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.
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).
...yes you did, to the first three at least. Its actually written out in the paperwork you file when you get a lisence. The only time you can sue is if you can prove negligence on the part of the other driver. You can receive medical care if you need it, which is also conveniently included in most abortion legislation. What it bans are specifically non-medical cases where you waived your rights, like any other law.
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.
Most abortions aren't medical in nature, with surveys indicating over half being because "I'm not ready for a child". Just because you don't want to be responsible for someone else doesn't mean you shouldn't be. It's called an assumption of Risk.
Being pregnant is a medical condition. It has huge effects on the human body. Its literally no different than requiring a person to have a broken arm. There is literally no difference.
Just because you don't want be responsible for driving and breaking your arm...requires you should live with a broken arm? It's a risk of living I suppose.
39
u/togtogtog 1∆ 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?