Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Term Limit for Abortion watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No. Forced organ donation is analogous to forced pregnancy.

    The fact that one chooses to have sex is irrelevant to the concept that both require the loss of bodily autonomy.
    Except in the rare cases when someone is for instance raped, pregnancy is not "forced" - rather, it's accidental on the parents' part.

    There's a clear difference between being "forced" to become pregnant or donate organs by someone, whereby you are powerless to prevent it, and becoming pregnant accidentally as a result of your own mistaken actions and oversights.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Except in the rare cases when someone is for instance raped, pregnancy is not "forced" - rather, it's accidental on the parents' part.

    There's a clear difference between being "forced" to become pregnant or donate organs by someone, whereby you are powerless to prevent it, and becoming pregnant accidentally as a result of your own mistaken actions and oversights.
    I am not talking about being forced to become pregnant.

    We both know that.

    So let's stick to the point.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    We were discussing the central analogy of the paper. It makes no mention of consent, and in fact quite clearly implies the lack of consent, given the kidnapping element of the scenario. Stop lying.
    It's entirely apparent that you are unable to comprehend the argument in its entirety as provided by the paper. I quote, verbatim:

    "But certainly the violinist has no right against you that you shall allow him to continue to use your kidneys. As I said, if you do allow him to use them, it is a kindness on your part, and not something you owe him." (Consent).

    The kidnapping is used to situate the example, it is not a precondition of the example. It's not a condition of the example at all. It's designed to set up the hypothetical.

    You've become far too hung up on the wrong committed in the kidnapping. The wrong committed by the kidnapping isn't a morally relevant part of the hypothetical. We can all agree that kidnapping is wrong, and we can all agree that engaging in sex that results in pregnancy is not identical to kidnapping. The point is allegorical, not a logical condition - the fetus is holding your body against your will.


    A pregnancy however is starkly different. In almost all pregnancies, the woman is the only party at least somewhat responsible for the existence of the fetus and its situation of dependency, the amount varying based on her level of carelessness (in some cases, she may be entirely responsible, if she had willingly tried for a baby then later decided to abort!).
    Well, prima facie, I'm going to disagree with you there. Women don't just pop out babies without the help of someone of the male sex (or perhaps in vitro). Humans females are not hermaphroditically reproducing and they're not asexually reproducing either. You'll also find a huge plethora of feminist philosophy literature refuting the idea that women are the solely responsible party.

    Thus the original violinist analogy is way off the mark in representing pregnancy, as the violinist's predicament is in no way causally linked to the woman's actions, a point you repeatedly fail to see. That's just one in a long list of problems with it as well. Failed analogy, failed argument.
    Again, a failure to understand the argument. The kidnapping scenario makes it such that the violinist's current situation is casually linked to the woman. Should she detach herself from the life support machine, then she will be the cause of his death (barring someone else taking up the mantle of life support machine).

    Even if you dislike the particular example used, many more have since been offered. The basics of the argument remain the same. I never claimed that JJT's particular examples were the best, nor that better ones could not be made. I put the paper forward as being the most famous piece of philosophical literature on abortion. You've taken it to attempt to attack my position because the paper I've presented has, according to you, poor examples; you've implicitly assumed that my position is based on her provided example because I provided the paper. This is an incorrect assumption. I provided the paper for educational purposes to people who were curious. It's typically a foundational piece of literature for those proceeding into the abortion debate. Your pedantry over her points is, all things considered, a waste of everyone's time.

    My analogy re. the abortion process works, you simply misunderstand or misrepresent it.
    I both understand it and reject it is as working. You can try to defend it all you like, but you're creating a situation non-analogically. Your situation, as you've constructed it is to (1) remove yourself or (2) kill the person and then remove yourself.

    This doesn't work, because killing the person first isn't necessary, nor does it amount in a different procedure for removal.

    I even mentioned that the former could leave more of a side effect on the woman, eg. a bad scar. It's exactly analogous.
    No, it's not. Because medically, these procedures don't factually map out. In the case of abortion we're choosing between cutting someone open, or performing a less invasive procedure. The former may results in fetal life, or may not; the latter results in fetal death.

    The analogy you're attempting to provide doesn't work because in the hypothetical you're hooked up to the individual via needles, tubes, etc. your body is effectively acting as his filtration system. Killing him will not change how these needles, tubes, etc. are disconnected.

    The analogy you provide has to map onto the situation appropriately and, as we're trying to make analogous situations to actual medical practice, they have to map onto medically hypothetically viable situations.

    You have a right to refuse any treatment, you do not have a right to demand any treatment. You have a right to choose between the treatments that are offered to you in the given situation. And it is perfectly reasonable that certain treatments may not be offered by the medical community if they are inappropriate for the situation, outdated, unsafe, or importantly here - unethical. This does not constitute a loss of bodily autonomy.
    I can refuse any treatment, this is correct. This also maps onto a positive right to demand to be able to have certain procedures. A negative right will, in a number of cases, turn into a positive right depending on the situation. A right to free speech (conceptually typically thought of as a negative right) will, in some cases, turn into a positive right (a right to demand something of the government).

    Using a capabilities approach to liberty (see Nussbaum's work) or a negative conception of liberty (Locke, Hobbes, Berlin), in fact, removing my option to choose a certain medical procedure does constitute a restriction of my freedom and thereby my bodily autonomy. Even in positive liberty theory such as Green and Bosanquet, there could be certain situations where a removal of 'juridical freedom' would constitute an infringement of 'true freedom'.

    Mill, for example, is a negative liberty thinker who tries to deny that any restrictions are necessarily restrictions on liberty. He does this through the 'harm principle' claiming that you have no pre-existing freedom to choose a harmful proposition. MacCallum has a similarly morally loaded conception in his triadic freedom.

    However, rejecting morally loaded conceptions of liberty (as Berlin would have us do), this would constitute a restriction in bodily freedom. As an aside, if you don't understand theories of freedom, then you're in no depth to be claiming what would or would not constitute a restriction of a freedom-based right.

    More pragmatically, however, is that suppose we assume your world where I have an option to either (1) carry to term or (2) have a cesarean section. The problem with this conception is that it ignores real world fact. This is the fact that (1) non-cesarean section abortion will continue to be available abroad (unless the entire world legislates simultaneously and unanimously to prevent all abortion); and (2) back alley abortion will continue to be available and, when abortion restrictions are heightened, the number of back alley abortions increases; which of course, presents greater harm to the women. However, we know that women will risk this option for any number of perhaps incorrect reasons, but this is a fact of human psychology that must be acknowledged.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I am not talking about being forced to become pregnant.

    We both know that.

    So let's stick to the point.
    I know you're not talking about people who are forced to become pregnant, you're talking about people who become pregnant accidentally, through their own actions. Yet you still seem to be calling it "forced pregnancy" and consider it to be analogous to forced organ donation, when it is not analogous at all.

    It would be analogous to forced organ donation only if they were forced to become pregnant - not if they brought their predicament upon themselves, by themselves.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    There's a clear difference between being "forced" to become pregnant or donate organs by someone, whereby you are powerless to prevent it, and becoming pregnant accidentally as a result of your own mistaken actions and oversights.
    You're starting from the incorrect point. The argument being presented to you isn't the pregnancy, carte blanche, is forced. The argument is that not allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy is a forced pregnancy. You (perhaps the State through its legal system) are forcing her to remain pregnant where she otherwise would not have to be.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You're starting from the incorrect point. The argument being presented to you isn't the pregnancy, carte blanche, is forced. The argument is that not allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy is a forced pregnancy. You (perhaps the State through its legal system) are forcing her to remain pregnant where she otherwise would not have to be.
    I understand that perfectly well - call it a "forced pregnancy" if you really want, but either way, it is not analogous to "forced organ donation", because there is a fundamental difference between the two. Being forced into a situation is not at all equivalent to being prevented from exiting a situation that you put yourself into.


    Forced organ donation is a predicament that is thrust upon a person by someone else - that is, they have done nothing to put themselves in that situation. They are compelled by another person to give up their organs, and are entirely powerless to avoid it.

    Accidental pregnancy is a predicament that a person gets themselves into, with constraints on how they are permitted to deal with it. A person can easily avoid this by not getting pregnant (or getting someone else pregnant) in the first place.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I know you're not talking about people who are forced to become pregnant, you're talking about people who become pregnant accidentally, through their own actions. Yet you still seem to be calling it "forced pregnancy" and consider it to be analogous to forced organ donation, when it is not analogous at all.
    No, it's not that either.

    I don't care if they become pregnant against their will or if they plan to with IVF or if it is by accident or etc.

    I made this fairly clear on the 1st page when I said that whether they choose to have sex or not is irrelevant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No, it's not that either.

    I don't care if they become pregnant against their will or if they plan to with IVF or if it is by accident or etc.

    I made this fairly clear on the 1st page when I said that whether they choose to have sex or not is irrelevant.
    So you agree the analogy is nonsense. Great
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I made this fairly clear on the 1st page when I said that whether they choose to have sex or not is irrelevant.
    Yes, and I'm making it fairly clear that it is relevant.

    You say that forced organ donation is analogous to "forced pregnancy" - but if the pregnancy is the result of the parents' own choice to do the thing that leads to pregnancy, then it is not analogous at all, in the matter of bodily autonomy. The former does not involve the person having any choice in the matter, whereas the latter does.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    So you agree the analogy is nonsense. Great
    Explain.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Forced organ donation is a predicament that is thrust upon a person by someone else - that is, they have done nothing to put themselves in that situation. They are compelled by another person to give up their organs, and are entirely powerless to avoid it.

    Accidental pregnancy is a predicament that a person gets themselves into, with constraints on how they are permitted to deal with it. A person can easily avoid this by not getting pregnant (or getting someone else pregnant) in the first place.
    In this situation, the individual mother is compelled by another person (your operative logical condition for something qualifying as 'forced') to not have an abortion, and they are entirely powerless to avoid it. (This being the case in an assumed world where abortion is not permitted).

    You may try to preempt this and claim that the pregnancy was the fault of the woman, she engaged in some sort of conduct which resulted in the situation. However, this is equivalent to what may be called 'victim blaming'; and it also requires you to engage in a line drawing exercise. In 'forced organ donation' the individual is at fault because they had organs and were in a particular location such as to be able to be subjected to kidnapping and having their organs removed (or some such situation).

    You're trying to differentiate the two based on fault, not compulsion or power to stop a particular situation. You're claiming that a person subjected to forced organ donation has no culpability, but someone who is pregnant does.

    But, if the woman took reasonable precautions (birth control pill or male/female condoms, whatever) then her culpability is removed. Otherwise, you're saying that individuals are responsible for remote consequences (a concept explicitly rejected in law - I don't accept you injuring me in a car accident merely because I agreed to drive on the road, for example).

    So, in such a case, your fault criteria fails to be able to distinguish between 'forced organ donation' and 'forced pregnancy'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Yes, and I'm making it fairly clear that it is relevant.
    .
    So I never talked about it.

    You just want to make it relevant.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    You say that forced organ donation is analogous to "forced pregnancy" - but if the pregnancy is the result of the parents' own choice to do the thing that leads to pregnancy, then it is not analogous at all, in the matter of bodily autonomy. The former does not involve the person having any choice in the matter, whereas the latter does.
    Well, it is analogous. In both bodily autonomy is overridden. Choice doesn't change that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    In this situation, the individual mother is compelled by another person (your operative logical condition for something qualifying as 'forced') to not have an abortion, and they are entirely powerless to avoid it. (This being the case in an assumed world where abortion is not permitted).

    You may try to preempt this and claim that the pregnancy was the fault of the woman, she engaged in some sort of conduct which resulted in the situation. However, this is equivalent to what may be called 'victim blaming'; and it also requires you to engage in a line drawing exercise. In 'forced organ donation' the individual is fault because the had organs and were in a particular location such as to be able to be subjected to kidnapping and having their organs removed (or some such situation).

    You're trying to differentiate the two based on fault, not compulsion or power to stop a particular situation. You're claiming that a person subjected to forced organ donation has no culpability, but someone who is pregnant does.

    But, if the woman took reasonable precautions (birth control pill or male/female condoms, whatever) then her culpability is removed. Otherwise, you're saying that individuals are responsible for remote consequences (a concept explicitly rejected in law - I don't accept you injuring me in a car accident merely because I agreed to drive on the road, for example).

    So, in such a case, your fault criteria fails to be able to distinguish between 'forced organ donation' and 'forced pregnancy'.
    I am not differentiating based on "fault", I am differentiating between the two scenarios, firstly based on the fact that one is a case of being forced into an undesirable situation, and one is getting yourself into an undesirable situation and then being prevented from exiting it. The point at which the compulsion takes effect is different.

    Secondly, the person that puts you into an undesirable situation, regarding forced organ donation, is your "kidnapper". Whereas the person who puts you into an undesirable situation regarding pregnancy is yourself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, it is analogous. In both bodily autonomy is overridden. Choice doesn't change that.
    Well for starters, complete bodily autonomy is something that doesn't exist in this country anyway. There are various harmful drugs and substances that we are legally prohibited from putting into our bodies, for example. Limitations upon bodily autonomy exist in all sorts of forms for all sorts of reasons, and rightly so.

    Secondly, pointing out that both involve a limitation on bodily autonomy does not make them analogous. There is a key difference between them (involving choice) which makes the limitation upon bodily autonomy more acceptable in one case than the other.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, it is analogous. In both bodily autonomy is overridden. Choice doesn't change that.
    I would take this line of reasoning a bit further, and flip the question back over to the opposition.

    In 'forced organ donation', where bodily autonomy is infringed, those against forced organ donation see something wrong with the situation whereby the individual's right to bodily autonomy is being violated.

    So, why is it that they don't see something wrong with 'forced pregnancy' (perhaps contentiously called that)? Why is the former wrong but not the latter?

    The argument doesn't seem to be about consent, as the individual in question in both does not give consent to their current state of affairs. Perhaps the opposition would like to argue about the temporality of consent - the woman previously gave consent through her sex acts. But, this sort of implied consent is a highly questionable argument, as it assumes consent from outcomes; rather than consent being a precondition.

    Furthermore, if the argument is to be made that she 'consented' because she knew it was a 'possibility' (i.e. remoteness is rejected as being grounds for the removal of culpability), then we need some scientific studies conducted to assess the exact probability of pregnancy resulting from a sex act; and then all actions with equal or higher probability must have remoteness removed from conditions of implied consent.

    Even if the argument makes it past this hurdle and can garner 'implied consent' on behalf of the woman, other situations which involve bodily autonomy permit for the revocation of consent, even if I caused the situation in question. For example, I give my consent to receive a tattoo (I temporarily surrender my absolute bodily integrity to allow you to impinge upon my body to receive said tattoo). However, if during the tattooing process I remove my consent, you are under an obligation to stop tattooing my body. Why is it that removal of consent ex post is not dealt with in the relevant arguments presented by oppositions?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I am not differentiating based on "fault", I am differentiating between the two scenarios, firstly based on the fact that one is a case of being forced into an undesirable situation, and one is getting yourself into an undesirable situation and then being prevented from exiting it. The point at which the compulsion takes effect is different.
    But it still takes effect. So, this doesn't differentiate the two. In both there is forcing happening. You seem to trying to differentiate them based on fault, like I said. As here, you've just appealed to concepts of fault - "Getting yourself into".

    Either fault isn't relevant and it's compulsion in both cases; or else you're necessarily arguing for the insertion of fault.

    Secondly, the person that puts you into an undesirable situation, regarding forced organ donation, is your "kidnapper". Whereas the person who puts you into an undesirable situation regarding pregnancy is yourself.
    Again, you're appealing here to concepts of fault.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    But it still takes effect. So, this doesn't differentiate the two. In both there is forcing happening. You seem to trying to differentiate them based on fault, like I said. As here, you've just appealed to concepts of fault - "Getting yourself into".

    Either fault isn't relevant and it's compulsion in both cases; or else you're necessarily arguing for the insertion of fault.



    Again, you're appealing here to concepts of fault.
    There isn't forcing happening in both cases. One is force, the other is prevention, which are different. The first scenario is forcing someone to donate their organs. The second scenario is preventing them from having an abortion.

    If I lock someone in a room, I am forcing them to be a prisoner. But if someone walks into a room of their own accord, and it happens to have been constructed from beforehand such that doesn't open from the inside, nobody is actually forcing them to do anything.

    The concept I am appealing to is not one that I would call "fault" - but yes, I am saying that whether or not you can claim to be forced into a situation depends on who put you in that situation - yourself, or someone else.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Well for starters, complete bodily autonomy is something that doesn't exist in this country anyway. There are various harmful drugs and substances that we are legally prohibited from putting into our bodies, for example. Limitations upon bodily autonomy exist in all sorts of forms for all sorts of reasons, and rightly so.

    Secondly, pointing out that both involve a limitation on bodily autonomy does not make them analogous. There is a key difference between them (involving choice) which makes the limitation upon bodily autonomy more acceptable in one case than the other.
    Ok. Well, I didn't claim that complete bodily autonomy exists.

    Again, you state that choice makes a limitation on bodily autonomy without justification.

    Using your scenario, then choosing to have an organ transplant would place a limitation on bodily autonomy.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    The concept I am appealing to is not one that I would call "fault" - but yes, I am saying that whether or not you can claim to be forced into a situation depends on who put you in that situation - yourself, or someone else.
    So then you have to contend with the issue of remoteness. Your argument around 'fault' won't work in cases where some form of preventative measures were used, as the consequences (pregnancy) were too remote from the action.

    Another way of phrasing it would be this - For any number of actions X there is some probability, Y, such that Z. You're implicitly arguing that whenever Y is equal to the probability of pregnancy in relation to the outcome Z, that Z is the fault of the the agent; that they 'consented' to that consequence and can be held accountable for it.

    This would lead to a rather absurd conclusion that when Y is equal to 0.1%, that the individual doing X implicitly consented to the consequence Z. Or, a chance of about 1 in 1000. (I'm using the probability of becoming pregnant while properly taking birth control to represent Y).

    According to this list then, getting into a car accident, a 1 in 84 chance, which is substantially higher than 1 in 1000, causes the victim to be at vault. Even if we half the probability to say that the driver who got hit wasn't at fault (the other party did the hitting and we're only concerned with the faultless person who got hit) it's still 1 in 168. Following this logic, it was the victim's actions that put them into the situation whereby they ended up being hit by another car and, therefore, they are responsible.

    Otherwise, your reasoning as to when probability and fault are relevant is inconsistent and can be rejected on those grounds.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    So then you have to contend with the issue of remoteness. Your argument around 'fault' won't work in cases where some form of preventative measures were used, as the consequences (pregnancy) were too remote from the action.

    Another way of phrasing it would be this - For any number of actions X there is some probability, Y, such that Z. You're implicitly arguing that whenever Y is equal to the probability of pregnancy in relation to the outcome Z, that Z is the fault of the the agent; that they 'consented' to that consequence and can be held accountable for it.

    This would lead to a rather absurd conclusion that when Y is equal to 0.1%, that the individual doing X implicitly consented to the consequence Z. Or, a chance of about 1 in 1000. (I'm using the probability of becoming pregnant while properly taking birth control to represent Y).

    According to this list then, getting into a car accident, a 1 in 84 chance, which is substantially higher than 1 in 1000, causes the victim to be at vault. Even if we half the probability to say that the driver who got hit wasn't at fault (the other party did the hitting and we're only concerned with the faultless person who got hit) it's still 1 in 168. Following this logic, it was the victim's actions that put them into the situation whereby they ended up being hit by another car and, therefore, they are responsible.

    Otherwise, your reasoning as to when probability and fault are relevant is inconsistent and can be rejected on those grounds.
    It has nothing to do with probability whatsoever. Whether you are at "fault" for a situation, and whether you just did something that had a chance of leading to that situation (whether it is a high chance or a low chance) are two separate things.


    For example, if I am in a car accident, I chose to get into the car, and I wouldn't have been in the accident had I not done so. But the fault of the accident is not necessarily mine, it lies with whoever was driving their car in an inappropriate manner. Similarly, if someone kidnaps me and forces me to donate my organs, I would not be in that situation had I not been walking around in the area where the kidnapper happened to have caught me. I did something that had a chance of leading to that situation. But the fault lies entirely with that kidnapper, and not at all with me. In both these situations, the fault lies with a person who acted unreasonably i.e. the reckless driver and the kidnapper. The individual suffers as a result of someone else doing something that they should not be doing, thereby forcing the individual into an undesirable situation.

    The same cannot be said of pregnancy (unless it's a case of rape or something like that). There is no analogous equivalent of the reckless driver or the kidnapper who can have the blame for the undesirable situation placed upon them. So there is no "fault" as such. The couple can't blame someone else for acting in an inappropriate manner that resulted in a pregnancy. The pregnancy is a result of nobody's actions but their own.


    There is a fundamental difference between going for a walk outside at night down a dark alleyway and getting killed by a gunman, and going for a walk outside in a lightning storm and getting killed by lightning. In the former situation, you can blame someone else for acting inappropriately (as you can with some car accidents, and with forced organ donation). In the latter situation, you can't blame anyone else - you just took a risk with nature and fell foul of it. The probability of the event occurring has nothing to do with it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.