It seems to me that if the supreme court found a fetus of a certain stage to have human rights, this case you cited would prevent the mother/doctor from depriving the fetus/human of its bodily autonomy (rather that allowing the mother to do whatever she wants to “her” body. The case prevented the state from forcing an action on a person. It does not seem analogous to prohibiting an action on one’s body. (One could argue even that they have a right to blow themselves up for example and the state can’t act to prohibit that).
I’m this case, I think the person using the others body is the fetus, not the mother.
What if the mother says that the fetus can no longer use her body, and wants the fetus removed?
Wanted to revisit this example. Consider Siamese twins. Can one compel the other to go through with separation surgery even if death is likely for one or both, or perhaps certain for one who has less of the essential organs? Other examples such as shooting someone who is hanging from your leg over the edge of a cliff, or kicking them off.
Are these non-criminal manslaughter, justifiable homicide? Would the surgery require due process (a court ruling?) Would they be considered to not be homicide at all?
Still very different IMO since the abortion is acting to change the status quo, not to create a “parasitic” relationship.
And another problem with this is that all fetuses aborted after about 24 weeks could be delivered without a medical action of life termination, and have their lives preserved in a very high percentage of cases with no more risks to the mother than abortion. Induced delivery is actually less likely to cause harm to the woman, and half of induced deliveries at 24 weeks survive, rising by about 10% per week after 24 weeks. Even at 20 weeks the survival rate is around 10% I believe.
Do you have a right to shoot your conjoined twin if you alone have enough organs to survive, and if the twin accepts to be separated? That would be similar to abortion versus premature delivery.
I mean it’s simple enough. Does the ‘right’ exist in my scenario? Because it doesn’t according to the law. In my scenario the right to abort doesn’t exist, according to earlier argument as to the nature of rights. To say yes suggests that rights exist independent of whatever fancy society and the government might be at the moment. Slavery tresspassed against the rights of African slaves long before some benevolent white men decided to put it in writing, for example? And, that white men had a moral obligation to end slavery even prior to a change in attitudes.
I’m not asking if a woman could claim otherwise. I’m asking your response to her, basically.
1 Like
With regard to an exchange above…
The mother uses the body of the fetus, consciously or not. There’s this thing with sex called reproduction. It is how an organism passes on its DNA, consciously or not. That is in fact a defining feature of an organism. Hence why she gets pregnant from the reproductive act.
Could you clarify? No, you wouldn’t concede that a woman would have no right to an abortion (because she can just claim she does…)? Or no, a woman wouldn’t have that right.
- The right to physically do what she wants to within the boundaries of her body or the right to have a medical procedure made available to her?
- In historical absolute monarchies, did monarchs have a “right” to their subjects bodies and lives? Imperial Japan or Rome for example? Most societies throughout history were structured on power not rights. There is also a difference between having the right to property for example and the right to not have the government that is there to serve you deprive you of property.
But we should “expect” anyone to fight for their lives or property and so whether those are “intrinisic” they tend to be practically defended as if they were.
There are also two lines of evaluating rights when it comes to abortion. One is whether the fetus has reached a point where it actually has rights. This must depend on developmental stage since the fetus proceeds from a brainless stage to one with a brain that is primitive like an amphibian, to one with a more developed mind, to a human mind. The second is whether killing one’s fetus in morally wrong independent of the rights of the fetus. Since this is a religious argument it should be excluded. The mother’s rights outweigh the religious opinions of others in a free society, so abortion can only be justly made illegal based on fetal personhood. I suspect that if the supreme court does try to overturn Roe v. Wade it will be by classifying fetuses as moral human persons at some stage.
A similar situation would be with regard to animal torture. Animal torture is not restricted because animals have rights, but because the presence of animal torturers and tortured animals is bad for society. Some of that would be “legislation of morality” but animal torture also affects society because it can create dangerous animals and people (animal torturers tend to transition to hurting people).
1 Like
I actually answered a question about Siamese twins above. In hindsight I probably should not have answered, because it is a bit different than abortion in a few ways (a fully alive talking person is a bit different than a fetus). My position is that nobody should have a stake in another’s body, and that one twin should be able to separate if they choose. I am not sure what would happen legally, as I don’t think this situation has happened yet.
I think you would have a hard time arguing that abortion objectively harms society. There was a pretty controversial economics paper a while back that showed correlation between Roe, and a reduction of crime about 20 years later (when the unwanted children would have been becoming adults). It did not go as far as showing causation, but it makes a pretty compelling argument.
Sure. Which only means to inform another that they might reasonably expect resistance in taking what they want. But not always. Says nothing about rights.
In a universe with or without inherent rights?
In one without, the definition of ‘justly’ only exists so long as the victors remain on top. After they’re replaced, a completely opposite view of ‘justly’ might exist. Basically, there really isn’t a justly in an independent sense. Abortion could be illegal for whatever reason.
Why so? Human beings in a cold universe devoid of inherent rights and moral obligations are perfectly free to live by anything we desire. Including religion. There would be no moral (or otherwise) obligation to arrange society in a secular manner.
I agree. I am trying to explain why animal torture can be criminalized even though animals don’t have legal (moral?) rights but the state would still not have a right to restrict abortion on similar grounds. In other words, I feel the state can criminalize animal torture based on affect on society, but would only be able to criminalize abortion based on a fetal human rights argument.
Agree.
I’m talking about under the U.S. constitution. Again, the court should only allow restriction of abortion based on a fetal human rights argument or if there are severe harms to society that outweigh the woman’s bodily autonomy “rights”, NOT on an “abortion is simply immoral” argument.
By the way, I think that rights need to be weighed against one another. They are relative not absolute. In the case of firearm possession for example, I actually believe that overall human rights are preserved more by allowing citizens to possess deadly force weapons even if it results in deaths as a direct result of firearms.
Forgive me, I was notified it was in reply to a particular post of mine. I thought you were speaking from a general humanity wide view.
Edit: huh. Maybe I misread the notification, looking at it again. Carry on!
You are correct in that we get to choose how to set up our society, and can choose what we want. Would you say the governments that are highly influenced by religion are better than the secular ones?
I think a secular system can be better if it’s goal is to maximize well being.
Yes, my post was following yours immediately before it, but I was on a tangent.