Help me clarify my thoughts on abortion and slavery

[danieldemol]

This is hopefully a more nuanced thread but similar to The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion Rights

To clarify, I'm pro-abortion and also a non US citizen so my ideas probably won't effect many people, but basically in the other thread it looked to me like there was wide spread agreement that bodily autonomy trumps the right to sentient life and that it was enforcing slavery to legislate otherwise.

So my thoughts are, imagine a toddler running around with its parents not feeding, clothing, housing, protecting that child. Then the child dies eg run over by a car because it's parents didn't prevent it wandering into traffic. Is that enforcing slavery on the parents by legally insisting they care for the child or face consequences?

I believe that humans are sentient creatures and as such we have some duty of care towards each other.

I would say that this includes humans in the womb who have become able to feel the pain and suffering of dying and although I'm honestly not sure how to weigh that against the pain of labour In childbirth, I honestly don't see legally enforcing some duty of care before birth (with exceptions such as threat to the health of the mother) as being different to enforcing duty of care after birth, although I'm comfortable to leave weighing that duty of care in the hands of medically competent doctors.

Your thoughts?

 

[an anarchist]

Your thoughts?

There is a reason why prochoice thinking requires the dehumanization of the unborn baby.

 

[danieldemol]

There is a reason why prochoice thinking requires the dehumanization of the unborn baby.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, and besides I'm pro choice myself. My thoughts were more about people who argue we should be able to abort at whim up to the moment of birth if that helps clarify.

 

[gotti]

I'm typically very anti-nannystatism, but I've often hypothesized that people should have to obtain licenses to have children.

If they're unlicensed and want to have children, they should adopt.

Kills two birds with one stone - suppresses the possibility of negligent idiots procreating and provides parentless children with parents.

Obviously there are a lot of very serious problems with this idea though lol.

Forced abortions, vulnerable children placed into the care of negligent idiots, etc.

Just thinking outside the box as a means to improve society.

 

[an anarchist]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, and besides I'm pro choice myself. My thoughts were more about people who argue we should be able to abort at whim up to the moment of birth if that helps clarify.

There are double standards in place. You say you don’t see much difference in enforcing care for someone from before they are born and after they are born. But I believe other pro choicers see differently, if I understand them correctly.

Observe the following scene.

Now reimagine the scene, but instead of cartoon characters, imagine it with a real adult man and a real child.

Suddenly, not so funny, is it?

When you don’t equate an unborn human to a born human, it allows you to have different standards for them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a reason why prochoice thinking requires the dehumanization of the unborn baby.

Do you think that being against mandatory blood donation requires dehumanization of blood recipients?

 

[Pogo]

This is hopefully a more nuanced thread but similar to The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion Rights

To clarify, I'm pro-abortion and also a non US citizen so my ideas probably won't effect many people, but basically in the other thread it looked to me like there was wide spread agreement that bodily autonomy trumps the right to sentient life and that it was enforcing slavery to legislate otherwise.

So my thoughts are, imagine a toddler running around with its parents not feeding, clothing, housing, protecting that child. Then the child dies eg run over by a car because it's parents didn't prevent it wandering into traffic. Is that enforcing slavery on the parents by legally insisting they care for the child or face consequences?

I believe that humans are sentient creatures and as such we have some duty of care towards each other.

I would say that this includes humans in the womb who have become able to feel the pain and suffering of dying and although I'm honestly not sure how to weigh that against the pain of labour In childbirth, I honestly don't see legally enforcing some duty of care before birth (with exceptions such as threat to the health of the mother) as being different to enforcing duty of care after birth, although I'm comfortable to leave weighing that duty of care in the hands of medically competent doctors.

Your thoughts?

An interesting point to add to your conundrum is that there is no universal "duty of care" after birth beyond the states involvement when informed of egregious violations, so are you referring to a personal moral understanding or a state sponsored understanding?

How might this relate to a persons understanding of whether they have a duty of care to a potentiality?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To clarify, I'm pro-abortion and also a non US citizen so my ideas probably won't effect many people, but basically in the other thread it looked to me like there was wide spread agreement that bodily autonomy trumps the right to sentient life and that it was enforcing slavery to legislate otherwise.

That wasn't my argument, personally.
I do agree that denial of abortion rights is an infringement of bodily autonomy, but I'm not sure that it's exactly slavery.

So my thoughts are, imagine a toddler running around with its parents not feeding, clothing, housing, protecting that child. Then the child dies eg run over by a car because it's parents didn't prevent it wandering into traffic. Is that enforcing slavery on the parents by legally insisting they care for the child or face consequences?

No, it's not slavery.

Having an obligation doesn't automatically mean that "slavery" is happening.

Parents have an obligation to make sure certain needs for their child are met, but they're free to choose for themselves how to meet those needs.

Having a mortgage and having to work to pay your mortgage is different from selling yourself into slavery to pay your mortgage.

 

[danieldemol]

An interesting point to add to your conundrum is that there is no universal "duty of care" after birth beyond the states involvement when informed of egregious violations,

Ok, US law must be different to Australian law, im pretty sure in our country there is a duty of care for all persons in all states.

so are you referring to a personal moral understanding or a state sponsored understanding?

I think I'm referring to a state sponsored understanding.

How might this relate to a persons understanding of whether they have a duty of care to a potentiality?

Well I believe that once a person becomes able to feel the suffering of death even if they are in the womb their right to life needs to be weighed in. So I would at least mandate that barring exceptional circumstances abortion should be done by a competent physician.

That way instead of somebody with 30 days to birth deciding on a whim to abort could not do it on their own, they would at least have to have the agreement of the competent doctor who carried it out.

They could probably still go doctor shopping to find one that had this anti-slavery view I appeared to observe in the other thread, but it would make it harder and I don't see any practical means of avoiding such a view entirely.

 

[Pogo]

Ok, US law must be different to Australian law, im pretty sure in our country there is a duty of care for all persons in all states.

I think I'm referring to a state sponsored understanding.

Well I believe that once a person becomes able to feel the suffering of death even if they are in the womb their right to life needs to be weighed in. So I would at least mandate that barring exceptional circumstances abortion should be done by a competent physician.

That way instead of somebody with 30 days to birth deciding on a whim to abort could not do it on their own, they would at least have to have the agreement of the competent doctor who carried it out.

They could probably still go doctor shopping to find one that had this anti-slavery view I appeared to observe in the other thread, but it would make it harder and I don't see any practical means of avoiding such a view entirely.

Let's keep this out of extremis possibilities so as to avoid unnecessary hypotheticals.

people who wish to have a child generally feel this way from even before the question of pregnancy even arises.
People who do not wish to be pregnant also generally feel this way before the question arises.
People who change their minds midstream are likely exceedingly rarer as pregnancy progresses unless their chance of a successful birth diminishes significantly.

At this point what can the state really argue in terms of what?
Is there even a state interest, and if you claim there is, is not the state responsible for their decision in contradiction to the individuals decision.?

Is it really even in the states interest to legislate personal extremes?

 

[sayak83]

Ok, US law must be different to Australian law, im pretty sure in our country there is a duty of care for all persons in all states.

I think I'm referring to a state sponsored understanding.

Well I believe that once a person becomes able to feel the suffering of death even if they are in the womb their right to life needs to be weighed in. So I would at least mandate that barring exceptional circumstances abortion should be done by a competent physician.

That way instead of somebody with 30 days to birth deciding on a whim to abort could not do it on their own, they would at least have to have the agreement of the competent doctor who carried it out.

They could probably still go doctor shopping to find one that had this anti-slavery view I appeared to observe in the other thread, but it would make it harder and I don't see any practical means of avoiding such a view entirely.

I agree with you. That is why, in my view, bodily autonomy starts giving way to right to life around 21-24 weeks best on medical understanding of fetal brain development. Exceptions for forced, underage or complicated pregnancy will be there.

I am also for mandatory call ups for blood donation, especially for rare blood types. If jury duty can be mandatory, not sure why this one can't.

 

[danieldemol]

Let's keep this out of extremis possibilities so as to avoid unnecessary hypotheticals.

people who wish to have a child generally feel this way from even before the question of pregnancy even arises.
People who do not wish to be pregnant also generally feel this way before the question arises.
People who change their minds midstream are likely exceedingly rarer as pregnancy progresses unless their chance of a successful birth diminishes significantly.

Ok, I think I agree to all the above.

At this point what can the state really argue in terms of what?

I think the state can argue that people have a reasonable duty of care to consult with a competent physician to obtain an abortion.

Is there even a state interest, and if you claim there is, is not the state responsible for their decision in contradiction to the individuals decision.?

I'm unclear on your question, but I believe the state would have some responsibility to ensure doctors meet certain competencies to be certified to produce abortions.

i also believe that the state should have a duty of care to all children born whose parents either dont pass certain financial means tests or whose parents are unwilling or unable to care for them.

Is it really even in the states interest to legislate personal extremes?

I believe the state already legislates on extremes, not many people are murderers for example.

 

[crossfire]

This is hopefully a more nuanced thread but similar to The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion Rights

To clarify, I'm pro-abortion and also a non US citizen so my ideas probably won't effect many people, but basically in the other thread it looked to me like there was wide spread agreement that bodily autonomy trumps the right to sentient life and that it was enforcing slavery to legislate otherwise.

So my thoughts are, imagine a toddler running around with its parents not feeding, clothing, housing, protecting that child. Then the child dies eg run over by a car because it's parents didn't prevent it wandering into traffic. Is that enforcing slavery on the parents by legally insisting they care for the child or face consequences?

I believe that humans are sentient creatures and as such we have some duty of care towards each other.

I would say that this includes humans in the womb who have become able to feel the pain and suffering of dying and although I'm honestly not sure how to weigh that against the pain of labour In childbirth, I honestly don't see legally enforcing some duty of care before birth (with exceptions such as threat to the health of the mother) as being different to enforcing duty of care after birth, although I'm comfortable to leave weighing that duty of care in the hands of medically competent doctors.

Your thoughts?

It's a matter of consent. If you decided to continue a pregnancy and keep the child, or to legally adopt a child, you are consensually entering into a parent/child relationship, with duties of care agreed upon by the state/community. There used to be a formal naming/christening ceremony to seal this relationship in most cultures.

 

[danieldemol]

It's a matter of consent. If you decided to continue a pregnancy and keep the child, or to legally adopt a child, you are consensually entering into a parent/child relationship, with duties of care agreed upon by the state/community. There used to be a formal naming/christening ceremony to seal this relationship in most cultures.

Spoiler: Discusses sexual violence

The only exception I can currently think of to this is rape, but in the case of rape would you be comfortable with a person continuing the pregnancy to say 8 months and then having an abortion without receiving a second opinion from a competent doctor?

I think that even though it is still before birth, at this stage a person would have consensually continued the pregnancy even though they didn't consensually agree to beginning the pregnancy and thus they have already entered a parent child relationship etc. Why does this parent/child relationship only begin after birth?

 

[Heyo]

This is hopefully a more nuanced thread but similar to The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion Rights

To clarify, I'm pro-abortion and also a non US citizen so my ideas probably won't effect many people, but basically in the other thread it looked to me like there was wide spread agreement that bodily autonomy trumps the right to sentient life and that it was enforcing slavery to legislate otherwise.

So my thoughts are, imagine a toddler running around with its parents not feeding, clothing, housing, protecting that child. Then the child dies eg run over by a car because it's parents didn't prevent it wandering into traffic. Is that enforcing slavery on the parents by legally insisting they care for the child or face consequences?

I believe that humans are sentient creatures and as such we have some duty of care towards each other.

I would say that this includes humans in the womb who have become able to feel the pain and suffering of dying and although I'm honestly not sure how to weigh that against the pain of labour In childbirth, I honestly don't see legally enforcing some duty of care before birth (with exceptions such as threat to the health of the mother) as being different to enforcing duty of care after birth, although I'm comfortable to leave weighing that duty of care in the hands of medically competent doctors.

Your thoughts?

I think your thoughts are already pretty clear.
You recognize the right to bodily autonomy.
You recognize a right to life of the fetus once it reaches sentience (20 to 24 weeks) and weigh it against the right to bodily autonomy.
You recognize that there must be medical exceptions after the 20 weeks mark, and that the evaluation of those must be by medical professionals (ideally 2 independent doctors).
I think that at 20 to 24 weeks into pregnancy, a woman had enough time to make a decision, so that bodily autonomy is preserved.
And birthing a child doesn't come with a duty to care. The woman can always give up the child to adoption if she feels unable to care for it.
All that is left in conflict is a period of 20 weeks, when the woman is "forced" to keep to her commitment she had made in the weeks before week 20 (as long as she and the fetus are healthy).
I don't see a better compromise than that.

 

[Heyo]

Spoiler: Discusses sexual violence

The only exception I can currently think of to this is rape, but in the case of rape would you be comfortable with a person continuing the pregnancy to say 8 months and then having an abortion without receiving a second opinion from a competent doctor?

I think that even though it is still before birth, at this stage a person would have consensually continued the pregnancy even though they didn't consensually agree to beginning the pregnancy and thus they have already entered a parent child relationship etc. Why does this parent/child relationship only begin after birth?

I can think of another special case. Imagine an incestual relationship unknown to both parents. (Both have been adopted.) They find out only after week 20.
Inbreeding increases the chance of genetic deformations, but it is still uncommon. Genetic tests can be done, and the doctors can recommend a late abortion if the fetus isn't healthy.

 

[crossfire]

Spoiler: Discusses sexual violence

The only exception I can currently think of to this is rape, but in the case of rape would you be comfortable with a person continuing the pregnancy to say 8 months and then having an abortion without receiving a second opinion from a competent doctor?

I think that even though it is still before birth, at this stage a person would have consensually continued the pregnancy even though they didn't consensually agree to beginning the pregnancy and thus they have already entered a parent child relationship etc. Why does this parent/child relationship only begin after birth?

Such a child born alive at eight months would have the rights of a person, but should be adopted out and not go back into the dysfunctional family that spawned it. I do believe that the State can and does have an interest in viable fetuses.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is hopefully a more nuanced thread but similar to The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion Rights

To clarify, I'm pro-abortion and also a non US citizen so my ideas probably won't effect many people, but basically in the other thread it looked to me like there was wide spread agreement that bodily autonomy trumps the right to sentient life and that it was enforcing slavery to legislate otherwise.

So my thoughts are, imagine a toddler running around with its parents not feeding, clothing, housing, protecting that child. Then the child dies eg run over by a car because it's parents didn't prevent it wandering into traffic. Is that enforcing slavery on the parents by legally insisting they care for the child or face consequences?

I believe that humans are sentient creatures and as such we have some duty of care towards each other.

I would say that this includes humans in the womb who have become able to feel the pain and suffering of dying and although I'm honestly not sure how to weigh that against the pain of labour In childbirth, I honestly don't see legally enforcing some duty of care before birth (with exceptions such as threat to the health of the mother) as being different to enforcing duty of care after birth, although I'm comfortable to leave weighing that duty of care in the hands of medically competent doctors.

Your thoughts?

Parents willingly agree to accept legal responsibility for their children. Anyone who doesn't want to accept that responsibility can give their off spring up for adoption, and then any adopting parent would willingly agree to accept those responsibilities. So the concept of enforcing slavery on the parents doesn't apply. An individual who gets pregnant has not agreed to accept the risks and responsibilities of using their body to sustain the life of a potential individual.

No matter how precious we may think life is, the government doesn't have the right to force an individual to assume the risks of donating an organ that would save the life of someone requiring an organ donation. That would be enforcing slavery, saying that the government owns an individual's body and not the individual. So the government should also not have the right to force a pregnant individual to assume the risks to their health that using their body to sustain the life of a potential individual would impose. Why should a fetus - one that given enough time and the proper conditions has the potential to someday become an individual - have greater rights than an actual individual?

 

[QuestioningMind]

There is a reason why prochoice thinking requires the dehumanization of the unborn baby.

There is a reason why anti-abortion thinking requires the dehumanization of pregnant individuals.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree with you. That is why, in my view, bodily autonomy starts giving way to right to life around 21-24 weeks best on medical understanding of fetal brain development. Exceptions for forced, underage or complicated pregnancy will be there.

I am also for mandatory call ups for blood donation, especially for rare blood types. If jury duty can be mandatory, not sure why this one can't.

Hmm... blood donations have little to no health risks, so it's really not equivalent to enforced pregnancy. Mandatory organ donations would actually be a better analogy. Would you support forcing someone with two healthy kidneys to face the potential health risks involved in donating one to someone who needs it to live?