xiphias | So, let's say that Roe v. Wade is overturned. . .

Entry tags:

So, let's say that Roe v. Wade is overturned. . .

Fundamentally, it seems to me that, while the right to privacy IS a vitally important issue, there's a more fundamental right that Roe v. Wade protects -- the right to control one's own body.

There is quite literally no right more fundamental than the right to do what you want to do with your own body, to the extent that it doesn't infringe on other people. And that sentence, right there, sums up the whole abortion debate in one sentence. If you think a fetus is a person, then restricting access to abortion is potentially justifiable, because you're weighing the rights of two people against each other.

However, f you think a blastocyst is in no reasonable sense a human being, as I, for instance, feel, then a restriction of access to abortion is simply an example of an abrogation of the most fundamental right a person can have -- the right to their own body.

Restricting access to abortion to a woman who wants one is therefore a way of forcing her to work on behalf of a third party -- the fetus (who may or may not have legal standing.)

Could you make an argument based on the 13th Amendment therefore?

For what it's worth: I think that that any law in reference to abortion is inherently a stopgap measure. The only reasonable solution is technological: artificial wombs.

Fundamentally, what should happen is that any woman who doesn't want to have her body used as an incubator for a parasite, for whatever reason, should be allowed to have that fetus removed and placed into an artificial womb in which it could grow to term.

If a fetus does have any sort of legal standing, such a step would protect its hypothetical right to existence, without removing the mother's non-hypothetical right to control of her own person.

Threaded | Flat

It also raises the question of something like the "use eminent domain on Souter's house after the Kelo decision"...know someone who needs a transfusion? Is Alito's blood type compatible with them? After all, if he can force a mother to keep supporting a blastocyst, why can't someone force him to donate blood to them?

There is quite literally no right more fundamental than the right to do what you want to do with your own body, to the extent that it doesn't infringe on other people. And that sentence, right there, sums up the whole abortion debate in one sentence. If you think a fetus is a person, then restricting access to abortion is potentially justifiable, because you're weighing the rights of two people against each other.

I'm afraid I'm not buying it. Even if you regard a fetus as a human being in every sense of the term, there is no legal or moral basis for requiring me to risk life and limb for the benefit of another -- which is why no one can require me to donate my organs even though a full grown adult (about whom there is no debate whether they are fully human and have legal standing) may very well die because I choose not to do so.

When anti-abortionists base their position on "a fetus is a baby," they're bullshitting you, themselves, or both of you. The only actual basis for restricting abortions that has ever been at the basis of any law against it is a belief that women should be punished for sex, and we should never let them off the hook for that position.

And if an anti-abortionist tries to tell you otherwise, ask them when they intend to pass legislation instituting a lottery for who gives up their lungs for a transplant. I guarantee fewer than one in a thousand will agree with this idea, and each of them will explain that pregnancy's different because the woman has to be held "responsible" by being forced to carry it to term.

As to the artificial womb approach, I'm curious what the relative cost and risks to the woman associated with such a process would be. If it increases either, then I can't see it as what should happen at this point in history.

For what it's worth: I think that that any law in reference to abortion is inherently a stopgap measure. The only reasonable solution is technological: artificial wombs.

Fundamentally, what should happen is that any woman who doesn't want to have her body used as an incubator for a parasite, for whatever reason, should be allowed to have that fetus removed and placed into an artificial womb in which it could grow to term.

If a fetus does have any sort of legal standing, such a step would protect its hypothetical right to existence, without removing the mother's non-hypothetical right to control of her own person.

I have to disagree. That's not quite good enough either.

Because you're still forcing the woman to become a mother, even if not a parent, if you follow. She may not then have to carry that fetus, but if you force her to allow that fetus to develop and then become a person, you have forced her to reproduce. You have also exposed her to the ever-growing likelihood that this unwanted child will track her down and want a relationship with her someday whether she does or not. There are any number of reasons a woman might not want any of these things happening.

In the end, nothing will do but the right to choose not to have anything to do with it IMO.

I like the uterine replicator idea. I always have.

There is quite literally no right more fundamental than the right to do what you want to do with your own body, to the extent that it doesn't infringe on other people.

Suicide. Prostitution. Drug Use. Organ Sales.

Presently, in the United States of America, these are not choices you are legally able to make. Combine that with the idea of the draft, which puts your body at the service of the government, and I'm not certain that particular premise is actually a "right."

You're building an awfully elaborate framework to answer a question whose answer is already easily known. We know what would happen without Roe: abortion regulation would devolve to the states, and vary from state to state.

If you think you can get a 5 judge majority of "strict constructionists" to create an abortion right out of any other part of the constitution, I think you're at best excessively optimistic.

No, the more interesting question is what will they do when they realize there is no practical way for them to do it without striking down Griswold? And will even they have the guts to face a ticked off American public after they return the right to regulate contraceptives to the individual states?

In a world that seriously doesn't require any more tiny humans, let alone ones that don't have a receptive family to raise and nurture them so they won't add to the problems we already have, I don't think raising an unwanted child is legitimate in any sense at all.

We have more than enough children and adults that the world doesn't care for sufficiently, that die, kill each other or take their own lives - this idea of lavishing such great importance on something that only exists in potentia is crazy-talk to me.

In Freakonomics there's a solid argument that one of the consequences of Roe vs Wade was the crime drop across the US -- figures also work with other countries that have legalised abortion. It seems when you have abortion, the most violent least wanted section of the community just isn't there.

You think the Republicans would appreciate this argument, even if they don't appreciate any others.

Restricting access to abortion to a woman who wants one is therefore a way of forcing her to work on behalf of a third party -- the fetus (who may or may not have legal standing.)

So you're against staxes then? Because taxes, for the half of us who actually pay them, is the forcing of me to work on behalf of a third party, whether I want to or not. And it's a great deal harder to argue that I'm responsible for seeing to it that some drunken redneck who was too busy skipping school to get a degree so he can provide for himself is fed, clothed and housed, then it is to argue that a woman is responsible for the consequences of her decision to have sex.

Further, in a society that has the legal precedent that a man can be responsible for child support for a child that he didn't father, it rings a little hollow. Add in things like prostitution, drug use, suicide, gambling and even things like helmet laws, and while I don't know your personal stand on all of these, many who make the argument you are making turn right around and argue that the government should be able to interfere in your personal life in all kinds of ways.

As for Roe v. Wade itself, the SCOTUS screwed the pooch. Roe v. Wade should be left to the States. There should be neither a federal prohibition or prescription of abortion. Would some states have abortion on demand right up til a minute before birth? Some would, yes. Would some restrict it completely? Yes. But if you don't like the way your state law is, you can change it or you can move. With the Roe v. Wade, the court stepped in and truncated a political process that was working up until that point. Abortion laws had been liberalizing across the country at the time of the decision, and the trend was accelerating. Without an imposition of the Roe from on high, this very well could be a largely settled issue with much less acrimony on all sides.

I think the whole pro-life/choice dichotomy is ridiculously false. As such I'm pretty much in the middle regarding legalizing abortion.

Abortions should be readily available when there is cause, BUT I do not think that "I was too stupid/careless, and got pregnant" is justifiable. You want to play like an adult? Then you have to be responsible, and pay the price of your actions. Many people DO take what may be considered reasonable action to prevent pregnancy, and still get knocked-up (broken condoms and such). Because of this, and because it is presently impossible to tell apart the torn-rubber cases and the Too drunk to use one idiots, it is impossible to control this issue through law.

That said, I think that with the freely available FREE abortions, should come SOME sort of social regulation, for cases where this is not a clear-cut medical issue.

"You've had your abortion, Ma'am, but in showing yourself to having seriously questionable judgment, we'll now prevent you [through semi-permanent birth-control] from having a child for the next three years. Try growing a brain, in the meantime."

Yes, this again raises the issue of controlling another persons' body, but to a lesser degree. But we already do limit the free movement of people who being mentally incapable of showing "normal" judgment, by hospitalizing them. This is the same thing, to a much lesser degree, or an even milder case - we refuse/cancel driving licenses to those who can't demonstrate proper judgment on the roads...

Ian, you might be interested to read this

Will Saletan wrote an article on abortion in last week's NYT.
Katha Pollitt responded with a rebuttal article in the Nation.
Now they're having a public dialog hosted by Slate.

It's only just begun, but looks promising.

Well, it wouldn't work for me.

Being a women (and using a method of birth control with a 1% chance of failure over the course of my lifetime) I've considered the question of whether or not I'd want an abortion. There are some situations in which I would. And there are some situations in which I would not.

For me, the "artificial womb" solution is essentially equivalent to adoption.

See, my analysis has nothing to do with the "burden" of pregnancy, and everything to do with the "burden" of parenthood. If I give birth, I'm (largely) responsible for the creation of that human-being, and for everything that human-being does. In essence, I'm responsible for seeing to it that my children are raised well. For me, adoption doesn't take away that responsibility. It does take away my control of the situation, and prevent me from fulfulling my responsibility. But I'm still responsible.

Neither the possiblity of adoption, nor the possiblity of an artificial womb, would decrease my desire to have an abortion in those situations in which I would want one.

Kiralee

Out of curiosity, how far has research on "artificial wombs" progressed? I know as little about medical technology as I do about zoology or most other things in general, so I'm curious as to whether transporting a blastocyst or whatever into an artificial womb is actually feasible any time in the near future. :3

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Gurgle!

no subject

On Artificial Wombs

no subject