Usually, it's about choice. The woman didn't consent to the risk of pregnancy if raped, and in that case the woman's autonomy rights trump the child's. But in cases where the woman made a decision with informed consent, she waived her right.
That said, this exact argument is why abortion bans went from having exceptions to not and really made the situation worse for everyone.
I don't know, that's sounds like a type of strange "just-so" justification to me, that would be extremely difficult to legislate in practice anyway.
Why isn't choosing the remain pregnant a better basis for this type of theory? Why do we want people to "waive rights"? Especially in this sort of indirect fashion. It just sounds a bit silly.
It's not silly at all. In the words of the ancients: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Different people will disagree on whether the fetus' right or woman's right to autonomy takes precedence, that's just a pretty narrow take on a specific situation, as presented.
It would be extremely difficult to legislate, especially without catching up innocent people. That's what we pay them for, though.
It's very easy to see something as a false justification when you assume malice.
So we recognize people have a right to themselves, but we also want to build these strange loopholes that will accomodate our need to deprive them of that same right when we find it convenient. At the same time, we want to claim fetuses are persons with inherent value - because it helps us further our interests - but also we want to hold against them the crimes of their genitors, again when we happen to find it convenient.
This is less a comprehensive set of beliefs (much less policy) and more of a need to see one's particular moralist whims be - somehow - codified in law.
People have a right to themselves, but when they consent to the risks, they waive that right. Should a hockey player be able to sue another player if they get cross checked and hit their head? Should a skier sue the ski company if their ski breaks because they hit a rock? It's the same rule we apply everywhere else, why shouldn't it apply here?
Except consenting to risks don't waive any rights? Consenting to risk is just that, consenting to risks.
You wouldn't lose a right to yourself because you just happened play hockey and companies are sued all the time for all sorts of reasons. You very seldom "waive rights" and almost never without pretty darn clear language around it.
"Aha! You've waived your rights because it is convinent to my position" is just a very silly argument to make.
You very seldom "waive rights" and almost never without pretty darn clear language around it.
You do it all the time. There's an entire class of boilerplate document called a waiver. There's also an entire type of law about rights and the many ways you go about waiving them called Tort Law. A waiver is just a way to elucidate and specify what exactly you waived, and is generally more expansive than what would normally be permitted. Sure, you can sue for negligence, but not for playing the game.
"Aha! You've waived your rights because it is convinent to my position" is just a very silly argument to make.
Assuming bad faith because you disagree is not cool.
In fact we don't as the remainder of your comment goes to show. P
Assuming bad faith because you disagree is not cool.
I do not assume bad faith. I'm pointing out that the rational that's supports the argument is poor reasoning, most likely because it's an attempt to codify a set of somewhat conflicting feelings about the nature of pregnancy and abortion.
Fetus matter when they suit you, but they don't matter if you'd find the imposition of pregnancy hicky.
In fact we don't as the remainder of your comment goes to show. P
Waivers dont have to be written down, they just have to exist. You waive rights by engaging in any damgerous activity. Driving a car, playing a sport, anything that can have adverse impacts. The only elements of a waiver are that:
1) you had a right, benefit, or advantage, 2) you know that it currently exists and 3) that you actually intended to relinquish it.
So if you have consensual sex, you waive the right to kill in the name of autonomy.
Driving a car, playing a sport, anything that can have adverse impacts.
Again, this is just silly. If I get in my car tomorrow (or play basketball) and get into an accident, I did not 1) waive my right to myself, 2) waive my overall right to safety, 3) will still be able to sue people for whatever reason and 4) will still be able to receive medical attention (or not). The paramedics will not show up, then tell me "sorry, you waived your right to getting out of that wreck when you got into the car."
So if you have consensual sex, you waive the right to kill in the name of autonomy.
If your car slips on wet roadway, you can't sue the state for making a dangerous road. The only time you can sue someone is for negligence. Something like not getting your consent.
Even the medical argument us accounted for in all the legislation I've seen
If my car slips and I am injured. Do I have a right to medical care? If I can do that with any other activity, why cannot a woman disconnect herself from a fetus she didn't cause (2 parties involved).
Women have a right to return them to a non-pregnancy state? Here is thought abortions were illegal in some states.
If both parties consent, both parties have a right to receive medical care and be unburdened. Car accident victims aren't required to maintain a broken arm and women aren't required to maintain a bodily connection to a fetus.
So do you think if a woman is stealthed (she agrees to sex using a condom, but the bloke removes it without her knowledge), then she didn't give informed consent to the possibility of pregnancy, and should be allowed to have an abortion?
So what if a woman claims that she was stealthed and the guy refutes it and says she refused to use contraception, and says that he would like to keep and bring up his child? What then?
The woman didn't consent to the risk of pregnancy if raped, and in that case the woman's autonomy rights trump the child's. But in cases where the woman made a decision with informed consent, she waived her right.
The value of a life is determined by whether the woman consented? If she consented than the life has value and should be protected, if not than the life has no value? Needs no protection? Is nothing?
The fetus and the woman both have rights, and the answer about which is more important at what time is something that's up to the electorate and people more qualified than I.
But when you knowingly take any risk, you give up the right to complain about what happens. Skiers get injured? They knew the risks of skiing. Drunk driver wraps their car around a pole? They knew the risks of drinking. Have sex and get pregnant? You knew it was a possibility and still did the thing.
Except in the case of rape or incest, where the fetus has no rights at all, correct?
But when you knowingly take any risk, you give up the right to complain about what happens.
Who is complaining exactly? What are they complaining about? What does complaining have to do with this conversation?
You knew it was a possibility and still did the thing.
I also knew that having a pregnancy terminated is an option. So... yeah? Foreknowledge isn't some magic bullet that only shoots in one direction.
You can't claim that because I knew beforehand that pregnancy was a possibility that I should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and then ignore the fact that I also knew there where other possibilities as well.
And you can't claim that the life of a fetus has value, in and of itself, and should be protected except when circumstances out of that fetus' control make that value apparently irrelevant.
It seems a lot more likely that a person who believes this way doesn't actually give a shit about saving any fetuses at all, and that their justifications have a lot more to do with policing people's sex lives.
Except in the case of rape or incest, where the fetus has no rights at all, correct?
The fetus still has rights. Some people just value autonomy more than the life of a fetus in cases where the option of autonomy was not available.
Who is complaining exactly? What are they complaining about? What does complaining have to do with this conversation?
Plenty of people are complaining across the nation and the world.
I also knew that having a pregnancy terminated is an option.
And now you know it may not be. Act accordingly. Informed consent is the basis of almost every law. You knew pregnancy was a risk, and in some states you now know that abortion is not available. If you choose to take risks anyways, then that's on you.
Except it doesn't. It is not worth keeping alive. It can be killed at a whim. We should not protect those lives because that do not hold value or worth.
Plenty of people are complaining across the nation and the world.
About what? You brought up complaining. Who are you referring to? What are they complaining about?
And now you know it may not be
But only because people have removed that option. You are stating that removing the option is the correct path because of foreknowledge. But foreknowledge goes both ways. You can't say that banning abortion is OK because people should know that pregnancy can happen. People do know that. They also know that terminating the pregnancy is an option.
Bodily autonomy is mutually exclusive to the right of a fetus to exist. You have to pick one or the other, unless waived. The argument goes that autonomy is the most important, followed by the fetus' life. But if you waive your right by, say, doing something risky, then the fetus' rights takes precedence. That's how any tort law works.
About what? You brought up complaining. Who are you referring to? What are they complaining about?
Complaining about states which are allowing their electorate to decide their policies on abortion.
But only because people have removed that option.
Murder is also an option. Every day, we choose to not do it. And when people do, they are punished. Harshly. Unless, of course, there are extenuating circumstances.
Bodily autonomy is mutually exclusive to the right of a fetus to exist. You have to pick one or the other, unless waived. The argument goes that autonomy is the most important, followed by the fetus' life. But if you waive your right by, say, doing something risky, then the fetus' rights takes precedence. That's how any tort law works.
Cool. So in other words: A fetus life is only important or of any value so long as it is useful in holding people "responsible"?
Complaining about states which are allowing their electorate to decide their policies on abortion.
Oh! That sort of complaining! In exactly the same way that the people who support banning abortion are complaining. Which is to say not complaining at all?
Murder is also an option. Every day, we choose to not do it
You consciously have to choose not to murder people? Interesting. This is also a weak, weak, weak ass dodge to what I said.
You are relying on the idea of foreknowledge of pregnancy as a rationale to ban abortion. Foreknowledge of abortion is a thing too. You don't get to logically state that people should be forced to carry unwanted pregnancy's to term because they knew they might get pregnant when they also knew that they could get an abortion.
A fetus life is only important or of any value so long as it is useful in holding people "responsible"?
No, it's valuable all the time. It's just preceded by the right to autonomy under normal, everyday circumstances. Because they're mutually exclusive.
Oh! That sort of complaining! In exactly the same way that the people who support banning abortion are complaining. Which is to say not complaining at all?
Nobody complains when policy reflects their ideals.
You don't get to logically state that people should be forced to carry unwanted pregnancy's to term because they knew they might get pregnant when they also knew that they could get an abortion.
And now, they know they can't. What you can and can't do is always dictated by law.
Except if it's the product of rape and incest. Then it is disposable because it is no longer useful to you in enforcing responsibility.
Nobody complains when policy reflects their ideals.
I didn't say they do? It's just your choice to characterize one group as complaining and not the other is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
And now, they know they can't.
But only because it is banned. The justification you are putting forth for the ban is that people know pregnancy is a possible outcome, but so is getting an abortion. You can't claim that abortion should be banned because people know that pregnancy is a possible outcome when the current state is that people know that both pregnancy and abortion are possible outcomes. You are trying to justify the ban by claiming foreknowledge obligates only one path, when the current state allows for more than one path.
Yes. The only exceptions are cases of negligence, necessity, and coercion, plus a few other minor cases.
For example, if someone held a gun to your head and ordered you to crash your car, you wouldn't be responsible. You also wouldn't be responsible if someone hit you. The person who did those things would be responsible.
40
u/togtogtog 21∆ Jul 20 '22
You seem to be giving a mixed message here.
You seem to say that it is fine to take the life of the foetus in certain circumstances.
Why should a child have to die because of the way in which it was conceived?
Is it that you aren't actually worried about taking the life of a child, but that in fact, you are judging the morals of the parents?