I would add that when it comes to the bodily autonomy argument, this extends only as far as when the child is thought to become reasonably viable. Because both sides are trying to argue that the developing child has personhood that warrants its own consideration of bodily autonomy. So it then becomes a matter of whose bodily autonomy trumps whose. Technically one doesn't own one's child, the idea theoretically under the bodily autonomy point is that the child would be removed, which of course depending on stage of development would mean it would perish, so we skip that step and simply use abortion.
But should the child be seen as viable, there isn't an a case within the bodily autonomy point to abort the child, it would have to be delivered, that to what extent a child is viable and at what stage and whether its enough that it should override someones decision for a late term abortion could be somewhat arbitrary as is the cutoff limit to having an abortion.
This sense of bodily autonomy is clearly liberal in origin since it's been the basis to argue for women's humanity in their own right.
Though there is case made to the nature of laws being drawn around our organic physicality and it's implications, it's not clear valuing bodily autonomy makes for a consistent and unopposed right.
AGAINST THE RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY: OF CYBORGS AND HUMAN RIGHTS GOWRI RAMACHANDRAN†It also seems there is a basis for abortion based on one's health, in that abortion is less of a risk to one's health than childbirth.
The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.A point that, a person should have autonomy in regards to their own health and well being being the important factor. Though the oath of doctors is an emphasis on do no harm (the more enduring, measurable elements), this takes a hands off approach. Where one might criticize that doctors have a positive duty to their patients to help them avoid harm. That one wouldn't ethically allow a patient to endure a illness if they had moral qualms around how they got the illness.
The defense of the conscientious objector comes in the form of emphasizing the harm done to the developing child as reason enough to not be ethically obliged to perform it.
To which questions of what makes a valid conscientious refusal come up.
I can't find it now, but I remember one paper asserting that many people's refusal wasn't of personal conviction but was often one of career concerns since performing it was stigmatized in California. Their solution was that only those that have met a burden of proof of personal conviction should be ethically/professionally allowed to object to provide such services. In the same way that we it wasn't accepted at face value that a citizen was a conscientious objector out of personal conviction to violence as a means to not participate in the war, but had to be proven.
ANother matter comes in to what degree does one's personal conviction stand against their professional responsbilities, this is particularly emhpasized in places where services are limited (
ie rural).
This thesis recommends respecting an HCP's right to conscientiously object, when that objection is based on a core value or belief (as previously defined) and puts the onus on that HCP to explain his or her reason for objecting.
I think for some, their reasons for opposing abortion can often stem from their moralizing attitudes towards female sexuality. In the same way that those who are pro-abortion aren't concerned with the philosophical arguments but put blame on an unsupportive system that doesn't promote people's capacity to raise their families and then blames them when real world considerations drive them to choose abortion.
Ellul: what I learned from MarxThe third element of his thought which Ellul drew from Marx was “the decision always to be on the side of the poor in this world”. This doesn’t mean simply those who are poor in cash terms, but those who are alienated from the conditions for modern life: what Marx terms the proletariat.
Above all, Ellul understood this in terms of the ability to sustain family life. He argues that, contrary to certain statements in the Communist Manifesto, Marx was not anti-family. Rather, he was hostile towards the fact that the bourgeoisie had turned the family into a privilege. What was unacceptable for Marx was not the existence of the family, but that a majority of people were prevented from enjoying the same family life that the bourgeois minority enjoyed. For Ellul:
The ideal, though unattainable in a capitalist society, is to form a happy and balanced couple and to have happy and balanced children. To be poor is to be unable to have such a family.
Moralizing unconcerned or opposed to difficulties to materially support and raise said child. To many, they'd simply be considered wowsers who should not be paid much attention. In some association comes demonizing women's sexuality, seeking to restrict their capacity to use contraceptives and then expect women to simply accept the primary task of
raising kids in economies that no longer maintain a reality of the middle class breadwinner for the average family.
As another note, the anti-abortion movement is evolving, attempting to co-op rhetoric of being for women by reframing abortion as a health issue that harms women physically and psychologically, thus positioning opposition to abortion as in the interest and well being of women's health.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
- By Tainari88
- By MistyTiger
- By wat0n