Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[leibowde84]

While pregnant, a woman has a human life developing inside of her, whether an individual assigns spirituality or sentience to it prior to birth or not. I too respect a woman's autonomy.

Things get a little fuzzy for me between between 23-27 weeks gestation, when the fetus, if born, has between a 30%-90% chance of survival outside of the womb. By the end of the 2nd trimester, when the odds of survival outside of the womb are 90% and greater, with each day, I do not consider a woman's autonomy of greater importance to a life that can exist apart from her.

A Source: Fetal viability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am quite comfortable with abortion laws in my state, which allow for abortion for any reason, through the second trimester.

-

I agree. But, the legal issue is not that the woman has the right to kill anything, it is that the fetus depends on her body directly for survival. Once that is no longer the case, if the fetus can be safely removed, then an abortion would violate the fetus' rights, imho. Before this point, the choice has to exist though.

 

[1robin]

This is my point. Unless you can address the legal dilemma there is no way abortion will ever be illegal. I agree that abortion is immoral in the cases you describe. But you just ignore the actual issue. Nobody's right to live outweighs another's right to bodily autonomy. And even in a hypothetical legal dream world, that would require a contract with all of the legal requirements that go along with it (offer, acceptance, etc.). There is no judge in the world that would equate that to having sex.

Just ignoring this legal issue or acting confused only hurts your argument.

I am not a legal theorist. I am interested in what is right (justifiable) or wrong (without justification). While legality is supposedly based on morality to say a thing is legal or illegal is not to say anything about whether it is right or wrong. It is the light that scene in "o brother where art though" Where the convict said he was pardoned by the law. The sheriff responded 'the Law, huh, the law is a human institution". If you want a legal discussion I am not your guy. I have little interest in defending the arbitrary opinions of man. My argument was a moral one so ignoring legality has no relevance to it.


Just as the inherent self contradiction rightly pointed out in slave owners who demanded person freedom while denying it to others, it is inherently contradictory to demand autonomy and at the same time denying it to another. The baby is no more a part of the mothers body that the mother is a part of the babies. The only difference is the baby had no choice and rights to autonomy (which do not even exist without God) do not justify depriving life. I do not care what any politician made legal to buy a few votes.

 

[1robin]

What are you even saying with your last paragraph.

Bodily autonomy is the right to dominion over your own physical body (not time money etc.). Women cannot be forced to provide the direct use of their body to another against their will. This is the legal dilemma.

However those rights to autonomy are not automatically granted if they conflict with the autonomy of another. I have no right to break your hand simply because it is contained by mine. First of all there is no naturalistic justification for any rights or autonomy for anything. Second even if you have a source like God to make a claim to autonomy those claims are not automatically true if it effects another. Demanding your own autonomy at the cost of another's autonomy (and every other right that is inherent to life) is self defeating. The mother is just as much a part of the child's body as it is of hers. Even though that grants them with equal rights to autonomy I would grant the mothers claim in only one could be granted but this is not the case where it is one life or another. It is whether ones convince justifies the death of another and the denial of the autonomy for one by granting it to another. Every time naturalism tries to perform the actions only can accomplish it ends in a self defeating paradox just like this. The logic literally condemns it's self.

 

[1robin]

I love how you assume that I disregard the immorality or the life of the fetus. Very civil. Lol. Seeing how I indicated nothing of the sort. Again, the life of the fetus is not paramount to the rights of the mother simply because it is natural or it has to depend physically on her for nutrients. The sanctity of life cannot infringe on constitutional rights.

Quote the statement where I did so. I did not say you did not care, I said if semantic technicalities make you feel more comfortable so be it.

I did not make anyone rights supersede the others. I gave both equal grounding. I would deny the fetus right to kill the mother and the reverse. The assumed sanctity of life is the basis for rights. Human rights assume it. It is an incorrect assumption unless God exists. It is not merely incorrect it cannot possibly be correct. There is no transcendent truth of the matter to determine of life has any objective worth, value, meaning, rights, etc.. without God. If it has them as even Jefferson knew well nature did not endow it with them.

 

[leibowde84]

Quote the statement where I did so. I did not say you did not care, I said if semantic technicalities make you feel more comfortable so be it.

I did not make anyone rights supersede the others. I gave both equal grounding. I would deny the fetus right to kill the mother and the reverse. The assumed sanctity of life is the basis for rights. Human rights assume it. It is an incorrect assumption unless God exists. It is not merely incorrect it cannot possibly be correct. There is no transcendent truth of the matter to determine of life has any objective worth, value, meaning, rights, etc.. without God. If it has them as even Jefferson knew well nature did not endow it with them.

How is this issue semantic? Please explain, as that seems like a very misinformed assumption.

 

[leibowde84]

Quote the statement where I did so. I did not say you did not care, I said if semantic technicalities make you feel more comfortable so be it.

I did not make anyone rights supersede the others. I gave both equal grounding. I would deny the fetus right to kill the mother and the reverse. The assumed sanctity of life is the basis for rights. Human rights assume it. It is an incorrect assumption unless God exists. It is not merely incorrect it cannot possibly be correct. There is no transcendent truth of the matter to determine of life has any objective worth, value, meaning, rights, etc.. without God. If it has them as even Jefferson knew well nature did not endow it with them.

The are legal dilemmas, which cannot be ignored. Nothing semantic about that.

 

[leibowde84]

I am not a legal theorist. I am interested in what is right (justifiable) or wrong (without justification). While legality is supposedly based on morality to say a thing is legal or illegal is not to say anything about whether it is right or wrong. It is the light that scene in "o brother where art though" Where the convict said he was pardoned by the law. The sheriff responded 'the Law, huh, the law is a human institution". If you want a legal discussion I am not your guy. I have little interest in defending the arbitrary opinions of man. My argument was a moral one so ignoring legality has no relevance to it.


Just as the inherent self contradiction rightly pointed out in slave owners who demanded person freedom while denying it to others, it is inherently contradictory to demand autonomy and at the same time denying it to another. The baby is no more a part of the mothers body that the mother is a part of the babies. The only difference is the baby had no choice and rights to autonomy (which do not even exist without God) do not justify depriving life. I do not care what any politician made legal to buy a few votes.

This is a conversaiton of a legal issue, not a moral one. We both agree that abortion is morally wrong in most cases. But, the law is not designed to legislate morality. I was very clear at the outset that this was not a moral discussion. My problem is with those that make abortion completely a moral issue, disregarding the huge legal issues that are present.

Unless those that feel that abortion should not be an option for all women attack this legal dilemma, they aren't worth listening to, as they are attempting to elevate themselves. The pro-life movement will not have any possible wins without addressing this issue. If you want to convince people that it is "wrong" or "immoral," you are right on target, but that is a fruitless endeavor, as it won't act to change anything real.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This is a conversaiton of a legal issue, not a moral one. We both agree that abortion is morally wrong in most cases. But, the law is not designed to legislate morality. I was very clear at the outset that this was not a moral discussion. My problem is with those that make abortion completely a moral issue, disregarding the huge legal issues that are present.

Unless those that feel that abortion should not be an option for all women attack this legal dilemma, they aren't worth listening to, as they are attempting to elevate themselves. The pro-life movement will not have any possible wins without addressing this issue. If you want to convince people that it is "wrong" or "immoral," you are right on target, but that is a fruitless endeavor, as it won't act to change anything real.

Anti-choice activists might find themselves in a better legal position to institute abortion restrictions if they are successful in redefining "personhood" in the courts. Roe vs Wade set the precedent for legal "personhood" around the gestational age of fetal viability, which varies between 23-26 weeks.

If anti-choice activists wish to create more dents and to make abortion illegal, they must legitimately re-define personhood as other than the established court opinion of fetal viability. Otherwise, as you'd stated, the moral argument only goes so far in a legal precedent.

One thing that anti-choice people never address is that the rates for abortion are hardly affected by the legal status. Roughly the same percentage of pregnant women will and already do - globally - seek termination of their pregnancies regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal. What restriction or criminalization creates, hence, is an underground and unregulated market for abortion services that exacerbate the risk for maternal mortality due to extremely limited accessibility.

What actually lessens abortion rates is accessibility to family planning services, contraceptions, and comprehensive sex education. Lessening the stigma against sexuality, as it allows for citizens to seek out family planning services, education, and purchase for contraception without shame. Better sexual health, less repression, and more comprehensive education leads to lower rates of abortion...as fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place naturally leads to fewer abortions.

 

[leibowde84]

Anti-choice activists might find themselves in a better legal position to institute abortion restrictions if they are successful in redefining "personhood" in the courts. Roe vs Wade set the precedent for legal "personhood" around the gestational age of fetal viability, which varies between 23-26 weeks.

If anti-choice activists wish to create more dents and to make abortion illegal, they must legitimately re-define personhood as other than the established court opinion of fetal viability. Otherwise, as you'd stated, the moral argument only goes so far in a legal precedent.

One thing that anti-choice people never address is that the rates for abortion are hardly affected by the legal status. Roughly the same percentage of pregnant women will and already do - globally - seek termination of their pregnancies regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal. What restriction or criminalization creates, hence, is an underground and unregulated market for abortion services that exacerbate the risk for maternal mortality due to extremely limited accessibility.

What actually lessens abortion rates is accessibility to family planning services, contraceptions, and comprehensive sex education. Lessening the stigma against sexuality, as it allows for citizens to seek out family planning services, education, and purchase for contraception without shame. Better sexual health, less repression, and more comprehensive education leads to lower rates of abortion...as fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place naturally leads to fewer abortions.

Great comment. I think you nailed an aspect of this debate. The anti-choice crowd seems to have the same weird beliefs as the Islamic community in that it's not about reality, but God's opinion that we are doing the "right thing." Life is not cut and dry, and legal rights in regards to abortion, are a great example.

 

[1robin]

The are legal dilemmas, which cannot be ignored. Nothing semantic about that.

I most certainly can ignore legality. Prisons are full of those who did.
And I did not say anything about semantics concerning legality. If your highest moral authority is man then that is hopeless and depressing, I prefer objective truth. If the best we can do is what we have done then lets turn out the lights and give up. We are not even heading in the right direction.

 

[1robin]

This is a conversaiton of a legal issue, not a moral one. We both agree that abortion is morally wrong in most cases. But, the law is not designed to legislate morality. I was very clear at the outset that this was not a moral discussion. My problem is with those that make abortion completely a moral issue, disregarding the huge legal issues that are present.

If so I mistook it for a moral issue. If we agree on the moral issue and I have little interest in contrived laws true today and gone tomorrow then I have no idea what we are debating.

Unless those that feel that abortion should not be an option for all women attack this legal dilemma, they aren't worth listening to, as they are attempting to elevate themselves. The pro-life movement will not have any possible wins without addressing this issue. If you want to convince people that it is "wrong" or "immoral," you are right on target, but that is a fruitless endeavor, as it won't act to change anything real.

While I have semantic disagreements with how you put it I think you have summed my intent up close enough to haggle about.

 

[leibowde84]

I most certainly can ignore legality. Prisons are full of those who did.
And I did not say anything about semantics concerning legality. If your highest moral authority is man then that is hopeless and depressing, I prefer objective truth. If the best we can do is what we have done then lets turn out the lights and give up. We are not even heading in the right direction.

Did I say that the law or "man" was any kind of moral authority, because, in fact, I repeatedly stated the opposite. Because we live in a society of laws, it is impossible to make something illegal simply because it is found to be morally wrong. I am a Christian, and I believe very strongly that the philosophy Jesus taught was the most important moral code ever created. Treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated is my highest authority, but, although I feel this way, I am still not able to argue for laws that force people to adhere to it. The separation exists between law and morality. I would, of course, love to live in a world where people were moral because it was "right," and we did not have to worry about people infringing on other's rights. But, that is currently a fantasy, and we rely on the legal system to protect us from not only criminals, but the government and our own subjectiveness. The Law is objective for a reason. It has to be adhered to or everything falls apart.

Again, you are making monumental incorrect assumptions. We aren't discussing morality, we are discussing legal rights and whether it could legally be possible to make abortion illegal without causing massive legal issues in other areas. That is the question. The morality of abortion is not at issue here, as we agree on that point (for the most part). The law is not based solely or even mainly on morality. It is based on societies common good.

 

[leibowde84]

If so I mistook it for a moral issue. If we agree on the moral issue and I have little interest in contrived laws true today and gone tomorrow then I have no idea what we are debating.

While I have semantic disagreements with how you put it I think you have summed my intent up close enough to haggle about.

I wouldl like to figure out a way to limit abortions done in the interest of convenience, but I would not be willing to do so if women's rights were infringed as a result. Anything is possible, but no progress will be made unless the legal issue is discussed. It will be hard work, but ignoring it doesn't even give us a chance.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever spoken with someone who felt that abortion is not morally wrong when done in the interest of convenience? I've talked to a ton of people about this, but I have yet to meet ANYONE making this claim. I didn't think the moral aspect was at issue with most people who are pro-choice.

 

[1robin]

Did I say that the law or "man" was any kind of moral authority, because, in fact, I repeatedly stated the opposite.

That was weird I swear I have said those exact words before. I am not kidding you used the same inflections and language. Anyway, lets see here.

Because we live in a society of laws, it is impossible to make something illegal simply because it is found to be morally wrong. I am a Christian, and I believe very strongly that the philosophy Jesus taught was the most important moral code ever created. Treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated is my highest authority, but, although I feel this way, I am still not able to argue for laws that force people to adhere to it. The separation exists between law and morality. I would, of course, love to live in a world where people were moral because it was "right," and we did not have to worry about people infringing on other's rights. But, that is currently a fantasy, and we rely on the legal system to protect us from not only criminals, but the government and our own subjectiveness. The Law is objective for a reason. It has to be adhered to or everything falls apart.

Look you care about and obviously spend significant time concerned with it. I do not. I am only concerned with it to the extent that I can avoid being arrested by. I have no history in legal theory and no desire to have any. Now I am usually on one side of a debate with well over half a dozen people almost always of the non-theistic type. I have 10,000 plus posts and rightly or wrongly come to recognize patterns. Your was an argument I have seen on a hundred forms and is has always been a non-theistic view. If I was wrong I apologize but it was a very very easy mistake to make. Legality, empathy, and evolution are obsessed upon by non-theists in a moral debate because that is all hat is left and I am currently having quite a few debates on that topic with non-theists. So my mistake but it was a easy one.

Again, you are making monumental incorrect assumptions. We aren't discussing morality, we are discussing legal rights and whether it could legally be possible to make abortion illegal without causing massive legal issues in other areas. That is the question. The morality of abortion is not at issue here, as we agree on that point (for the most part). The law is not based solely or even mainly on morality. It is based on societies common good.

I tell you what I began talking about morality and have no interest in legality but maybe I can learn something.

What is your conclusion? I see a lot of points in a certain direction but I see no specific destination. Taking what I have said in the context what differences do you think we have besides your caring about legality a lot.

Again sorry to have confused you with a non-theist but Every single time that argument is made and it is made countless times in my past it has been a non-theist.

 

[1robin]

I wouldl like to figure out a way to limit abortions done in the interest of convenience, but I would not be willing to do so if women's rights were infringed as a result. Anything is possible, but no progress will be made unless the legal issue is discussed. It will be hard work, but ignoring it doesn't even give us a chance.

It is going to take me a minute to adjust to debating another Christian. I am all out of whack. Let me start by asking why verse you think justifies a persons complete autonomy over their body if it infringes on another's? I have read the same bible I assume and cannot think of any verse that does. In fact not to many rights are given in the bible. Rights are human derivations from biblical principles. IOW the bible doe snot say we have the right to pursue happiness it justifies our saying it. The bible implies that things including lives have inherent worth, sanctity, value, in relation to other things. That is an objective basis for rights but exactly which ones are a matter of opinion. I don't know of even a biblical foundation for complete autonomy. Autonomy was mankind's original sin. Get lost God we got this was the problem.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever spoken with someone who felt that abortion is not morally wrong when done in the interest of convenience? I've talked to a ton of people about this, but I have yet to meet ANYONE making this claim. I didn't think the moral aspect was at issue with most people who are pro-choice.

All those who I speak to say that. I am usually here to kill time by being challenged so I seek out those who hold contending views or they seek me out. Your statement reminds me of something Chesterton said. He said men can usually agree on what is wrong, they just disagree on what wrongs to excuse. If something is wrong and taking life without sufficient justification is one of the most universal should not be protected by law. That is why I don't care what the law says. I care about whether it is true. I can give you the names of at least half a dozen in this forum that will bore you to tears ( in fact I would actually desire to see you challenge them) claiming that abortion is perfectly justifiable for convenience. Just give me the word.

I thought it was bizarre for a non Christian to use Churchill as an avatar but I think non theists are bizarre anyway.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Against their will"? Imo, that only seems to apply if the woman was raped. Otherwise...no one forced her to have a form of sex where the possibility of pregnancy was there. It seems like people wish to escape from biological reality. When semen gets near or in a vagina, there's always the possibility of pregnancy. People need to own up to their responsibility and stop using abortion as a "get out of parenthood free" card.

 

[leibowde84]

It is going to take me a minute to adjust to debating another Christian. I am all out of whack. Let me start by asking why verse you think justifies a persons complete autonomy over their body if it infringes on another's? I have read the same bible I assume and cannot think of any verse that does. In fact not to many rights are given in the bible. Rights are human derivations from biblical principles. IOW the bible doe snot say we have the right to pursue happiness it justifies our saying it. The bible implies that things including lives have inherent worth, sanctity, value, in relation to other things. That is an objective basis for rights but exactly which ones are a matter of opinion. I don't know of even a biblical foundation for complete autonomy. Autonomy was mankind's original sin. Get lost God we got this was the problem.


All those who I speak to say that. I am usually here to kill time by being challenged so I seek out those who hold contending views or they seek me out. Your statement reminds me of something Chesterton said. He said men can usually agree on what is wrong, they just disagree on what wrongs to excuse. If something is wrong and taking life without sufficient justification is one of the most universal should not be protected by law. That is why I don't care what the law says. I care about whether it is true. I can give you the names of at least half a dozen in this forum that will bore you to tears ( in fact I would actually desire to see you challenge them) claiming that abortion is perfectly justifiable for convenience. Just give me the word.

I thought it was bizarre for a non Christian to use Churchill as an avatar but I think non theists are bizarre anyway.

I think I can address this question with a simple thought. It would be extremely misguided to use the Bible or any Scripture as the basis for law. It was written by imperfect men who knew far less about societal organization and the meaning of justice, which is obvious from the presence of things like slavery, common capital punishment, the subjugation of women, etc. So, I cannot imagine why it would ever be used as justification for laws. That being said, it is a great (if not the best) guide for morality, assuming that you keep in mind my previous point and read it knowing that it was written by men from a very different culture and far less scientific understanding than we have now. Eventhough this is all true, it is increasingly valuable as a moral tool today and will be for generations to come.

I know that the Bible has been penetrated by those who had their own perversions and desires for power/influence. I also know that many of the authors were way ahead of their time. All in all, it is necessary to explore where anything in the Bible came from historically and culturally before you give it any weight.

Divine ispiration doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit wrote anything. It merely means that the authors were guided, imho. So, to ignore the necessary imperfections of the authors is to do yourself a huge disfavor.

 

[metis]

There's no moral issue that has bothered me more than the issue of abortion. Generally speaking, I oppose it, with the exception of a woman's health. Trouble is the fetus/baby is in the woman, and that very much complicates things.

For one, do I make a decision for her that has nothing to do with me? Should the state make a decision for her that has nothing to do with them? If we prohibit abortion on religious grounds, what other religious teachings are they now going to mandate? If we say "all life is sacred", then do we prohibit capital punishment and all war as well, or are we just picking-and-choosing?

It's tough, but I also remember young ladies being permanently scarred or dying from coat-hanger abortions. And if we block abortions in one state, what prevents some from going to another, or even another country, which the wealthier could do but probably not the poorer.

It's a bugger to figger out, which is why I would rather leave such decisions up to the woman and her doctor.

 

[Revoltingest]

...I would rather leave such decisions up to the woman and her doctor.

This is a common view I really oppose. The woman is the only one who should make this decision. A doctor should have no authority over another's body autonomy, male, female or other. She could certainly consult her doctor, the father, her family & anyone else whose advice she values.

 

[dust1n]

This is a common view I really oppose. The woman is the only one who should make this decision. A doctor should have no authority over another's body autonomy, male, female or other. She could certainly consult her doctor, the father, her family & anyone else whose advice she values.

Considering how many Texan doctors are pro-life, I'd consider avoiding them.