Monday, February 1, 2016

Abortion and Bodily Autonomy

Our newest commenter Anon asked that we discuss the linked article. And yes I tried to get them to select a more unique name... :-)


In summary the author is wondering if the right to life is so important, why aren't all of us citizens required to register on donor lists and required  to give our kidney if necessary to save lives? And why then do women have to sacrifice their time, money, body, possibly health, etc to save someone else's life???   Hines Abortion and Bodily Autonomy


I the author's words:
I’m not going to argue about when a group of cells transforms into a human being, whether that happens at conception or birth or some nebulous time in between.

But if the “right to life” is so important, why don’t we have mandatory organ registries in this country? Why isn’t everyone required to have their blood type and other information entered into a national database? Why don’t we require living organ donations, since most of us have some redundant organs we could give with no significant loss to our own quality of life?

Why have we so enshrined our right to control our own bodies … unless you happen to be a woman?
Of course I think it is a silly comparison. The government mandating a person care for the life that they willingly and/of their  own free will created, as compared to being mandated to sacrifice for a perfect stranger.


It is like saying that one must feed all dogs, just because you own and are required to feed your dog. Thoughts?

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

I certainly think it makes sense for pro life people to be organ donors as well, but that's not a fight, in which I have a dog. It's not appropriate for me to set any sort of agenda or set of priorities for those with whom I differ.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

my previous reply:

Seems to me like the same old argument from a different direction. The state cannot coerce you to donate a kidney, nor will they allow you to sell one, but they are more than happy to allow you to donate one. The state will not compel a woman to give birth, and generally frowns upon "womb rental," but nothing prevents a woman from voluntarily taking on that [risk and subsequent] responsibility. And at the age of viability, it becomes an implicit contract. Some of us would prefer that the contract be made explicit much earlier, but that, too, is voluntary.

Anonymous said...

The state cannot coerce you to donate a kidney, nor will they allow you to sell one, but they are more than happy to allow you to donate one.

Well, the state can do those things, just as the state force women to bear children. Personally, I favor positive polices that encourages rather than punish choices. In particular, I favor policies that encourage women to have children, and which support their decision to carry forward pregnancies that are challenged. I would like to see pro life people support those policies as well, and certainly would be willing to work with them in implementing those policies. But that sort of cooperation doesn't seem to be in the cards.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

This is a fascinating argument to me. I haven't read the link, but I believe I've read something similar in the past, but it also has to do with the fact that you can't even harvest an organ from a deceased person unless they had given explicit permission before they died.

So...a corpse can't be forced to give up an organ to save someone's (not necessarily a stranger...maybe a brother or sister) life. Perhaps we could allow living people (women) their right not give or take away permission, as well. And, no, I don't believe that having sex is the same as giving permission for a pregnancy.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
When one takes part in risky activities, one willfully accepts the risks of that activity. Unfortunately the outcome of this risky activity impacts more than just the participants, unlike an STD.

All,
If pro-choicers support bodily autonomy, are they in support of letting people sell their body parts of their free will?

Forbes Let People Sell Their Organs

Sean said...

Two of the top three GOP vote-getters in Iowa last night support forcing women who get pregnant via rape or incest to carry the child to term. Liberty!

John said...

Sean, Which ones. Source?

All, One more twist. If you support bodily autonomy (ie pro-choice), will you let the woman have the freedom to legally charge for sex? (ie legalize prostitution)

Sean said...

Cruz and Rubio. You have Google.

As for prostitution, there are valid arguments in favor of decriminalizing it, and some countries that have done so have seen some positive effects in terms of keeping minors out of that work and reducing human trafficking. I'd have to do more research to have a more fully formed opinion on it.

Anonymous said...

are they in support of letting people sell their body parts of their free will?

Generally not.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

John-

Driving a car is risky behavior, yet we license that. Perhaps you're in favor of licensing people to have sex?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
We don't need a license to have sex, however we need people to be responsible for the consequences of their choices / actions.

If you back into someone's car, you should feel responsible to leave a note and pay for the damage. If you create a human life by having sex...

Anonymous said...

I guess we like having babies more than we like backing into cars.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Government already profits substantially from the "sin taxes" levied on alcohol and tobacco, thus participating in those activities for profit. There is no reason to add prostitution to the list of sins from which government "takes a cut." What's next? The State Department of Murder for Hire?

Maybe we should get back to the more fundamental question of exactly who is responsible for a pregnancy and unborn child? I think it is pretty inconsistent to say that a woman has bodily autonomy seconds before conception and then has absolutely no responsibility for her body seconds later? I think the same could be said for the chromosomal partner in this little tableau of Life.

John said...

I think you hit the nail on the head... Should the government be able to legislate what one does with their own adult body?

The Conservatives who are the first to say that big government should not block personal freedoms or get between a Doctor/Patient, are usually the first to try and legislate morality, and how an adults uses their body.

I am pretty sure that government isn't in it to make a profit from "Sin Taxes". I think it is politicians trying to set up barriers to save lives and cover the societal costs of these "Sins". I am not sure how this is different from Conservative ProLifers trying to set up barriers to dissuade women from having an abortion.

Both the taxes and the reduction in abortion availability are attempts at social engineering based on the values of different citizens.

Personally I am not sure who is more guilty of this... The Liberals or the Conservatives. No wonder Bush and Obama are below the line...

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, government absolutely should. You should not be able to use your body to harm another, in all sorts of ways. Where you DO have the freedom of action, as in consensual sex, you also have the responsibility-- the SOLE responsibility-- for the consequences of that action. Government didn't say you couldn't, so they (we) are not responsible. Now the question remains what right the mother has to kill the child and under what circumstances.

Government doesn't profit from "sin taxes"? Watch what happens when cigarette taxes increase and smoking drops or bootlegging increases. Much hue and cry from government about "lost revenue." As for your comparison, it seems odd. Legislators don't tax sex or abortion, and some think the public should fund abortions. Seems to me a vast difference in why and how these "public morals" are treated in law.

John said...

Charging some tax and allowing the people the freedom to pay that tax to SIN is a lot less burdensome than say closing down all the abortion clinics in a state.

The same with selling a kidney or having sex for money. I don't think that is "using ones body to harm another", yet many Conservatives and Liberals are against that "Bodily Autonomy". Or one of our favorites, physician assisted suicide.

I am not trying to say what is right or wrong, what I am saying is that both sides want to use government to legislate morality based on their belief systems. And whenever this happens, personal freedom suffers for better or worse.

By the way, per our previous discussion hopefully SOLE in your definition means the man and woman...

Anonymous said...

Should the government be able to legislate what one does with their own adult body?

There are laws against selling baby parts. Should they be declared unconstitutional?

--Hiram

John said...

Did the baby give permission to let itself be sold?

Anonymous said...

Did the baby give permission to let itself be sold?

do you think the constitutionality of the law depends on the answer to your question?

==Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"...legislate morality ... [and] personal freedom suffers."

I am sorry, but that is far too simplistic. Much of our morality is of the "do unto others" variety and that is the absolute essential in the governance of a civil society. There is no freedom when cutthroat pirates rape and pillage every Friday night. The only question is where the boundary between constraining the bad guys ends and constraining the good guys unnecessarily begins.

My old Daddy used to say, "your rights stop at the end of my nose." Freedom comes with either responsibility or consequences, take your pick.

John said...

Oh come now, let's put the quote into the context of this post.

How exactly are the following personal freedoms harming anyone else's nose...
- selling one's kidney, etc
- renting one's body out for the entertainment of another
- taking part in certain "sexual" acts
- committing suicide with physician
- smoking, drinking, drugs, gambling, etc

Now I can understand that abortion impacts the Mother, Fetus and possibly the Father. However the other actions listed above in my view are just busy bodies trying to control the personal freedoms of others via government regulation.

Anonymous said...

We just went through this whole thing where conservatives who control both houses of Congress strenuously objected to the selling of body parts, and I don't think liberals who won't be in the majority of either house aren't particularly in favor of the idea either. That being the case, I don't think this is an issue any of us will have to deal with any time soon.

--Hiram

John said...

As I said before...

"Personally I am not sure who is more guilty of this... The Liberals or the Conservatives."

Both sides claim that they are pro-freedom while trying to get the government to force others to behave as they deem "proper".

Also as I pointed out before, see where Bush and Obama are relative to Reagan and Clinton. Whoever created that graphic understands this...

Must be why I liked Reagan and Clinton. (ie somewhat social moderate)

jerrye92002 said...

" trying to get the government to force others to behave as they deem "proper".

Oh, you mean by trying to pass laws that protect society, rather than allow anarchy? The difference is in which freedoms are considered, in the best judgement of society and its representatives, to be essential and benign, and which are harmful or present a "moral hazard."

jerrye92002 said...

Again we see the liberal smokescreen of "freedom" used to obfuscate specific issues that might otherwise be clear.

Sean said...

I suppose it should be noted that after multiple investigations of "selling baby parts" that the only people who have been charged with crimes are the people that took the videos that incited the whole kerfuffle.

In fact, PP has complied with the very laws that many Republicans voted for in the first place on this issue.

John said...

Anarchy, Destruction of Society, Etc... Really ???

How exactly are the following personal freedoms harming anyone else's nose...
- selling one's kidney, etc
- renting one's body out for the entertainment of another
- taking part in certain "sexual" acts
- committing suicide with physician
- smoking, drinking, drugs, gambling, etc

John said...

Hi Anon,
It just hit me that you are being pretty quiet on a topic you recommended... Whatsup...

John said...

Sean,
Let's see, PP has not been indicted therefore they are innocent and law abiding.

Does that mean that you now agree that all the Financial Executives and Police are innocent of wrong doing since they were not indicted or convicted?

Excellent !!!

Anonymous said...

jerry's and your Republican/Right-Wing nonsense gets be too riled up to post anything that will contribute to an already interesting conversation.

Anon

John said...

Oh come now. We read you Democrat / Left Wing nonsense.

What do you know about paradigms and differences in perspective?

Anonymous said...

I don't recall saying I don't read your nonsense.

Anon

Sean said...

"Let's see, PP has not been indicted therefore they are innocent and law abiding.

Does that mean that you now agree that all the Financial Executives and Police are innocent of wrong doing since they were not indicted or convicted? "

There's a crucial difference between PP and Financial Executives/Police. The PP videos provided no credible evidence of wrongdoing by PP. Meanwhile, even though there haven't been criminal prosecutions of the financial shenanigans, those institutions have paid over $200B in fines since 2009, with hundreds of investigations still pending.

John said...

Anon, Good Point

Sean,
So apparently individuals did not break the law since Obama and the Administration have not brought any particular person to court.

By the way, I know nothing about the PP situation and am pretty indifferent to it. I just thought it was interesting that you equated no charges to innocence... :-)

Sean said...

"So apparently individuals did not break the law since Obama and the Administration have not brought any particular person to court."

Clearly somebody did, otherwise there would be nothing to fine the company for. I can't speak to why the Justice Department chose not to prosecute individuals.

"By the way, I know nothing about the PP situation and am pretty indifferent to it. I just thought it was interesting that you equated no charges to innocence..."

That's not what I did. All I said is that no evidence of lawbreaking had been brought forward.

John said...

Let's review the statements again... Here are the key words that triggered my interest:
"only people ... charged..."
"PP has complied ..."

"I suppose it should be noted that after multiple investigations of "selling baby parts" that the only people who have been charged with crimes are the people that took the videos that incited the whole kerfuffle. In fact, PP has complied with the very laws that many Republicans voted for in the first place on this issue." Sean

Now their is your denial. "That's not what I did. All I said is that no evidence of law breaking had been brought forward."

Now is "PP not being charged" equivalent to "no evidence of law breaking had been brought forward'?

Since the police and individual financial employees have not been charged, does that mean that "no evidence of law breaking had been brought forward"?

Are you willing to honor the American Law and Justice system in both cases or just one? Rationale?

Sean said...

Perhaps you need to go back and actually understand what is in the PP videos so you can have an informed discussion on this topic. Indifference and ignorance is a dangerous combination.

No PP employees have been charged with misconduct, nor has the organization itself faced any sanction or fine for what was alleged in the videos. The big banks have paid fines (in many cases in negotiated agreements with Justice Department) based on their behavior. If you can't understand how that's different, check your bias.

John said...

Isn't this where I am supposed to complain about the gross miscarriage of justice and how if the DA wanted to take PP to court she could have done it. That it was actually a failure by the prosecutor that charges were not raised and that she just used the Grand Jury to avoid making the right decision.

By the way, have you read the back story. It is odd she did not recuse herself.

Of course I won't because for the most part I trust the American Legal System.

John said...

Interesting point... Apparently most of the Bank fines were in Civil Court not Criminal Court.

Sean said...

What evidence was produced that showed that PP illegally sold body parts? There wasn't any!

"Interesting point... Apparently most of the Bank fines were in Civil Court not Criminal Court."

Why is that interesting? You can't take a corporation to criminal court, because (despite what Mitt Romney thinks) corporations are not people.

jerrye92002 said...

I think Sean has it correct, although it is a fine point except in law. What the PP videos showed was that PP was actively engaged in the sale of baby parts, but the transaction to the [fake] buyer never took place. You cannot have a successful "sting" operation until money actually changes hands. There is also the supposedly loophole in the law allowing PP to "recover costs," but it is clear from the videos that there was more than this actually going on. There was haggling over the price and over the procedures to be used to improve the "quality" of the product being sold. And we know most of this took place without the consent of the mother, let alone the fetus.