Abortion and Women's Rights

[morriswalters]

Edit: to clarify, I'm asking you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who, every time you're about to have sex, are apparently required to contemplate the risk of contracting a protracted illness, possibly life-threatening, which some people advocate you should not receive treatment for. And while you have this illness, you are likely to face a lot of shit from society because it is built to shame people who contract this illness. The "either abstinence, or babies" attitude reminds me of this. Please consider the "abstinence, or illness" scenario, since the first scenario is not applicable to people with no uteruses.

No I asking no such thing, what I am suggesting is ethical is that a decision to abort be made early rather than late. I don't support your right to dither.

@Izawwlgood
This thread has established nothing. You only believe it has. You can't possibly know anything about the inner motivations of someone other than what they've told you. Neither can I. The line is arbitrary. I suppose I should put these things in my sig so I don't have to repeat these things Ad nauseam. Everything is arbitrary. Nothing that you consider a right today has always existed as such, or is certain to exist in the future. From the Wikipedia. Please do not take the the phrase after birth to imply more than it does. This is effectively what this debate is about. Also note that some things that were relevant once are not relevant today.

A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth. Various older privileges, such as the old common law privilege to title deeds, may still exist, but be of little relevance today[1]. Etymologically a privilege means a "private law", or rule relating to a specific individual.

@mmmcannibalism
I didn't miss anything. I used the closest analog available to illustrate my point. The theory would be the the wyci's rights as society has defined them are increasing with time and that with time will exceed the mothers.

@Aaeriele
Can you do anything other then spout truism's and generally add nothing to the discussion other than that you believe I'm a prick? I'll take you seriously when you return the favor otherwise...well I think you can figure it out.

@gmalivuk
Are you capable of using any tool other than sarcasm? I'm certain it makes you all warm and fuzzy. Over time I will become dead, and I'm quite sure that this would be defined as a worthy goal by some. However by making poor choices I can push the event much closer to now. Who would be responsible? You seem to want to deliberately confuse two different issues. I'll say this one more time and then I will assume the you are being intentionally obtuse and ignore you. Whatever the sex act may mean or be used for, whatever meaning it's practice may have between a man and a women, it's designed to produce offspring. I have it on good authority that it works. Seven billion humans and counting. As to the last I have given a theory to support my assertion. I clarified it earlier for Izawwlgood. I'll clarify it again in detail.

The theory combines two ideas. The argument is as thus. The first is that I can't know what you know or when you know it. Therefore I refuse to allow your assertion of ignorance of something you are capable of knowing and should know, to influence me. For the second I assert that the wyci will have rights and at some point that those rights will become superior to a woman's. I support that assertion by comparing two different wyci and asking the question, that given that each are of the same chronological age, and differ by nothing more than condition of existence, that is, that one is in utero and one is extant, then what property of the of the two wyci's makes them distinct from each other. I assert there is none. I end by asserting that at that point a mothers rights become inferior to the wyci. I support this by reductio ad absurdum. If killing the in utero wyci it is moral than killing the extant wyci should be moral as well.

@dedalus
I not going to respond to your assertions directly. What I will do is explain to you how the fucking system works. You assert rights. Society looks at your assertion and debates it. If you can't make a good enough case than society doesn't grant that right. There is no inherent right to anything. Were that the case than one of two things might happen to a mother when she gives birth. If she is morally correct than she would get a halo, else wise she would get horns. We, as a group decide it, we say that you either do or do not have the right. I recognized this when I became an atheist. There seems to exist a great deal of cognitive dissonance over sex. I'll be crude. Sperm don't care that you love your woman and eggs don't care if you love your man. They want to meet and get personal in the worst way. Neither has brains, sentience, sapience, wisdom or consciousness. Males produce a multitude of sperm and they are trying to wiggle their way to heaven. And if one makes it the egg will become fertilized. And so it begins. At no time in this process does the question of why they are doing this come up. I expect this reasoning from children who haven't matured intellectually yet, but I shudder to believe that adults don't seem to have a grasp of this. It makes me weep..... I'm not going to cite anything related to that point, as it is an assertion. I'll support it with an argument though. Sex makes babies. You know you have sex. You know that birth control is unreliable. Cheap effective pregnancy tests are available(twenty packs of test strips available on Amazon for 5 dollars). They can identify pregnancies quite early. I'm not sure what your trying to say in the second part of your post, but I'll try to answer. I translate most of it into why do you not agree with us. As to your charge of Sophism as defined by Wikipedia.

A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether their argument is logical and factual.

I'm not going to bother to deny it. I can see no reason to confirm to you that my beliefs are real. My arguments has been as consistent they can be when evolving and taking place ad hoc over a period of time. You should do whatever you believe that you should, but if you attack me then I will respond in kind. The thing I find saddest about this that the argument is over a period amounting to 14 weeks depending on how you define viability. I should be use to this nonsense though, since I have argued with Christians many times and they say the same things for exactly the opposite reason.

[gmalivuk]

Whatever the sex act may mean or be used for...it's designed to produce offspring.

If you want to keep ignoring the fact that human sexuality evolved to be about all kinds of non-reproductive things, go ahead. But don't expect any of the rest of us to keep taking you seriously just because you keep repeating your claim.

Humans choose to have sex for reasons that aren't about reproduction, and human sexual traits evolved to be about things other than reproduction. If you have a third way of discovering what the "purpose" of something is, besides the purpose we assign to it or the evolutionary function it serves, please share it with the rest of us. I would find such an account very interesting from a philosophical perspective.

But I doubt you have such an account, since you just keep falling back on your misunderstanding of how human sexuality has evolved.

For the second I assert that the wyci will have rights and at some point that those rights will become superior to a woman's. I support that assertion by comparing two different wyci and asking the question, that given that each are of the same chronological age, and differ by nothing more than condition of existence, that is, that one is in utero and one is extant, then what property of the of the two wyci's makes them distinct from each other.

The property that one is in utero and one is outside it. Again, you can ignore this, but repeating yourself doesn't make you any more right.

I end by asserting that at that point a mothers rights become inferior to the wyci.

At what point? What probability of survival counts for you? Where do you draw the line? What about long-term disability? Where do you draw the line there? How much suffering should we be allowed to cause a prematurely birthed wyci on the off-chance that it might survive a while?

I support this by reductio ad absurdum. If killing the in utero wyci it is moral than killing the extant wyci should be moral as well.

No, because, as I think I might have suggested once or twice or a dozen or more times before: the morality of killing the in utero wyci is derived from the woman's right to bodily autonomy, which flat-out doesn't apply ex utero. Your reductio therefore doesn't work because you've drawn an invalid inference about *why* we think it's moral to kill the one still inside. You can argue all you want that there's no internal difference between the wyci, and most of us would agree with you, or at the very least grant your claim for the sake of argument. Because it makes no difference.

Similarly, every teenager with a driver's license has an equivalent right to drive. And yet, if teenager A has access only to a car that I own while teenager B owns a car, then it is completely moral and legal for me to take away teenager A's ability to drive a car, while it isn't okay for me to take away B's equivalent ability. And this isn't because B has a greater right to drive than A. It's because A would have to use something belonging to me to drive, while B wouldn't.

A late-term fetus might have the same right to life as a premature infant, but a right to life doesn't automatically imply a right to use a specific woman's body to do the living, any more than a right to drive implies a right to drive *my* car.

[paulisa]

For the second I assert that the wyci will have rights and at some point that those rights will become superior to a woman's.

That's fucking scary. I hope you didn't mean that statement as it comes off, because you're basically saying that rights are not universal, that some people have or should have more rights than others.

[LaserGuy]

@gmalivuk
Are you capable of using any tool other than sarcasm? I'm certain it makes you all warm and fuzzy. Over time I will become dead, and I'm quite sure that this would be defined as a worthy goal by some. However by making poor choices I can push the event much closer to now. Who would be responsible? You seem to want to deliberately confuse two different issues. I'll say this one more time and then I will assume the you are being intentionally obtuse and ignore you. Whatever the sex act may mean or be used for, whatever meaning it's practice may have between a man and a women, it's designed to produce offspring. I have it on good authority that it works. Seven billion humans and counting. As to the last I have given a theory to support my assertion. I clarified it earlier for Izawwlgood. I'll clarify it again in detail.

What, exactly, do you mean by "designed" here? Who "designed" sex this way? Why should we care what they think? What does your implication mean for infertile people? Or homosexuals?

[Yakk]

Remember, certainty is more important than accuracy.

As such, any simplification of a situation (be it moral, anecdotal, religious, or whatever) is good (all other things being equal -- which it rarely is). The more the simplification throws away complications the better -- if you can ignore the complication, your simplification produces more certainty.

Testability is bad, because that impinges upon certainty -- a position that can be falsified is a bad one. You could be wrong -- what is worse, you could be shown to be wrong!

[Aaeriele]

@Aaeriele
Can you do anything other then spout truism's and generally add nothing to the discussion other than that you believe I'm a prick? I'll take you seriously when you return the favor otherwise...well I think you can figure it out.

You've shown a remarkable resistance to rational explanation so far, how would me taking you seriously provide any benefit? I don't believe your views are seriously credible, so why should I treat them as such?

[morriswalters]

Bio 101 first. The sex act is biological. Ejaculating semen into a women, is a biological fact. That given the right conditions, it will produce a fertilized ovum is a biological fact. Is their some room for debate here? If there exists a possibility other than that, then abortion must be a myth. That we have other reasons to fuck is beyond doubt. As I said I weep for the race.

I said property unique to the wyci other than the condition of existence. One condition of existence is a property unique to the woman and to one of the wyci's. If the debate is about who has the greater right than this condition is important. Since the only way to know is for a live birth to take place then I cannot claim certain knowledge. But I claim an allowable assertion that it is possible since it has been demonstrated, including evidence given by a member of this fora. First I am accused of being a bean counter, now I am asked to provide statistics. Pfui!

I understand why you disagree with the assertion, what I have done is to give an argument as to why I think you are wrong. What is your counter argument? Every position taken here is arbitrary and I have stated as much. As to your assertion that the woman should have the right because the wyci is in her, we are in partial agreement. I have asserted that that right is not unlimited and I have stated why I believe this is true.

A late-term fetus might have the same right to life as a premature infant, but a right to life doesn't automatically imply a right to use a specific woman's body to do the living, any more than a right to drive implies a right to drive *my* car.

This is a valid rebuttal. To which I respond, that neither does it give her a right to kill it. It assumes only two valid options. This is a false dichotomy. There are at least one other possible choice, I list three,
Abort it dead
Carry it to term
Deliver it alive at term
There is a fourth option, abort it prior to viability.

@paulisa
Certainly I say that, George Orwell stated it better then I can in Animal Farm. "All animals are created equal, some animals are more equal than others." I don't mean that sarcastically. If you ever get tangled up in court you will find out quickly how true that is.

@LaserGuy
It means what it means. Infertile couples can practice the sex act as a method of sharing experience and bonding, but they can't produce children. I'm sure that the whole issue of abortion is heartbreaking to them. Gays can experience both, but not within their sexual preference. Asking me who designed the biological act is trivial, evolution. Being human makes sex, as differentiated from the biological act itself, a very complex and not well understood phenomenon. However I always thought everyone understood the difference. I was wrong. I have now been painfully made aware of my error.

edited for grammar: removed a after is in second sentence.

[pizzazz]

For the second I assert that the wyci will have rights and at some point that those rights will become superior to a woman's.

That's fucking scary. I hope you didn't mean that statement as it comes off, because you're basically saying that rights are not universal, that some people have or should have more rights than others.

Not sure how you get that. It's not about some people having no rights, it's about an opposition of rights, like how you don't lose your right to swing your fist if my face is in the way, my right to safety/life/whatever takes precedence.

No, because, as I think I might have suggested once or twice or a dozen or more times before: the morality of killing the in utero wyci is derived from the woman's right to bodily autonomy, which flat-out doesn't apply ex utero. Your reductio therefore doesn't work because you've drawn an invalid inference about *why* we think it's moral to kill the one still inside. You can argue all you want that there's no internal difference between the wyci, and most of us would agree with you, or at the very least grant your claim for the sake of argument. Because it makes no difference.

It makes all the difference in the world, and at this point you are starting to look like the one that is not reading what is being posted. You keep saying that the value of the fetus is irrelevant, when it is absolutely relevant. It is the entire point of the pro-life argument, and you seem to be simply repeating the statement that the woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life at every point in pregnancy. Obviously, some people disagree, and you have failed to explain, satisfactorily, why it is the case that the woman's bodily autonomy automatically trumps the wyci's life.

Similarly, every teenager with a driver's license has an equivalent right to drive. And yet, if teenager A has access only to a car that I own while teenager B owns a car, then it is completely moral and legal for me to take away teenager A's ability to drive a car, while it isn't okay for me to take away B's equivalent ability. And this isn't because B has a greater right to drive than A. It's because A would have to use something belonging to me to drive, while B wouldn't.

A late-term fetus might have the same right to life as a premature infant, but a right to life doesn't automatically imply a right to use a specific woman's body to do the living, any more than a right to drive implies a right to drive *my* car.

Now you're conflating different types of rights. The right to own a car is only protected to the point where one cannot be legally restricted from owning a car without good reason and due process. The right to life is one of the primary rights that government is supposed to protect from infringement by others; that is it's job.
The right to use a specific woman's body comes from consensual sex. In having sex, the woman acknowledges that she may become pregnant; there is really no other way to establish consent. Once that happens, the wyci is a living organism which is her responsibility, but for which the government still has the right to step in to protect.
In fact, perhaps consent is the wrong word to use, as it evokes the idea of consent to sex, which can be withdrawn at any time. Perhaps a contract is more accurate, as once entered into the contract, you cannot simply withdraw consent.

For some more general arguments that I have seen but I don't think have been properly addressed.
Someone has mentioned that they have "different morality" and so shouldn't be subjected to other people's morals. Well, my morals say I can kill anyone who has an abortion, who about that? Oh wait, I can't, because murder is illegal. This argument is basically pushing for anarchy. When you are in a society you accept limitations on your freedom ("don't murder people") in exchange for bonuses to your security ("we'll protect you and punish those who hurt you"). If you think a law is unjust, you argue the law on its merits (for example, rather than simply saying that you have "different morals" and therefore should be allowed to have homosexual sex, you might point out that homosexual sex doesn't hurt anyone who isn't involved).

People have tried to frame this as a woman's rights issue, I don't think that's the case, and misses the entire Pro-life argument. Never once does it invoke any difference between men and women (well, maybe there are people who claim that abortions should be illegal because women don't have rights, but not in this thread for sure, and nowhere else I've seen).

[podbaydoor]

Obviously, some people disagree, and you have failed to explain, satisfactorily, why it is the case that the woman's bodily autonomy automatically trumps the wyci's life.

Because the wyci and the husband have been historically considered to trump the woman's life in every way. The playing field is still not leveled yet.

In having sex, the woman acknowledges that she may become pregnant; there is really no other way to establish consent.

And what do men consent/contract to when they have sex? They get away scot-free from any physical or emotional burden by virtue of biology? Again, the reinforcing of the un-level playing field.

People have tried to frame this as a woman's rights issue, I don't think that's the case, and misses the entire Pro-life argument.

Of course it's a woman's right issue. Because it happens entirely in and around women's bodies, and has historically been used to imprison, control, and dominate women, and justify the same. The life of the embryo comes in to it, I suppose, but to claim the issue has nothing to do with women is even more disingenuous than claiming the opposite.

[Izawwlgood]

Obviously, some people disagree, and you have failed to explain, satisfactorily, why it is the case that the woman's bodily autonomy automatically trumps the wyci's life.

I'm actually not sure how many more different ways we can explain, quite satisfactorily, that a woman's bodily autonomy trumps a fetuses life because the fetus is reliant upon the woman's body to survive. It is therefor not an equivalent autonomous person.

The sex act is biological.

I strongly urge you to read about any of the plethora of animals for which mounting behavior is a social hierarchy determinate, exercised by both males and females. I also urge you to read any just about ANY primate, in which sex is often a social exchange that has about as much weight as grooming. I also urge you to interact with just about any HUMAN, in which sex is clearly, obviously, and frequently, something that is undertaken for purposes very different from reproduction.
However, you are correct; sex is biological, because behavior is also biological. That assertion is correct, that sex is something that evolved under evolutionary pressures, just like, say, pigment would have. What you are incorrect in assuming, again, in the face of Enuja's very accessibly linked citations and insistence, is that sex only has one function.
I also, again, suggest you simply look at the wikipedia entry for the book Sperm Wars. It provides an interesting if occasionally upsetting perspective into just how complex sexual behavior is, and how incorrect you are in assuming that it's as simple as 'penis goes in, baby comes out'

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

It makes all the difference in the world, and at this point you are starting to look like the one that is not reading what is being posted. You keep saying that the value of the fetus is irrelevant, when it is absolutely relevant. It is the entire point of the pro-life argument, and you seem to be simply repeating the statement that the woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life at every point in pregnancy. Obviously, some people disagree, and you have failed to explain, satisfactorily, why it is the case that the woman's bodily autonomy automatically trumps the wyci's life.

Context, motherfucker: do you speak it?

gmalivuk has been restating that argument in response to morriswalters' repeated attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, in which he claims that the same principle justifying abortion should justify infanticide. The reason that gmal doesn't defend that principle in restating it is that he's not currently making a positive argument for it, merely defending it against a certain ad nauseam counterargument.

Now you're conflating different types of rights. The right to own a car is only protected to the point where one cannot be legally restricted from owning a car without good reason and due process.

The point isn't the extent to which the right to drive is protected, but the extent to which you may impinge on others' rights in order to exercise that right (relatively little, as you acknowledge in your fist-swinging analogy).

The right to use a specific woman's body comes from consensual sex. In having sex, the woman acknowledges that she may become pregnant; there is really no other way to establish consent.

Sure there is. Consent is continuously given when a pregnant woman does not have an abortion. Consent is withdrawn in having an abortion.

[Angua]

The right to use a specific woman's body comes from consensual sex. In having sex, the woman acknowledges that she may become pregnant; there is really no other way to establish consent.

Sure there is. Consent is continuously given when a pregnant woman does not have an abortion. Consent is withdrawn in having an abortion.

If having sex is a contract, then I see it as the one you sign when you start a medical trial [not - I am not a lawyer, and am only speaking of the trials with which I have had experience) - you are allowed to withdraw consent at any time, without having to explain while you're withdrawing that consent if you don't want to (though a medical trial might ask you, as side-effects can often make people decide to drop out, but you generally don't have to say if you don't want to). There are generally benefits involved, but you also accept the risks, however if the risks actually occur, then you aren't judged for deciding that you don't want to go on with it any more.

But seriously, what contract are men signing when they have sex? Why are they allowed to not get stigmatised for having an out of wedlock pregnancy (and instead get to 'sow the wild oats').

[Aaeriele]

The right to use a specific woman's body

How the hell is that a "right"? How is it acceptable to be one? When's the last time you heard "the right to use a specific man's body"? Have you even considered the words you're typing?

And then you have the gall to end your post with...?

People have tried to frame this as a woman's rights issue, I don't think that's the case

[pizzazz]

Now you're conflating different types of rights. The right to own a car is only protected to the point where one cannot be legally restricted from owning a car without good reason and due process.

The point isn't the extent to which the right to drive is protected, but the extent to which you may impinge on others' rights in order to exercise that right (relatively little, as you acknowledge in your fist-swinging analogy).

Amount is not what's at issue, it's the reason for regulation. Protection of life is the most basic reason for regulation--if you can't justify the government stopping a murder, what can you justify them doing?

The right to use a specific woman's body comes from consensual sex. In having sex, the woman acknowledges that she may become pregnant; there is really no other way to establish consent.

Sure there is. Consent is continuously given when a pregnant woman does not have an abortion. Consent is withdrawn in having an abortion.

See farther down my post. You cannot arbitrarily withdraw the consent (especially) when another life is dependent on it, just like you can't arbitrarily withdraw from a contract.

Obviously, some people disagree, and you have failed to explain, satisfactorily, why it is the case that the woman's bodily autonomy automatically trumps the wyci's life.

Because the wyci and the husband have been historically considered to trump the woman's life in every way. The playing field is still not leveled yet.

What happened historically does not make the current situation right.

In having sex, the woman acknowledges that she may become pregnant; there is really no other way to establish consent.

And what do men consent/contract to when they have sex? They get away scot-free from any physical or emotional burden by virtue of biology? Again, the reinforcing of the un-level playing field.

Men consent/contract responsibility to the mother and the wyci during pregnancy (as well as responsibility to the mother and child after birth, just as the mother has a responsibility to the child and father). Enforcement of such responsibilty does at least partially exist in the form of child support, although that's harder to enforce (but things like DNA testing at least let you know who the father is for sure).

People have tried to frame this as a woman's rights issue, I don't think that's the case, and misses the entire Pro-life argument.

Of course it's a woman's right issue. Because it happens entirely in and around women's bodies, and has historically been used to imprison, control, and dominate women, and justify the same. The life of the embryo comes in to it, I suppose, but to claim the issue has nothing to do with women is even more disingenuous than claiming the opposite.

Again, what happened historically does not justify what is going on today. The use of slaves in Africa before the arrival of white people did not justify slavery of them or their descendents in America.
Essentially what you are saying is that if men got pregnant (or if women dominated men), then... well, I'm not exactly sure what. Would you then be pro-life, or just consider that as a posisble argument against abortion? Because either way, its irrelevant to the pro-life argument as it stands.

I'm actually not sure how many more different ways we can explain, quite satisfactorily, that a woman's bodily autonomy trumps a fetuses life because the fetus is reliant upon the woman's body to survive. It is therefor not an equivalent autonomous person.

Except gmalivuk has explicitly stated that
"You can argue all you want that there's no internal difference between the wyci, and most of us would agree with you, or at the very least grant your claim for the sake of argument. Because it makes no difference."
Making the claim that the wyci is inferior to the mother because it is not a person is an entirely separate claim, and you can make that claim, but it is very different than (again quoting gmalivuk).
" the morality of killing the in utero wyci is derived from the woman's right to bodily autonomy."
Not that the wyci is not a human, but that the woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the wyci's right to life.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

if you can't justify the government stopping a murder, what can you justify them doing?

"Murder" is just the term for homicides that aren't permitted by the government. There are certainly situations where the government would not be entitled to stop or punish homicide, such as self-defense.

See farther down my post. You cannot arbitrarily withdraw the consent (especially) when another life is dependent on it, just like you can't arbitrarily withdraw from a contract.

Why not? Am I obligated to give consent to a bodily incursion in the first place if somebody's life would depend on it? If so, why could I not withdraw consent later on?

I see that you've said that it's like a contract, but you haven't explained why consensual sex should be treated as a contract to carry a fetus to term.

[Angua]

Ok, if you're deciding that the foetus has more rights than the mother, how far does this extend? Does the mother now have a responsibility to make sure to the best of her ability that it is born a healthy child (I'm pretty sure that children have a right to health as far as possible)? This would lead to inducing pregnancy early as dangerous. Will all mothers who smoke now be prosecuted? Mothers who drink? Mothers who take any medications which may pose even the slightest risk? Mothers who drive (in case they get rear-ended and the impact to the steering wheel kills the foetus - happened in Saudi arabia). Mothers who enjoy karate or some other contact sport. Mothers who go up stairs (in case they fall down them). Mothers who have booked a trip somewhere with high altitude and go while pregnant (the hypoxia is not good for foetus). Mothers who put themselves in a position to get ill (having the flu during the first half of pregnancy increases the risk of the child developing schizophrenia later on, and might have other effects which I don't know about, and the link between german measles and toxoplasmosis to developmental problems have also been established).

How much of the woman's autonomy are you willing to restrict for the sake of the foetus?

[morriswalters]

I'm actually not sure how many more different ways we can explain, quite satisfactorily, that a woman's bodily autonomy trumps a fetuses life because the fetus is reliant upon the woman's body to survive. It is therefor not an equivalent autonomous person.

After 28 weeks, as a conservative estimate, the wyci does not require the mother to survive, he's just not got off the fucking bus cause it's warmer and more comfortable and much safer. He could get off the bus though. And that's what I've been saying.

I will make this my last post at this site since I have decided that I have fallen down the rabbit hole and I'm either in Wonderland or the matrix. It's obvious to me we are doomed as a species when something this simple is made so difficult. It's not that people disagree with me about abortion, or that they are angry because I disagree, I expected that and understand it. But that a concept as simple as the sex act being a mechanical process versus human sexual relations as a separate process which is another separate thing that happens at the same time boggles my mind or what is left of it. Because I have not lost all hope and am trying to stave off despair, I'll try this last time.

I understand all the relative value and the associations of human sexual behavior. I have read portions of the Kinsey Report, been immersed in popular culture and been married. Human sexuality is different as compared to copulation. Perhaps different phrasing will help. I understand that making love is different than fucking. Apply your own familiar euphemism. I am describing little wiggly's being squirted into the glory hole. Here is a link from Wikipedia. Minors should probably not follow this link. In any position described in that article involving vaginal penetration where the man ejaculates, there is a risk of pregnancy. It may be that the pleasure and other manifestations of the sex act were used to make certain that people will try and try again. They certainly seem to. But these are different issues. If you kill a innocent man while defending your life, I'm sure that he won't care that another motherfucker with a gun was trying to shoot you. This is sometimes called the law of unintended consequences. I know that you will never figure this out but anyway.....

To the sound of the peasants with torches and pitchforks and possibly a rope, I run while crying in despair. Certain that those behind me will not miss me. Azreal, I certainly hope that you will not remove this post. I have had fun writing it but just in case I will preserve it in my trove of treasured memories.

Toodles
Morris Walters

[Yakk]

Despite that, there is no EULA that says "by putting tab A into slot B, you agree to" ... anything at all on the part of the woman. You might want there to be. Others disagree.

Dressing things up with religious, evolutionary psychology, or other language doesn't make your argument a slam dunk. Because you are putting up theoretical, moralistic arguments up against people who care about what it does when the rubber meets the road.

The historical evidence actually does matter. The people (namely, women) you are trying to give the raw end of an EULA on are people who are historically, currently and systematically oppressed by rules just like the one you want to impose. Experimental evidence exists that such rules are tools of oppression of women, in effect. The supporters of these measures may or may not intend this effect -- that doesn't matter -- but we have seen the effects of those types of rules.

[drkslvr]

Despite that, there is no EULA that says "by putting tab A into slot B, you agree to" ... anything at all on the part of the woman. You might want there to be. Others disagree.

But there is one for men. It's not naturally written into our genes. Instead, it's written into the law. If there can be a law requiring this for men, why can't there be for women? On the other hand, if it's not right to make women imply consent to parenthood at intercourse, why is it right to make men imply consent to parenthood at intercourse?

(This is, more or less, what we've been discussing at http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49429.)

[Azrael]

Please try to avoid Thread Thunderdome.

Two threads, one thread leaves.

[drkslvr]

Please try to avoid Thread Thunderdome.

Two threads, one thread leaves.

I'm inferring from context that means crossing discussions between threads? Sorry, I was just trying to respond to what Yakk had posted. I thought he might be interested to know that there was already a thread discussing the issue he had brought up.

[Izawwlgood]

@pizzazz: I don't have to agree with gmal's reasoning. The way I see it, a fetuses potential to become a human does not make it, in it's current state, a human, and ergo, it is worth significantly less than a human. In any case, the point is still that's that a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps a fetuses right to inhabiting her uterus.

[Iulus Cofield]

Could we talk about suicide a bit? It came up briefly earlier, but didn't get much discussion.

[Aaeriele]

Could we talk about suicide a bit? It came up briefly earlier, but didn't get much discussion.

...probably because the topic of the thread is not suicide?

Rule 2 - Staying on topic is Serious Business

[Yakk]

Please try to avoid Thread Thunderdome.

Two threads, one thread leaves.

I'm inferring from context that means crossing discussions between threads? Sorry, I was just trying to respond to what Yakk had posted. I thought he might be interested to know that there was already a thread discussing the issue he had brought up.

Considering it was actually not an issue I brought up, no, I'm not that interested.

[pizzazz]

...
Ok.
I've been trying to discuss the relative value of the mother and wyci for 8 pages, but I keep being told it's irrelevant, because everyone has decreed that a woman's bodily autonomy supersedes the wyci's life.
Since this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I'm going to try to provide a few quick responses to clarify some things, and then try not to come back to this thread.

"Murder" is just the term for homicides that aren't permitted by the government. There are certainly situations where the government would not be entitled to stop or punish homicide, such as self-defense.

can't justify the government stopping a murder

As in, can't ever justify it.

Why not? Am I obligated to give consent to a bodily incursion in the first place if somebody's life would depend on it? If so, why could I not withdraw consent later on?

No, your bodily autonomy would not be compromised to save someone else. But if you make them dependent on you, and then drop that support, how is that different from murder?

I see that you've said that it's like a contract, but you haven't explained why consensual sex should be treated as a contract to carry a fetus to term.

You have created a new life and therefore have responsibility to that life.

Ok, if you're deciding that the foetus has more rights than the mother, how far does this extend

What are you going on about? As I've described, the entire legal system is basically deciding which rights (and whose, when comparing non-humans are protected over others (ie is it considered more important that I keep the right to swing my fist or your right to security from getting punched).

Edit--This particular situation happens to be particularly onerous to women, but that has nothing to do with the logic behind the pro-life argument, nor does it justify abortion. If we had a similar situation involving men, or that was gender neutral, the same logic would apply to restrict men's rights.

[felltir]

tangent, but what does wyci mean? I can't find an acronym for it, and it means "cut" in polish.

[greengiant]

People started using it in this thread to mean 'whatever you call it' after arguments about using the words embryo/fetus/baby/etc.

[felltir]

Thanks

[Angua]

Ok, if you're deciding that the foetus has more rights than the mother, how far does this extend

What are you going on about? As I've described, the entire legal system is basically deciding which rights (and whose, when comparing non-humans are protected over others (ie is it considered more important that I keep the right to swing my fist or your right to security from getting punched).

Yeah, and I'm asking whether the right for the foetus to be born healthy is greater than the right of the woman to lead a normal life. If a pregnant woman has the right to do a contact sport while pregnant, as it might result in foetus being punched. And all the other situations I described where a woman would potentially have to change her life and plans because she's carrying it around.

[Izawwlgood]

You have created a new life and therefore have responsibility to that life.

That you still don't understand why this isn't actually a point clearly indicates you haven't been paying attention to this thread.

[PAstrychef]

Ok, if you're deciding that the foetus has more rights than the mother, how far does this extend

What are you going on about? As I've described, the entire legal system is basically deciding which rights (and whose, when comparing non-humans are protected over others (ie is it considered more important that I keep the right to swing my fist or your right to security from getting punched).

Yeah, and I'm asking whether the right for the foetus to be born healthy is greater than the right of the woman to lead a normal life. If a pregnant woman has the right to do a contact sport while pregnant, as it might result in foetus being punched. And all the other situations I described where a woman would potentially have to change her life and plans because she's carrying it around.

Women have, in fact, been fined or jailed for drinking whilst pregnant, and at least one author (Michael Dorrit) has suggested that Native American women be confined during pregnancy to reduce the amount of fetal alcohol syndrome in that population. Just a few months ago a woman in Iowa fell while pregnant. When she went to the ER to see if her baby was ok, she was charged with deliberately trying to cause a miscarriage and jailed.

Life can't get much worse for Christine Taylor. Last month, after an upsetting phone conversation with her estranged husband, Ms. Taylor became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs in her home. Paramedics rushed to the scene and ultimately declared her healthy. However, since she was pregnant with her third child at the time, Taylor thought it would be best to be seen at the local ER to make sure her fetus was unharmed.
That's when things got really bad and really crazy. Alone, distraught, and frightened, Taylor confided in the nurse treating her that she hadn't always been sure she'd wanted this baby, now that she was single and unemployed. She'd considered both adoption and abortion before ultimately deciding to keep the child. The nurse then summoned a doctor, who questioned her further about her thoughts on ending the pregnancy. Next thing Taylor knew, she was being arrested for attempted feticide. Apparently the nurse and doctor thought that Taylor threw herself down the stairs on purpose.
According to Iowa state law, attempted feticide is an trying "to intentionally terminate a human pregnancy, with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy." At least 37 states have similar laws. Taylor spent two days in jail before being released. That's right, a pregnant woman was jailed for admitting to thinking about an abortion at some point early in her pregnancy and then having the audacity to fall down some stairs a couple of months later.

And in Utah:

A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage.... In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior. Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy.

These laws promote the idea that a woman is basically a baby-carrying machine, and once implantation has happened, she should nothing but be pregnant-no matter what is going on with her life.

[Enuja]

I think it’s time for a thread summary. Whether abortion is a woman’s rights issue depends on the amount of human rights you think embryos, fetuses, and infants have and on the importance you put on the equality and rights of women.

Some people think that the rights of a developing human slowly develop, start out as the right not to be tortured, and, if/when the human develops the ability to determine their own worth, the human gains the right to life unless they choose to die. Other people think that all genetically distinct balls of human cells have an intrinsic right to life, and therefore should not be euthanized, even if they have a >90% chance of slowly, painfully dying. Yet other people have beliefs everywhere on the spectrum of positions about human rights between these two beliefs.

Some people think that the inequality of men and women is a biological fact of life, and that no woman’s rights movement can or should change that, so power inequalities due to the uterus inside a woman are not woman’s rights issues. Other people think that absolutely everything that changes outcomes and consequences between the group of people we call “women” and the group of people we call “men” is a woman’s rights issue.

In other words, if you think that woman’s rights are important, you think that abortion is a woman’s rights issue. You might think that it’s a fraught and problematic woman’s rights issue, if you think that embryos or fetuses gain “full” human rights, but you think it’s a woman’s rights issue.

Lots of people fall in the middle of both spectrums, and think that woman’s rights end somewhere and fetus’s rights begin somewhere. Many of these people think that technology changes the reach of women’s rights: that when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, the woman no longer has the right to terminate the fetus, even when that fetus’s survival is dependent on all kinds of neo-natal intensive care units.






And, now, my reaction to the arguments of some of the people who disagree with me.

I get angry when I read that some people want my right to abort to be dependent upon the fetus’s chance of survival. As a person who thinks that human rights develop slowly and start out as a right to be euthanized, and as a person who wants to get rid of gender and sexual difference entirely, I think that abortion is completely a woman’s rights issue, and the fetus's rights depend on the moral beliefs of the woman. I want my morals to be able to control my decisions about my body.

The March of Dimes has a very good informational page on Premature Birth. It includes general information, and specific descriptions of the average condition of babies born at specific weeks of gestation. While there is an 80% chance of survival at 26 weeks, babies born that young are not full term babies, need enormous amounts of care from a neo-natal ICU, and are, physiologically, not yet ready to be outside of the womb. “Normal” gestation is 37-40 weeks, and babies born full-term are more likely to be healthy than babies born with 36 weeks or less of gestation. Medicine does not yet have a replacement womb that does anything near the job a woman’s uterus and the placenta do together.

If you force me to not have an abortion at 26 weeks, but to instead deliver the baby and “see if it survives”, you are effectively, morally, forcing me to carry the baby to term, because I think that the fetus inside me may eventually become a human, with full human rights. I am not willing to introduce a potential-human into the world who does not yet having sufficient surfactant in their lungs to breath air, who has a 25% chance of serious lasting disabilities, and a 50% chance to have mild lasting disabilities, just to prevent me from carrying a baby for another three and a half months, even though these are the most risky three and half months for my own health and the most disruptive to my life. Several of you argue that it’s very simple to just birth the baby if I want a “late-term” abortion, and see if it survives. But my morals don’t work that way. If I the doctors can’t promise me that the fetus will die, if the fetus has a chance of becoming a full human being, then I cannot morally make choices to give that future human being a much, much riskier outcome.

The pain and horror of the idea that my right to abort ends when the fetus "can" survive outside of my womb is increased by the fact that, at least for me, I can only imagine getting that far along in a pregnancy if I was planning on having a baby. Therefore, my own choice to abort at 26 weeks would most likely to be due to health problems of the fetus. In other words, I'd only be aborting in order to prevent suffering in the future human that my fetus could eventually turn into, so forcing me to birth the baby instead is really horrifying, because it would increase the suffering of the possible future human!






I stopped posting in this thread for a little bit because I couldn't think of anything productive and interesting to say, even though I'd already written a fair amount of the part above that is about premature births (and I'd written pages of other stuff, too). Hopefully this post is useful to everyone still reading the thread, even though my mind is not going to be changed and this post is very unlikely to change anyone's mind. Hopefully the link about premature babies will be useful to some posters, and hopefully we'll have less angry argument claiming that other posters are simply not listening, or paying attention, or capable of reading comprehension. We are talking past each other not because of willful stubbornness, but because of incompatible basic beliefs and morals.

[FireZs]

I want my morals to be able to control my decisions about my body.

And the point of the argument you were railing against was precisely that you do get to decide when the consequences are borne by your body. But in this case, if the baby is survivable when delivered, the consequences are no longer borne by your body, because either way your body will sever its connection with the baby.

The rest of the argument deals with something entirely different from the woman's body: the woman's right to euthanize her child if she feels it would be better than letting it live a suboptimal life, and it's also an argument that a lot of people have used in this thread, and I think it's not something the woman should have the power to choose for the child as a condition of severance from her body. If the argument of "reducing suffering" is valid, shouldn't we be letting people euthanize their born children if they're found to have lifelong health problems after they're born?

[Yakk]

The problem is that to enforce your morals, you need to take ownership of the woman's body away from her. And you need to do this wholesale. You need to criminally investigate every woman who has a miscarriage past a certain date to determine if it was an acceptable miscarriage. You need to take women, and say "you are no longer sovereign over your body".

This is a necessary step to your plan. The intrusion of the state into every single woman who is pregnant's life is required by your plan. You need to reduce women who are pregnant to sub-citizen status in order that the wyci inside of them is properly protected from the woman.

Do you understand that is what you are proposing?

Do you understand that this was done, and is done today, and that the pro-life contingent are passing laws today that are aimed at exactly what I'm describing above? That women, under todays laws, have indeed been arrested for thinking about ending a pregnancy (and admitting it), and then later having a miscarriage?

I'm not willing to reduce pregnant women to being mainly incubators in the eyes of the law. And that is what those proposals entail, in actual practice, when actually enacted in law in the real world in the decades and centuries of experience the world has had with laws like the ones you want.

This isn't, in the real world, an ivory tower argument about "balance of rights". The rubber meets the road, and it leaves scars.

[Izawwlgood]

FireZs, all the questions you've just asked have been asked (often by you), and addressed (by multiple people), numerous times, in this very thread.

[FireZs]

The problem is that to enforce your morals, you need to take ownership of the woman's body away from her. And you need to do this wholesale. You need to criminally investigate every woman who has a miscarriage past a certain date to determine if it was an acceptable miscarriage. You need to take women, and say "you are no longer sovereign over your body".

This is a necessary step to your plan. The intrusion of the state into every single woman who is pregnant's life is required by your plan. You need to reduce women who are pregnant to sub-citizen status in order that the wyci inside of them is properly protected from the woman.

Do you understand that is what you are proposing?

Do you understand that this was done, and is done today, and that the pro-life contingent are passing laws today that are aimed at exactly what I'm describing above? That women, under todays laws, have indeed been arrested for thinking about ending a pregnancy (and admitting it), and then later having a miscarriage?

I'm not willing to reduce pregnant women to being mainly incubators in the eyes of the law. And that is what those proposals entail, in actual practice, when actually enacted in law in the real world in the decades and centuries of experience the world has had with laws like the ones you want.

This isn't, in the real world, an ivory tower argument about "balance of rights". The rubber meets the road, and it leaves scars.

Well, in the real world, my plan would actually be more pro-choice than what currently exists under certain states, wouldn't it? As far as I know where cutoff laws exist, after the cutoff point the woman is forced to carry the baby to term. That's not a requirement with what I'm proposing.

And on the flip side, the cost of allowing abortions in any and all circumstances no matter how late, is that for the sake of moral purity, you allow the 0.001% of late-term-not-for-health-reasons abortions to go through that aren't really very justifiable, and what that does is that you give the pro-lifers a cudgel to hammer the 99.999% of early abortions that most people have no problem with. Your position is actually hurting the pro-choice cause for not that much gain.

FireZs, all the questions you've just asked have been asked (often by you), and addressed (by multiple people), numerous times, in this very thread.

And those responses have been responded to (Edit: I'm sorry, "addressed") time and time again. Your point?

[Yakk]

Well, in the real world, my plan would actually be more pro-choice than what currently exists under certain states, wouldn't it?

Probably -- the existence of something worse doesn't make your plan palatable. I mean, there are regions of the world where women have next no rights at all, and your plan is even better than those areas as well!

As far as I know where cutoff laws exist, after the cutoff point the woman is forced to carry the baby to term. That's not a requirement with what I'm proposing.

In practice, your plan is a cutoff law. Unless, of course, you plan on severing the mother from all legal responsibility as well? (And even if that is your plan, I don't believe it would hold when the rubber meets the road)

The states that are worse are states that want to restrict woman's rights as much as they can as far as I can tell, and are only stopping this far short because if they go over it they will get bopped on the nose.

And on the flip side, the cost of allowing abortions in any and all circumstances no matter how late, is that for the sake of moral purity,

No, I'm not arguing from a state or for moral purity.

I'm arguing from practical experience of what happens when you take away the right for someone to do what they want with their body. About the only time this could be somewhat justified is when someone is found clinically insane (and people with limited mental facilities) -- your plan is "clinically insane, limited mental facilities, or you are pregnant" means you don't get to control what happens to your body.

[FireZs]

In practice, your plan is a cutoff law. Unless, of course, you plan on severing the mother from all legal responsibility as well? (And even if that is your plan, I don't believe it would hold when the rubber meets the road)

The states that are worse are states that want to restrict woman's rights as much as they can as far as I can tell, and are only stopping this far short because if they go over it they will get bopped on the nose.

Yes, that was what I argued before, that the mother should not have any legal responsibility. The point is to make everything effectively the same as getting an abortion as much as possible, but have the baby live.

And on the flip side, the cost of allowing abortions in any and all circumstances no matter how late, is that for the sake of moral purity,

No, I'm not arguing from a state or for moral purity.

I'm arguing from practical experience of what happens when you take away the right for someone to do what they want with their body. About the only time this could be somewhat justified is when someone is found clinically insane (and people with limited mental facilities) -- your plan is "clinically insane, limited mental facilities, or you are pregnant" means you don't get to control what happens to your body.

Except it's not about the woman's body anymore. I thought we covered this. Either way she's free of the fetus. Her body isn't going to bear the consequences of the choice between delivery and abortion. And also, from my practical experience, when you insist that women abortions at 38 weeks must be allowed, the political reality is that you're going to lose people in the middle, and that just gives pro-lifers opening to potentially make their plans a reality.

[Izawwlgood]

And those responses have been responded to (Edit: I'm sorry, "addressed") time and time again. Your point?

That reasking the original question and ignoring the answers given is something you've been called on numerous times, and it's tiring.