I think this is a really nice article. I think there are many parallels between the abortion and the vaccine/mask issue that makes the all important debate about bodily autonomy. I think this is the core issue that must be settled. Thanks for publishing this post even though it may be quite controversial.
Thank you! Discussions about bodily autonomy are always controversial, but we think they are discussions we need to be having! Thank you for engaging with our content :)
“Medical abortions essentially suffocate human fetuses by destroying their placenta, which they rely on for oxygen and nutrients.“
Please do your research before writing something as ignorant as this sentence. Medical abortion can only be carried out in the embryonic stage (3-8 weeks post-fertilization). At this stage, it is still an embryo, and the placenta doesn’t take over with the supply of oxygen and nutrients yet. It only takes over near the end of the first trimester, way after the embryonic stage, where medical abortions can ONLY be effective has ended. Mifepristone just suspends progesterone —— provided by the ovaries, by the way, meaning that it’s mechanism of action lies in that place. Nutrients are provided by the yolk sac; oxygen is provided by the allantois, as well as the yolk sac. I don’t see why someone should be obligated to allow their body to be modified to accommodate anyone else.
"That someone supports restrictions on abortion—i.e. they support a substantial violation of bodily autonomy in order to protect a human fetus . . . —but does not also support the state requiring people to wear a mask or get vaccinated—i.e. [a very minor violation of bodily autonomy]—seems inconsistent. This often leaves them to conclude . . . that pro-life people don’t actually care about saving unborn babies, but that pro-life people are really just interested in controlling women. They aren’t trying to demonize pro-life people in drawing this conclusion; it’s just the best explanation for our 'inconsistent' behavior as they understand it."
It seems to me that there would be a much simpler and more obvious-seeming explanation available to them for our “inconsistent” behavior: that we are appealing selectively to the principle of bodily autonomy – appealing to it when it's convenient for us, and not when it's inconvenient. So among other things, though I agree that we should look first for a charitable explanation for their explanation, after doing that looking I end up more inclined than you are to think that they ARE trying to demonize pro-life people.
Isn't it the most natural thing in the world (and therefore plausible that it would explain the behavior of a pro-life/anti-mandate person) to form our policy preferences emotionally and quickly, and then to look later for some principle or principles to justify our preferences – and isn't it therefore more likely than not that one's principles will be half-baked? In this case, appealing selectively to the principle of bodily autonomy would be an instance of half-baked principles. So the natural behavior of half-baked principles, perhaps adding in an equally natural behavior – a touch of hypocrisy – seems to me to be easily the simplest and most obvious-seeming explanation available to them for our “inconsistent” behavior.
Whereas to come up with the "interested in controlling women" explanation, doesn't one have to strain quite a bit? One would have to believe that there are millions of Americans saying regularly that they want to save unborn babies, and yet it's very rare to catch one confessing that they really just want to control women. It's like believing that the moon landing was faked, which would have required a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of NASA workers, and that in 50+ years none of those people have had a change of heart and confessed.
Also, even if one does overlook the half-baked-principles explanation, aren't there other theories besides controlling women, perhaps also (like "half-baked principles") more plausible than controlling women, and perhaps charitable, that one could come up with as explanations for the pro-life/anti-mandate position?
As I should have said at the outset of my comment, overall I found your presentation good – well-organized and well-written. Organizing it around the "pro-life/anti-mandate position" and the "pro-choice/pro-mandate position" provides a clear framework for the discussion.
Technical feedback to ERI: Just after posting my above "As I should have said," I received an email from FastComments Robot giving me a chance to verify that comment, and I clicked Verify. Now that comment is not labeled "UNVERIFIED," but then if I remember right, it never was labeled "UNVERIFIED."
Whereas I never received such an email for my earlier "It seems to me that there would be a much simpler" comment. That one has from the start been labeled "UNVERIFIED," and I assume that if I received an email for it, that would be my chance to get that label removed. But it looks like I will never receive such an email.
Regarding my "I never received such an email for my earlier 'It seems to me that there would be a much simpler' comment" – it turns out that I did receive it, but in my Spam. Then I belatedly clicked Verify Your Comment.
And regarding my "if I remember right, it never was labeled 'UNVERIFIED'" – it's quite possible that I didn't remember right.
Please do your research before writing something as ignorant as this sentence. Medical abortion can only be carried out in the embryonic stage (3-8 weeks post-fertilization). At this stage, it is still an embryo, and the placenta doesn’t take over with the supply of oxygen and nutrients yet. It only takes over near the end of the first trimester, way after the embryonic stage, where medical abortions can ONLY be effective has ended. Mifepristone just suspends progesterone —— provided by the ovaries, by the way, meaning that it’s mechanism of action lies in that place. Nutrients are provided by the yolk sac; oxygen is provided by the allantois, as well as the yolk sac. I don’t see why someone should be obligated to allow their body to be modified to accommodate anyone else.
It seems to me that there would be a much simpler and more obvious-seeming explanation available to them for our “inconsistent” behavior: that we are appealing selectively to the principle of bodily autonomy – appealing to it when it's convenient for us, and not when it's inconvenient. So among other things, though I agree that we should look first for a charitable explanation for their explanation, after doing that looking I end up more inclined than you are to think that they ARE trying to demonize pro-life people.
Isn't it the most natural thing in the world (and therefore plausible that it would explain the behavior of a pro-life/anti-mandate person) to form our policy preferences emotionally and quickly, and then to look later for some principle or principles to justify our preferences – and isn't it therefore more likely than not that one's principles will be half-baked? In this case, appealing selectively to the principle of bodily autonomy would be an instance of half-baked principles. So the natural behavior of half-baked principles, perhaps adding in an equally natural behavior – a touch of hypocrisy – seems to me to be easily the simplest and most obvious-seeming explanation available to them for our “inconsistent” behavior.
Whereas to come up with the "interested in controlling women" explanation, doesn't one have to strain quite a bit? One would have to believe that there are millions of Americans saying regularly that they want to save unborn babies, and yet it's very rare to catch one confessing that they really just want to control women. It's like believing that the moon landing was faked, which would have required a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of NASA workers, and that in 50+ years none of those people have had a change of heart and confessed.
Also, even if one does overlook the half-baked-principles explanation, aren't there other theories besides controlling women, perhaps also (like "half-baked principles") more plausible than controlling women, and perhaps charitable, that one could come up with as explanations for the pro-life/anti-mandate position?
Whereas I never received such an email for my earlier "It seems to me that there would be a much simpler" comment. That one has from the start been labeled "UNVERIFIED," and I assume that if I received an email for it, that would be my chance to get that label removed. But it looks like I will never receive such an email.
And regarding my "if I remember right, it never was labeled 'UNVERIFIED'" – it's quite possible that I didn't remember right.