The baby does not have the right to use the women’s body without her consent. If you needed my blood for a blood transfusion, you would not be allowed to take it from me without my consent.
She is justified from removing it from her body, the unfortunate consequence is that prior to viability the baby will die.
Autumn can use thalidomide during her pregnancy, although I feel it is morally repugnant to do so. If it was illegal, what consequences do you propose Autumn should face? Should we put her in jail to prevent her from taking thalidomide? What about women who binge drink during pregnancy, should that be illegal too? Should women who don’t take prenatal vitamins, and babies go on to develop neural tube defects (a consequence of low folic acid, which is why prenatal vitamins are recommended) be punished? What about women who don’t eat healthy or exercise during pregnancy?
Your argument is that when women are pregnant, we can not longer make decisions about we can do to our body. So where are you drawing the line? Should we lock up all pregnant women so we can control what they eat and do to promote optimal fetal outcomes?
Looking forward to a positive discussion to try and understand each other’s views.
It seems very reductionist to argue that the 'Soverign Zone' argument ('SZ') permits ANYTHING within the zone, in the same way that it seems wrong (for most of us) to argue for unfettered power for the state within 'their' country. However, just as we recognise that the state has certain powers within their SZ, so too does the woman within hers. That might include the termination of a foetus (note: most sensible pro-choice advocates will object to your use of the word kill) but reasonably might not include the deliberate deformation of a foetus you know you are intending to bring to term. Many American states permit state sanctioned killing of certain people but not the torture of those same people, so whilst this is certainly debatable it isnt illogical.
I'm not saying it isn't up for discussion, just that the argument as you frame it approaches a reducto ad absurdem. Again, we might argue that the death penalty is cruel and unjust, whilst most American states argue that within their state it is their right to exercise as the legal system sees fit. But that is an argument about the limits of the sovereign's power within the SZ.
Now, obviously as soon as you concede there are SOME limits to the SZ then you invite the debate on what those limits are. But the key point here (and where, respectfully, your argument fails) is that it is not philosophically illogical or unreasonable to argue that you, morally speaking, should not (all things being equal) take deliberate action to deform the foetus, but you can terminate it.
Two more questions (thought experiments really), if an inherently needy adult were created (through say a car crash where their kidneys were damaged) and you were the only match for that person and the only way to save that person were to be hooked up to that person my emergency crew who arrived, and let's say as they hooked you up a blizzard trapped the paramedics, but they thankfully have enough dehydrated food and water (it's a strange paramedic) to last out the storm (predicted to last 9 months) should you be legally obligated to stay connected to that person?
In a more realistic though unlikely scenario, if you crashed your car into someone destroying both of their kidneys and you were the only match should you be legally obligated to give your kidney to this person because of the responsibility objection (creating an inherently needy adult in this case)?
Once difference I've seen pro-choice individuals point out between having a D&E abortion and taking thalidomide and having a disfigured child is the absence of sentience/consciousness. With most abortions (90%+) occurring medicinally instead of surgically (i.e. without a D&E happening) and most D&E's happening arguably before a fetus can feel pain, many pro-choice individuals say no suffering has occurred and the child (or from the pro-choice POV, the fetus) has never experienced anything and hence has lost nothing.
What response do you make to such a point of view?
That's a different argument (a "personhood" argument), which ERI discusses elsewhere. Bodily rights arguments concede the point that the unborn child has full moral status, but argue that abortion should still be legal in most cases.
The problem here is that I wouldn't call this an accurate portrayal of the "Sovereign Zone" argument. I would not argue that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants TO whatever is in her body, but I would argue she has the right to REMOVE from her body anyone or anything she doesn't want there. So for example, in your story, at 8 months pregnant Autumn would not have the right to kill her fetus, but she would have the right to remove it from her body (via her choice of induced vaginal delivery or c-section) so the pregnancy is ended, no matter how much her body is needed by another.
Your counter argument depends on the body rights argument being a right to kill, but it's not. It's a right to remove.
There are two main kinds of bodily rights arguments: Sovereign Zone and Right to Refuse. This particular article is focused on the Sovereign Zone, which is the argument that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to anything inside her body. It sounds like you personally subscribe to the latter argument - Right to Refuse - which states that a woman should have the right to refuse the use of her body to something else that is trying to use it. Refusing the use of her body, in the case of pregnancy, would be removing the fetus from her body. We have other materials discussing the Right to Refuse argument; here's one that might clarify our position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmBrUcpOxDw&t=1s
I wouldn't say that your materials regarding the right to refuse really address the right to remove the fetus via an early form of birth, which would be the equivalent of unhooking and not intentional killing.
I would say there are differences between the right to refuse and the right t remove as well, I've seen the materials on your site about it.
Specifically I would say what I'm talking about is a Sovereign Zone argument because it's based on the fact that the unborn are within the Sovereign Zone and it's granting the right to do something, just not necessarily anything.
Thank you for clarifying! I agree that there is some distinction between the right to refuse and the right to remove, though in effect they cause the same result. If there was a way that we could remove the fetus and put it in an artificial womb so that the person wouldn't have to be pregnant anymore and the fetus wouldn't die, I would definitely be willing to entertain that idea! But the perhaps unfortunate reality is that we don't have that technology, at least not yet. Removing still inevitably results in the death of the fetus. It sounds like you are against some forms of abortion that are obviously intentional killing, such as abortions that are done via dismembering, but you are not against forms of abortion that seem more like unplugging, such as removing the fetus from the uterus after which it would die on its own. If I'm understanding you correctly, I would suggest that removing the fetus is still direct, intentional killing like dismembering is. For example, if I vacuumed all of the oxygen out of someone's house, it would be ridiculous for me to claim, "I didn't kill him, he died because he ended up in an inhospitable environment." Removing his hospitable environment doesn't make it any less killing; that doesn't make it the equivalent of unhooking.
It's less about my personal beliefs and more about an issue with your reasoning.
You can suggest that removing someone is just like dismembering, but it simply is not, factually, the same.
Your oxygen example, like all your examples, fails to consider why the event is happening. What is it that gives someone the right to take any action against the unborn in the first place? Why is it that you would be taking oxygen out of someone else's house*? Why would taking something from someone else's house be like taking away *your house? Not a very good analogy. You don't have rights to other people's house/property. You do to your own body/property.
You are free to take all the oxygen out of your own house, if you want.
The point of the analogy is to demonstrate that putting someone in an inhospitable environment counts as killing; you can't simply blame the death on the inhospitable environment. To make another analogy that's closer to your own house, consider the Pixar movie Up. Carl ties thousands of balloons to his house and flies it into the sky. A few minutes after he is in the air, he hears a knock at the door, and is very surprised to find Russel (the boy scout he met earlier in the movie) on his porch. Russel is understandably terrified! Russel asks to come inside, and Carl says no and shuts the door. After a comedic pause, of course Carl opens the door and lets Russel inside. But let's imagine that Pixar took this movie in a much darker direction. Carl could have said "no, this is my house, and you don't have rights to my house/property. So, I am going to remove you from my property," and so Carl kicks Russel off the porch. Clearly, Carl cannot do that. Carl certainly does have rights to his property, but he doesn't have a right to kill Russel, and in this case, removing Russel and killing Russel are the same thing. Carl can't just say "I removed him from my porch and the inhospitable environment of the empty sky with no floor for him to stand on caused him to fall to his death." Carl, not the sky, killed Russel. The thing I find particularly interesting about this story is that Carl has no relationship to Russel, he's not like Russel's father or grandfather or even his friend at this point, but Carl still has an obligation not to kill him. Carl does have some rights to his own property, but he doesn't have the right to kill Russel in order to exercise his property rights.
But you are ignoring the fact that the environment they came from isn't a place they have a right to be, and there is no other solution to the problem. You still want to ignore the WHY of putting someone in a different environment. That matters. Killing people IS justified in certain circumstances, and your body sovereignty is one of them.
How EXACTLY is is different than the unhooking analogy? Really there is no difference. In either case your actions will lead to someone dying. Removing your body via line or via birth is the same damn thing. What makes them both morally permissible is that in either case, the other person doesn't have a right to your body.
All of your analogies fail to understand how serious the sovereignty of your body is. No, you can't treat people in your house the same as those in your body. The sovereignty of your body is such that you can kick people out, no matter how much they need it.
In your UP example, no it would not be the environment or the sky that killed him, it would be the fall. A better analogy would be if he just left him there, since really he isn't in the house anyways. Removing someone from your body isn't like that though, it really IS the environment that kills them, It really IS the "sky".
Okay, it sounds like you have a few different arguments going on here simultaneously. First, it sounds like you do believe that killing people is justified for body sovereignty. So, it doesn't seem to me that whether or not the action is unhooking matters in your mind; if killing people is justified for body sovereignty, then any abortion, no matter the type, would be justified. I would suggest that unhooking from the violinist in right to refuse is different from me dismembering the violinist; in the former, the violinist is already dying and I am removing my help and returning the violinist to its natural state. In the latter, I am killing the violinist directly; his disease didn't kill him, the dismemberment did. While both actions lead to someone dying, the violinist died of his disease when I unplugged. The fetus, on the other hand, isn't diseased or dying. It is in its natural state. However, this distinction doesn't actually seem relevant to what's going on for you; if killing people is justified for your body sovereignty, then me dismembering the violinist would be fine. You wouldn't suggest limiting abortions to the types that at least seem more like unplugging; you'd say that any abortion, no matter how direct the killing is, is justified because of body sovereignty. That is the premise that I would reject; killing is not justified. I don't have the right to kill the violinist by dismembering him, lethally injecting him, or suffocating him. So I don't have the right to do those things to the fetus either; that's how abortions occur. Abortions are not merely unplugging.
It seems like you also have another thing going on about how the fetus ended up in your body and the lack of you giving consent for the use of your body. You say that the environment where the fetus is in the womb isn't a place they have a right to be. But when you consent to an action, you also consent to that action's effects. When you engage in consensual sex, you willingly engage in an action which you know might result in the creation of an inherently needy child, so it seems that you owe that child some sort of compensation. The child does have a right to be there. You cannot withdraw your consent from an effect of the action you consented to, just as you cannot withdraw your consent from losing your chips at a casino after you consented to play the game. You consent to playing; you don't get to consent to losing because that's an effect. We talk a lot more about this idea of both abortion as a self-defense mechanism and consent to sex versus consent to pregnancy in another article of ours: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/refuting-abortion-as-self-defense/
My position is that killing is justified for body Sovereignty when it's the least destructive way to protect it. Hence my distinction that abortion is the right to remove someone, and not a right to kill. I thought I made this distinction clear when I discussed how it would not be ok to dismember an 8 month fetus for shits and giggles, but is ok to induce birth etc to remove them.
Which is why I'm confused that you go back to comparing to dismemberment when talking about the violinist. We are not talking about unhooking vs dismemberment, we are talking about unhooking vs removal via c-section or induced birth. In those cases it is just like unhooking.
" You wouldn't suggest limiting abortions to the types that at least seem more like unplugging"
But I literally said that I would suggest that? Again in my example of NOT dismembering the 8 month fetus? Remember that?
Consenting to sex is not consenting to being pregnant. As I explained to another author on this site on another article, the obligations for assistance to another person never include the obligation to let someone reside in your body. There is a "burdensome limit" to assistance that is required. Pregnancy is too burdensome, denying someone their body sovereignty is too burdensome. It's never an obligation to give that level of assistance.
No one has a right to be inside your body, no matter what.
"You cannot withdraw your consent from an effect of the action you consented to,"
Oh, so once I agree to have sex with a man I can't ask him to stop until he's finished? Orgasm being an effect of the action I consented to? Or is that rape?
CONSENT IS ONGOING. It can be withdrawn at any time when it comes to your body and who is in it.
And I'll add what I posted to on the article you linked to: Conception is an effect. Gestating is an action that requires ongoing consent.
Let's assume you are correct that removal via c-section or induced birth is equivalent to unhooking, so it would be morally permissible to do that to a 8 month old fetus. How would you handle a situation where a woman is 8 weeks pregnant? The only way to have an abortion at that stage is through suffocating the fetus (that's what medical percription abortions do via RU-486). It sounds like we both agree that suffocating definitely isn't unhooking. So would she need to wait until the fetus is approximately 8 months along when it would be possible to just remove it? Or are you suggesting that she must undergo an imaginable and dangerous surgery at 8 weeks instead of letting her just take a pill? Both of those seem like a grave violation of her bodily sovereignty. If a woman really has the level of body sovereignty that you propose, then she should be able to have a "not-unhooking" abortion done earlier in the pregnancy. Either her body sovereignty is so important that nothing can violate it at any point, regardless of what she must do to maintain her bodily sovereignty, even if that thing she must do is clearly killing. Or her body sovereignty can be violated early on in pregnant until the unhooking is possible later on in the pregnancy, because killing isn't okay but removing is. I'm guessing you wouldn't argue for the later, since that would be a rather unique position that early abortions are impermissible and late-term abortions (at least certain types that seem more like unhooking) are permissible.
Sex is an action. The entire act of sex, from beginning to end, is an action. Consent is absolutely ongoing. When you agree to have sex with a man, the sex act is ongoing, so you can remove your consent at any time during the sex act. You can ask him to stop at any time. But when the sex is over, pregnancy might be the effect. You can't consent to the effect of your action. Once you consent to sex, and you could have withdrawn your consent at anytime during the sex, then you have automatically consented to the effect, even if it's undesirable. Gestating is not a separate action from the effect of conception. For example, let's say that I went to the casino and decided to play roulette at a table where the rules stated that if I lost, I'd have to pay X amount of money every day for the next 9 months. I clearly knew that those were the rules before I consented to play the game, and I chose to play anyways. I could have withdrawn my consent at any time before the bets were closed and they spun the wheel, but I didn't withdraw my consent. So once the game is over and I lost, I don't get to remove my consent from paying X amount of money every day for the next 9 months. You can't say that "losing is an effect, but paying for the next 9 months is an action that requires ongoing consent." Paying for the next 9 months was part of the effect of losing, and it was known at the time you consented to play the game that that might happen. Consent is ongoing, and I'm glad that our society is promoting better education about sexual consent. But pregnancy is an effect, and you can't consent to effects after you've consented to the action.
Is it "the only way" possible, or just the way it's currently done? I don't think you actually know anything about the medical options available to Drs.
Frankly, at that point it doesn't serve any practical purpose to worry about it. You could make a moral point (if you ignore the subjective idea of personhood, as we are) about the method, but I'm a pragmatist, so I personally wouldn't do anything in situations where the embryo has no chance on it's own. It would serve no practical purpose and likely just make it more expensive and or medically intensive. But no, I certainly would not make anyone wait, because again, they have the right to not be pregnant, to not have someone in their body.
"My position is that killing is justified for body Sovereignty when it's the least destructive way to protect it."
I made it pretty clear what my position was on the importance of body sovereignty.
Yes, sex is an action and orgasm is an effect. You signed up for an action that you KNOW has the EFFECT of an orgasm! You can't just back out from the effect, right? That's your logic, not mine.
" Gestating is not a separate action from the effect of conception. "
It literally, factually, is a separate action. Even in your example (which again fails because you can't compare a valid agreement with an invalid one) the ACT of paying is a sperate ACTION from the effect of being obligated to pay. Guess what? People get out of paying things ALL THE TIME! If you have to deny reality to make your point, you should really rethink your position.
Thank you for your inquiries on the article. I think the differences between our views have become clear and we're no longer able to have a productive engagement with ideas. I've made responses to your latest questions already in this and other comment threads on this site. People can absolutely get out of paying money they agreed to pay, but if the only way out is to kill someone, then you can't kill someone. You wrote on a different comment thread: "But since you want to play stupid games, yes she has the right to end the pregnancy EVEN IF IT MEANS KILLING THAT 39 WEEK OLD FETUS." Since you allow for killing regardless of the age of the fetus or what other options would be available like induced labor, then of course we won't agree about this either. You have made your position clear, as have I. I am merely making the claim that killing isn't an acceptable solution. Thank you for the discussion.
Since we are apparently doing the copy paste thing:
You are allowed to kill to remove people from your body in other instances. Obviously the importance of your body sovereignty is different than that of a house or money. The point was to demonstrate the flaws in your basic principles, which was achieved quite well.
And please don't lie. Regardless of other options is not my position, it is in fact the opposite. In the example you quoted, no other option was available. It was specified labor COULD NOT be induced. If you want to jump into a conversation, at least be accurate.
People have different ideas about the very subjective elements here - what is important enough to justify someone dying? What rights are most important? Which only compounds the evil of trying to force women to remain pregnant against their will. Granting ownership and control of someone's body to another person like that is abhorrent.
She is justified from removing it from her body, the unfortunate consequence is that prior to viability the baby will die.
Autumn can use thalidomide during her pregnancy, although I feel it is morally repugnant to do so. If it was illegal, what consequences do you propose Autumn should face? Should we put her in jail to prevent her from taking thalidomide? What about women who binge drink during pregnancy, should that be illegal too? Should women who don’t take prenatal vitamins, and babies go on to develop neural tube defects (a consequence of low folic acid, which is why prenatal vitamins are recommended) be punished? What about women who don’t eat healthy or exercise during pregnancy?
Your argument is that when women are pregnant, we can not longer make decisions about we can do to our body. So where are you drawing the line? Should we lock up all pregnant women so we can control what they eat and do to promote optimal fetal outcomes?
Looking forward to a positive discussion to try and understand each other’s views.
I'm not saying it isn't up for discussion, just that the argument as you frame it approaches a reducto ad absurdem. Again, we might argue that the death penalty is cruel and unjust, whilst most American states argue that within their state it is their right to exercise as the legal system sees fit. But that is an argument about the limits of the sovereign's power within the SZ.
Now, obviously as soon as you concede there are SOME limits to the SZ then you invite the debate on what those limits are. But the key point here (and where, respectfully, your argument fails) is that it is not philosophically illogical or unreasonable to argue that you, morally speaking, should not (all things being equal) take deliberate action to deform the foetus, but you can terminate it.
In a more realistic though unlikely scenario, if you crashed your car into someone destroying both of their kidneys and you were the only match should you be legally obligated to give your kidney to this person because of the responsibility objection (creating an inherently needy adult in this case)?
What response do you make to such a point of view?
Your counter argument depends on the body rights argument being a right to kill, but it's not. It's a right to remove.
Specifically I would say what I'm talking about is a Sovereign Zone argument because it's based on the fact that the unborn are within the Sovereign Zone and it's granting the right to do something, just not necessarily anything.
You can suggest that removing someone is just like dismembering, but it simply is not, factually, the same.
Your oxygen example, like all your examples, fails to consider why the event is happening. What is it that gives someone the right to take any action against the unborn in the first place? Why is it that you would be taking oxygen out of someone else's house*? Why would taking something from someone else's house be like taking away *your house? Not a very good analogy. You don't have rights to other people's house/property. You do to your own body/property.
You are free to take all the oxygen out of your own house, if you want.
How EXACTLY is is different than the unhooking analogy? Really there is no difference. In either case your actions will lead to someone dying. Removing your body via line or via birth is the same damn thing. What makes them both morally permissible is that in either case, the other person doesn't have a right to your body.
All of your analogies fail to understand how serious the sovereignty of your body is. No, you can't treat people in your house the same as those in your body. The sovereignty of your body is such that you can kick people out, no matter how much they need it.
In your UP example, no it would not be the environment or the sky that killed him, it would be the fall. A better analogy would be if he just left him there, since really he isn't in the house anyways. Removing someone from your body isn't like that though, it really IS the environment that kills them, It really IS the "sky".
It seems like you also have another thing going on about how the fetus ended up in your body and the lack of you giving consent for the use of your body. You say that the environment where the fetus is in the womb isn't a place they have a right to be. But when you consent to an action, you also consent to that action's effects. When you engage in consensual sex, you willingly engage in an action which you know might result in the creation of an inherently needy child, so it seems that you owe that child some sort of compensation. The child does have a right to be there. You cannot withdraw your consent from an effect of the action you consented to, just as you cannot withdraw your consent from losing your chips at a casino after you consented to play the game. You consent to playing; you don't get to consent to losing because that's an effect. We talk a lot more about this idea of both abortion as a self-defense mechanism and consent to sex versus consent to pregnancy in another article of ours: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/refuting-abortion-as-self-defense/
Which is why I'm confused that you go back to comparing to dismemberment when talking about the violinist. We are not talking about unhooking vs dismemberment, we are talking about unhooking vs removal via c-section or induced birth. In those cases it is just like unhooking.
" You wouldn't suggest limiting abortions to the types that at least seem more like unplugging"
But I literally said that I would suggest that? Again in my example of NOT dismembering the 8 month fetus? Remember that?
Consenting to sex is not consenting to being pregnant. As I explained to another author on this site on another article, the obligations for assistance to another person never include the obligation to let someone reside in your body. There is a "burdensome limit" to assistance that is required. Pregnancy is too burdensome, denying someone their body sovereignty is too burdensome. It's never an obligation to give that level of assistance.
No one has a right to be inside your body, no matter what.
"You cannot withdraw your consent from an effect of the action you consented to,"
Oh, so once I agree to have sex with a man I can't ask him to stop until he's finished? Orgasm being an effect of the action I consented to? Or is that rape?
CONSENT IS ONGOING. It can be withdrawn at any time when it comes to your body and who is in it.
And I'll add what I posted to on the article you linked to: Conception is an effect. Gestating is an action that requires ongoing consent.
Sex is an action. The entire act of sex, from beginning to end, is an action. Consent is absolutely ongoing. When you agree to have sex with a man, the sex act is ongoing, so you can remove your consent at any time during the sex act. You can ask him to stop at any time. But when the sex is over, pregnancy might be the effect. You can't consent to the effect of your action. Once you consent to sex, and you could have withdrawn your consent at anytime during the sex, then you have automatically consented to the effect, even if it's undesirable. Gestating is not a separate action from the effect of conception. For example, let's say that I went to the casino and decided to play roulette at a table where the rules stated that if I lost, I'd have to pay X amount of money every day for the next 9 months. I clearly knew that those were the rules before I consented to play the game, and I chose to play anyways. I could have withdrawn my consent at any time before the bets were closed and they spun the wheel, but I didn't withdraw my consent. So once the game is over and I lost, I don't get to remove my consent from paying X amount of money every day for the next 9 months. You can't say that "losing is an effect, but paying for the next 9 months is an action that requires ongoing consent." Paying for the next 9 months was part of the effect of losing, and it was known at the time you consented to play the game that that might happen. Consent is ongoing, and I'm glad that our society is promoting better education about sexual consent. But pregnancy is an effect, and you can't consent to effects after you've consented to the action.
Frankly, at that point it doesn't serve any practical purpose to worry about it. You could make a moral point (if you ignore the subjective idea of personhood, as we are) about the method, but I'm a pragmatist, so I personally wouldn't do anything in situations where the embryo has no chance on it's own. It would serve no practical purpose and likely just make it more expensive and or medically intensive. But no, I certainly would not make anyone wait, because again, they have the right to not be pregnant, to not have someone in their body.
"My position is that killing is justified for body Sovereignty when it's the least destructive way to protect it."
I made it pretty clear what my position was on the importance of body sovereignty.
Yes, sex is an action and orgasm is an effect. You signed up for an action that you KNOW has the EFFECT of an orgasm! You can't just back out from the effect, right? That's your logic, not mine.
" Gestating is not a separate action from the effect of conception. "
It literally, factually, is a separate action. Even in your example (which again fails because you can't compare a valid agreement with an invalid one) the ACT of paying is a sperate ACTION from the effect of being obligated to pay. Guess what? People get out of paying things ALL THE TIME! If you have to deny reality to make your point, you should really rethink your position.
You wrote on a different comment thread: "But since you want to play stupid games, yes she has the right to end the pregnancy EVEN IF IT MEANS KILLING THAT 39 WEEK OLD FETUS." Since you allow for killing regardless of the age of the fetus or what other options would be available like induced labor, then of course we won't agree about this either. You have made your position clear, as have I. I am merely making the claim that killing isn't an acceptable solution. Thank you for the discussion.
You are allowed to kill to remove people from your body in other instances. Obviously the importance of your body sovereignty is different than that of a house or money. The point was to demonstrate the flaws in your basic principles, which was achieved quite well.
And please don't lie. Regardless of other options is not my position, it is in fact the opposite. In the example you quoted, no other option was available. It was specified labor COULD NOT be induced. If you want to jump into a conversation, at least be accurate.
People have different ideas about the very subjective elements here - what is important enough to justify someone dying? What rights are most important? Which only compounds the evil of trying to force women to remain pregnant against their will. Granting ownership and control of someone's body to another person like that is abhorrent.