My Body, my Right

[mrsonde]

I believe the result of the Irish referendum should be welcomed, I am "pro-choice", but I'm very puzzled and quite disturbed by the way the argument is so often framed - by the "feminists", for want of a better shorthand. The claim being that women have a "right" to, essentially, abortion on demand because they - and only they, by which is meant she - should have control over what goes on in their "bodies". This is a very strange and dubious argument, isn't it? From any moral point of view? Perhaps it's not meant to be a moral point of view at all, and the many women who conflate this argument with morality, or their notion of what "rights" mean with morality, furthermore, are simply in a minority who make a mistake in reasoning, or perhaps choose to elide the issues because they're unsure of their ground if they don't?

Originally Roe v.Wade gave women the "choice" - still with fairly strict restricitions, but, obv., it turned out merely formalistic ones - up to three months' gestation. Other WQestern countries were somewhat more circumspect, and it's still a burning matter of juridical debate, but the question remains from this feminist rhetoric wherever you draw the line. Because a gestating human being is still doing so within "her body" at whatever age it is, until it's actually born. So are these people disagreeing with RvW or David Steel's or whoever's act of drawing any line at all? Do they really believe it's their "right" to abort an eight-month foetus, say? On the other hand, on what basis is this line drawn then? The viability of a foetus to survive exterior to "her body"? This is clearly a matter of technological sophistication, and in any case it's far from clear where morality might come into this argument in any case: a child can't survive independently, without someone feeding and almost constantly taking care of it, for years: no one would argue that it's morally justifiable or anyone had a "right|" to terminate its existence, therefore, if someone "chose". But such a dependent is not in my body! So, we come full circle - six months, and you have the "choice", five months, four months? When, and why?

Let us suppose that in a not-too-distant utopia all reproduction has become so medicalised that it begins and ends in the test-tube, so to speak. Your egg and your choice of sperm meet and every cell division takes place in a laboratory, until the happy parents take delivery of their fully-formed child. Do either of these parents then have a right to terminate that process at any time before that delivery - for whatever reason? No imposition on anyone's body - does the mother still have the (morally justified) choice?

Ah, but it's to do with responsibility - the mother has the burden not only of carrying the child, but of taking care of it for years, decades, thereafter, and that's where the "right" becomes morally charged. Well, okay then, that's a more grounded argument, in my view - so why all this guff about it being about "my body"? If the argument is it's an inconvenience, a burden, a financial, emotional, or mental strain, you've got other plans for your life, it doesn't fit in with my schedule, or whatever - well, good, let's hear that argument, there may be good points in it. But, one, it's not a "right" because of anything to do with your sacred bodily boundaries - you simply don't want to look after a baby (or, granted, no doubt it's very complicated). This doesn;t seem to me to be a moral argument, however (by which I don't mean it's an immoral or even amoral one) - or if it is, we need a horribly attenuated analysis of exactly what we mean by "morality", and by extension by "rights".

In the meantime, if we're agreed on this reasoning, it might be incumbent on feminists who make such dubious claims - that their argument is a moral one, and that they have or should have this right - to be a little more respectful of people who disagree with them on moral grounds - that are arguing from genuine principle and conscience.

[alancalverd]

The law necessarily draws arbitrary lines. Some people are clearly competent to cast a sensible vote at 14, others are Europhiles until they die, so we choose an arbitrary voting age around the school leaving age and apply it to everyone. Likewise the definition of adult for the purpose of buying alcohol or tobacco, or consenting to sex or surgery, is an aribtrary age somewhere in the range of "reasonable".

Thus with the distinction between legal abortion and infanticide. As medical science "progresses" we can prolong the life of ever more premature babies, so the distinction between a fetus and a viable child moves gradually earlier. But at any time the line is less arbitrary than that between childhood and adulthood because the assessment of maturity and viability of a fetus is simpler and more consistent between individuals.

Killing people is no big deal constitutionally. Practically every government spends its taxpayers' money to maintain an army for killing foreigners and some degree of armed police for killing citizens. Killing in selfdefence is not a crime, nor is suicide. Nothing to do with morality, everything to do with political or civil convenience.

So what to do with an unwanted pregnancy? As around 30% of wanted pregnancies abort spontaneously at a very early stage, so it clearly is none of god's business: a perfect creator wouldn't tolerate such a shoddy process. There being no legitimate religious argument, we must look at he practicalities. Pregnancy and chidbirth are hard work, which in the best of cases results in more hard work (my mum said the first 30 years were the worst), is equally likely to combine hard work with misery and guilt, and in the end produces yet another drain on society, with 10% or more people unemployed and most of the rest in parasitic occupations.

The rational answer is surely to draw an arbitrary line around legal termination, but to also require that anyone who disapproves of abortion be prepared and committed to adopt and raise any unwanted child that the state gives them. Now the bearer of an unwanted fetus has a fair and proper choice: terminate early or give the child to a willing parent. "Principle and conscience" have no value or moral validity if they are not backed up by action.

[mrsonde]

May 30, 2018 23:05:21 GMT 1 alancalverd said:

The law necessarily draws arbitrary lines. Some people are clearly competent to cast a sensible vote at 14, others are Europhiles until they die, so we choose an arbitrary voting age around the school leaving age and apply it to everyone. Likewise the definition of adult for the purpose of buying alcohol or tobacco, or consenting to sex or surgery, is an aribtrary age somewhere in the range of "reasonable".

Thus with the distinction between legal abortion and infanticide. As medical science "progresses" we can prolong the life of ever more premature babies, so the distinction between a fetus and a viable child moves gradually earlier. But at any time the line is less arbitrary than that between childhood and adulthood because the assessment of maturity and viability of a fetus is simpler and more consistent between individuals.

Yes, no doubt, but the point I was raising was to do with the standard feminist argument that a woman has a right to abort because the pregnancy is going on within her body, and the law should be changed to respect this fact - the standard formulation is that it's an aspect of the patriarchy that it's men who make and inflict these legal distinctions in the first place. This argument would apply wherever you draw the line, or don't draw any at all.

Killing people is no big deal constitutionally. Practically every government spends its taxpayers' money to maintain an army for killing foreigners and some degree of armed police for killing citizens. Killing in selfdefence is not a crime, nor is suicide. Nothing to do with morality

You've entirely erased the difference between "murder" and "killing people": so, of course, your conclusion would then follow. But in fact the difference has everything to do with "morality".

So what to do with an unwanted pregnancy? As around 30% of wanted pregnancies abort spontaneously at a very early stage, so it clearly is none of god's business: a perfect creator wouldn't tolerate such a shoddy process.

That's merely another aspect of the standard theological Problem of Evil. Your own assertion of dogma there has never been accepted by any monotheistic religion. That doesn't mean the Problem has gone away, but various "answers" to the apparent contradiction have been elaborated over the centuries - the Thomist Free Will argument is the usual one, Alvin Plantinga's more sophisticated updating the most recent.

There being no legitimate religious argument

You haven't come close to showing that sweeping conclusion yet. But I don't really think that's the point in any case. Many perhaps most "pro-life" advocates are indeed religious, but there are still powerful arguments for that position that are based on moral considerations - you wouldn't want to argue that morality requires a God to be valid at all, would you?

we must look at he practicalities. Pregnancy and chidbirth are hard work, which in the best of cases results in more hard work (my mum said the first 30 years were the worst), is equally likely to combine hard work with misery and guilt, and in the end produces yet another drain on society, with 10% or more people unemployed and most of the rest in parasitic occupations.

This was the standard opening set of contentions of the eugenicists, you realise? GBS, H.G.Wells, the Fabians, Hitler, that lot?

The rational answer is surely to draw an arbitrary line around legal termination, but to also require that anyone who disapproves of abortion be prepared and committed to adopt and raise any unwanted child that the state gives them.

I believe that is the position of the RC Church, yes.

Now the bearer of an unwanted fetus has a fair and proper choice: terminate early or give the child to a willing parent.

I believe that is the current position, in most liberal Western states, yes.

"Principle and conscience" have no value or moral validity if they are not backed up by action.

That's a moral position in itself, one that I'm quite certain you do not back up by action yourself - not all the time, anyway. But all very interesting - now, what weight do you give to the "It's my body" argument? If all that you say above is valid, it's an entirely redundant point, isn't it? God might not exist and provide the foundation for moral judgement, but does that mean we replace moral judgement with purely selfish considerations?

[fascinating]

Alan's reply is very logical. I don't see mrsonde problem with the "it's my body" argument. Regardless of any claims to certain rights, the question they would ask is "what is your justification for interfering with what I do with my body?". An unborn baby is not counted as a separate entity, it does not have a separate identity. Alan is right to say that those who oppose abortion should back up their position with the practical action of taking care of unwanted new born babies that would have been aborted, which isn't done now.

[alancalverd]

You've entirely erased the difference between "murder" and "killing people": so, of course, your conclusion would then follow. But in fact the difference has everything to do with "morality".

There is no practical difference. The killer kills, the victim dies. The law certainly distinguishes between different motivations (or lack of, in the case of manslaughter) but the net effect is the same.

I can distinguish between eugenics, family planning, and population control, as I think most rational people can.

As for the "it's my body" argument, all the facts are clearly on its side - nobody else is carrying the fetus, and unless there is a firm a priori commitment from a third party to adopt the child from birth, nobody else has to carry the unlimited future responsibility for the child's welfare. So who has a greater entitlement than the mother to decide whether a pregnancy should continue?

The law and common sense hold me entirely responsible for delivering my aircraft and passengers safely to their destination, or deciding to abort the mission: I'm happy to receive advice and opinions, but whilst I have my hands on the controls, we do it my way. There is an exception: after a certain point in the journey, I must obey Air Traffic Control instructions when they are given, but the contract (it is indeed described as a contract) makes the controller wholly liable for the consequences. I can't see why pregnancy should be any different.

Now the bearer of an unwanted fetus has a fair and proper choice: terminate early or give the child to a willing parent.

I believe that is the current position, in most liberal Western states, yes.

Wasn't that the whole point of the Irish referendum?

[mrsonde]

May 31, 2018 20:39:17 GMT 1 fascinating said:

Alan's reply is very logical.

It may have been, provided human beings are machines, and have no moral obligations to or for each other. That wasn't the issue I raised for discussion - neither do I believe for a minute that many people share his wholly materialistic antinomial postmodern relativistic worldview.

I don't see mrsonde problem with the "it's my body" argument.

I stated it pretty clearly. It is not a moral argument, unless with Alan one wishes to dismiss morality as a consideration altogether from the issue, and as such the language of "rights" is inappropriate. And then of course it is still not a moral argument - it's merely one where you believe all that matters is one's own personal interests, comforts, and benefits. This being a secularised world, where many people have lost any belief in a religious foundation for morality, and have not had the time or wisdom to work out anything else with which to replace it, this is of course the only sort of argument left. Self-interest, one's own personal relativised belief.

Regardless of any claims to certain rights, the question they would ask is "what is your justification for interfering with what I do with my body?".

Yes - and the answers are emphatically clear. They're moral justifications.

An unborn baby is not counted as a separate entity, it does not have a separate identity.

Of course it is and does. What is it that is aborted then? It is not "her body". All of its cells, from the very first one, are fundamentally separate, with a different identity to every one of her cells (barring the blood, before you start your usual quibbles.)

Alan is right to say that those who oppose abortion should back up their position with the practical action of taking care of unwanted new born babies that would have been aborted, which isn't done now.

In this country, it is - I believe it is in Northern Ireland, too. The RC Church will take care of any baby not so aborted, placing them as they may with foster families: most Catholics still pay their tithes. Alternatively and more generally, the State performs the same function, though doubtless nowhere near as well - and it does so through the revenues it raises by taxing its citizens, including those who might oppose abortion. This line of argument is as daft and futile as the objection that those who support abortion because they don't want a developing baby in their bodies should back up their position with the practical action of taking care not to get pregnant.

[mrsonde]

May 31, 2018 23:59:39 GMT 1 alancalverd said:

You've entirely erased the difference between "murder" and "killing people": so, of course, your conclusion would then follow. But in fact the difference has everything to do with "morality".

There is no practical difference. The killer kills, the victim dies. The law certainly distinguishes between different motivations (or lack of, in the case of manslaughter) but the net effect is the same.

But unless you're a Marxist or a 19th Century Utilitarian, morality is not about "practical difference" or "net effects". This is immediately obvious merely from the patently absurd corner you've painted yourself into here. Killing and murdering are not at all the same acts - the most you can rationally ("logically", as Fing would have it) claim is that the latter is a sub-class of the other.

I can distinguish between eugenics, family planning, and population control, as I think most rational people can.

Good, pleased to hear it, perhaps socialists have progressed a little since the 30s, for some reason. I take it then we won't be hearing any more suggestions that abortion should be avaiable to avoid all the parasites, unemployed, and general drain on society that'd be produced otherwise. "Human weeds" was the charming way Margaret Sanger referred to them.

As for the "it's my body" argument, all the facts are clearly on its side - nobody else is carrying the fetus, and unless there is a firm a priori commitment from a third party to adopt the child from birth, nobody else has to carry the unlimited future responsibility for the child's welfare.

De jure commitment, I think you must mean. There is - the third party, in this and most other Western countries, is the State.

So who has a greater entitlement than the mother to decide whether a pregnancy should continue?

Following the argument as you've laid it out and rationalised it so far, you could ask the same question with exactly the same rationale about any dependent. A child of any age - up to five or six at least. The closest kin of an infirm relative, the caretaker of a dependent elderly person, or a disabled one. Without much of a stretch, you could make the same claim for yourself about your wife - knock her off if you don't want her anymore, why don't you?

The law and common sense hold me entirely responsible for delivering my aircraft and passengers safely to their destination, or deciding to abort the mission: I'm happy to receive advice and opinions, but whilst I have my hands on the controls, we do it my way. There is an exception: after a certain point in the journey, I must obey Air Traffic Control instructions when they are given, but the contract (it is indeed described as a contract) makes the controller wholly liable for the consequences. I can't see why pregnancy should be any different.

No, apparently not. Most people do not consider themselves, or others, as machines, however, you see. With living creatures, human beings especially, for most, we enter a qualitively different universe, where concepts and considerations like value (not monetary or utilitarian value) and respect and goodness and moral rightness of action and intention come into play. Bourgeois idealistic nonsense, you might believe; but, apart from the fact that you're wrong, you're very much in the minority.

I believe that is the current position, in most liberal Western states, yes.

Wasn't that the whole point of the Irish referendum?

In Ireland they have the "choice" to pass their baby onto someone else to care for more than in most places.

[jean]

May 30, 2018 16:38:36 GMT 1 mrsonde said:

I believe the result of the Irish referendum should be welcomed, I am "pro-choice", but I'm very puzzled and quite disturbed by the way the argument is so often framed...

So how would you frame it?

[fascinating]

Mrsonde,I maintain that the unborn child is not separate from the mother, it is within her body and implanted I the wall of her womb. Yes it has different DNA and may turn into a separate human being at birth, but until that happens it is not regarded as a human individual.

You want this matter to be governed by morality. Sounds reasonable: please indicate which moral basis you would use as nd which moral actions ought to be taken in light of that.

[mrsonde]

Jun 1, 2018 19:46:32 GMT 1 fascinating said:

Mrsonde,I maintain that the unborn child is not separate from the mother, it is within her body and implanted I the wall of her womb. Yes it has different DNA and may turn into a separate human being at birth

It is separate from the mother then, and has a different "identity". That it's in the wall of the womb doesn't negate these facts.

, but until that happens it is not regarded as a human individual.

Oh, yes it is. The current legal situation is at what stage of development it is so regarded.

You want this matter to be governed by morality.

Not how I'd express it, but yes, more or less. Like other laws, generally; but this is one of those very thorny and fundamental issues that must be - and is - so governed.

Sounds reasonable: please indicate which moral basis you would use as nd which moral actions ought to be taken in light of that.

The moral basis I'm concerned with is the one already widely considered - at what point is the embryo developed enough to be reasonably treated as a human being. Alan's point is correct - the question is in a sense somewhat arbitrary, but it is nevertheless the crux of this horrendously complex issue. The moral actions that should follow are, I'm in no doubt, that the sooner the abortion is permitted to occur the better, and that this should be made to be foremost in every woman's mind. If she's in any doubt about it, she should take the "morning-after" pill. She should take pregnancy tests regularly and on a expedient basis - every week, if she's that "active", and a sensible caring government would provide such abortion pills and tests free of charge, with considerable encouragement.

[mrsonde]

Jun 1, 2018 10:02:06 GMT 1 jean said:

May 30, 2018 16:38:36 GMT 1 mrsonde said:

I believe the result of the Irish referendum should be welcomed, I am "pro-choice", but I'm very puzzled and quite disturbed by the way the argument is so often framed...

So how would you frame it?

Ah, well, I can't say I was really looking for a debate about that, in itself. It's not a question I'm comfortable discussing, generally, as I'm sure most people would agree. I was merely pointing out the somewhat shameful inadequacy of the way the N'Ireland protesters were expressing their case - it's got to be a moral debate, and the case of the pro-life side - both religious and secular - has to be addressed, with mutual respect. It's not possible to respect and reasonably consider an argument based on "it's my body, I can do what I like with it."

Well - I've got to go out, and I need time to think about your question, to do it whatever justice I can. This evening, perhaps.

[alancalverd]

Jun 1, 2018 5:03:57 GMT 1 mrsonde said:

May 31, 2018 23:59:39 GMT 1 alancalverd said:

As for the "it's my body" argument, all the facts are clearly on its side - nobody else is carrying the fetus, and unless there is a firm a priori commitment from a third party to adopt the child from birth, nobody else has to carry the unlimited future responsibility for the child's welfare.

De jure commitment, I think you must mean. There is - the third party, in this and most other Western countries, is the State.

"the State" actually means "the taxpayer", so unless you are a rampant communist you might want to have some say as to how many of other people's unwanted offspring you want to support. I certainly do, and the answer is "none".

And I do mean a priori commitment by a named individual, to care for the product of a specific pregnancy as if it were borne and wanted by said individual.

So who has a greater entitlement than the mother to decide whether a pregnancy should continue?

Following the argument as you've laid it out and rationalised it so far, you could ask the same question with exactly the same rationale about any dependent. A child of any age - up to five or six at least. The closest kin of an infirm relative, the caretaker of a dependent elderly person, or a disabled one. Without much of a stretch, you could make the same claim for yourself about your wife - knock her off if you don't want her anymore, why don't you?

You have failed to distinguish between lumps of protoplasm above and below a certain arbitrary age. The law of civilised countries makes that distinction. Happy to be quoted, but not out of context!

The law and common sense hold me entirely responsible for delivering my aircraft and passengers safely to their destination, or deciding to abort the mission: I'm happy to receive advice and opinions, but whilst I have my hands on the controls, we do it my way. There is an exception: after a certain point in the journey, I must obey Air Traffic Control instructions when they are given, but the contract (it is indeed described as a contract) makes the controller wholly liable for the consequences. I can't see why pregnancy should be any different.

No, apparently not. Most people do not consider themselves, or others, as machines, however, you see. With living creatures, human beings especially, for most, we enter a qualitively different universe, where concepts and considerations like value (not monetary or utilitarian value) and respect and goodness and moral rightness of action and intention come into play. Bourgeois idealistic nonsense, you might believe; but, apart from the fact that you're wrong, you're very much in the minority.

Note I wrote "and passengers". The point is that liability for their fate is transferred by law at various times betwween the carrier (the pilot) and the state (the controller). Simple.

Wasn't that the whole point of the Irish referendum?

In Ireland they have the "choice" to pass their baby onto someone else to care for more than in most places.

Worth listening to yesterday's R4 program on the Tuam children's home. Absofuckinglutely disgusting, and very Christian. Not that things were any better in Jersey.

[mrsonde]

Jun 2, 2018 13:18:23 GMT 1 alancalverd said:

Jun 1, 2018 5:03:57 GMT 1 mrsonde said:

"the State" actually means "the taxpayer", so unless you are a rampant communist you might want to have some say as to how many of other people's unwanted offspring you want to support. I certainly do, and the answer is "none".

Any child in care better watch out that you never run for election then; I presume from your argument so far.

Must dash, I'll respond to your other no doubt excellent points later. A bientot.

[fascinating]

It is separate from the mother then, and has a different "identity". That it's in the wall of the womb doesn't negate these facts.

You have a strange idea of what the word separate means. There is ongoing research about the effects of separating a newborn from its mother. But you say that the child was always separate from the mother, right from when it was a zygote. Hmmm.

The moral basis I'm concerned with is the one already widely considered - at what point is the embryo developed enough to be reasonably treated as a human being. Alan's point is correct - the question is in a sense somewhat arbitrary, but it is nevertheless the crux of this horrendously complex issue.

Yes it is horrendously complex and, given that, people find it difficult to agree. We can all see some justification for all of the different points of view, from the idea that all abortion, at any point, is an attack on the sanctity of innocent human life and should never be permitted, to the idea that the state should fund abortions to all who want them. At the first extreme, most will see that an early pregnancy which would, for some rare medical reason, endanger the life of both mother and child, should be terminated because then only one will die instead of both. But as soon as you give one circumstance in which the killing of the unborn is permitted, then there can easily be further justifications and quite quickly those who are firmly anti-abortion find themselves to be pro-abortionists, in particular circumstances. At the second extreme, most will see aborting a 35 week foetus as tantamout to killing a newborn.

Given that it is very hard for people to agree, one answer is to allow the mother the choice of what to do. Doing that doesn't mean you are pro-abortion, the mother has the CHOICE to keep the unborn and go right through the pregnancy, even if she dies from it. But there is also the choice available to terminate the pregnancy - it is held that, as she is carrying the baby, the mother is the best one to decide on the matter. Even so, the law in most countries does step in and prevents the mother from legally terminating a late-stage foetus.

On the Irish vote, I was rather disturbed by the celebratory mood of the pro-abortionists. As I understand it, the vote was to strike down an article which said that the mother and unborn were of equal importance. I find the triumphant attitude, in implicitly declaring that the unborn is not as important, thus allowing the unborn to be killed with less difficulty, to be rather sickening.

[alancalverd]

For what it's worth, the European Directives on physical hazards take it as axiomatic that a fetus is an individual with independent and equivalent human rights from the moment of conception.