Abortion and self ownership

[tiepolo]

The matter of self ownership in relation to abortion has me somewhat conflicted. Does a woman own every cell within her body, entitling her to go though with abortions? Does a woman's bodily sovereignty extend to the occupant of her uterus? That notion would imply, would it not, that abortions at the latest stage would be justified by this principle.

 

On the other hand, can the individual's self-ownership be pushed back to the point of conception? Along with the argument of potential rights, this would make abortion a gross violation of the unborn individual's rights.

 

At what point does self-ownership kick in? I was always offended by the idea that children are the property, rather than merely in the custody of their parents, hence the Bible has circumcision being carried out as proof of the father's faith. Apart from the cruelty, the presumption to own the infant as symbolised by the act in a religious context raises my heckles. If a newborn has self-ownership in trust, as it were, then why not the foetus?

[june]

great question! i feel this is somewhat of a conundrum for the position of "property rights", because property rights claims that "you own the effects of your actions" which, for many other instances, may be a passable claim (debatable), but in this particular case the "effect of your actions" is a self-owning agent! so it seems like two scenarios are at play here:1) you do own the effects of your actions, therefore you have ownership over your child and can thus abort your property at any time 

2) you do not own the effects of your actions, therefore the child owns themself and abortion at any stage is violating the childs selfownershipeither option seems to be contradiction upon property rights: 1) because property rights states no person can own another person, & 2) because property rights states that you own the effects of your actions

[Aaron727]

I agree. I don't like the idea of robbing someone of a potential life. Obliviously its morally wrong to kill a newborn baby even though they aren't really self aware because they have the potential to be self aware, I view abortion in the same way. Any line that someone would draw seems arbitrary, Its ok to abort at x number of months but not at y number of months doesn't make sense to me. I don't know if abortion is immoral but it seems like a pretty selfish thing to do.

[Pat Bouvry]

I listened to Stefan talking about abortion on the Peter Schiff show dated 12 May 2014.

 

 

He mentions that millions of babies have been killed in causality of the action of the state.

 

I follow Stefan's work diligently and have been actively supporting him for a long time now, but I still have some significant trouble with his position on this subject.

 

 

In a free-market society, it is clear to me that mothers or couples wanting an abortion would get an abortion, with or without the consent/knowledge of their community.  This tragic act would probably occur less often, but the decision has intrinsically nothing to do with the state, in my opinion.  The action of consenting adults without the active presence of an obvious plaintiff doesn’t appears to be violating the non-aggression principle (as is the case for selling “bad” vegetation).  To a mother and/or couple not wanting the life-shattering implications of an unwanted early pregnancy, this choice can therefore seem legitimate and without any immoral content, as the 1-2 months old potential plaintiff is nowhere to be heard and without any capacity to exist without their consent.

 

 

QUESTION 1: For an action to be immoral, shouldn't there be at least one concerned party who potentially possesses the ability to complain (as a premature or 1 hours-old baby, or a patient in a comma would have)?

 

 

As a foetus below ~5 months old cannot possibly survive without the assistance of a carrying mother (as of yet), it doesn't seem logical to presume and it doesn't appear to have been demonstrated yet, that it has the capacity of thought or instinct linked with the ability to complain.  So to follow the moral logic I learned by listening to Stefan, if there is no complaining party, there is no immorality.

 

 

If we assign to a collection of growing cells the quality of potential consciousness and therefore potential ability to complain, then where would this logic end?  Would an egg and a sperm cell be assigned the same moral quality because they “could” form an independently-living organism together, maybe, one day?  Eggs and sperms cells are live organisms themselves, but no one cries when they are destroyed trillions of times every day.

 

 

Finally, the link raised by Stefan between the presence or coercion of the state and the practice of abortions escapes me.  In an evolved free-market society with no central ruler, abortions would probably be less common due to better education and lower trauma of the general population.  However, unwanted pregnancies would still happen, and the same morality dilemma would still exit, state or not.  In our current society, the state seems to be protecting women and couples from being aggressed by others who would like to oblige them (yes, at gun point) to live the disastrous consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.  Therefore:

 

 

QUESTION 2: How is the state affecting abortions in any way now, other than by indirectly excusing consequences of irresponsible behaviour?  Mistakes and rape happen, and will continue to do so, but on this subject, Stefan appears to advocate the opposite of his usual position: i.e. someone should force people against their will without the obvious presence of a concerned complaining party.

 

 

Thanks to all for your constructive participation to this topic.  I would love to hear more from Stefan, as he seems to be a passionate about this subject, and I’m not following his logic.

 

[Aaron727]

In regards to question 1 an egg or sperm cell by itself will never become self aware. It is only when the egg is fertilized by the sperm that human life is possible. Does that make sense? I agree in a free society abortion wouldn't be as big of a problem. If kids have a stable upbringing they most likely wont go around making huge life mistakes like an unwanted pregnancy. Prevention is the best medicine. 

 

in regards to question 2 The idea of forcing a woman to keep a baby makes me feel really uncomfortable as well. Although I do think the father should have 50% say if his baby(or future baby) is killed. All that being said having an abortion because someone made a "mistake" is appalling and irresponsible when there are many willing people that would adopt that child. Not sure I have anything to add about the rape scenario.

[june]

If we assign to a collection of growing cells the quality of potential consciousness and therefore potential ability to complain, then where would this logic end?  Would an egg and a sperm cell be assigned the same moral quality because they “could” form an independently-living organism together, maybe, one day?  Eggs and sperms cells are live organisms themselves, but no one cries when they are destroyed trillions of times every day.

QUESTION 1: For an action to be immoral, shouldn't there be at least one concerned party who potentially possesses the ability to complain (as a premature or 1 hours-old baby, or a patient in a comma would have)?

 

i'm certain both of these arguments rely on clarifying the definition of property rights.

 

1) your "growing cells" example -- well, when does one gain selfownership? the answer to that is the same answer to when one gains the right/ability "to complain", so to speak

 

2) an action is immoral when it imposes, without consent, upon someone elses property. so again, when does one's selfownership come into effect? does selfownership come into effect at all, considering the child is the "effect of the parents actions" and thus could be argued to be property of the parents?

[tiepolo]

There is no reason why an unwanted pregnancy should have disastrous consequences. Measures could be put in place to facilitate rapid adoption by couples who can't have children. 

 

Indeed individual eggs or sperm have no direct potential so that argument would not seem to be valid. An individual's life and specificness begin with conception. It is not just that a foetus could grow into a mature human being, it almost certainly would if not subjected to external violence. This cannot be said of mere eggs and sperm.

 

A newborn infant cannot survive without external assitance, but to kill a newborn infant would still be deemed murder, or criminal neglect if that were the case...

 

As for ability to complain, you can't protest against being smothered in your sleep, but that doesn't legitimise killing sleeping people- somnicide.... (is that word?)

 

Apparently only around 1 % of the abortions that are performed are on women who were the victims of rape. I could imagine the psychological damage of abortion guilt being worse in the long term than the trauma of being raped, so I don't see even that as much of an argument.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html

[Pat Bouvry]

Thanks for your replies Guys.

 

I believe the arguments I'm putting forward are related to assigning morality to life.  Clearly defining "killing a newborn" (from your statement) would be key here, as a foetus is not born, or for the early stage, cannot survive being "born".  So there's no "killing a newborn" in this case.  I understand the line is fuzzy, but that's exactly my point: where is the line and which logic is used to draw it?  I believe many don't have moral issues with abortions because they consider unborn foetuses as cells, not babies.  A "baby" seems to have a wide range of definitions, and I'm not sure how much cell division having started within an egg constitutes an iron-clad definition of where morality starts.

 

As to my second point, it had to do with Stefan's linking the State as the cause of so many abortions.  I still cannot see how "demand" for abortions would be significantly affected without a State, hence questioning the effect of the State on the issue of abortion.

 

Cheers.

Pat

[ribuck]

The unborn child has a parasitic relationship with the mother. I don't think it's moral to force any person to sustain and nurture an unwanted parasite, nor is it good for the health of a developing fetus to be hosted by a stressed and unwilling mother.

 

Having said that, there is so much demand from childless couples that I hope and expect that a free market for babies would encourage solutions that do not involve killing the fetus.

[tiepolo]

A parasite is an organism that lives on a different organism. A parasite surely has to be a different species from its host, in biological terms, otherwise definitions are being distorted.  The purpose of all organisms in nature is reproduction, and so the young of a species in any state can hardly be termed parasites on that species.The parents exist for the young, if anything, not vice versa.

[dsayers]

 

The unborn child has a parasitic relationship with the mother. I don't think it's moral to force any person to sustain and nurture an unwanted parasite, nor is it good for the health of a developing fetus to be hosted by a stressed and unwilling mother.

 

Difficult for some people to hear, but it's true.

 

Although I do think the father should have 50% say if his baby(or future baby) is killed.

 

 The other thing that's difficult for others to hear but is true is that the father actually has little say after the fact.

 

I've heard arguments for example that somebody who takes drugs hurts people that care about them. However, this hurt is actually the responsibility of the one hurt for being so close to somebody who would hurt them by taking drugs. Or having an abortion. If a man wants to be with a woman who will not have an abortion, he can choose to not impregnate one that would. Or after having made that mistake, can make the case to her for keeping it. He does not get to impose upon her an unchosen positive obligation.

[june]

The unborn child has a parasitic relationship with the mother. I don't think it's moral to force any person to sustain and nurture an unwanted parasite, nor is it good for the health of a developing fetus to be hosted by a stressed and unwilling mother.

but the mother voluntarily engaged in an activity that they knew had certain risks. so how do you justify punishing another party for the mother's actions?to use part of a stef analogy: it's like the parent is playing russian roulette, but it's the baby who gets shot

[Aaron727]

 

 

 

Difficult for some people to hear, but it's true.

 

 

 The other thing that's difficult for others to hear but is true is that the father actually has little say after the fact.

 

I've heard arguments for example that somebody who takes drugs hurts people that care about them. However, this hurt is actually the responsibility of the one hurt for being so close to somebody who would hurt them by taking drugs. Or having an abortion. If a man wants to be with a woman who will not have an abortion, he can choose to not impregnate one that would. Or after having made that mistake, can make the case to her for keeping it. He does not get to impose upon her an unchosen positive obligation.

 

I agree a responsible man should not  have sex with a woman who would have an abortion if he is against abortion. The woman and the man or both 50% responsible for the pregnancy so if two Irresponsible people  get pregnant I don't understand how the woman can take action and kill the baby without the fathers consent. I get that the woman is the one who had to carry the child and its her body but if the child is 50% his why does she get to take action?

 

On the flip side say a father wants the child aborted but the woman says no i want the baby now that father has to pay for the child for the rest of his life. If the decision to keep or not keep the baby is 100% the woman's then why is the father held responsible for the child?

[dsayers]

On the flip side say a father wants the child aborted but the woman says no i want the baby now that father has to pay for the child for the rest of his life. If the decision to keep or not keep the baby is 100% the woman's then why is the father held responsible for the child?

 

Unless the man was raped or his seed was otherwise stolen, the pregnancy was a decision that he made. He created a positive obligation to the child the moment he chose to engage in a behavior that has the expected outcome of creating that child.

 

This is really no different than my last post. It is up to everybody to get to know somebody before engaging in behavior that could shackle you to them for a couple decades. This is a very serious topic and people need to approach it as such no matter how inconvenient of frustrating in the moment it might be.

[Aaron727]

My point was that its a double standard if Its 50 50 then the women should not be able to take action and abort without the fathers consent . If the woman has 100% say then fine but he shouldn't be held responsible.  

 

"He created a positive obligation to the child the moment he chose to engage in a behavior that has the expected outcome of creating that child."

 

We must apply that to women as well so surely she cant abort without the fathers consent 

 

 "This is a very serious topic and people need to approach it as such no matter how inconvenient of frustrating in the moment it might be."

 

I totally agree

[dsayers]

My point was that its a double standard if Its 50 50 then the women should not be able to take action and abort without the fathers consent . If the woman has 100% say then fine but he shouldn't be held responsible.

 

No double standard. You own yourself. As such, a woman's body belongs to her. Once a child is born (you cannot abort a child), it is the responsibility of his biological parents. This sucks for women since they have to do the whole gestation and birthing thing. This sucks for men since they don't have a say over the woman's body. This is why the subject of vetting your co-parent before risking co-parenting is crucial. When people take this decision seriously, this will almost never even occur.

 

At any rate, I think my position is morally consistent as opposed to being a double standard.

[Aaron727]

No double standard. You own yourself. As such, a woman's body belongs to her. Once a child is born (you cannot abort a child), it is the responsibility of his biological parents. This sucks for women since they have to do the whole gestation and birthing thing. This sucks for men since they don't have a say over the woman's body. This is why the subject of vetting your co-parent before risking co-parenting is crucial. When people take this decision seriously, this will almost never even occur.

 

At any rate, I think my position is morally consistent as opposed to being a double standard.

 

Regardless of the fact that the baby is growing in the women the fetus is half the fathers. She does not solely "own" the fetus. You're saying the woman has 100% say in decisions involving the fetus but the man has 50% responsibility after the child is born. You don't understand that's illogical?

 

If the woman has 50% say in decisions involving the fetus then the man is 50% responsible for the child after birth . If the woman has 100% say in decisions involving the fetus then the man has no responsibility to the child after birth. That is what it means to be consistent. 

 

 "He created a positive obligation to the child the moment he chose to engage in a behavior that has the expected outcome of creating that child." This is another example of a double standard. To be consistent you must apply this to women as well. If you do apply your quote to women it is a great argument for why a woman should not be able to abort without the fathers consent. 

 

I Also want to add that I agree vetting your co-parent before risking co-parenting is crucial. Prevention is much better than dealing with it after the fact. Still my alarm bells go off when you start making excuses for women and then apply different standards to the genders. It takes two people to get pregnant. Its possible the woman should of thought of having to carry a child for 9 months before she had unprotected sex. 

[dsayers]

If the woman has 50% say in decisions involving the fetus then the man is 50% responsible for the child after birth . If the woman has 100% say in decisions involving the fetus then the man has no responsibility to the child after birth. That is what it means to be consistent. 

 

Were there no variables, that would be true. However, in fetus form, the offspring consumes the mother's nutrients, blood, is a strain on her frame, internal organs, etc. This is very different from a baby that has been delivered. That is a variable, making the frame of this consideration inconsistent. As a man myself, I would very much like for it to be as you describe since that would be more convenient for me. However, your only argument thus far has been consistency amid the inconsistent. Could you make the case for the male donor having a say in what his female partner does with her body?

 

 "He created a positive obligation to the child the moment he chose to engage in a behavior that has the expected outcome of creating that child." This is another example of a double standard. To be consistent you must apply this to women as well.

 

I've never said that a woman is not responsible to the child once it's born. I said that men are also in response to your suggestion that they're not.

 

Its possible the woman should of thought of having to carry a child for 9 months before she had unprotected sex. 

 

I said the same thing. I just also said that men also have to make that decision carefully.

[Aaron727]

If we own the effects of our actions the fetus is the fathers as well, that's why he has a say in whats happening in her body(only matters involving the fetus).  If you truly believe a woman has a positive obligation to the child the moment she chose to engage in a behavior that has the expected outcome of creating that child, she must have the obligation not to abort the fetus without the fathers consent because it is their future child. 

[dsayers]

If you truly believe a woman has a positive obligation to the child the moment she chose to engage in a behavior that has the expected outcome of creating that child, she must have the obligation not to abort the fetus without the fathers consent because it is their future child. 

 

I've pointed out that inside the womb and outside are different circumstances. You continue to post as if this is not so without explaining how it is not so or sharing what part isn't clear to you. I've asked you to make the case for a male donor having a say in what his female partner does with her body, and you haven't done so. I've expressed sympathy for your viewpoint while you've made no effort to consider my input.

 

None of that is philosophical behavior. I'm not sure what further discussion could produce.

[Aaron727]

Alright sorry.

 

I don't understand the distinction. We both agree we own the effects of our actions. I don't understand why a man has no ownership over the fetus.  If I understand the position, you're saying  the woman has strain over her body because of the fetus and that means the man has no ownership. I don't understand how that follows. Why does the strain of pregnancy counter the ownership of the mans actions?

[june]

Could you make the case for the male donor having a say in what his female partner does with her body?

she voluntarily engaged in an action with a man that had the risk of a fetus being developed inside her body. if she didn't want a man to have a say on what she does with that aspect of her body, she should not have engaged in an action that would permit just that. here's a post you made earlier in the thread. it's revealing if you swap the gender roles around

 

 

 

If a man wants to be with a woman who will not have an abortion, he can choose to not impregnate one that would. Or after having made that mistake, can make the case to her for keeping it. He does not get to impose upon her an unchosen positive obligation.

 

[dsayers]

If I understand the position, you're saying  the woman has strain over her body because of the fetus and that means the man has no ownership.

 

We're not talking about ownership of a fetus (if that's even a thing). If a woman gives you an STD, she doesn't get to insist that you keep it just because she was the donor. It has a negative impact on your body and as it is YOUR body, YOU have the sole voice in what to do about it. While I'm not saying that a fetus is comparable to an STD, the negative impact it can have on the body is actually worse than an STD. Surely you understand that gestation and birth can KILL the woman, right? I'm still awaiting the case to be made on how ANYBODY could force a person to do something with their body that could lead to their death.

 

I say again, despite being told that this was not a point of contention: If a man wants to avoid being in the uncomfortable situation of somebody else deciding the fate of his offspring, he would do well to choose a woman of virtue and only conceive if both people are of the same mind of having and raising a child together. Men who do do not have to concern themselves with whether or not they own the woman's body or not. If you do not study for the test, you fail the test. You don't get to say that forcing people to do something is wrong, except when it bails you out of a mistake that you made. Please make that case.

[Aaron727]

We're not talking about ownership of a fetus (if that's even a thing). If a woman gives you an STD, she doesn't get to insist that you keep it just because she was the donor. It has a negative impact on your body and as it is YOUR body, YOU have the sole voice in what to do about it. While I'm not saying that a fetus is comparable to an STD, the negative impact it can have on the body is actually worse than an STD. Surely you understand that gestation and birth can KILL the woman, right? I'm still awaiting the case to be made on how ANYBODY could force a person to do something with their body that could lead to their death.

 

 

I have been talking about the ownership of the fetus the whole time if your read my previous posts. A fetus has the potential to be a self aware human, an std is never going to be self aware. Do you think that is an important distinction? I don't understand how you can compare the two. The women has sole voice over her body until she chose to have sex and get pregnant, now there is another life involved. If the women has serious risk of dying during the pregnancy that is a whole different matter and I agree she should abort.

 

You say men should pick better partners so this doesn't happen. agreed. Shit happens people make mistakes(including women). Why does the woman get to kill a human life because she made a mistake? You keep saying men should pick better partners but How about women? Women get to fuck all the men they want and then kill the future child because she made a mistake and the child is inconvenient to the woman. For the sake of argument If a woman wanted to murder my future child I would hope society would ostracize her. I'm not saying strap the women down and make them give birth but there needs to be some consequences. 

 

"You don't get to say that forcing people to do something is wrong, except when it bails you out of a mistake that you made"

 

This is exactly want a woman is doing when she aborts without the fathers consent. The mother is killing a human or potential human life because she made a mistake. Is that not crazy fucked up to you?

[dsayers]

You keep saying men should pick better partners but How about women?

 

We played this game already. YOU stated that men and women are in different moral categories, I said that they are not, and you tried to make it look as if I was the one saying they're in different moral categories. I clarified, yet here we are again. This is manipulative.

 

Women own themselves and men own themselves. This means they are responsible for their behaviors and they are in control of their bodies. We don't get to make exceptions where this is inconvenient.

[ribuck]

Does a woman own her own body? Of course she does.

 

Is the fetus a part of her body? If so, she's free to do what she likes with it. If it's not part of her body, she's free to have it removed from  inside of her.

[june]

Women own themselves and men own themselves. This means they are responsible for their behaviors and they are in control of their bodies. We don't get to make exceptions where this is inconvenient.

being responsible for our behaviour also includes choosing or not choosing to engage in behaviour which may waive our right to selfownership (or part of it), such as contractually signing it away or by getting pregnant with a man's creation (50/50 creation). it is you who is making the exception by claiming a selfowning agent cannot resign their selfownership in some form.

[Aaron727]

You were right when you said this wasn't productive.