[ckaihatsu]

As I said, this is exactly where the hard conservatives should be denounced (or even stopped). They made a negative generalization of something which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and considering the benefit of doubt and how it affects the people involved (especially the mother) abortion has to be treated as leniently as possible.

Also, I never objected precautions.

But there must be some abortions which should be considered murder, or at least it would have been seen as murder had the baby been born.

I have to ask: Where, and why, there needs to be a boundary that makes a life seems "expendable" before it's born?

Jumping in here, we can't leave *all* decision-making to an authority personage, because there needs to be some kind of law-like *universality* as a guiding *principle*.

Do you really think that *all* abortion cases, if they happen, would wind up in front of *one* single official, so that the 'case-by-case' decision-making is done by that *one* official?

No, of course, so there should be some *principles* at work -- meaning *law* -- that the various 'judges' abide by, for the sake of *consistency* in judging various abortion cases, if any.

'Case-by-case' *alone* implies too much *subjectivity*, by judge / official, as we see in the case of *summary executions* by various *individual* cops, on-the-spot, without consideration by any 'review' apparatus, meaning the *judicial* branch of government. The same concern should apply to *anything* else legal / civil-society, including abortions, if any, on a case-by-case basis, with *due process* -- which is what the judicial branch is *for*, under bourgeois hegemony.

If you think that certain 'cases' of abortion should be considered to be murder, legally, then you need to be specific about where you're drawing that line. You seem to indicate the *viability* of the fetus *outside* of the mother, which is one line to draw, but the *legal* implications are that the government would then have to *punish* the fully-grown mother over the viability of a less-than-born "person", which is pretty-much absurd.

Consider that the viability of the fetus, as outside of the mother, is basically *out of control* of the mother -- it's a biological roll-of-the-dice, so it's inappropriate to *blame* the mother for any potential inviability of the fetus -- by this logic all *stillborns* would be legally attributable to the mother, as though she didn't 'try-hard-enough', or some equally absurd reasoning.

In *practice*, of course, as I already mentioned, abortion industry norms are to perform the abortion as early as possible, to avoid alleged "complications", but even so, my argument still stands, regardless of *when* the abortion is done, that the mother can't reasonably be *blamed*, or be *culpable* for any unviability of the fetus, either within or without the womb, since such coming-to-term, or not, is strictly an unvoluntary *biological* process, and is not dependent on the *willfulness* of the mother in 'complicated' situations of pregnancy.

My main problem with this penalty is that it is too often applied on already poor people.

I strongly believe severity of penalty should be directly proportional to both the extent of the crime and the power held by the accused. If the accused committed, say, murder, because he had the means to do so as the President, he deserves the death penalty. Meanwhile, ordinary folks, however hideous crime he's committed, would suffice being locked away forever.

(In this sense, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping probably deserve being beheaded together)

Okay, this is politically astute, and seems to speak to the 'war crimes' issue which is usually glossed-over in matters of geopolitics. It makes sense to hold those with power *accountable*, instead of only applying this kind of penalty to *poor* people, as you mentioned.

[skinster]

For the issue of abortion, we can argue that a born person is not allowed to use our blood and organs to keep themselves alive without our consent, so we equally have a right to refuse that unborn people cannot use the blood and organs of pregnant people without the consent of the pregnant person.

Only women get pregnant, please stop contributing to their erasure.

[wat0n]

Only women get pregnant, please stop contributing to their erasure.

JK Rowling, is this you?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish seems to have abandoned the argument.

[skinster]

JK Rowling, is this you? :?:

Only women get pregnant.

[Puffer Fish]

There is an argument that the killer, by forcefully aborting the fetus, deprived the pregnant person of their bodily autonomy. Perhaps there could be a punishment for that.

Yes indeed.

But that's a little bit of a deflection, isn't it?

Let's assume that the fetus is not regarded is actually being the woman's body. (If you are okay doing that)
Thus, when we talk about "bodily autonomy", we are really talking about all aspects of the woman's body that does not include the fetus.

Now, wouldn't that basically just return the woman's body back to "normal"? Where would be the damage there?

Next, you might argue that the woman theoretically has the choice whether to keep her body in a state of pregnancy. (Again, this still has nothing to do with her choice whether to have a baby)
So you could argue involuntary effects on the state of her body, preventing her body from doing something.

I would perhaps compare this to a man that secretly dosed a woman with birth control pills to prevent her having her periods.

Yes, maybe you could argue some punishment would be warranted. But I do not think you could logically argue, from this perspective, that severe punishment should be warranted. Because we are only talking about the effects on the woman's body here.

That is why I think this is a deflection, mostly. Because we all have an instinctual feeling that someone would deserve punishment in this situation, and I don't think you could genuinely and honestly use the argument about the woman's body to justify anywhere near the level of punishment that most people would feel fitting to the crime.

The only other argument you could use is that, killing a fetus is indeed inherently a bad thing and morally wrong, but that for some reason the woman's choice outweighs that.

[Puffer Fish]

Men should be punished for impregnating women since it's their sperm that causes pregnancy after all..

Well, that is an argument to hold men responsible if they are the ones choosing abortion.

This could happen in the instance of threats or coercion, for example.

Believe it or not, there are many women who get abortions who are not freely choosing it, or are only doing so under some level of duress.

A man impregnating a woman otherwise cannot be held responsible because he must be given the benefit of the doubt and it must be assumed that he did not realize the intercourse would lead to abortion.

Although I suppose an argument could hypothetically be put forth that he should be held responsible if he impregnated a woman who had already had 10 abortions and was no doubt going to have another one if she got pregnant.

[Puffer Fish]

@Patrickovbut it's irrelevant as to whether or not a woman has an abortion, since, quite simply, you are not the woman. You, and others, want to impose your beliefs on someone else.

And ironically, this is exactly what the woman is doing when she chooses abortion.


If I can draw an analogy, it's sort of like how slave owners were claiming their rights were being violated by those who were trying to limit or curtail slavery, even though the "rights" they were referring to was actually the right to deny rights to someone else.

[Puffer Fish]

Under European law, a foetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother.

But no one truly and genuinely believes the foetus is really just a part of the mother.

Would it hypothetically be okay for the mother to consent to horrendous medical experiments being performed on the foetus?

I don't think most of us would be okay with that.

[Godstud]

And ironically, this is exactly what the woman is doing when she chooses abortion.

No. That's bullshit. It's her body. It's her beliefs.

Your analogies are irrelevant and idiotic. My liver isn't a slave, any more than a fetus is.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes indeed.

But that's a little bit of a deflection, isn't it?

Let's assume that the fetus is not regarded is actually being the woman's body. (If you are okay doing that)
Thus, when we talk about "bodily autonomy", we are really talking about all aspects of the woman's body that does not include the fetus.

Now, wouldn't that basically just return the woman's body back to "normal"? Where would be the damage there?

Next, you might argue that the woman theoretically has the choice whether to keep her body in a state of pregnancy. (Again, this still has nothing to do with her choice whether to have a baby)
So you could argue involuntary effects on the state of her body, preventing her body from doing something.

I would perhaps compare this to a man that secretly dosed a woman with birth control pills to prevent her having her periods.

Yes, maybe you could argue some punishment would be warranted. But I do not think you could logically argue, from this perspective, that severe punishment should be warranted. Because we are only talking about the effects on the woman's body here.

That is why I think this is a deflection, mostly. Because we all have an instinctual feeling that someone would deserve punishment in this situation, and I don't think you could genuinely and honestly use the argument about the woman's body to justify anywhere near the level of punishment that most people would feel fitting to the crime.

Well, you are tampering with the pregnant person’s body without their permission.

The only other argument you could use is that, killing a fetus is indeed inherently a bad thing and morally wrong, but that for some reason the woman's choice outweighs that.

Yes, that is pretty much what I said.

The right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of the unborn person

[Puffer Fish]

Well, you are tampering with the pregnant person’s body without their permission.

When you say "tampering with her body", what do you mean exactly?

Do you mean the fetus, or the rest of her body?

Does it matter how her body is affected?

To me it doesn't seem like there would be any physical harm (other than the obvious psychological distress of losing her "baby"). She simply goes back to a normal state of being un-pregnant.
It seems hard to logically argue that's that bad.

How do you see that as "tampering" with her body?

For the sake of hypothetical argument (so we can focus on the point I am trying to make) imagine there is a way to just make the fetus disappear into smithereens without effecting the woman's body one bit (other than that the fetus is not there anymore, obviously).
(Yes, you could argue this is unrealistic in real life but this is called a thought experiment)


In addition to that, we could ask the philosophical question whether a woman even has a right to be pregnant.
I mean, suppose her getting or being pregnant conflicted with the rights of someone else, and the life of the fetus was not in the balance.

(Yes, I do realize the irony here in making you consider whether a woman has the right to be pregnant, as part of a complicated argument to get you to consider whether she has the right to get un-pregnant)

[Puffer Fish]

The right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of the unborn person

So would you say that the mother killing her fetus is sort of akin to a homicide, albeit a justified homicide?

If so, this becomes a very different argument.

[wat0n]

Only women get pregnant.

Ha, I didn't mean it as criticism. Biologically, that's of course true.

As for bodily autonomy, I do wonder though if those who use that as an argument for abortion also believe organ donation should only take place with the explicit consent of the donor. I don't have a clear view on abortion, since I don't know if the fetus is a person or not. But it does seem hypocritical to support abortion on those grounds, yet simultaneously believe the Government should make organ donation the default choice or if not consenting to donate your organs should be disincentivized in some way (I think people who refuse who donate should automatically go to the bottom of the waiting list for donors, if they ever needed a transplant).

[Pants-of-dog]

When you say "tampering with her body", what do you mean exactly?

Do you mean the fetus, or the rest of her body?

Does it matter how her body is affected?

To me it doesn't seem like there would be any physical harm (other than the obvious psychological distress of losing her "baby"). She simply goes back to a normal state of being un-pregnant.
It seems hard to logically argue that's that bad.

How do you see that as "tampering" with her body?

For the sake of hypothetical argument (so we can focus on the point I am trying to make) imagine there is a way to just make the fetus disappear into smithereens without effecting the woman's body one bit (other than that the fetus is not there anymore, obviously).
(Yes, you could argue this is unrealistic in real life but this is called a thought experiment)

And again, this would deny the pregnant person the right to decide for themselves what they want to do with their body.

What is your point? It is not clear at all.

In addition to that, we could ask the philosophical question whether a woman even has a right to be pregnant.
I mean, suppose her getting or being pregnant conflicted with the rights of someone else, and the life of the fetus was not in the balance.

(Yes, I do realize the irony here in making you consider whether a woman has the right to be pregnant, as part of a complicated argument to get you to consider whether she has the right to get un-pregnant)

How is this an argument?

So would you say that the mother killing her fetus is sort of akin to a homicide, albeit a justified homicide?

If so, this becomes a very different argument.

It is more like throwing someone out of your house for trespassing, even though you know they could die if they left the house.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defen ... _violinist

In "A Defense of Abortion", Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:


You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]

Thomson says that one can now permissibly unplug themself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist, one does not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of someone else's body—to which he has no right. "[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]

For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate right to life, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the fetus's right to life, but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the fetus to die.[6]

[ckaihatsu]

To me it doesn't seem like there would be any physical harm (other than the obvious psychological distress of losing her "baby").

There's also no apparent physical harm if I go up to someone and swat them really hard on their body with a thick phone book, but I don't make a habit of doing this for obvious reasons.

[Puffer Fish]

And again, this would deny the pregnant person the right to decide for themselves what they want to do with their body.

What is your point?

You are missing the point.

You are conflating what happens to the fetus with her body.

I am trying to get you to look at something happening to the fetus with no (or minimal) effect on her body.
To get you to see this isn't just all about her.

[Puffer Fish]

How is this an argument?

Well, it's a little complex and indirect, but if she doesn't have a right to be pregnant, then it would follow that she doesn't have an absolute right to "control the workings of her own body", and thus if the fetus were killed (without her permission), you couldn't really say that would be a violation of her rights.
(If she doesn't have a right to have a baby in the first place, she doesn't have a right to continue having a baby, by this argument, relating to her "bodily rights)
And if she doesn't have a right to continue having a baby, since we all have an intuitive feel that killing the fetus is wrong when the mother is not choosing it, that then logically forces us to admit that killing a fetus is wrong for reasons that very much have nothing to do with the wishes of the mother. Which doesn't exactly bode well for the pro-choice position.

To spell it all out.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are missing the point.

You are conflating what happens to the fetus with her body.

I am trying to get you to look at something happening to the fetus with no (or minimal) effect on her body.
To get you to see this isn't just all about her.

If you remove the fetus from the body of the pregnant person, you are no longer allowing the pregnant person the right to use their body to keep the child alive.

Since you seem to want to look at the rights of the fetus in this case, the person magically removing the unborn person from the body of the pregnant person is guilty of killing the unborn person.

This is if we assume that the unborn person has the same rights as a born person.

Well, it's a little complex and indirect, but if she doesn't have a right to be pregnant, then it would follow that she doesn't have an absolute right to "control the workings of her own body", and thus if the fetus were killed (without her permission), you couldn't really say that would be a violation of her rights.
(If she doesn't have a right to have a baby in the first place, she doesn't have a right to continue having a baby, by this argument, relating to her "bodily rights)
And if she doesn't have a right to continue having a baby, since we all have an intuitive feel that killing the fetus is wrong when the mother is not choosing it, that then logically forces us to admit that killing a fetus is wrong for reasons that very much have nothing to do with the wishes of the mother. Which doesn't exactly bode well for the pro-choice position.

To spell it all out.

I see.

Well, people who get pregnant have a right to get pregnant.

That was simple.

But if you are arguing that people who do not have reproductive rights can have their reproductive rights limited by law, then yes, that is also true. But that is the same as saying that people who already do not have rights can have those rights taken away.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, it's a little complex and indirect, but if she doesn't have a right to be pregnant, then it would follow that she doesn't have an absolute right to "control the workings of her own body", and thus if the fetus were killed (without her permission), you couldn't really say that would be a violation of her rights.
(If she doesn't have a right to have a baby in the first place, she doesn't have a right to continue having a baby, by this argument, relating to her "bodily rights)

And if she doesn't have a right to continue having a baby, since we all have an intuitive feel that killing the fetus is wrong when the mother is not choosing it, that then logically forces us to admit that killing a fetus is wrong for reasons that very much have nothing to do with the wishes of the mother. Which doesn't exactly bode well for the pro-choice position.

To spell it all out.

Is it *her* choice, or not -- ?

If *she's* not the one choosing to terminate her pregnancy, then who *is* choosing to terminate her pregnancy, in this scenario of yours?