Help me clarify my thoughts on abortion and slavery

[danieldemol]

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.

Not necessarily in my view. Suppose they don't want the responsibility and aren't responsible enough to give the child up for adoption. For example suppose they felt that letting the child wander into traffic was less hassle than going through an adoption process, you are forcing them to go through an adoption process, is that a form of slavery?

Also I couldn't quickly find information on the adoption process from the donating end, but even a child protective services investigation takes 30 days (source: How Do CPS Cases Work in California? Important Information 2024. )

And as far as adoption process in its entirety;

'It may take six months or more from the time you apply before a child is placed in your home; it will take at least three to twelve months after that before the adoption may be finalized in court.'

Source: https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/adopti...may take six months,may be finalized in court.

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.

That can be true at conception, but at what point of pregnancy does that become no longer true? I believe that point comes a while before birth.

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.

What risks to their health are we talking about specifically? If a doctor thinks the mother is at risk im not opposed to abortion.

But suppose if you decided that you wanted to have an organ donation and somone became able to feel the pain of death as a consequence of your decision just to have you change your mind after they became able to feel that pain just to have you decide you wanted your organ back after 24 weeks would it be reasonable to expect them to go through the pain of death because you changed your mind?

There may be a point at which even if one did not decide to concieve, they decided to keep the pregnancy going long enough for a creature to feel the suffering of death, and perhaps at that point it becomes a bit analogous to asking for one's organ back after one made the choice to resuscitate the other person.

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?

I think a person has the right to not be put through the suffering of death by the positive action of an individual unnecessarily and that right exists before and after they are born, so I don't see it as a greater right.

But I don't necessarily have a problem with some persons having greater rights for example a child has the right to a parent up to a certain age where practical, then after that age they don't have that right.

Would you say why should a child that someday may potentially become an adult have greater rights than an adult?

 

[sayak83]

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?

Health risks of a normal pregnancy is extremely low and 99% of normal pregnancies and deliveries have no side effects afterwards. So I would claim my example for blood donation is a better one than yours.
In fact the opposite is true. Having children improves the health of women significantly unless we are talking about teen pregnancy or very late pregnancies and many types of cancer risks are reduced. Thus the idea that a typical pregnancy somehow endangers the health of the mother is simply not true.
Reproductive History and Cancer Risk

Potential Mechanisms underlying the Protective Effect of Pregnancy against Breast Cancer: A Focus on the IGF Pathway
A first full-term birth at an early age protects women against breast cancer by reducing lifetime risk by up to 50%. The underlying mechanism resulting in this protective effect remains unclear, but many avenues have been investigated, including lobular differentiation, cell fate, and stromal composition. A single pregnancy at an early age protects women for 30–40 years, and this long-term protection is likely regulated by a relatively stable yet still modifiable method, such as epigenetic reprograming. Long-lasting epigenetic modifications have been shown to be induced by pregnancy and to target the IGF pathway. Understanding how an early first full-term pregnancy protects against breast cancer and the role of epigenetic reprograming of the IGF system may aid in developing new preventative strategies for young healthy women in the future.

In fact, it has been shown that having children increases the life expectancy of men and women by around 2 years.
Having children may increase lifespan

Thus the idea that pregnancies endanger the life of the mother may be true for specific cases (and doctors can judge that), but is entirely untrue in general.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not necessarily in my view. Suppose they don't want the responsibility and aren't responsible enough to give the child up for adoption. For example suppose they felt that letting the child wander into traffic was less hassle than going through an adoption process, you are forcing them to go through an adoption process, is that a form of slavery?

Also I couldn't quickly find information on the adoption process from the donating end, but even a child protective services investigation takes 30 days (source: How Do CPS Cases Work in California? Important Information 2024. )

And as far as adoption process in its entirety;

'It may take six months or more from the time you apply before a child is placed in your home; it will take at least three to twelve months after that before the adoption may be finalized in court.'

Source: https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/adoption/process.php#:~:text=It may take six months,may be finalized in court.

That can be true at conception, but at what point of pregnancy does that become no longer true? I believe that point comes a while before birth.

What risks to their health are we talking about specifically? If a doctor thinks the mother is at risk im not opposed to abortion.

But suppose if you decided that you wanted to have an organ donation and somone became able to feel the pain of death as a consequence of your decision just to have you change your mind after they became able to feel that pain just to have you decide you wanted your organ back after 24 weeks would it be reasonable to expect them to go through the pain of death because you changed your mind?

There may be a point at which even if one did not decide to concieve, they decided to keep the pregnancy going long enough for a creature to feel the suffering of death, and perhaps at that point it becomes a bit analogous to asking for one's organ back after one made the choice to resuscitate the other person.

I think a person has the right to not be put through the suffering of death by the positive action of an individual unnecessarily and that right exists before and after they are born, so I don't see it as a greater right.

But I don't necessarily have a problem with some persons having greater rights for example a child has the right to a parent up to a certain age where practical, then after that age they don't have that right.

Would you say why should a child that someday may potentially become an adult have greater rights than an adult?

Not necessarily in my view. Suppose they don't want the responsibility and aren't responsible enough to give the child up for adoption. For example suppose they felt that letting the child wander into traffic was less hassle than going through an adoption process, you are forcing them to go through an adoption process, is that a form of slavery?

That's not how it works. A parent who gives birth to a child it doesn't want to take responsibility for simply has to refuse to sign the forms at the hospital saying that they are willing to take legal responsibility. If they refuse then the child it turned over to the state, which then has responsibility for that child until a suitable adoptive parent can be found who is willing to take on the legal responsibility. Any parent who has legal responsibility for a child can sign away the rights and responsibilities for that child to the state at any time. Expecting people to take the steps to legally absolved themselves of their responsibility can hardly be compared to slavery. That's like saying that enforcing any established law is a form of slavery. As for people so vile as to allow their child to wander out into traffic to avoid the hassle of filing some legal forms, that's plain negligence and they should be held accountable.

What risks to their health are we talking about specifically? If a doctor thinks the mother is at risk im not opposed to abortion.

There is a LONG list of potential health risks associated with bringing a pregnancy to term. Hundreds of thousands of women die each year from pregnancy related issues. Millions more develop lifelong health issues associated with childbirth, among them back problems, thyroid disfunction, nerve injury, mental disorders, incontinence, even blindness. A woman's body changes drastically during pregnancy and is never the same again afterwards. And though doctors can warn some women that they might have a greater risk for one health issue or another, in many cases the risks can't be determined beforehand. And who gets to decide what is an acceptable amount of risk a woman should be forced to have to take? If at the beginning of a pregnancy a doctor determines there's a 2% chance of a women developing a serious issue, is that enough of a risk to allow an abortion? What if the risk increases later in the pregnancy to 4% or 8%?


I have tremendous respect for all of the women who willingly accept those risks and changes. But no one should be forced to assume such risks and changes. Only the person facing the risks has the right to decide what percentage of risk they're willing to take.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Health risks of a normal pregnancy is extremely low and 99% of normal pregnancies and deliveries have no side effects afterwards. So I would claim my example for blood donation is a better one than yours.
In fact the opposite is true. Having children improves the health of women significantly unless we are talking about teen pregnancy or very late pregnancies and many types of cancer risks are reduced. Thus the idea that a typical pregnancy somehow endangers the health of the mother is simply not true.
Reproductive History and Cancer Risk

Potential Mechanisms underlying the Protective Effect of Pregnancy against Breast Cancer: A Focus on the IGF Pathway
A first full-term birth at an early age protects women against breast cancer by reducing lifetime risk by up to 50%. The underlying mechanism resulting in this protective effect remains unclear, but many avenues have been investigated, including lobular differentiation, cell fate, and stromal composition. A single pregnancy at an early age protects women for 30–40 years, and this long-term protection is likely regulated by a relatively stable yet still modifiable method, such as epigenetic reprograming. Long-lasting epigenetic modifications have been shown to be induced by pregnancy and to target the IGF pathway. Understanding how an early first full-term pregnancy protects against breast cancer and the role of epigenetic reprograming of the IGF system may aid in developing new preventative strategies for young healthy women in the future.

In fact, it has been shown that having children increases the life expectancy of men and women by around 2 years.
Having children may increase lifespan

Thus the idea that pregnancies endanger the life of the mother may be true for specific cases (and doctors can judge that), but is entirely untrue in general.

99% have no side effects afterwards.... really?

Many women experience long-term health issues after giving birth, including:
Pain during sex: Also known as dyspareunia, this affects 35% of women.
Low back pain: Affects 32% of women.
Incontinence: Anal incontinence affects 19% of women, and urinary incontinence affects 8–31% of women.
Anxiety and depression: Anxiety affects 9–24% of women, and depression affects 11–17% of women.
Fear of childbirth: Also known as tokophobia, this affects 6–15% of women.
Secondary infertility: Affects 11% of women.
Pelvic organ prolapse: This can occur when muscles, ligaments, and nerves are stressed during pregnancy. The risk increases with each baby delivered, especially vaginally.
Permanent nerve damage: Affects 16-20% of women.
Infection: Wounds from skin tears or C-section incisions can become infected.

There may be positive side effects as well, but it should be up to each individual to decide for themselves what risks are acceptable

 

[bobhikes]

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 don't think slavery applies. A slave is another fully capable person forced to work at threat of life. A child is brought about by the parents and the parents are only forced to work out of concern of standing in the community. Parents can and do leave the children without penalty. As to the child being neglected and dying because of the neglect, there are laws concerning this with pets and elderly, so I don't see how that applies as well.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not necessarily in my view. Suppose they don't want the responsibility and aren't responsible enough to give the child up for adoption. For example suppose they felt that letting the child wander into traffic was less hassle than going through an adoption process, you are forcing them to go through an adoption process, is that a form of slavery?

Also I couldn't quickly find information on the adoption process from the donating end, but even a child protective services investigation takes 30 days (source: How Do CPS Cases Work in California? Important Information 2024. )

And as far as adoption process in its entirety;

'It may take six months or more from the time you apply before a child is placed in your home; it will take at least three to twelve months after that before the adoption may be finalized in court.'

Source: https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/adoption/process.php#:~:text=It may take six months,may be finalized in court.

That can be true at conception, but at what point of pregnancy does that become no longer true? I believe that point comes a while before birth.

What risks to their health are we talking about specifically? If a doctor thinks the mother is at risk im not opposed to abortion.

But suppose if you decided that you wanted to have an organ donation and somone became able to feel the pain of death as a consequence of your decision just to have you change your mind after they became able to feel that pain just to have you decide you wanted your organ back after 24 weeks would it be reasonable to expect them to go through the pain of death because you changed your mind?

There may be a point at which even if one did not decide to concieve, they decided to keep the pregnancy going long enough for a creature to feel the suffering of death, and perhaps at that point it becomes a bit analogous to asking for one's organ back after one made the choice to resuscitate the other person.

I think a person has the right to not be put through the suffering of death by the positive action of an individual unnecessarily and that right exists before and after they are born, so I don't see it as a greater right.

But I don't necessarily have a problem with some persons having greater rights for example a child has the right to a parent up to a certain age where practical, then after that age they don't have that right.

Would you say why should a child that someday may potentially become an adult have greater rights than an adult?

But I don't necessarily have a problem with some persons having greater rights for example a child has the right to a parent up to a certain age where practical, then after that age they don't have that right.

Only, a child DOESN'T have a right to a parent. A parent can relinquish responsibility for a child at any time. As a society we think that children have a right to basic care, which is why such a child would become a ward of the state.

Would you say why should a child that someday may potentially become an adult have greater rights than an adult?

Children do not have greater rights than adults. Adults have more rights, as well as more responsibilities. Adults can vote and can enter into legal contracts. And even though a child, given enough time and the proper conditions has the potential to someday become an adult, we don't award them the rights of an adult until they actually become adults. And even though a fetus, given enough time and the proper conditions has the potential to someday become a viable individual, it shouldn't be awarded an individuals' rights until it becomes an actual individual.

 

[an anarchist]

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

??

 

[an anarchist]

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

Using reasoning to industrialize killing whole swathes of a specific category of people (unborn humans) requires dehumanization. Why do prochoicers always be adamant that it is not a baby being killed but a fetus rather?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Using reasoning to industrialize killing whole swathes of a specific category of people (unborn humans) requires dehumanization. Why do prochoicers always be adamant that it is not a baby being killed but a fetus rather?

Personally, I think it's easy to justify legal abortions even if I completely accept, for the sake of argument, that a foetus is equal to a fully developed human life.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't like the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" for several, often related, reasons.

Generally speaking, I don't lend a lot of worth to laws either. Law is what one uses when what matters is already lost for good. At its very best it is a gross form of damage management.

It seems to me that any honest consideration of the dilemma of deciding about abortions must begin with the realization that it is indeed a dilemma - meaning that it is a choice between two different paths, both of which are harmful and undesirable.

The only truly constructive way of dealing with abortions is to make them unnecessary in the first place. Not forbidden and certainly not "automatically immoral", but unnecessary.

There are many ways to pursue that goal, most of which are culturally unpalatable because they erode the built perception that childraising is a task that must be focused on very few people for each specific child. To be fair, letting go of that perception is no trivial task and may well not be viable at all. The mystique of the solid, unshakeable link between child and parent is well rooted in most modern cultures and we are sadly ill-equiped to work around it.

The second best path (a distant second, but a also a far more practicable one) is to make abortions unnecessary by addressing the uncertainties and limitations that make abortion necessary. Which is to say, by making society more supportive of people who have to deal with unplanned pregnancies as well as by improving the means of people to avoid those pregnancies.

That means having good sexual education that includes solid awareness of contraceptive methods; healing social disparities that make an unplanned pregnancy a scar for life for the less fortunate; challenging the rather unreasonable myths that are associated with child-bearing and child-raising; pursuing more responsible demographic and economic policies and public awareness of and responsibility for those policies.

Even as I type this I wonder if those are humanly possible goals... probably not. We have been regressing in most of those criteria, mostly due to conservative and right-wing thinking.

Realistically, the best approach is probably multi-faceted or holistic. In a way, almost an accidental side-effect of generally improving social conditions. It would involve work on improving awareness and means for responsibility for social conditions, sex education, birth responsibility, establishing of wider support networks for child raisers, and if at all possible some work on the negative consequences of the myth of the heroic child raiser as well.

If you ask me, a good place to start is probably wide acceptance that abortion is not something that people pursue for entertainment and therefore there is little point in forbidding it. Forbidance did not stop alcohol consumption and it certainly won't stop abortions either, where so much more is at stake.

 

[an anarchist]

Personally, I think it's easy to justify legal abortions even if I completely accept, for the sake of argument, that a foetus is equal to a fully developed human life.

So do I. Personally, I am pro choice. I’ve had an abortion myself (well my wife at the time). It taught me to come to terms with abortion. I could’ve passed on my mental issues and my and the wifey’s mental issues means we are unsuited for parenthood. It’s a cruel world, too.
There are several ways to go about justifying abortion. It just irks me when the dehumanizing of the unborn is the justification. It’s just personal to me. People congratulated me on my abortion when to this day i mourn my child who never saw the light of day.
People can have nuanced views ya know? I believe morality to be flexible. In my opinion, abortion is “immoral” but restricting it is “immoral” and having kids can be at times “immoral” if you are ill suited.

 

[Kathryn]

The human being is the only animal that can and does create and carry (sometimes to term) another human being. I think it's pretty significant.

 

[George-ananda]

I have an issue with those like Kamala Harris that try to make it all about a woman's body and her right to choose. I think this type of thinking wants us to forget that a fetus deserves consideration too.

 

[Pogo]

I have an issue with those like Kamala Harris that try to make it all about a woman's body and her right to choose. I think this type of thinking wants us to forget that a fetus deserves consideration too.

The fetus does deserve consideration by the person whose sole responsibility it is and definitely gets it from that person. What makes you think it doesn't?

 

[George-ananda]

The fetus does deserve consideration by the person whose sole responsibility it is and definitely gets it from that person. What makes you think it doesn't?

My point was, I see the Kamala Harris types liking to sweep that issue under the rug and putting the spotlight on a woman's right to control her own body.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Using reasoning to industrialize killing whole swathes of a specific category of people (unborn humans) requires dehumanization. Why do prochoicers always be adamant that it is not a baby being killed but a fetus rather?

What a long-winded way of saying "I'm not going to answer your question."

 

[an anarchist]

What a long-winded way of saying "I'm not going to answer your question."

We must be talking past each other, because I failed to see how your initial response to my reply addressed my point.

 

[an anarchist]

What a long-winded way of saying "I'm not going to answer your question."

“long winded” that was two sentences lol.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 agree the cutoff for abortion should be when the fetus is able to feel pain. Pass that point , I am strongly pro-life with rare exceptions in extreme cases.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We must be talking past each other, because I failed to see how your initial response to my reply addressed my point.

Blood donation is voluntary because we recognize that one person's right to bodily autonomy supersedes another person's right to life. This recognition doesn't dehumanize the people who need blood donations.

Apply this same hierarchy of rights to the question of abortion and we recognize that freedom of choice should prevail, even if we bestow full personhood on fetuses.