The state may only set an ultimatum where a woman must choose between a specific state-mandated medical procedure, or be forced on threat of state violence to remain pregnant against her will, her life, and her interests, if women aren’t self-owners. If women aren’t self-owners, then neither is a fetus. If a fetus isn’t a self-owner, then it has no right to life. Hence, the position undermines itself.
Nonsense, J. Anderson. The ONLY thing that feminists claim makes women unique from men is their ability to carry a baby to term. Since human parthenogenesis doesn’t exist, no woman CAN become pregnant without the cooperation of a man. Yet men are mandated to be completely OUT of the decision cycle about the life or death of THEIR children, simply on the theory that outlawing abortion on demand is somehow FORCING a woman to bear children. If she didn’t want to carry a baby, then all she had to do to prevent it was avoid sex with a man. Works every time it’s tried.
I didn’t forget, actually. If the fetus has no right to the mother’s body against her will, then the state has no right to something as extreme as forcing her to undergo a specific medical procedure. We can debate whether the mother has a moral duty here, but without a politically enforceable rights claim by the fetus, any state claim to dominion over the woman’s body is a violation of her right to self-ownership.
This only follows if we assume the mother violated the rights of the fetus by getting pregnant. In other words: the woman has initiated aggression against the fetus by bringing it into existence, and may, therefore, be treated as a criminal by the state for the purposes of pregnancy, and her liberty and self-ownership rights temporarily taken away.
This of course commits one to many difficult conclusions, such as that human existence is inevitably evil.
Otherwise, if pregnancy is either viewed as a morally neutral state, or (my own view) a state where the mother is essentially providing charity to the fetus, then the mother clearly has the right to change her mind and claim full ownership and dominion over her body whenever she wishes. At least, by classical liberal principles.
An assaulter has no right to hurt somebody or to their victim’s body. You still can’t kill them without
a clear indication that they’ll inflict the same, or with it being the only way to resolve the situation.
Bare minimum duty is in play. You can’t kill if it’s not necessary to resolve the grievance. That is not denying self-ownership, that’s keeping you from inflicting a disproportional harm compared to the one you’ve suffered.
Why is shooting someone stealing a pack of hot dogs from a convenience store a punishable offense? Exactly this. Disproportional harm.
Further complications are the fact the person is inflicting their harm unconsciously, and that the mother is duplicit in her situation. Both in becoming pregnant & for not addressing it for 20 weeks.
No such thing. This isn’t claiming “dominion over her body”, only in the manner she asserts it, strictly in regards to causing harm to another.
She’s obligated to harm the fetus no more than the fetus has harmed her to resolve the situation. There’s no claim of possession of her in that, no more so than commanding not to kill a non-violent burglar is the State then taking possession of your house, or the people within it.
A woman’s body isn’t analogous to a pack of hotdogs or (even) a house. The right to privacy in one’s body is profound. Mandating specific medical procedures is an extreme invasion of the most fundamental rights to privacy in one’s person.
I’m a classical liberal. I do not think the government is well meaning enough, rational enough, far-seeing enough, or consistent enough to intervene in women’s private medical decisions in a way that does not do much more harm than good.
I’ve quoted several examples of bodily harm to you. It’s still out.
Harming your body isn’t enough justification to kill. It has to be the only option to make it stop.
If someone was secreting away your blood at the dead of night, that would not give you the right to hunt them down & kill them to ensure that they stopped.
Much to the chagrin of any would-be vampire hunters.
Wrong; it’s prohibiting killing, while mandating nothing. You can have a c-section, you can have a vaginal birth After C-section, you can have an enduced delivery, you can have vacuum extraction, you can wait for a natural birth.
It’s a prohibition of an action, not the proscription of others.
It’s natural rights that say you can’t kill another person. The Government just happens to be the arbiter of that.
All other spheres of human experience demonstrate you don’t have the right to kill, just because someone is harming you. That’s the equivocation you’re making, but an examination of the duties involved shows that it doesn’t hold.
Harm cannot be disproportional, for killing to be acceptable. It has to be the only action available to make the harm stop, or it’s invalid in the eyes of the tradition Classical liberals cull their sense of rights from. It’s not “anything goes”.
Just so we’re clear, you believe that the dangerous leviathan that we both agree shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near running health care becomes, in your view, suddenly a wise and reliable arbiter of some of the most complicated, private, painful, and nuanced personal medical decisions women will ever have to make regarding their bodies and lives?
Yet, you claim that the baby doesn’t have the same right. If SHE does, so does the baby who got there because of something SHE did. The baby didn’t “invade” the mother’s uterus. It grew there because SHE contributed to half of its genetic makeup, quite likely completely voluntarily.
Indictments were handed down . . . soooooo . . . information WAS released.
Oh . . . that was only for that part of the investigation. The part concerning . . . Russian interference in the 2016 election. Whoops, that won’t work because it would mean that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election . . . WAS OVER.
OK . . . it was . . . ahhhh . . . Phase 1. Yeah, that’s it . . . Phases.
Hmmmmm . . . so what exactly IS Phase1? Oooops . . . we’re back to Russian interference in the 2016 election. That won’t work again.
So, tell us, Brown, how would the Brown School of Investigation make this release of information fit with your notion of not releasing information until the investigation is complete?
Actually, that’s not entirely true. If I happen upon a 35-year-old man raping a 6-year-old girl, and I killed him to make him stop “harming” the girl, there’s not a jury on the planet that would find me guilty of murder. That would apply if my killing him was intentional or accidental as in the act of getting him off of the child, I happened to accidentally break his neck.
Whoa . . . whoa . . . whoa. Your whole argument about women’s rights is based on the notion that somehow, apparently through no fault of her own, she got pregnant. THEN your argument starts after this “immaculate conception”.
A women DOES have the “liberty of self determination.” Except it doesn’t magically START AFTER she gets pregnant. It starts BEFORE she gets pregnant. She has the “liberty”, to put it crudely, to spread her legs OR NOT. Once she decides to spread her legs, she’s also decided to forsake her “liberty of self determination”, whether she realizes it or not.
It’s a conscious decision on her part, and she has the “liberty of self determination” there. Her call.
True, BobJam . I’ve LONG maintained that I am “pro-choice”…but ONLY where the only people involved are the woman and her partner. She (or He) can “choose” to not have sex or they can “choose” to take prophylactic measures to prevent conception…but once conception occurs, it’s too late. They missed their opportunity to exercise their “choice” in a manner that doesn’t adversely affect a third party…and that baby IS a third party that THEY created because their own “choices.”