U.S. Public Continues to Favor Legal Abortion, Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade

[SadPotato]

Bodily autonomy, eh?

I suppose you are against taxation, then?

That would be the government making us all pay (through the nose) for services and costs that we do not agree with by using force and compulsion against our persons?

We ought to have choices, according to your argument, with regard to services and expenses that do not benefit us or that we disagree with to not be forced by law to pay for those.

Your argument needs to be capable of being generalized or you are special pleading.

Funny how the same socialists who want us to pay for abortions owing to the bodily autonomy argument for women are the first to drain blood and bile from us through taxation – basically all of the DNC candidates.

Pick a topic Harry.

 

[HarryStotle]

Pick a topic Harry.

I just did. Your argument for abortion based upon bodily autonomy needs to hold with regard to all relevant cases.

If you want to argue from a general principle such as bodily autonomy, you need to make the case that the argument from bodily autonomy is morally sound as a moral principle.

You wouldn’t want to be accused to special pleading would you?

Or have you even bothered to consider or understand the implications of your own position?

 

[SadPotato]

If you want to argue from a general principle such as bodily autonomy, you need to make the case that the argument from bodily autonomy is morally sound as a moral principle.

If I have to explain to you why bodily autonomy is a sound moral principle, then this is not a conversation worth engaging in.

 

[Neithan]

the unsubstantiated assertion that your bodily autonomy can’t be violated by your offspring?

Where is the abstraction? It’s examining the rudimentary meaning of bodily autonomy and arguing that offspring could not possibly violate it. Something your own body does as a healthy process cannot violate your body’s autonomy.

The argument from the pro-choice side is that the state is violating bodily autonomy by not allowing the woman to forcefully terminate the pregnancy. There is some convoluted reasoning here: There is no argument to use any compulsive force against a woman that violates her bodily autonomy. It is exactly the force used against her — to forcefully terminate the pregnancy — that is the problem.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If you want to argue from a general principle such as bodily autonomy, you need to make the case that the argument from bodily autonomy is morally sound as a moral principle.

If I have to explain to you why bodily autonomy is a sound moral principle, then this is not a conversation worth engaging in.

Then demonstrate why the argument from bodily autonomy doesn’t permit me to lawfully refuse to pay some of my taxes (earned by the work of my body) for things that don’t benefit me in the least or possibly harm me.

If your argument holds then I ought to be able to use the same argument to stop the government from draining my blood, sweat and tears to support programs and expenses I choose not to support because they take from me what I voluntarily do not want to give up.

Other wise, you don’t actually have a moral principle, you have special pleading.

You either don’t understand the point or you are intentionally skirting the question.

 

[HarryStotle]

SadPotato:

the unsubstantiated assertion that your bodily autonomy can’t be violated by your offspring?

Where is the abstraction? It’s examining the rudimentary meaning of bodily autonomy and arguing that offspring could not possibly violate it. Something your own body does as a healthy process cannot violate your body’s autonomy.

The argument from the pro-choice side is that the state is violating bodily autonomy by not allowing the woman to forcefully terminate the pregnancy. There is some convoluted reasoning here: There is no argument to use any compulsive force against a woman that violates her bodily autonomy. It is exactly the force used against her — to forcefully terminate the pregnancy — that is the problem.

To say nothing of the bodily autonomy of the unborn human being. The woman is violating the baby’s bodily autonomy, by taking away the life of that human being and everything that goes with it.

The woman is only losing a short term loss of some of her autonomy. The baby is losing all possible autonomy, forever. Hardly equal terms, morally speaking.

 

[Neithan]

The woman is only losing a short term loss of some of her autonomy. The baby is losing all possible autonomy, forever. Hardly equal terms, morally speaking.

I agree that we are completely dismissing the zygote, embryo, or fetus; but that’s the state of the law in many places. A human being has no legal rights until born (or at some point during pregnancy, depending on jurisdiction). However, if we accept that pregnancy, in and of itself, violates a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, we are conceding the argument entirely and it doesn’t matter if the unborn have rights, in that case.

We should seriously question this assumption. A healthy, natural process of a body cannot violate the right. It is about state force applied to a person. There is no right to harm yourself; it simply is not a crime. But with abortion, the situation would be different depending on whether or not the law recognizes two people, or just one.

 

[MamaJewel]

That’s what I’m arguing: It’s not reasonable to accept that a natural process of a person’s body violates their bodily autonomy, especially if it’s a healthy process. In this case, a healthy pregnancy. If the pregnancy is complicated and seriously risks the mother’s life, there might be room to argue otherwise.

You’ve just argued for abortion.
Pregnancy is not safe for women nor for babies. It never has been. One of the riskiest moments of human life is labor, birth, and the delivery of the placenta.

if the embryo were considered a legal person

How do we give one human being who is utilizing the body of another human being, the same exact legal rights as the human being whose body is being used?

If there is a conflict, and an unwanted pregnancy is a conflict, whose rights come first?

If the mother were at risk for death, but the fetus wasn’t viable, whose right to life comes first, if the fetus is a legal “person”?

The law can’t be applied equally to both human beings when one is directly using the other’s body for life support. That in and of itself is a cause for conflict, in a legal sense. A pregnant woman can survive without her fetus, but a non-viable fetus can’t survive without the woman sustaining the pregnancy with her body.

If we pro-lifers argue that a pregnant woman needs to get obstetrical care, then we are practically compelling a woman who does not want to be pregnant to obtain medical care to have a baby. That or risk her life and health, along with the human she carries.

We ought to have choices, according to your argument, with regard to services and expenses that do not benefit us or that we disagree with, to not be forced by law to pay for those, i.e., social welfare programs.

Ugghh.

Your words support Sad Potato’s position.

If we are upset by the idea of taxation that forces us to pay for unwanted social services and expenses that do not benefit us, how much more horrific is it from a pro-choicer’s perspective to make a woman carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Pregnancy does not benefit a woman’s health and it requires her to access medical care if she wants to decrease risks to her life and health and that of her little human as well.

When a woman carries an unwanted pregnancy she is forced into services and expenses she does not want. In addition, she faces risks to her health and potentially her very life.

The pro-life movement has to acknowledge this if minds are going to change about abortion.

 

[MamaJewel]

To say nothing of the bodily autonomy of the unborn human being. The woman is violating the baby’s bodily autonomy, by taking away the life of that human being and everything that goes with it.

and this

I agree that we are completely dismissing the zygote, embryo, or fetus; but that’s the state of the law in many places. A human being has no legal rights until born (or at some point during pregnancy, depending on jurisdiction).

Human beings have human rights because they are human. Personhood, or being seen as a “person” under the law begins at birth. There is a difference and this is very important to understand if we aren’t going to let mad scientists step out of bounds with research.

I argue that the growing human being has as much right to have it’s body intact and to be let alone as the woman who carries it. That’s the basic human right of autonomy. However, because the woman’s body sustains the pregnancy, the right to her life comes first if the pregnancy begins to fail.

If we can dismiss the value of the human zygote/embryo/fetus and deny it’s right to autonomy, first and foremost, then we have major problems inside the womb and in a petri dish.

The pregnant woman’s autonomy isn’t violated by the presence of the growing human unless the pregnancy is moving out of homeostasis. Then the pregnancy is a threat to her life as well. It might not even be the fetus that is the issue, but a defect with placental function.

This is a wicked problem. But human to human, if we improved circumstances for women in many areas of life, they might be more willing to carry a pregnancy to term. Sad thing is, society punishes women for having children. It’s darned if you do and darned if you don’t.

 

[Neithan]

You’ve just argued for abortion.
Pregnancy is not safe for women nor for babies. It never has been. One of the riskiest moments of human life is labor, birth, and the delivery of the placenta.

I was narrowly focusing on bodily autonomy and liberty. If the mother’s life is seriously at risk in every pregnancy, then that is a compelling argument for legalized abortion. We can’t expect that anyone seriously risk their lives, and this would make abortion a procedure to preserve health.

In that case a pregnant Catholic woman would be morally obligated to act with heroic virtue by giving birth. Is that really what the church demands? I thought there were only relatively rare cases where the life of the mother was considered to be at serious risk, so that terminating the unborn life was acceptable to preserve the mother’s life.

The law can’t be applied equally to both human beings when one is directly using the other’s body for life support. That in and of itself is a cause for conflict, in a legal sense. A pregnant woman can survive without her fetus, but a non-viable fetus can’t survive without the woman sustaining the pregnancy with her body.

Is obstetrical care a legal compulsion? In that case, it could be a violation of her rights. Otherwise, the pregnancy itself does not violate her rights. If that were so, then any woman who gives birth is consenting to a violation of her basic human rights.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

And how to stop that horrible thing from happening?

Will illegalizing abortion stop abortion?

Illegalizing abortion will hide abortion from prolife people. Will it continue, and getting worse? Yes it will surely continue getting worse even in hidden places. And because it is hidden, the law cannot control it. Public will forget about it. Prolife people will think “problem solved” when it is not.

 

[MamaJewel]

If the mother’s life is seriously at risk in every pregnancy, then that is a compelling argument for legalized abortion. We can’t expect that anyone seriously risk their lives, and this would make abortion a procedure to preserve health.

What would be considered serious? An immediate threat of death during pregnancy, labor, or delivery? What about the post-partum period?

In that case a pregnant Catholic woman would be morally obligated to act with heroic virtue by giving birth. Is that really what the church demands?

The church demands that the bodily autonomy of the fetus remains intact by performing a procedure that does not directly terminate the life of the fetus. Say, if a woman were to develop severe pre-eclampsia, the church would expect the fetus to be delivered, not artificially terminated via surgical abortion. With ectopic pregnancy, the church expects extraction of the affected tube, not the direct extraction of a living embryo from the tube.

Is obstetrical care a legal compulsion? In that case, it could be a violation of her rights.

My state expects a level of prenatal care. In the past, the state found that babies born to women who did not have any prenatal care were at greater risk for abuse/ death. If a pregnant woman does not have adequate prenatal care, a social worker will visit her in the hospital or hunt her down at her place of residence.

Lack of adequate prenatal care creates necessity for social services to make sure baby is safe in his/her environment. So pregnant women are compelled to get care if they don’t want the state checking on them after baby is born. Also, my state is pretty generous with its public prenatal care coverage and post-partum family planning program. They want healthy mommas and babies.

 

[MamaJewel]

I think that many people do not recognize that the embryo or the fetus or even the 20-week baby is really, truly, a living human being with a soul.

This is so true.
Sadly, a developing homo sapiens embryo or early fetus whose running genetic codes, transcriptional protein processes, and regulatory regions are establishing the bodily structures and functions that make us human beings, is probably the most human of us all.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

We ought to have choices, according to your argument, with regard to services and expenses that do not benefit us or that we disagree with, to not be forced by law to pay for those, i.e., social welfare programs.

Ugghh.

Your words support Sad Potato’s position.

If we are upset by the idea of taxation that forces us to pay for unwanted social services and expenses that do not benefit us, how much more horrific is it from a pro-choicer’s perspective to make a woman carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Pregnancy does not benefit a woman’s health and it requires her to access medical care if she wants to decrease risks to her life and health and that of her little human as well.

When a woman carries an unwanted pregnancy she is forced into services and expenses she does not want. In addition, she faces risks to her health and potentially her very life.

The pro-life movement has to acknowledge this if minds are going to change about abortion.

No actually, I am not supporting his position, I disagree profoundly with it because I believe we do have moral obligations towards others.

The point of @SadPotato’s argument is that women can unilaterally pull out of their moral responsibilities just by choosing to do so.

That is not true in any other moral context. Moral responsibilities mean we are obligated by the needs of others, in particular where the conflict is between someone’s life and someone else’s convenience. Being inconvenienced is never a warrant to take someone else’s life away from them.

Yet, that is what is implied by his argument.

 

[Neithan]

What would be considered serious? An immediate threat of death during pregnancy, labor, or delivery? What about the post-partum period?

I’m not sure how exactly this would be decided as a policy question. Is the risk higher than other risks we accept as part of day-to-day life, for example, driving a car? If the risk is significantly higher than other acceptable activities, then it would be difficult to argue that abortion is not an acceptable means to preserve life, as much as to destroy it. Abortion isn’t perfectly safe either, so that should be considered.

The church demands that the bodily autonomy of the fetus remains intact by performing a procedure that does not directly terminate the life of the fetus. Say, if a woman were to develop severe pre-eclampsia, the church would expect the fetus to be delivered, not artificially terminated via surgical abortion. With ectopic pregnancy, the church expects extraction of the affected tube, not the direct extraction of a living embryo from the tube.

Thank you for explaining some of these details. I understand that abortion cannot be the aim of the procedure but terminating the pregnancy is an acceptable result if not the medical intention, which would be preserving the mother’s life.

My state expects a level of prenatal care.

If the state is compelling prenatal care for pregnancy, even if it is state-funded, then we do have a conflict involving bodily autonomy. The corollary of course is to provide access to abortion to preserve the right to bodily autonomy. Now it gets complicated. Why not just allow women to decide for themselves whether to seek healthcare? Even if abortion is prohibited, that preserves their right to liberty and bodily autonomy so long as the state does not compel her to do anything. As for the right to life, that depends on what we decide is a serious or acceptable risk.

 

[HarryStotle]

And how to stop that horrible thing from happening?

Will illegalizing abortion stop abortion?

Illegalizing abortion will hide abortion from prolife people. Will it continue, and getting worse? Yes it will surely continue getting worse even in hidden places. And because it is hidden, the law cannot control it. Public will forget about it. Prolife people will think “problem solved” when it is not.

This is pure conjecture on your part.

Making something legal provides the majority of people with the sense that the action is morally acceptable. If it is illegal, many will think about the law and, at least, begin to question how ready they are to justify it to themselves.

There may continue to be abortions performed illegally, but you can bet these will be far fewer in number.

Most people look to the law for moral guidance. If the law says its okay, they assume it is okay. If the law says it is not okay they will use that as their guide.

That is why, by the way, that the radical activists look to enshrine what is morally questionable in the law before trying to make a compelling case. Their activism is to get the law to change because they know very well that if the law changes they don’t have to make a case as far as the people are concerned. The law is their case. It is legal don’t cha know.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

This is pure conjecture on your part.

Conjecture is the opinion that illegalizing abortion makes a moral society, without uprooting the root of the cause why so many women need abotion.

Making something legal provides the majority of people with the sense that the action is morally acceptable.

I agree to this. Porn is legal and is making billion dollar business exploiting human sex. So people sense that promiscuity is acceptable. Abortion is only the end of the chain of promiscuity behaviors where women are cornered with less options to choose from.

So when we allow billion dollar business exploit humanity, but we coerce women to carry the consequence: the pregnancy they don’t want, what we teach society: women are sex slaves and breeding machines. It is a complete utilitarian philosophy run rampant from end to end, within the frame of ultra-religious on one end, but complete promiscuity on the other.

Most people look to the law for moral guidance.

I agree to this.

The reason why woman privacy right is important, is to stop that exploitation right there, and not any further.

Woman privacy right is a limited right. She cannot abort late term pregnancy (the court protect the right of viable fetus), and physician can refuse abortion in second trimester onwards on the ground of medical reason.

As far as I can see in the bible, I just cannot agree that God wills humanity exploit women for breeding purpose. Exploitation evidence: porn is billion dollar business, promiscuity being promoted in the culture. All wombs just not enough to cater sex appetite that cannot be satisfied.

“Life begins at conception” is 100% true as a theology. However, THAT conception insists that God’s commands are obeyed and not violated. People who use the word conception as if it is identical to “biological fertilization”, are ignorant of what conception really mean.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

by making those things socially unacceptable. We need to apply the same tactics to abortion.

We need to illegalize porn, to teach that promiscuous behavior is not socially acceptable.

Or, alternatively, make law that is fair for both gender: Woman has no responsibility to carry term pregnancy that her sex partner do not want it either.

In this way, at least, society would not be misled into thinking that gender slavery is somewhat acceptable. The people need to be taught better about what is acceptable / unacceptable.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

That would be the government making us all pay (through the nose) for services and costs that we do not agree with by using force and compulsion against our persons?

Comparing woman’s right to say of her own body to paying tax. So woman owe it to society her contribution to carry children for society. Isn’t this another indication of somewhat acceptance to utilitarian philosophy?

We ought to have choices, according to your argument, with regard to services and expenses that do not benefit us or that we disagree with, to not be forced by law to pay for those, i.e., social welfare programs.

According to you, woman has responsibility to carry term— to contribute to society-- just similar to tax paying.

How about her sex partner? He pay tax, so he paid his contribution to society?

 

[vern_humphrey]

We need to illegalize porn, to teach that promiscuous behavior is not socially acceptable.

Porn is already legalized. You can find it on the internet with a simple search

Or, alternatively, make law that is fair for both gender: Woman has no responsibility to carry term pregnancy that her sex partner do not want it either.

How about we make a law that is fair for the unborn child, too – and not allow people to murder it for their own convenience?

The people need to be taught better about what is acceptable / unacceptable.

No argument there.