An argument in favor of legalized abortion.

[Californiadreaming]

Basically, here is why exactly I support legalized abortion (as the law of my U.S. state and of the U.S. at large). Indeed, please keep in mind that this is an argument based on morality rather than on the U.S. Constitution (making such arguments based on the U.S. Constitution is a separate issue that I certainly *don't* want to discuss here). Anyway, here goes:

I have previously heard some pro-lifers use causation to justify forcing women to remain pregnant against their will. However, causation appears to be a principle from tort law and thus if we are going to use the causation principle we might as well use other principles from tort law as well.

Anyway, since causing someone to exist *isn't* a harm and since having consensual sex is *neither* illegal *nor* negligent, I certainly *don't* think that women should be forced to allow their embryos/fetus to use their bodies in order to survive.

However, a pro-lifer can argue that women *implicitly* consented to allowing embryos and fetuses to use their bodies by having consensual sex. The thing is, though, that even if I accept this premise, consent can be revoked. For instance, if you invite someone for dinner and then change your mind in the middle of dinner, you are perfectly entitled to kick this person out of your house. Indeed, the *only* exception that I would make to this is cases where a withdrawal of consent would result in a person being made worse off than he or she previously was. For instance, if you invite a person (even a sick person who has contagious diseases and who cannot swim) onto your boat, you certainly *shouldn't* be able to expel this person from your boat (and thus cause this person to drown and to die) in the middle of your journey. However, this example certainly *isn't* comparable to abortion because aborting a fetus *doesn't* result in a fetus being made worse off than he or she previously was. Indeed, a fetus after abortion ends up being in the *exact same* state/condition that it was before it was conceived (inside of the woman's body) in the first place; specifically, I am talking about the state/condition which is called non-existence.

Indeed, based on the principles of tort law, forcing a pregnant woman to continue her pregnancy would be a case of unjust enrichment since it would allow their embryos and fetuses to acquire more than they deserve (specifically they are able to continue using their mother's body and to suck/absorb nutrients from it).

Also, for the record, for the sake of argument, I agreed with the pro-life claim that embryos and fetuses *are* persons. However, I personally *don't* consider them to be persons and *don't* think that the law should actually consider them to be persons.

In addition to this, though, I certainly think that the pro-choice arguments of "bodily autonomy" and "my body, my choice" are intellectually lazy arguments and *far* inferior to the argument(s) that I have made here.

Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?

[Potus]

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Life begins at conception. The world is full of contraceptives, the morning after pill. You can't justify the moral crime anymore.

Life begins at conception, that's the whole ballgame.

[Californiadreaming]

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Life begins at conception. The world is full of contraceptives, the morning after pill. You can't justify the moral crime anymore.

Life begins at conception, that's the whole ballgame.

Pigs, chickens, fish, et cetera are also alive, though. Thus, should we also consider them to be (legal) persons?

[Wells]

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Life begins at conception. The world is full of contraceptives, the morning after pill. You can't justify the moral crime anymore.

Life begins at conception, that's the whole ballgame.

What if I disagree with your premise?

[DC Al Fine]

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Life begins at conception. The world is full of contraceptives, the morning after pill. You can't justify the moral crime anymore.

Life begins at conception, that's the whole ballgame.

Pigs, chickens, fish, et cetera are also alive, though. Thus, should we also consider them to be (legal) persons?

Do you really not get what he is arguing or are you just being obtuse? A fetus is a genetically distinct human being and therefore is a person meriting protection under the law.

[Californiadreaming]

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Life begins at conception. The world is full of contraceptives, the morning after pill. You can't justify the moral crime anymore.

Life begins at conception, that's the whole ballgame.

Pigs, chickens, fish, et cetera are also alive, though. Thus, should we also consider them to be (legal) persons?

Do you really not get what he is arguing or are you just being obtuse? A fetus is a genetically distinct human being and there is a person meriting protection under the law.

Two things:

1. I oppose speceisism--including in the law.
2. Even if I agreed with you in regards to this, the criteria that are used in tort law wouldn't justifying forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Life begins at conception. The world is full of contraceptives, the morning after pill. You can't justify the moral crime anymore.

Life begins at conception, that's the whole ballgame.

Pigs, chickens, fish, et cetera are also alive, though. Thus, should we also consider them to be (legal) persons?

Do you really not get what he is arguing or are you just being obtuse? A fetus is a genetically distinct human being and there is a person meriting protection under the law.

Two things:

1. I oppose speceisism--including in the law.
2. Even if I agreed with you in regards to this, the criteria that are used in tort law wouldn't justifying forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

I oppose stupidity -- including in the law. Let's start with the eugenics.

[Oakvale]

I am for abortion but this is argument is moronic. Bodily autonomy is not a great argument but far superior to this hodgepodge of hot takes.

However, this example certainly *isn't* comparable to abortion because aborting a fetus *doesn't* result in a fetus being made worse off than he or she previously was. Indeed, a fetus after abortion ends up being in the *exact same* state/condition that it was before it was conceived (inside of the woman's body) in the first place; specifically, I am talking about the state/condition which is called non-existence.

I don't understand this. It's not acceptable to murder me because I'd simply return to non-existence, as I was before I was conceived. No one is going to accept that there's zero distinction between a foetus and a dead foetus.

You're never going to 'solve' this issue with tortured legal chinstroking or philosophical reasoning. The best you can hope for is a grisly and unhappy compromise (abortion legal sometimes, under some circumstances) that leaves no one fully satisfied and lets the whole ugly debate rage on in perpetuity.

[Californiadreaming]

I am for abortion but this is argument is moronic. Bodily autonomy is not a great argument but far superior to this hodgepodge of hot takes.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

I don't understand this. It's not acceptable to murder me because I'd simply return to non-existence, as I was before I was conceived. No one is going to accept that there's zero distinction between a foetus and a dead foetus.

Frankly, it appears that I really should have been clearer in regards to this. Frankly, it's certainly not acceptable to kill you or to cause you to die due to the fact that no one actually needs to kill you or to cause you to die in order to protect and to exercise their own rights.

However, if you and some other person would have been in a hospital together and you would have involuntarily had your kidney taken out of you (due to some hospital mix-up) and given to this other person (who needed a new kidney in order to survive), then I certainly think that you should be able to reacquire your kidney from this other person (if this kidney would still work in your own body, that is) even if this will cause this other person to die. After all, in this scenario, causing this other person to die might unfortunately be necessary in order for you to protect and to exercise your own rights.

Indeed, while I might have poorly phrased my initial argument here, surely you can understand the distinction between these two types of situations, correct?

[Californiadreaming]

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point. Life begins at conception. The world is full of contraceptives, the morning after pill. You can't justify the moral crime anymore.

Life begins at conception, that's the whole ballgame.

Pigs, chickens, fish, et cetera are also alive, though. Thus, should we also consider them to be (legal) persons?

Do you really not get what he is arguing or are you just being obtuse? A fetus is a genetically distinct human being and there is a person meriting protection under the law.

Two things:

1. I oppose speceisism--including in the law.
2. Even if I agreed with you in regards to this, the criteria that are used in tort law wouldn't justifying forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

I oppose stupidity -- including in the law. Let's start with the eugenics.

I'm sorry ... what?

[Californiadreaming]

Indeed, I admit that I was clumsy when I was initially making my argument here. Thus, please let me try again:

First of all, I would argue that, even if tort law allowed bodily compensation, forcing women to remain pregnant against their will wouldn't hold up under tort law because causing someone to exist isn't a harm and because having consensual sex is neither negligent nor illegal.

However, if a pro-lifer argues that a pregnant woman previously consented to allowing her embryo/fetus use her body, then I would like to point out that consent should be capable of being revoked. Now, a pro-lifer might respond by saying that consent isn't capable of being revoked if you, say, allow a sick person with contagious diseases (and who cannot swim) go onto your boat and then changed your mind and wanted to throw this person overboard. However, even if (for the sake of argument) I actually agreed that this scenario is comparable to the use of one's body, my own response to this would be that, by throwing this sick person overboard, you would make this person worse off than he or she would have been before you gave him or her consent to go onto your boat.

In contrast, by aborting an embryo/fetus, a woman isn't making an embryo/fetus worse off than it was before this woman gave consent for the embryo/fetus to use her body (pro-lifers believe that this consent was given at conception). Indeed, this isn't simply abstract philosophy; rather, this is very real. After all, if death wasn't a return to non-existence, then surely Abraham Lincoln would still exist today. However, Abraham Lincoln certainly doesn't exist today. Indeed, while his corpse certainly exists today, the historical person named Abraham Lincoln simply doesn't exist anymore. Rather, his existence ended right when he died.

Indeed, since some pro-choicers use Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario to argue in favor of legalized abortion, please allow me to use a modified version of the Violinist scenario here: If you voluntarily plug yourself to the Violinist's body and later want to change your mind in regards to this, it should be perfectly acceptable for you to do this considering that the Violinist will be made no worse off by you doing this in comparison to the state/condition of the Violinist before you consented to allowing the Violinist to use your body in the first place. Now, this certainly doesn't mean that you should be able to, say, stab the Violinist in the heart or whatever. After all, that would be an excessive use of force in comparison to the force that is necessary for you to protect your rights. In contrast, getting an abortion isn't an excessive use of force because that is the necessary and minimum amount of force that is necessary for a pregnant woman to protect and to exercise her rights. (Of course, if artificial wombs were developed and commercialized and such a fetus transfer was either as safe or safer for women in comparison to getting an abortion, then getting an abortion and thus causing her embryo/fetus to die would very likely be an excessive use of force on the woman's part. After all, in such a scenario, the woman would be able to protect and exercise her rights without killing her embryo/fetus.)

Indeed, where exactly are the holes/flaws in my argument here?

[RI]

Now, a pro-lifer might respond by saying that consent isn't capable of being revoked if you, say, allow a sick person with contagious diseases (and who cannot swim) go onto your boat and then changed your mind and wanted to throw this person overboard. However, even if (for the sake of argument) I actually agreed that this scenario is comparable to the use of one's body, my own response to this would be that, by throwing this sick person overboard, you would make this person worse off than he or she would have been before you gave him or her consent to go onto your boat.

No, the better analogy would be decided you didn't consent to the person aboard your boat anymore, so you decide to bring in a mercenary to shoot them in the face, dismember them, and then toss them overboard.

[Californiadreaming]

Now, a pro-lifer might respond by saying that consent isn't capable of being revoked if you, say, allow a sick person with contagious diseases (and who cannot swim) go onto your boat and then changed your mind and wanted to throw this person overboard. However, even if (for the sake of argument) I actually agreed that this scenario is comparable to the use of one's body, my own response to this would be that, by throwing this sick person overboard, you would make this person worse off than he or she would have been before you gave him or her consent to go onto your boat.

No, the better analogy would be decided you didn't consent to the person aboard your boat anymore, so you decide to bring in a mercenary to shoot them in the face, dismember them, and then toss them overboard.

That would certainly be an excessive use of force relative to the amount of force that is necessary in order to protect and to exercise your rights, though.

[Californiadreaming]

Now, a pro-lifer might respond by saying that consent isn't capable of being revoked if you, say, allow a sick person with contagious diseases (and who cannot swim) go onto your boat and then changed your mind and wanted to throw this person overboard. However, even if (for the sake of argument) I actually agreed that this scenario is comparable to the use of one's body, my own response to this would be that, by throwing this sick person overboard, you would make this person worse off than he or she would have been before you gave him or her consent to go onto your boat.

No, the better analogy would be decided you didn't consent to the person aboard your boat anymore, so you decide to bring in a mercenary to shoot them in the face, dismember them, and then toss them overboard.

That would certainly be an excessive use of force relative to the amount of force that is necessary in order to protect and to exercise your rights, though.

Indeed, your scenario here would be comparable to a scenario where a pregnant woman can transfer her unwanted embryo/fetus to an artificial womb without putting either her life or at health at greater risk (in comparison to her getting an abortion) but yet chooses not to do this and instead gets an abortion.

[Californiadreaming]

Now, a pro-lifer might respond by saying that consent isn't capable of being revoked if you, say, allow a sick person with contagious diseases (and who cannot swim) go onto your boat and then changed your mind and wanted to throw this person overboard. However, even if (for the sake of argument) I actually agreed that this scenario is comparable to the use of one's body, my own response to this would be that, by throwing this sick person overboard, you would make this person worse off than he or she would have been before you gave him or her consent to go onto your boat.

No, the better analogy would be decided you didn't consent to the person aboard your boat anymore, so you decide to bring in a mercenary to shoot them in the face, dismember them, and then toss them overboard.

Out of curiosity--do you support legalized abortion if embryos and fetuses are unplugged and allowed to die naturally instead of being killed?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So basically the argument is "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"?

[Californiadreaming]

So basically the argument is "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"?

Only if there is no alternative course of action which allows you to protect and to exercise your rights while also allowing the other party/person to live longer.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So basically the argument is "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"?

Only if there is no alternative course of action which allows you to protect and to exercise your rights while also allowing the other party/person to live longer.

Ok, then the question becomes which rights are important enough that they could ever justify killing a child.

[Californiadreaming]

So basically the argument is "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"?

Only if there is no alternative course of action which allows you to protect and to exercise your rights while also allowing the other party/person to live longer.

Ok, then the question becomes which rights are important enough that they could ever justify killing a child.

Bodily autonomy, of course.

However, I have a question for you--if you would have voluntarily plugged yourself Violinist-style into another person's body (with consent, of course), should you be able to prematurely withdraw your consent and prematurely unplug yourself and thus cause this other person to die?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So basically the argument is "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"?

Only if there is no alternative course of action which allows you to protect and to exercise your rights while also allowing the other party/person to live longer.

Ok, then the question becomes which rights are important enough that they could ever justify killing a child.

Bodily autonomy, of course.

However, I have a question for you--if you would have voluntarily plugged yourself Violinist-style into another person's body (with consent, of course), should you be able to prematurely withdraw your consent and prematurely unplug yourself and thus cause this other person to die?

No, you have an obligation to that person, as in that case they do to you also.
and I don't understand what tort law has to do with any of this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

However, I have a question for you--if you would have voluntarily plugged yourself Violinist-style into another person's body (with consent, of course), should you be able to prematurely withdraw your consent and prematurely unplug yourself and thus cause this other person to die?

Uh, the violinist argument hinges precisely on your connection to the violinist being involuntary. I've never heard or read any moral philosopher, with any standpoint on abortion, argue otherwise. (I say that as somebody who's pro-life but thinks the tacit consent argument is stupid and, society being what it currently is, implicitly sexist--if we're going to say that consent to PIV sex equals tacit consent for the mother to go through nine months of pregnancy, however many hours of labor, and however many days of post-partum complications (and it does the pro-life cause no good to minimize the fact that these are very serious things to ask of someone), what in the world is there for the father to tacitly consent to?!)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Anyway, since causing someone to exist *isn't* a harm and since having consensual sex is *neither* illegal *nor* negligent, I certainly *don't* think that women should be forced to allow their embryos/fetus to use their bodies in order to survive.

I think the argument is that the negligent act was having unprotected sex. There is a duty of responsibility to care for ones' children (which could be imputed to the fetus); the breach is neglect in creating life without intending to bear it; the causation is negligently having unprotected sex despite the known risk of pregnancy; the damages would be loss of life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we are going off tort law then you'd be dealing with a fictional objectively reasonable person standard. A person who voluntarily consents to unprotected sex is assuming all foreseeable risks that accompany sex. That includes pregnancy, and you can't reasonably disclaim the scientific fact that sperm + egg + implantation = baby. It would be like you inviting a friend into your home, knowing that he has bird flu, and then later trying to sue when you catch his bird flu because you told him that he could enter but his germs had to stay outside and then said nothing when he entered. No one reasonably believes that is how things work. I think its safe to say that an objectively reasonable person knows that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. Thus a woman who claimed she did not consent to the pregnancy, only to unprotected sex, would be unreasonable, as a reasonable person knows that you cannot disclaim science. So it does not really matter than you think its somehow possible to pretend fact is not fact, because the court would apply an objective reasonableness standard and impute that knowledge to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unjust enrichment is an equitable claim not a tort claim. That means a judge would have to balance the equities to determine if the fetus is unfairly withholding more than it is entitled to. Assuming again the fetus has some rights, then the mother would again owe a duty to care for her child, and gestation seems pretty obviously included in such care. That does not mean a judge might never find that it would be unfair for a woman to carry a child to term when weighing all factors (rape/health of mother/etc), but its a lot harder sell than the autonomy argument, which is the argument the pro choice people do best with.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

However, I have a question for you--if you would have voluntarily plugged yourself Violinist-style into another person's body (with consent, of course), should you be able to prematurely withdraw your consent and prematurely unplug yourself and thus cause this other person to die?

Uh, the violinist argument hinges precisely on your connection to the violinist being involuntary. I've never heard or read any moral philosopher, with any standpoint on abortion, argue otherwise. (I say that as somebody who's pro-life but thinks the tacit consent argument is stupid and, society being what it currently is, implicitly sexist--if we're going to say that consent to PIV sex equals tacit consent for the mother to go through nine months of pregnancy, however many hours of labor, and however many days of post-partum complications (and it does the pro-life cause no good to minimize the fact that these are very serious things to ask of someone), what in the world is there for the father to tacitly consent to?!)

To support her in whatever ways she needs during that time, and to be a father?  You are right though that it is hard to assure this obligation will be fulfilled.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

However, I have a question for you--if you would have voluntarily plugged yourself Violinist-style into another person's body (with consent, of course), should you be able to prematurely withdraw your consent and prematurely unplug yourself and thus cause this other person to die?

Uh, the violinist argument hinges precisely on your connection to the violinist being involuntary. I've never heard or read any moral philosopher, with any standpoint on abortion, argue otherwise. (I say that as somebody who's pro-life but thinks the tacit consent argument is stupid and, society being what it currently is, implicitly sexist--if we're going to say that consent to PIV sex equals tacit consent for the mother to go through nine months of pregnancy, however many hours of labor, and however many days of post-partum complications (and it does the pro-life cause no good to minimize the fact that these are very serious things to ask of someone), what in the world is there for the father to tacitly consent to?!)

To support her in whatever ways she needs during that time, and to be a father?  You are right though that it is hard to assure this obligation will be fulfilled.

I asked it as a rhetorical question; obviously yes, that's what the father should be understood to have consented to if we're going to have the tacit consent discussion. But that's not the way our society currently operates.