Abortion Questions From Pro-Choice Philosopher David Boonin

[goout]

I see pregnancy as being a life support machine, because the mother’s body is entirely supporting the child’s life and health.

It is precisely because being a life support machine without your consent or at risk to your health is unjust that I find indirect abortion a justified solution.

Here is my point:
A mother is a human being, not a machine, with all the reciprocal rights and responsibilities that come with being a human being.

Are you making the assertion that a human being is a machine? That doesn’t seem reasonable.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

So it sounds like the only situation IRL that this references is the removal of an ectopic pregnancy?

Real life situations would include:

Cases of rape or coercion

Cases where the girl did not know sex can lead to pregnancy, that birth control can fail, that one can get pregnant during menstruation, etc.

Cases where the woman’s judgement was impaired by alcohol, drugs or disease, and thus was not able to fully consent

Cases where the woman’s life is threatened by the pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy being one example

Cases where the woman’s health is seriously damaged or endangered, for example a woman with severe hyperemesis gravidarum or preeclampsia/eclampsia.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Fair enough.

So if you weren’t Catholic, you’d still be against abortions because no one knows they’re pregnant before the embryo develops a heart beat, at 3 weeks.

There are some women who know before three weeks and seek abortion at that time. There are contraceptives such as Plan B which prevent an embryo from implanting before 3 weeks. And there are thousands of embryos who are killed in fertility labs and used for stem cell research before 3 weeks.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

• It is costly, a waste of resources.
• It deprives state and society of taxpayers, workers, soldiers.
• It violates the right of relatives and neighbours to know the child.

I don’t think any of those reasons override the mother’s right of bodily autonomy.

 

[PRmerger]

There are some women who know before three weeks and seek abortion at that time.

Perhaps.

Do you have stats on this?

 

[PRmerger]

Real life situations would include:

Cases of rape or coercion

Cases where the girl did not know sex can lead to pregnancy, that birth control can fail, that one can get pregnant during menstruation, etc.

Cases where the woman’s judgement was impaired by alcohol, drugs or disease, and thus was not able to fully consent

Cases where the woman’s life is threatened by the pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy being one example

Cases where the woman’s health is seriously damaged or endangered, for example a woman with severe hyperemesis gravidarum or preeclampsia/eclampsia.

How would one abort these babies without intending their deaths?

 

[MPat]

I don’t think any of those reasons override the mother’s right of bodily autonomy.

I did not expect you to think that they do.

But some other people obviously thought otherwise.

So, what is the “tiebreaker”? How do you propose to decide which view wins?

Also, let’s note that all requirements you made so far are satisfied: those reasons are secular.

And that’s why I asked you if you are asking about “Libertarian-compatible” arguments. or, if you wish, if you are leaning towards Libertarianism.

For otherwise it looks pretty strange: we already have some reasons satisfying to Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, even Marxists. Why should everything depend on what Libertarians think?

 

[CrystalMayner66]

How would one abort these babies without intending their deaths?

Hysterectomy, salpingectomy, c-section, labor induction, Methotrexate, Plan B or intact dilatation and evacuation minus the lethal injection. Baptizing the child if possible would be ideal as would providing anesthesia/comfort care if warranted and possible after delivery.

 

[JMartyr73340]

I have never heard a pro-choice philosopher answer the question that none of them wants to hear.

Would anyone in the womb want to be aborted?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Nice. I got remember this one.

Every person who ever lived (aka your parents, Einstein, the Royal Family, Buddha, Mohamed, JESUS) use to be an embryo. We all use to be that size. We’re all ex-embryos. The universe itself use to be the size of an embryo. I’m glad it wasn’t aborted…

 

[CrystalMayner66]

How do you propose to decide which view wins?

Also, let’s note that all requirements you made so far are satisfied: those reasons are secular.

And that’s why I asked you if you are asking about “Libertarian-compatible” arguments. or, if you wish, if you are leaning towards Libertarianism.

I find your post confusing, but I will try to respond anyway.

First of all, you find the winner by examining analogies and ruling out those things that make no sense. Taking the violinist analogy, I find it outrageous and unjustified to be forced to stay plugged into the violinist because he is a potential soldier, his neighbors will miss him, or he is a resource valuable to the state. To me those are clearly inadequate reasons to be forced to donate your body to a child or violinist, and the right to bodily autonomy wins.

Second, a nation’s legal documents hold sway. In America, personal liberty and bodily autonomy is highly valued and protected. And I see this as ideal.

The requirements were not met. The reasons you gave were secular but did not demonstrate how the fetus may justly override the mother’s bodily autonomy.

I know very little about Libertarianism. But as a general rule I do believe in the principle that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government. That’s all I can say. I have no idea what you mean by “Libertarian compatible argument”.

 

[JMartyr73340]

Second, a nation’s legal documents hold sway. In America, personal liberty and bodily autonomy is highly valued and protected. And I see this as ideal.

I know very little about Libertarianism. But as a general rule I do believe in the principle that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government. That’s all I can say. I have no idea what you mean by “Libertarian compatible argument”.

"Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about ‘liberty’; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about ‘progress’; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about ‘education’; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good.

The modern man says, ‘Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty.’ This is, logically rendered, ‘Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.’ He says, ‘Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress.’ This, logically stated, means, ‘Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.’ He says, ‘Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education.’ This, clearly expressed, means, ‘We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children.’ "

• G.K. Chesterton

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Perhaps.

Do you have stats on this?

I don’t offhand. I could look for some.

I know this abortion clinic website speaks of the abortion pill and Misoprostol at 3 weeks. womenscenter.com/abortionpill_3_4-5.html womenscenter.com/medical_chemical_abortion.html

This abortion clinic advertises the SofTouch method specifically for pregnancies less than five weeks along. earlyabortionoptions.com/early-abortion-options/softouch/

This article also speaks of abortion at three weeks: newkidscenter.com/How-to-Abort-3-Weeks-Pregnant.html

Finally, I have heard about menstrual extraction being performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy, as advertised at this clinic. womenscenter.com/early_surgical_abortion.html

 

[MPat]

First of all, you find the winner by examining analogies and ruling out those things that make no sense. Taking the violinist analogy, I find it outrageous and unjustified to

And here we have the main problem.

First, you say that you decide. You personally. You personally decide which arguments are or are not allowed to support governmental policies. I’m afraid that the rest of Americans might have their own ideas about that…

(That’s one reason why I have asked how to make this decision.)

Second, you are using imagination and feelings (“outrageous”) where reason has to be used.

And the feelings are easy to manipulate. For example, the “violinist analogy” manipulates your feelings by saying that you are the one being connected to the violinist. Merely retell the same story with you being in the place of the violinist or the place of the one connecting him to someone - and feelings will work differently.

Second, a nation’s legal documents hold sway. In America, personal liberty and bodily autonomy is highly valued and protected. And I see this as ideal.

A vote (or several votes), a coup d’etat, conquest by another state - and they can end up changed.

Not to mention that I am not aware of an American law that would forbid use of arguments based on religion - or any other arguments, for that matter. The very attempt to pass such law would seem to violate the First Amendment of your constitution.

I know very little about Libertarianism. But as a general rule I do believe in the principle that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government. That’s all I can say. I have no idea what you mean by “Libertarian compatible argument”.

Then I guess you should learn about Libertarianism, as it seems to be close to what you might support.

Which is why I have recommended mises.org/library/self-ownership-abortion-and-rights-children-toward-more-conservative-libertarianism-0 (specifically discussing how a Libertarian can be Pro-Life and deal with the same “violinist analogy”).

Then again, all that is good in Libertarianism is also in Catholic social doctrine (see the Compendium - vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html), more specifically, Principle of Subsidiarity.

And that is the reason why I gave you a link edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2012/08/the-road-from-libertarianism.html, where flaws of Libertarianism are discussed. I guess edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2009/10/libertarian-neutrality-so-called.html would also be beneficial.

And yes, I know that’s a lot of reading.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

And here we have the main problem.

First, you say that you decide. You personally. You personally decide which arguments are or are not allowed to support governmental policies. I’m afraid that the rest of Americans might have their own ideas about that…

(That’s one reason why I have asked how to make this decision.)

No, not me personally. The governing body in charge of making the laws.

Second, you are using imagination and feelings (“outrageous”) where reason has to be used.

And the feelings are easy to manipulate. For example, the “violinist analogy” manipulates your feelings by saying that you are the one being connected to the violinist. Merely retell the same story with you being in the place of the violinist or the place of the one connecting him to someone - and feelings will work differently.

Observing something is outrageous does not mean there is no accompanying element of reason.

Ideally, it seems logic should come first, but emotion should follow. For example, it seems appropriate a government should outlaw rape not merely on the basis of logic, but also in compassion and concern for the potential victim. To have no heart for the victims and potential victims of abuse seems criminal in itself.

If you understand the violinist analogy as being purely emotional, you misunderstand the analogy. Yes, there is an emotional element, but the main point is about demonstrating the consistency of the fact that one does not have the right to sustain one’s life by using anther’s body without their permission, not in pregnancy, not in the violinist and not in organ or blood donation. The merits of this point are open to critique, but that is the point. One is perfectly capable of looking past the emotion to the analogy’s point. I have heard the analogy retold where you are the violinist, and I found the same main point was demonstrated.

A vote (or several votes), a coup d’etat, conquest by another state - and they can end up changed.

Any system of law is subject to the possibility of being changed. The fact a law system could eventually be overthrown does not make it a bad system.

Not to mention that I am not aware of an American law that would forbid use of arguments based on religion - or any other arguments, for that matter. The very attempt to pass such law would seem to violate the First Amendment of your constitution.

The First Amendment is precisely what forbids American government from enacting laws that have no secular basis.

law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Then I guess you should learn about Libertarianism, as it seems to be close to what you might support.

Which is why I have recommended mises.org/library/self-ownership-abortion-and-rights-children-toward-more-conservative-libertarianism-0 (specifically discussing how a Libertarian can be Pro-Life and deal with the same “violinist analogy”).

Then again, all that is good in Libertarianism is also in Catholic social doctrine (see the Compendium - vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html), more specifically, Principle of Subsidiarity.

And that is the reason why I gave you a link edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2012/08/the-road-from-libertarianism.html, where flaws of Libertarianism are discussed. I guess edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2009/10/libertarian-neutrality-so-called.html would also be beneficial.

And yes, I know that’s a lot of reading.

I would be open to learning more about it in the future, but not at this time.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

Which is why I have recommended mises.org/library/self-ownership-abortion-and-rights-children-toward-more-conservative-libertarianism-0 (specifically discussing how a Libertarian can be Pro-Life and deal with the same “violinist analogy”).

I am enjoying this article, thank you.

I shall have to ponder this Self-Ownership Proviso.

 

[PRmerger]

In post #161, I agreed to the following statements:

When I agreed to these statements I was not saying “a mother has the right to refuse to breastfeed her child”. Those statements say no such thing.

This is my position on the question of whether a woman may refuse to breastfeed a child entirely dependent on her, as I stated in post #159:

So the thought occurred to me, regarding Crystal’s response to bodily autonomy of a woman who refuses to breastfeed her child.

Crystal’s response was:

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 complications (such as raw, bleeding nipples, painful to touch) and if the mother consented to the pregnancy, I am inclined to say yes. In the presence of maternal health complications, 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.

“Inclined to say yes”…

Let’s think about this.

If it’s not an absolute “yes”…this means that, there’s the rather chilling possibility, in Crystal’s world, of a mom just watching her baby die of starvation because she has the right to assert her bodily autonomy. ‘NO ONE has the right to my body’…even if it means a baby starving because of it.

My baby can starve. But my breasts are mine.

Absolutely chilling.

(NB: We are talking here about a baby who has no other means of nutrition. That is, there is no formula. No other wet nurses. No. Other. Means. Except for the mom’s breastmilk.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

My baby can starve. But my breasts are mine.

Absolutely chilling.

(NB: We are talking here about a baby who has no other means of nutrition. That is, there is no formula. No other wet nurses. No. Other. Means. Except for the mom’s breastmilk.)

For an atheist it might be. For a Christian it would be an excellent solution. The “baybee” will get immediate admittance to heaven to participate in the beatific vision. (Do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars.) That pain of hunger is simply insignificant compared to the infinite bliss that awaits in the afterlife. After all this is one of the staple “defenses” when confronted with the “problem of evil” (which you probably still don’t understand ).

 

[o_mlly]

I. Is consent to sex consent to pregnancy?

Is consent to exercise consent to be healthy(ier)?

II. Is general consent to a pregnancy consent to undergo a pregnancy which turns out to be unexpectedly abnormal, dangerous or painful?

Is general consent to exercise consent to possible pain or injury?

III. Is consent to pregnancy irreversible or ongoing?

Is consent to pain or injury reversible after incurring a painful injury?

IV. In what situations does consent become overruled by self-defense?

In what situations does an injury become overruled by self-defense? (When injured, one cannot will themselves to be “uninjured.”)

V. When pregnancy is not consented to (rape, ignorance, impaired judgement, coercion, etc.), acknowledging the right to live is not the same thing as the right to be kept alive by another person, does a woman have the right to unplug the child from her body without causing him any intentional harm?

How can one unplug a lit lamp and not intentionally cause the light to be extinguished?

VI. What is the method for establishing the value of a human being without a heartbeat or brain activity on a secular, political level?

Whatever the agreed method is, does the method change for human beings yet to be born?

VII. In America, parents have the luxury of adoption. Do the ethics change when mothers are forced to literally abandon their careers, passions and dreams after giving birth?

Are career women or women who desire a career forced to have sex?

VIII. How does the concept of bodily autonomy apply after birth? Does a child ever have the right to use his mother’s body then? For example, would a woman have the right to refuse to breastfeed her child if there were no breast milk alternatives available?

Does anyone have the right to refuse available hydration and nourishment to another in dire need?

 

[MPat]

No, not me personally. The governing body in charge of making the laws.

Then 1) you should cite opinions of that body, 2) the question becomes how to get the composition of that body that would give the answers we want.

Observing something is outrageous does not mean there is no accompanying element of reason.

Ideally, it seems logic should come first, but emotion should follow. For example, it seems appropriate a government should outlaw rape not merely on the basis of logic, but also in compassion and concern for the potential victim. To have no heart for the victims and potential victims of abuse seems criminal in itself.

Yes, emotions can and should be based on reason.

But that does not mean that they always are based on reason. Nor should we just presume that they are based on reason.

After all, it is easy to show that your emotions are based on reason - just offer the supporting argument that is not based on emotions itself.

If you understand the violinist analogy as being purely emotional, you misunderstand the analogy. Yes, there is an emotional element, but the main point is about demonstrating the consistency of the fact that one does not have the right to sustain one’s life by using anther’s body without their permission, not in pregnancy, not in the violinist and not in organ or blood donation. The merits of this point are open to critique, but that is the point. One is perfectly capable of looking past the emotion to the analogy’s point. I have heard the analogy retold where you are the violinist, and I found the same main point was demonstrated.

It is based on emotion, but, of course, it is not made of emotion.

It expects you to derive a moral principle from your emotional reaction, when, in fact, emotional reactions should be based on moral principles.

And then it expects you to use that emotion-based moral principle consistently, even when in other cases the same emotions would give a different answer.

Any system of law is subject to the possibility of being changed. The fact a law system could eventually be overthrown does not make it a bad system.

But it does make it a bad support for itself. Legal systems have to be based on Philosophy, not on themselves.

The First Amendment is precisely what forbids American government from enacting laws that have no secular basis.

law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

In no place does it say “American government is forbidden from enacting laws that have no secular basis.” (not to mention “no sufficient secular basis” - I have already offered “secular basis” to forbid abortion, you just found it insufficient).

It does not say so in the amendment itself.

It does not say so in the commentary.

It was not the historical understanding. (For example, are you going to argue that slavery was abolished because of “secular basis”?)

I am enjoying this article, thank you.

I shall have to ponder this Self-Ownership Proviso.

It is nice to hear that!