Taurwen wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 13, 9:21 2018
a) murder implies person hood, I'm not convinced a fetus should have that designation.
b) we're also not talking about personal ethics. No one is making someone have an abortion, we must be discussing the legality of abortion.
c) if you're talking about the United states you are talking about a country with the death penalty. The legal system can actually decide to end someone's life, but they won't force someone to donate their organs. The rights to bodily autonomy is legally more important than the right to life.
It's definitely possible to value bodily autonomy more than right to life. Even if you think abortion is actively ending a life (which again, I'm not convinced it is). So the question is at what point can a government decide to legislate morality.
Personally I don't think morality should be legislated at all. Government should be concerned with the good of society as a whole. It's in the interest of society to not let murderers continue to move freely through the population, it's in the interest of society to dissuade theft. That kind of thing.
We know through history that making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just causes desperate people to partake in risky behaviour. Which is bad for society when they either lose an adult whom they has already put a lot of resources into, sometimes it leaves children without one of their primary caretakers. Or it has to put more resources into dealing with the medical ramifications of a botched abortion.
Furthermore, even if people don't try to abort, it means more children born into circumstances where their parents don't want them, or can't care for them. Which isn't exactly a boon to society.
As such, it doesn't make sense to legislate against abortion on several levels.
Now, if the goal is fewer/no abortions, we know the answer isn't to make them illegal. We know
that doesn't work.
We know what does work is more options and resources for families, we know what works is more access to birth control and more comprehensive sexual education.
So why the hell do we have people out on the street harassing people about abortion instead of doing things that might actually reduce the number of abortions? Because it makes them feel superior? Because it's easier? Because heaven forbid women have a say in what they do with their body (whether that means deciding when/with whom they have sex, or when to bear children)?
Eta: I'm obviously just yapping, I'm hardly a scholar in any of the topics. But I do feel my right to my organs is more important than the life of another person, as well as I think the right of other people to their organs is more important than my life.
Thank you for the civil response. I condone responses like this, as it opens the thread up for an interesting discussion. We need more responses like this.
You talk about how you aren't sure that a fetus implies person hood. This actually supports my stance, in that the abortion debate isn't about bodily autonomy
at all. It's about whether it is murder or not, which means, it's about where you draw the line for something being "a life" or not. If it is a life, then it would be murder. If it's not a life, then it would not be murder, and there would be no issue with removing it from one's body. The debate solely revolves around when it becomes a life, and why you choose to draw the line there.
You mention the legal system. The legal system isn't what decides morality. It was once legal to own somebody and have them be your slave. Clearly this isn't moral now, nor was it moral at the time it actually was legal. Morality should influence the law, not the other way around
. Which is why pro-lifer's strive to outlaw abortion. Aborting a life is immoral, as it is murder. Murder should not be allowed.
And so, when it comes to weighing bodily autonomy vs. the right to life, simply saying "the rights to bodily autonomy is legally more important than the right to life" is an invalid argument.
When we are talking about murder, that absolutely should be legislated. I'll break down the levels you have provided, that argue why abortion should be legal:
You suggest that "for the good of society", it is okay to have abortions. The problem with utilitarian arguments, is that it infringes on individual rights. For example, one could argue that eugenics is for the good of society. They would say that sterilizing those with bad genes would lead to a healthier, smarter, more athletic, superior pool of human beings. They would say that it would actually be improving the human gene pool. This is clearly unethical, immoral, and wrong, as it infringes on an individual's rights to reproduce.
One could argue that murdering unborn children would be "for the good of society", as it would reduce pollution, starvation, overpopulation, and poverty. However, this is clearly unethical, immoral, and wrong, as it infringes on an individual's right to life.
You also suggest that outlawing abortion would lead to more abortions. The problem with this argument, is that it fails to take into account the fact that we can improve the enforcement of abortion. If we allow abortions, believing that it will cut down on abortions, then we are limiting ourselves. Meaning, if the abortion rate drops, you still have abortions out there that are still happening. If we instead outlaw abortion, we won't be limiting ourselves, as we can further enforce the law to lower the rate of abortion.
So now, on to the "right to life" vs "right to bodily autonomy" discussion around abortion. When there is a pregnancy, we are dealt with two options:
1) A baby is murdered
2) A baby is "using the mother's organs"
Now, if you don't believe the unborn child is "a life", then I will refer you to the idea again that the discussion is about when it becomes "a life" and when it becomes murder, and not about bodily autonomy
. But if you are one that advocates for abortion, even it if is considered "a life", then I'll address that. Simply put, actively murdering somebody is a far greater crime than having somebody's organs be used without their consent. *Again* one of these two has to happen in the case of an unwanted child. When you murder somebody, you are infringing more on their organs compared to when a baby is using a mother's organs. Murder is literally killing 100% of its organs (and ending a life).