About the Abortion Controversy

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dominion over one's own body is one thing, but it could be argued that a fœtus is a genetically separate individual, temporarily parasitic on another.
Submit fœtal and maternal tissue for DNA or histology analysis and the lab would class them as separate organisms every time.

I understand what they try to argue, but unless that foetus is in a lab, it’s in a person’s womb and no government or court of law owns it.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

There are two moving parts to the debate. One part, a woman's right to her body is the only relevant issue at stake.

But the other angle by which one could approach the debate is to claim: "an infant is a person with rights." This is generally the chief concern of pro-lifers. But even some pro-choicers are interested in this part of the debate. What makes a fetus a person? If a fetus is a person, when (along the course of its development) does it attain "personhood"? Plenty of pro-choicers have given thought to the matter and made determinations.

For example, the fertilization of the egg cell cannot be a genuine marker for personhood mainly due to something called "cell potency." Post conception the fertilized egg divides into cells which are totipotent. This means that you could theoretically divide these cells into three groups and grow each one in a separate test tube. The result would be three different persons if you did this. So, according to this line of thinking, personhood absolutely cannot begin at fertilization.

I'm personally interested in both angles of the debate. Or, at the very least, I find OP's approach refreshing, because it's different from what we usually hear.

Bless you vulcanlogician,

You express yourself very respectfully towards this OP and admittedly, I went in harshly.

I did so because, in light of what has just happened to human rights in America, I cannot see how the debate can continue without us clearly separating the pro-life aspect from the rights-to-self one.

I’m happy to causally reflect upon thoughts about when “personhood” seems to enter the human perspective of stuff - just not in relation to serious business like women’s right to their own wombs.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[PureX]

I’m sorry to be blunt but in context of abortion rights/(law), it’s wrong to start off where you did. Why? Because this topic is in fact about people’s right to their own bodies.

If you doubt me, tell me this: If nature were so that men were the ones to give birth instead, do you truthfully believe that their right to decide whether to do so or not would even be up for discussion - let alone, considered a choice to be made by the government and regulated by jurisdiction?

Truthfully now, please.

The right to bodily autonomy is dependent upon and subject to the right to life. Thus, the question of the right to life takes precedent over the right to bodily autonomy. The right to life as determined by we humans is predicated on our being a being human. (We do not generally afford that right to any other species.) So the determining factor in affording the right to life is a human being. Once that right is established, then the issue of bodily autonomy can be addressed (slavery).

As to the role of government: government has been established for the expressed purpose of establishing and protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens it serves, particularly the rights of the minority from the incursion of the will of the majority. So it is absolutely the responsibility of government to do so. And NOT to allow a majority or otherwise dominant subset of citizens to dictate or negate those rights to others. In this instances, the supreme court has failed in it's most important duty, and it's members should thereby be removed and replaced. Not because the right to an abortion has been denied, but because they have failed in their duty to protect the rights of a subset of citizenry from the will (and abuse) of another subset of citizenry. In fact, what they have essentially done is GIVE that ability to the subset called a "state". When it was their duty to protect our rights from the will and whims of the states. Their failure was that they vacated a decision, and then did not replace it. Which was their profound responsibility.

Imagine if they had decided to set aside the abolition of slavery, and instead gave the individual states the ability to choose for themselves. Yet that is exactly what the court has just done regarding a woman's right to bodily autonomy ... i.e., allowing the states to institute reproductive slavery.

 

[PureX]

This is about whether individual women should have the final say about their reproductive rights or if we should give the government the power to have the final say about a woman's reproductive rights. Why anyone thinks that the government is in a better position to make such decisions than the individual involved is completely beyond my comprehension.

But that's not really what this is about. If it were that, alone, few would argue with the woman's right to choose what happens inside her body. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is one person's right to deny another person their right to live, because the other person is living within the first person's body. And we can't agree about it because we don't know when that becomes a 'thing'. But we do know that it does become a thing at some point n the developmental process. Because none of us would approve destroying child in the womb at 8 1/2 months.

Don't the people who advocate for giving this power over to the government realize that if the government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will then the government could just as easily force a women to end a pregnancy against her will?

The government has already and long ago been given the power to establish and protect our rights as citizens and human beings from incursion by ourselves and others. It's what government is for.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

The right to bodily autonomy is dependent upon and subject to the right to life. Thus, the question of the right to life takes precedent over the right to bodily autonomy. The right to life as determined by we humans is predicated on being our being human. (We do not generally afford that right to any other species.) So the determining factor in affording the right to life is a human being. Once that right is established, then the issue of bodily autonomy can be addressed (slavery). As to the role of government: government has been established for the expressed purpose of establishing and protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens it serves, particularly the rights of the minority from the incursion of the will of the majority. So it is absolutely the responsibility of government to do so. And NOT to allow a majority or otherwise dominant subset of citizens to dictate or negate those rights to others. In this instances, the supreme court has failed in it's most important duty, and it's members should thereby be removed and replaced. Not because the right to an abortion has been denied, but because they have failed in their duty to protect the rights of a subset of citizenry from the will (and abuse) of another subset of citizenry. Their failure was that they vacated a decision, and then did not replace it.

I do not see how your comment answers my question to you @PureX.

But I disagree with what you did say about the topic being firstly about embryos and foetuses and only secondly about women’s right to their own wombs.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[PureX]

I do not see how your comment answers my question to you @PureX.

But I disagree with what you did say about the topic being firstly about embryos and foetuses and only secondly about women’s right to their own wombs.


Humbly
Hermit

It's not about embryos and fetuses. It's about when these become human beings, INSIDE a woman's body. And how to determine the rights of one from the rights of the other.

 

[Koldo]

This is about whether individual women should have the final say about their reproductive rights or if we should give the government the power to have the final say about a woman's reproductive rights. Why anyone thinks that the government is in a better position to make such decisions than the individual involved is completely beyond my comprehension.

Don't the people who advocate for giving this power over to the government realize that if the government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will then the government could just as easily force a women to end a pregnancy against her will?

What would be the basis for doing so?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

It's not about embryos and fetuses. It's about when these become human beings, INSIDE a woman's body. And how to determine the rights of one from the rights of the other.

Yes, I read that that’s how you see it but I do not share that view. Like I said to someone else below:

Bless you vulcanlogician, You express yourself very respectfully towards this OP and admittedly, I went in harshly. I did so because, in light of what has just happened to human rights in America, I cannot see how the debate can continue without us clearly separating the pro-life aspect from the rights-to-self one.
I’m happy to causally reflect upon thoughts about when “personhood” seems to enter the human perspective of stuff - just not in relation to serious business like women’s right to their own wombs.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I read that that’s how you see it but I do not share that view. Like I said to someone else below:

So why do you consider her 'personhood' more important than the person living insider her body? As most of us will agree that it becomes a person at some stage in it's development. I mean, by what reasoning?

 

[Koldo]

Bless you vulcanlogician,

You express yourself very respectfully towards this OP and admittedly, I went in harshly.

I did so because, in light of what has just happened to human rights in America, I cannot see how the debate can continue without us clearly separating the pro-life aspect from the rights-to-self one.

I’m happy to causally reflect upon thoughts about when “personhood” seems to enter the human perspective of stuff - just not in relation to serious business like women’s right to their own wombs.


Humbly
Hermit

That seems to imply that personhood is not serious business.

 

[Revoltingest]

If nature were so that men were the ones to give birth instead, do you truthfully believe that their right to decide whether to do so or not would even be up for discussion - let alone, considered a choice to be made by the government and regulated by jurisdiction?

I like this question, so I'm kibitzing.

Of the few anti-abortion protesters I've personally
met IRL, half were women. Yesterday I saw videos
of anti-abortion protesters. Most were women.
The answer....
Yes.
Women are as prone as men to demand that
government control the bodies of others. Not
just abortion, but also conscription (which applies
only to men), & denial of the right to die.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Women are as prone as men to demand that
government control the bodies of others.

This Vox article supports that understanding.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

So why do you consider her 'personhood' more important than the person living insider her body? As most of us will agree that it becomes a person at some stage in it's development. I mean, by what reasoning?

By the reasoning that, while embryos’ and foetuses’ ideas of “personhood” are very seriously questionable, the womb-owner’s idea of their own “personhood” is rather certainly present.

 

[PureX]

What would be the basis for doing so?

That is the dilemma, and why we all remain in disagreement on how to resolve it.

The previous court chose to base the determination on when the fetus could survive outside the womb if it had to. Which is somewhat logical, but not convincingly so. Which is why it never really settled the issue.

 

[PureX]

By the reasoning that, while embryos’ and foetuses’ ideas of “personhood” are very seriously questionable, the womb-owner’s idea of their own “personhood” is rather certainly present.

I don't see the personhood of an 8 month old developing fetus as all that questionable. Do you?

 

[PureX]

I like this question, so I'm kibitzing.

Of the few anti-abortion protesters I've personally
met IRL, half were women. Yesterday I saw videos
of anti-abortion protesters. Most were women.
The answer....
Yes.
Women are as prone as men to demand that
government control the bodies of others. Not
just abortion, but also conscription (which applies
only to men), & denial of the right to die.

Humans in general seek to control the world around them. It's why we have to establish governments to protect us from each other's desire to control. It's also why governments are constantly under assault by people that want to use them to gain control of everything and everyone around them.

This unfortunate desire we humans have to control each other factors into my position on abortion quite a lot.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

That seems to imply that personhood is not serious business.

“Personhood” is an idea of self, created in interaction with otherness (the non-self). It is a concept, not of consciousness, but of self-consciousness.

Human beings are born with consciousness, but develop self-consciousness during infancy, through interaction with their surroundings.

If you are interested in this topic, it falls under child-developmental psychology and there is plenty of research in the field.

As to whether I consider the idea of “personhood” to be of equal importance as that of women’s rights to their own wombs in the abortion laws debate, you have understood me correctly: I do not.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I like this question, so I'm kibitzing.

Of the few anti-abortion protesters I've personally
met IRL, half were women. Yesterday I saw videos
of anti-abortion protesters. Most were women.
The answer....
Yes.
Women are as prone as men to demand that
government control the bodies of others. Not
just abortion, but also conscription (which applies
only to men), & denial of the right to die.

I agree Revoltingest. And I may have been unclear, but what I wanted us to ask ourselves was rather: If wombs were inside men, would government dare [try to] claim authority over this issue?
And my honest believe is, no.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I don't see the personhood of an 8 month old developing fetus as all that questionable. Do you?

“Personhood” is not a physical thing; it’s a personal- and social-psychological concept that requires self-consciousness, which in turn requires interaction:

“Personhood” is an idea of self, created in interaction with otherness (the non-self). It is a concept, not of consciousness, but of self-consciousness.

Human beings are born with consciousness, but develop self-consciousness during infancy, through interaction with their surroundings.

If you are interested in this topic, it falls under child-developmental psychology and there is plenty of research in the field.

As to whether I consider the idea of “personhood” to be of equal importance as that of women’s rights to their own wombs in the abortion laws debate, you have understood me correctly: I do not.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree Revoltingest. And I may have been unclear, but what I wanted us to ask ourselves was rather: If wombs were inside men, would government dare [try to] claim authority over this issue?
And my honest believe is, no.


Humbly
Hermit

Just as many fertile women oppose abortion,
so would many men in their shoes.