a right to use it. We must figure out how the fetus obtains the right to be there, and when the mother’s rights overcome the fetus’ welcome.
 
CrystalMayner66 said:
The right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person. So just because the fetus depends on the woman’s body for life, doesn’t mean he has a right to be there or a right to use it. We must figure out how the fetus obtains the right to be there, and when the mother’s rights overcome the fetus’ welcome.
Click to expand...
All of these statements could similarly be presented with a nursing 2 month old baby. (Let’s use this thought experiment in which there is no other means to feed this baby–which happens, a lot, in 3rd world countries).

So let me present your response in this manner:

The right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person. So just because the -]fetus /-] 2 month old baby depends on the woman’s body for life, doesn’t mean he has a right to be there or a right to use it. We must figure out how the-] fetus /-] 2 month old obtains the right to be there, and when the mother’s rights overcome the -]fetus’/-] 2 month old’s welcome
 
After reading Jeremiah and reading how John the Baptist leaped in his mothers womb just days after the Holy Spirit came upon our Holy Mother and the Word became flesh - I don’t know how anyone could be for abortion.

Jeremiah: 1:5

‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you; I appointed you as prophet to the nations.’
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
There are no absolute rights. “Rights” are granted by governments.
Click to expand...
Correction: rights granted by governments are all your views can sustain.

Which is why it is strange why you seem to care that much about them. As you say:
Vera_Ljuba said:
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.
Click to expand...
In fact no “state of emergency” is necessary. A couple of elections won by people with different views, and your rights might change. 🙂

Of course, natural rights would stay the same, but you reject natural law.

And that seems to leave you with not much to say.

You can say that forbidding abortion is not compatible with the law and customs as they exist in most Western countries right now. But we already know that - we are discussing how to change law and customs.

Or you can say that you do not like the change. But we already know that too. We just don’t think it makes that much of a difference.

Or you can say that you will resist in some way. But we know that too (you are doing so already (here)).

Or you can say that… Um, I guess there isn’t much left, unless we counting obvious distractions…
CrystalMayner66 said:
The right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person. So just because the fetus depends on the woman’s body for life, doesn’t mean he has a right to be there or a right to use it. We must figure out how the fetus obtains the right to be there, and when the mother’s rights overcome the fetus’ welcome.
Click to expand...
You mean you want a lecture of Biology from us or what? 🙂

Seriously, reproduction is a natural process. And it is wrong to try to sabotage that process. It’s that simple.

Also, I guess you would benefit from reading some related blog posts and papers, for example, edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2012/08/the-road-from-libertarianism.html, mises.org/library/self-ownership-abortion-and-rights-children-toward-more-conservative-libertarianism-0…
 
CrystalMayner66 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I personally couldn’t present someone who is pro-choice with a sufficiently persuasive argument as to why abortion should be banned. The reason being people who are pro-choice have said to me they think abortion is killing a human being - even murder - but it is not their right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. The ‘the unborn are not human’ argument can be rebutted, but rebutting this one is way beyond my level of competence.

All I can come up with is:

The fetus’ body is not her body. It’s in her body, but is not her body. Thus, the woman is not doing what she wants with her own body. Does she have a right to cause harm that is fatal to fetus on the ground it is in her body purely on the ground she did not consent to it being there?

As the fetus is not capable of obtaining consent prior to occupying the womb, is it just to place this demand on the fetus in order to remain living? If a squatter moved into my house, I threw them out and they subsequently died, I could be charged with manslaughter.

Can it be argued the fetus was indirectly invited?
CrystalMayner66 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is different. In the case of an adult who cannot consent, implied consent kicks in in terms of what they would want if they were able to consent. The fetus isn’t afforded the luxury of implied consent.
 
CrystalMayner66 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Boonin latter position is flawed as well. For example, your body naturally exhales CO2 when your are breathing out. Your body is sustaining plant life. Can you request the plant to stop inhaling what you exhale because you have a right not to be used as a life support machine? Should a court send ax armed police to chop down the tree because you prefer you exhalation not to be absorbed and sustain a life you did not choose?

Heck, the tree did not choose for you to breathe IN what it exhales, should the tree advocate sue you for breathing that which the tree did not consent?

Point being – no one is an island unto him or her self. Americans, in general, tend to over emphasis “individual” so called “right”, many times to the detriment of a larger wider community.
 
minkymurph said:
I personally couldn’t present someone who is pro-choice with a sufficiently persuasive argument as to why abortion should be banned. The reason being people who are pro-choice have said to me they think abortion is killing a human being - even murder - but it is not their right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.
Click to expand...
I think a parallel here is warranted.

In the US it used to be legal in most states, up until the 1960’s, for a man to hit his wife (provided it left no outward marks) as long as it was in his home.

The rationale was: no one can tell a man what to do in his own home.

Even if it involved harming another human being.

That was his domain.

He was sovereign, and could do (practically) anything.

The analogy is chilling…and even worse than harming another human being by hitting her. This one lets you dismember another human being under the guise of “no one can tell a -]man/-] woman what to do in one’s own -]home/-] womb”.

#domesticviolence
#amanshomeishiscastle

#intratuterineviolence
#awomanswombisherdomain

icadvinc.org/what-is-domestic-violence/history-of-battered-womens-movement/
 
PRmerger said:
I think a parallel here is warranted.

In the US it used to be legal in most states, up until the 1960’s, for a man to hit his wife (provided it left no outward marks) as long as it was in his home.

The rationale was: no one can tell a man what to do in his own home.

Even if it involved harming another human being.

That was his domain.

He was sovereign, and could do (practically) anything.
Click to expand...
“We know that a slap on the cheek, let it be as light as it may, indeed any touching of the person of another in a rude or angry manner-is in law an assault and battery. In the nature of things it cannot apply to persons in the marriage state, it would break down the great
principle of mutual confidence and dependence; throw open the bedroom to the gaze of the public; and spread discord and misery,contention and strife, where peace and concord ought to reign. It must be remembered that rules of law are intended to act in all
classes of society.” digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=fss_papers
 
PRmerger said:
“We know that a slap on the cheek, let it be as light as it may, indeed any touching of the person of another in a rude or angry manner-is in law an assault and battery. In the nature of things it cannot apply to persons in the marriage state, it would break down the great
principle of mutual confidence and dependence; throw open the bedroom to the gaze of the public; and spread discord and misery,contention and strife, where peace and concord ought to reign. It must be remembered that rules of law are intended to act in all
classes of society.” digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=fss_papers
Click to expand...
Furthering your statement:

Don’t forget in many states in the recent past (as recent as 1993)-- and in many nations today – there can legally be no rape within marriage…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_(United_States_law)#History_to_1993
 
PRmerger said:
I think a parallel here is warranted.

In the US it used to be legal in most states, up until the 1960’s, for a man to hit his wife (provided it left no outward marks) as long as it was in his home.

The rationale was: no one can tell a man what to do in his own home.

Even if it involved harming another human being.

That was his domain.

He was sovereign, and could do (practically) anything.

The analogy is chilling…and even worse than harming another human being by hitting her. This one lets you dismember another human being under the guise of “no one can tell a -]man/-] woman what to do in one’s own -]home/-] womb”.

#domesticviolence
#amanshomeishiscastle

#intratuterineviolence
#awomanswombisherdomain

icadvinc.org/what-is-domestic-violence/history-of-battered-womens-movement/
Click to expand...
That’s a good parallel. 👍

I do not profess to be an authority on Roe v Wade but was this case not decided in 1973?

As a result of technological advances we now know more about fetal development during pregnancy and this calls into question causing physical harm to the fetus.

When do we have a right to cause harm to another living thing? Is the argument here when it occupies our body in the absence of consent?
 
minkymurph said:
That’s a good parallel. 👍

I do not profess to be an authority on Roe v Wade but was this case not decided in 1973?
Click to expand...
Yes. 1973.
As a result of technological advances we now know more about fetal development during pregnancy and this calls into question causing physical harm to the fetus.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Initially the argument was that it was just a bunch of growing cells, and thus, since it’s not a person, permissible to abort it.

However, now that science/technology has made it quite clear that it’s not just a bunch of growing cells but is actually a human person, the argument has morphed in to: yeah, well maybe it is a human being, but nothing trumps the right to govern my own domicile/womb.

And that paradigm (yes, it’s a human being, and yes, it’s ok to kill it) is much, much more diabolical, IMHO, than the initial argument that it wasn’t a human being so it’s ok to abort.
When do we have a right to cause harm to another living thing? Is the argument here when it occupies our body in the absence of consent?
Click to expand...
The argument is the same as what the white man argued for a very long time (and perhaps some still do): no one can turn their gaze in to my domicile (here, read: womb). I am free to harm anything (or anyone) because…PRIVACY.
 
PRmerger said:
Not sure what dilemma you’re talking about?

When is it permissible to kill an innocent human child? :confused:
Click to expand...
The dilemma is that a woman has the right of bodily autonomy, the right to refuse for her body to be used by someone else. And yet for the pregnant woman to refuse her child the privilege of feeding off her bloodstream before viability is to cause the child’s death, foreseen yet unintentional. This is a tragedy and a dilemma, the ethical dilemma with the child and the woman’s right to bodily autonomy colliding with each other.

I certainly hope one day soon technological advances will allow women to end a pregnancy anytime without resulting in the child’s death–then the motivation for abortion would vanish.
 
PRmerger said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sure, there are frivolous reasons, but I don’t think the state should ban parents from surrendering parental rights for frivolous reasons. A parent who would want to surrender a child for a frivolous reason is surely not the best caretaker for that child.
 
PRmerger said:
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".
Click to expand...
I believe directly killing unborn babies is always wrong too.

There is a difference between directly, intentionally killing a person feeding off your body without permission and detaching a person feeding off your body without permission, unintentionally resulting in their death. Just as there is a difference between directly, intentionally killing someone stealing your bone marrow they need to live and prematurely pulling the bone marrow collection needle out of your bone, resulting in the death of the person who needed a bone marrow donation.
 
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
See post #157 just above ^^^
 
PRmerger said:
Really?

So if a woman gives birth to a baby and then decides she does not want to keep it alive, she is under no obligation to do so?
Click to expand...
If a mother lives in an area where there is competent foster care/adoption, she has no obligation to parent. It is always wrong for a mother to directly, intentionally hurt her child before or after birth.

Does she have an obligation to breastfeed or parent if no one else is willing or able to do so? I’m not sure. In the absence of abnormal maternal health factors (such as mastitis) and if the mother consented to the pregnancy, I am inclined to say yes. In the presence of maternal abnormal health factors, I’m inclined to say no. If the mother is healthy but did not consent to the pregnancy…shaky yes? Certainly any woman who parented a child without obligation would be a Good Samaritan and hero.
 
PRmerger said:
All of these statements could similarly be presented with a nursing 2 month old baby. (Let’s use this thought experiment in which there is no other means to feed this baby–which happens, a lot, in 3rd world countries).

So let me present your response in this manner:

The right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person. So just because the -]fetus /-] 2 month old baby depends on the woman’s body for life, doesn’t mean he has a right to be there or a right to use it. We must figure out how the-] fetus /-] 2 month old obtains the right to be there, and when the mother’s rights overcome the -]fetus’/-] 2 month old’s welcome
Click to expand...
This re-presentation is something I would agree with.
 
MPat said:
You mean you want a lecture of Biology from us or what? 🙂

Seriously, reproduction is a natural process. And it is wrong to try to sabotage that process. It’s that simple.
Click to expand...
MPat, I’m afraid you just don’t understand my argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top