The Violinist (Abortion Debate)

[Koldo]

You misunderstand the violinist argument, then. It is not about granting full personhood and full human rights to fetuses, it is about not having that debate without presuming a conclusion to it. You, on the other hand, seem to use it as little more than a stepping stone to assume fetuses are full adult humans with all the rights and privileges that entails, including the same bodily autonomy that we deny pregnant women in this debate.

I am just asking you all to grant full personhood to the fetus for the sake of this debate, just to sidestep the personhood debate, which is an entirely different debate. Just to stay on topic.
I am not saying that granting full personhood to the fetus is a requirement to use the violinist argument.

I suppose I haven't been clear enough. What I am saying is that you are granting a fetus the exact same rights (not privileges, rights) as an adult person, and use those as a justification to take away the basic human rights of pregnant women. In essence, you are starting from a position of formal isonomy, and then use that as justification to reduce the rights of a specific class of people.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

Let me just start by saying that the distinction between rights and privileges is only in the eyes of the beholder. Therefore, I must explain that whenever I use those terms I am using them to mean the same thing.

And no, I am not merely using those fetus' rights to take away the woman's rights. I am saying it is the particular condition that the fetus is in that justifies doing so. Consider the parallel I am drawing between that and affirmative action, consumer rights and the preference to take a seat in a bus.

So do you believe that the state should have the power to arbitrarily control fully adult people's bodies and deny them bodily autonomy, or not? Because that's what this debate is all about, essentially.

No. I think that the state should have the power to control fully adult people's bodies and deny them bodily autonomy, but not in an arbitrary manner.

 

[Kooky]

I am just asking you all to grant full personhood to the fetus for the sake of this debate, just to sidestep the personhood debate, which is an entirely different debate. Just to stay on topic.

You are not sidestepping the personhood debate, though - you are assuming its conclusion in favor of the side you want to argue for; and in this, you are mangling the entire point of the argument.

I am not saying that granting full personhood to the fetus is a requirement to use the violinist argument.

And yet that is what you started from.

Let me just start by saying that the distinction between rights and privileges is only in the eyes of the beholder. Therefore, I must explain that whenever I use those terms I am using them to mean the same thing.

Well, I don't. I consider bodily autonomy not merely a privilege for a select few who "deserve" them, but a basic human right that ought to be for everyone - one of the foundational rights that allow us to live in a free society at all.

And no, I am not merely using those fetus' rights to take away the woman's rights. I am saying it is the particular condition that the fetus is in that justifies doing so. Consider the parallel I am drawing between that and affirmative action, consumer rights and the preference to take a seat in a bus.

Do you not believe that there is a hierarchy of rights to consider - that the right to bodily autonomy is perhaps more crucial to a person's freedom than an entrepreneur's right to discriminate against potential customers on the basis of bigotry (and that in turn the former may even be a precondition for a situation where the latter can occur at all)?

No. I think that the state should have the power to control fully adult people's bodies and deny them bodily autonomy, but not in an arbitrary manner.

So to what degree would the state need to justify its violation of people's bodies?

If bringing a fetus to term is sufficient justification to violate a woman's basic human rights to whichever degree the state chooses, then why aren't we enslaving parents for the sake of enhancing their children's material wellbeing, for example? Since you are not advocating for slavery, only for forced pregnancy, there has to be a line which the state is not allowed to cross in pursuit of the welfare of unborn cell conglomerates, correct?

 

[We Never Know]

(@We Never Know)

Freedom to choose or rights supersede the potential of a life?

Rights over life?

Legally, I don't interfer with a woman's choice to abort. But do you support rights or a potential life of a child ... And why are rights more important than life?

I don't support abortion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't support abortion.

I don't either. The reference was one of your past threads-rights of a person vs a life in relation to abortion life or woman's rights

 

[Koldo]

You are not sidestepping the personhood debate, though - you are assuming its conclusion in favor of the side you want to argue for; and in this, you are mangling the entire point of the argument.


And yet that is what you started from.

That is merely a misunderstanding, which I hope has been clarified by now.

Well, I don't. I consider bodily autonomy not merely a privilege for a select few who "deserve" them, but a basic human right that ought to be for everyone - one of the foundational rights that allow us to live in a free society at all.

We can talk about what counts as a 'right' and whether the distinction between 'right' and 'privilege' is proper, but that is for another topic.

Do you not believe that there is a hierarchy of rights to consider - that the right to bodily autonomy is perhaps more crucial to a person's freedom than an entrepreneur's right to discriminate against potential customers on the basis of bigotry (and that in turn the former may even be a precondition for a situation where the latter can occur at all)?

Of course. So? I haven't mentioned anything about the right to discriminate against potential customers on the basis of bigotry.

So to what degree would the state need to justify its violation of people's bodies?

It must be justified to the utmost degree.

If bringing a fetus to term is sufficient justification to violate a woman's basic human rights to whichever degree the state chooses, then why aren't we enslaving parents for the sake of enhancing their children's material wellbeing, for example? Since you are not advocating for slavery, only for forced pregnancy, there has to be a line which the state is not allowed to cross in pursuit of the welfare of unborn cell conglomerates, correct?

Do you mean you see no difference between this and banning abortion?

 

[Kooky]

That is merely a misunderstanding, which I hope has been clarified by now.

We can talk about what counts as a 'right' and whether the distinction between 'right' and 'privilege' is proper, but that is for another topic.

I am not interested in discussing this if you aren't, but I thought it would be informative for you to know where I am coming from in this debate, and why I am so wary of ditching basic human rights.

Of course. So?

I brought it up because you were drawing parallels between bodily autonomy and consumer rights. If you did not actually intend for them to be equivalent and of equal weight, then I apologize for the insinuation.

It must be justified to the utmost degree.

Do you mean you see no difference between this and banning abortion?

Both cases are about taking away individual autonomy for the welfare of others:

• In one case, the state is taking away the autonomy of women for the welfare of unborn fetuses.
• In another case, the state is taking away the autonomy of men and women for the welfare of born children.

Now, make no mistake, I am not suggesting that you are argueing in favor of slavery - far from it. However, I think it is useful to compare and contrast these two points in order to highlight the criteria we may use to find out where we draw the line in justifying state violation of individual autonomy.

Are the needs of children more or less important than those of an unborn fetus? Remember, we are skipping the question of personhood, so at least in this regard they must be viewed as equivalent.

Is the autonomy of men more important than the autonomy of women? Or do we just so happen to find women in situations where their bodily autonomy can be more easily put under state control, and so we choose female bodies out of expediency, as male bodies may be more prone to resist and not as easily controllable?

 

[Koldo]

I am not interested in discussing this if you aren't, but I thought it would be informative for you to know where I am coming from in this debate, and why I am so wary of ditching basic human rights.


I brought it up because you were drawing parallels between bodily autonomy and consumer rights. If you did not actually intend for them to be equivalent and of equal weight, then I apologize for the insinuation.


Both cases are about taking away individual autonomy for the welfare of others:

• In one case, the state is taking away the autonomy of women for the welfare of unborn fetuses.
• In another case, the state is taking away the autonomy of men and women for the welfare of born children.

Now, make no mistake, I am not suggesting that you are argueing in favor of slavery - far from it. However, I think it is useful to compare and contrast these two points in order to highlight the criteria we may use to find out where we draw the line in justifying state violation of individual autonomy.

Are the needs of children more or less important than those of an unborn fetus? Remember, we are skipping the question of personhood, so at least in this regard they must be viewed as equivalent.

I have mentioned those examples merely to explain the law already gives different treatment to different people based on their circumstances.

Rights often enough clash with one another. So, how do we properly deal with that? First of all, we look for a solution where the clashing doesn't happen. If that is not possible, we look for a solution where the least is lost.

If parents don't have money to financially support their children, can the State step in to do so in a manner that does not resort to slavery? Yes.

If a pregnant woman doesn't want to remain pregnant and wait until the fetus is born, can the State remove the fetus from her womb and take care of it? If it is early in the gestation, No.

Your comparison would only be proper if was truly equivalent, but it is not.

Is the autonomy of men more important than the autonomy of women? Or do we just so happen to find women in situations where their bodily autonomy can be more easily put under state control, and so we choose female bodies out of expediency, as male bodies may be more prone to resist and not as easily controllable?

No, it is not.
How exactly do you propose we should control male bodies to prevent unwanted pregnancies to the point no woman will ever want to abort? I am all ears.

 

[Kooky]

I have mentioned those examples merely to explain the law already gives different treatment to different people based on their circumstances.

Rights often enough clash with one another. So, how do we properly deal with that? First of all, we look for a solution where the clashing doesn't happen. If that is not possible, we look for a solution where the least is lost.

If parents don't have money to financially support their children, can the State step in to do so in a manner that does not resort to slavery? Yes.


If a pregnant woman doesn't want to remain pregnant and wait until the fetus is born, can the State remove the fetus from her womb and take care of it? If it is early in the gestation, No.

In other words, the lives pregnant women are worth less than the lives of their fetus. They can be sacrificed for the latter's sake; and all it takes to justify slavery is the mere existence of a fetus - or, if you will, the strong possibility of preventing abortions.

Your comparison would only be proper if was truly equivalent, but it is not.

Could you elaborate? Why do you think the comparison is not valid, exactly?

No, it is not.
How exactly do you propose we should control male bodies to prevent unwanted pregnancies to the point no woman will ever want to abort? I am all ears.

The same way we control female bodies - a combination of social ostracism, public and private shaming, economic oppression, and state violence.

But we were not talking about the practicality of these polcies, were we? After all, at no point have you debated the efficiency of violating a pregnant woman's autonomy, only the moral justification for it. So talking about the feasibility and efficiency of it all is perhaps an important step after we've solved the moral question - but at this point, it is a Red Herring; first we have to solve the moral questions before we can look at the practical ones, do we not?

Alright, onward with the moral issue: Since we have arrived at the conclusion that the aversion of abortion justifies the oppression of women, it stands to reason that preventing the possibility of abortion altogether justifies the oppression of men: Men are, after all, the direct proximate cause of pregnancy, and therefore the existence of unwanted fetuses, and therefore the potential threat of abortion.

By controlling male sexuality, we can control when and where pregnancies happen, and by giving women control over male sexuality, we can ascertain that no (or at the very least, far fewer) pregnancies would be unwanted.
And thus, we have solved the problem of abortion, by enslaving all men.

 

[Koldo]

In other words, the lives pregnant women are worth less than the lives of their fetus. They can be sacrificed for the latter's sake; and all it takes to justify slavery is the mere existence of a fetus - or, if you will, the strong possibility of preventing abortions.

Nowhere have I stated that the fetus life takes precedence over the woman's life. The issue revolves around the fetus' life and the woman's autonomy (not her life).

Could you elaborate? Why do you think the comparison is not valid, exactly?

I have done so already: in one case the State can come along and act in the parents' stead, in the other it is just impossible, at least for now. Therefore the comparison is not valid.

The same way we control female bodies - a combination of social ostracism, public and private shaming, economic oppression, and state violence.

But we were not talking about the practicality of these polcies, were we? After all, at no point have you debated the efficiency of violating a pregnant woman's autonomy, only the moral justification for it. So talking about the feasibility and efficiency of it all is perhaps an important step after we've solved the moral question - but at this point, it is a Red Herring; first we have to solve the moral questions before we can look at the practical ones, do we not?

Alright, onward with the moral issue: Since we have arrived at the conclusion that the aversion of abortion justifies the oppression of women, it stands to reason that preventing the possibility of abortion altogether justifies the oppression of men: Men are, after all, the direct proximate cause of pregnancy, and therefore the existence of unwanted fetuses, and therefore the potential threat of abortion.

By controlling male sexuality, we can control when and where pregnancies happen, and by giving women control over male sexuality, we can ascertain that no (or at the very least, far fewer) pregnancies would be unwanted.
And thus, we have solved the problem of abortion, by enslaving all men.

Ok. Which one violates less rights (or which one accomodates more rights): banning abortion or enslaving all men?

 

[Kooky]

Nowhere have I stated that the fetus life takes precedence over the woman's life. The issue revolves around the fetus' life and the woman's autonomy (not her life).

Carrying the fetus to term would imply also taking care of it for the rest of that woman's adult life, would it not?
But you are correct, we are only sacrificing a woman's autonomy, which is clearly of lesser value than a fetus.

I have done so already: in one case the State can come along and act in the parents' stead, in the other it is just impossible, at least for now. Therefore the comparison is not valid.

The state cannot act in the parents' stead because the state is neither a person nor a family, and cannot actually do anything unless it appropriates the necessary resources to do so. Enslaving the parents would solve both problems.

Ok. Which one violates less rights (or which one accomodates more rights): banning abortion or enslaving all men?

Men are already responsible for born children i.e. their rights are already restricted in favor of children's welfare, so adding the additional burden of preventing unborn children is negligible by comparison. If you disagree, then please make an argument in support of your position.

 

[Koldo]

Carrying the fetus to term would imply also taking care of it for the rest of that woman's adult life, would it not?
But you are correct, we are only sacrificing a woman's autonomy, which is clearly of lesser value than a fetus.

It is of a lesser value than a fetus' life if that woman in question is the mother. Even more so because the autonomy is not being completely obliterated and because we are talking about women who willingly engaged in sexual acts.

The state cannot act in the parents' stead because the state is neither a person nor a family, and cannot actually do anything unless it appropriates the necessary resources to do so. Enslaving the parents would solve both problems.

The fact the state is neither a person nor a family, and cannot actually do anything unless it appropriates the necessary resources to do so, doesn't entail that it can not act. This is a non sequitur.

Men are already responsible for born children i.e. their rights are already restricted in favor of children's welfare, so adding the additional burden of preventing unborn children is negligible by comparison. If you disagree, then please make an argument in support of your position.

How exactly would men prevent unborn children?
Are you suggesting enforcing abstinence? In what way would that be sufficient to grant that no woman will ever want to proceed with an abortion?

 

[Kooky]

It is of a lesser value than a fetus' life if that woman in question is the mother. Even more so because the autonomy is not being completely obliterated and because we are talking about women who willingly engaged in sexual acts.

You don't think forcing a person to do something against their will and threatening them with violence and imprisonment if they do not comply destroys a person's autonomy? In that case, there is even less of an argument against the enslavement of men, since their autonomy is not being destroyed, merely slightly diminished in ways that are probably not too important.

And after all, what is autonomy when we have to weigh it against human lives? Nothing, clearly.

The fact the state is neither a person nor a family, and cannot actually do anything unless it appropriates the necessary resources to do so, doesn't entail that it can not act. This is a non sequitur.

With neither resources nor staff, the state cannot act, because it is neither a person nor a being; it is an abstract social concept that exists in people's minds, and therefore can only "act" by people acting in its name.

You are anthropomorphizing the state when you argue that it can be a parent for a child; it is literally unable to.
What the state can do, is charge people with parenthood, but in this case, you would have either rely on voluntary parentage, or forced labor.

How exactly would men prevent unborn children?

For example, by not having unprotected sex with women who don't want to get pregnant.
Male sperm is, after all, the proximate cause for the existence of fetuses. If there are no unwanted conceptions, it stands to reason that the number of unwanted pregnancies will be drastically reduced.

By minimizing unwanted conception, we minimize unwanted pregnancies, therefore saving countless lives from being aborted.
Since men cannot be trusted to act in the interest of unborn children and born women, we would have to sacrifice a small portion of male autonomy in order to achieve this - but nothing to the same degree as forcing unwanted pregnancies on women. In this, I am sure, we would lessen the burden for everyone.

 

[Koldo]

You don't think forcing a person to do something against their will and threatening them with violence and imprisonment if they do not comply destroys a person's autonomy?

You are decribing the criminal law. I support the existence of a criminal law.

In that case, there is even less of an argument against the enslavement of men, since their autonomy is not being destroyed, merely slightly diminished in ways that are probably not too important.

And after all, what is autonomy when we have to weigh it against human lives? Nothing, clearly.

The major distinction here is still the fact that no one can replace the pregnant woman on this task. Providing sustenance to children can be done by means other than slaving people.

With neither resources nor staff, the state cannot act, because it is neither a person nor a being; it is an abstract social concept that exists in people's minds, and therefore can only "act" by people acting in its name.

You are anthropomorphizing the state when you argue that it can be a parent for a child; it is literally unable to.
What the state can do, is charge people with parenthood, but in this case, you would have either rely on voluntary parentage, or forced labor.

I am not saying the State can act as a parent. I am saying that the State can financially support the children. Do you think of taxation as forced labor?

For example, by not having unprotected sex with women who don't want to get pregnant.
Male sperm is, after all, the proximate cause for the existence of fetuses. If there are no unwanted conceptions, it stands to reason that the number of unwanted pregnancies will be drastically reduced.

By minimizing unwanted conception, we minimize unwanted pregnancies, therefore saving countless lives from being aborted.
Since men cannot be trusted to act in the interest of unborn children and born women, we would have to sacrifice a small portion of male autonomy in order to achieve this - but nothing to the same degree as forcing unwanted pregnancies on women. In this, I am sure, we would lessen the burden for everyone.

Sure, but

1) What law exactly do you propose and how would the State enforce it?

2) Even so it wouldn't solve the abortion problem and banning abortion would still be necessary.

 

[Kooky]

You are decribing the criminal law. I support the existence of a criminal law.

And conveniently, a crime is whatever we choose, collectively.
So yes, you are argueing to make abortion a crime, and to make women who try to end their pregnancies criminals, with all that implies - violence, brutalization, imprisonment.

The major distinction here is still the fact that no one can replace the pregnant woman on this task.

Surrogate motherhood exists, so clearly, desirable pregnancy can be outsourced.

Providing sustenance to children can be done by means other than slaving people.

If and only if you find volunteers doing the job. In the same way, a pregnancy can be done without forcing women if, and only if, they want to go through with it.

So if there are not enough people volunteering to parent a child, we need to resort to force.

I am not saying the State can act as a parent. I am saying that the State can financially support the children. Do you think of taxation as forced labor?

Money is not a substitute for a parent.

Sure, but

1) What law exactly do you propose and how would the State enforce it?

I think that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. We were debating the morality of sacrificing bodily autonomy for the sake of preventing death, were we not?

In this light, I would still like to hear you conceive an actual argument to support your objections to my proposal to control male sexuality instead of female bodies.

2) Even so it wouldn't solve the abortion problem and banning abortion would still be necessary.

We know for a fact that banning abortion doesn't solve the abortion problem perfectly, either, because abortions have happened historically in areas where it was illegal, and still do in areas where it still is. We also know for a fact that banning abortion does not apply equally to all women, as the wealthy can trivially avoid regulations by means of travel and other financial means, and have done so in almost every area where abortion has been outlawed.

So clearly, anti-abortion laws are a flawed and ineffective "solution" in addition to the factual harm they do to women's autonomy and women's bodies.

Male sexuality is the proximate cause for every single unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, controlling male sexuality will inevitably lead to a reduction of unwanted pregnancies. Whether it will prevent more abortions than actual anti-abortion laws is another matter, but one that we would have to take a look at after the necessary laws have already been implemented.

What I set out to argue here - and I believe so far, successfully - is that it is not a greater moral burden to remove male sexual autonomy instead of female bodily autonomy, and that preventing unwanted conception by controlling men can be an alternate way to prevent the assumed moral harm of abortions.

 

[Koldo]

And conveniently, a crime is whatever we choose, collectively.
So yes, you are argueing to make abortion a crime, and to make women who try to end their pregnancies criminals, with all that implies - violence, brutalization, imprisonment.

What should count as a crime if not whatever we choose collectively to be a crime?

Surrogate motherhood exists, so clearly, desirable pregnancy can be outsourced.

Sure, but we are not talking about desirable pregnancies.

If and only if you find volunteers doing the job. In the same way, a pregnancy can be done without forcing women if, and only if, they want to go through with it.

So if there are not enough people volunteering to parent a child, we need to resort to force.

This goes for a lot of services, doesn't it?
Think of cops and firefighters.
Why on this specific case would we need to resort to force to find people willing to parent a child?

Money is not a substitute for a parent.

Sure. I thought you were talking about paying children's expenses.

I think that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. We were debating the morality of sacrificing bodily autonomy for the sake of preventing death, were we not?

In this light, I would still like to hear you conceive an actual argument to support your objections to my proposal to control male sexuality instead of female bodies.

I have already done so by stating that even if we reduce the likehood of women willing to abort by controlling male sexuality that wouldn't be sufficient to handle cases where women want to abort. I would still vote in favor of controlling male sexuality if you can show it to be both feasible and effective (at least in principle) to reduce the likelihood of abortions though.

We know for a fact that banning abortion doesn't solve the abortion problem perfectly, either, because abortions have happened historically in areas where it was illegal, and still do in areas where it still is. We also know for a fact that banning abortion does not apply equally to all women, as the wealthy can trivially avoid regulations by means of travel and other financial means, and have done so in almost every area where abortion has been outlawed.

So clearly, anti-abortion laws are a flawed and ineffective "solution" in addition to the factual harm they do to women's autonomy and women's bodies.

Male sexuality is the proximate cause for every single unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, controlling male sexuality will inevitably lead to a reduction of unwanted pregnancies. Whether it will prevent more abortions than actual anti-abortion laws is another matter, but one that we would have to take a look at after the necessary laws have already been implemented.

What I set out to argue here - and I believe so far, successfully - is that it is not a greater moral burden to remove male sexual autonomy instead of female bodily autonomy, and that preventing unwanted conception by controlling men can be an alternate way to prevent the assumed moral harm of abortions.

The problem here is that you are presenting a false dichotomy in that we must either control men OR women. Whereas controlling both would probably more effective. I just can't think of a way where it would be feasible and effective to control men, but I would totally be in favor of it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ok here's the difference. If you were to abort the violin player. ( What does it matter if he plays an instrument anyway?)
You would walk into the room and shoot him, regardless of his condition. That's abortion.
He has a life. The baby has a life. You are taking it. Or not.
Don't complicate it.
It's not your responsibility to give your kidneys to someone else so they can live but you also don't have the right to take their life.
The metaphor obviously didn't work for me.

 

[Kooky]

You know what's interesting? We started out debating the morality of preventing abortions, yet at this point we have completely discarded that avenue of discussion in favor of debating soley in terms of economic efficiency, with enslavement, imprisonment, and forced labor already accepted as an intrinsically moral method of going about preventing abortions.

It's almost as if the subject inherently segues into authoritarian oppression.

 

[GardenLady]

IME, many (perhaps most of) those who oppose legal abortion and rail against the loss of fetal life have little or nothing to say about the discarding of "extra" embryos that are created in the course of IVF. This appears to support the idea that the control of women is at the core of the effort to outlaw abortion.