Abortion is about the most fundamental human right: self-ownership

Self-ownership is at the core of all individual rights. It is because we own our own bodies that we have the right to speak how we choose, the right to contract, and the right to property. It is because we own our bodies that we have the very right to life. The right to an abortion necessarily arises from this same right to self-ownership.

Before I lay out this argument in favor of abortion as a right (not necessarily morally right, which is a different discussion) let me say I understand the pro-life position, once being there myself. Many will say that "it is true, a woman has a right to self-ownership, but so too does the fetus." So whose right is greater? The pro-lifers (anti-abortionists) say that since the mother will not die by carrying the fetus, and the fetus will die if the mother refuses to do so, abortion must be illegal. This is simply wrong.

I draw from an essay by Wendy McElroy to explain why.

She further adds:

Full essay here: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/abort.htm

What say you pro-lifers (or antiabortionists, as McElroy would say)?

 

The unborn live inside of the woman's body, but they are separate beings. Fetuses are not a part of the woman's body.

 

The umbilical cord and placenta are a part of the woman's body and the fetus is physically attached to them. Pretty sure the fetus is a part of the woman's body up until that physical attachment is disconnected, ever heard of cutting the umbilical cord? And you actually have to cut it as it's fused to the body of the fetus. That's where our belly buttons come from.

 

That's true, but being attached to somebody doesn't mean you are a part of their body. Also, this article explains why the unborn are not a part of the woman's body.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/individuality_of_the_unborn_.html

 

A fetus does not "live" in a woman's body. It is biologically attached to it, draining resources from it to survive, which has a direct and serious impact on the woman's body. It was formed from an egg, also a part of the woman's body. To say it is a biologically autonomous individual defies the meaning of the words. It has no control over itself--not rational faculty. It only has the potential for these things.

 

LOL. Ever been pregnant?

 

The principle of self-ownership states that every human being, simply by being a human being, has moral jurisdiction over his or her own body. Thus, even if the fetus possesses rights, those rights could never include living within and off of the woman's body, for this would be tantamount to asserting that one human being could own the bodily functions of another. The word used to describe a system in which one man has property rights in another is slavery.

So even if a fetus is an individual, it still has no right to exist. But a fetus is simply not an autonomous individual. Having distinct DNA matters not if one has no rational faculty and cannot survive unless physically connected to an actual autonomous individual.

A fetus does not become biologically autonomous until birth. Until then it is literally a biological parasite.

 

Nobody here is arguing that the fetus doesn't have it's own unique genetic code. What we're arguing is that it actually is a physical part of the woman's body because without that physical attachment it would not be able to survive.

The umbilical cord and the placenta are both made and are a physical part of her body, the umbilical cord is also physically attached to the fetus and requires severing it at birth. Considering this, I would say it is quite obviously a part of her body until birth when the cord is cut and the placenta is expelled.

If it was not a part of her body it would be unable to survive as it would not be able to receive nourishment from her.

 

I totally agree with the OP.

I often use this succinct summary to explain the right to bodily integrity and as you put it, the fundamental human right to self-ownership.

No human being born or not has the right to use another human's body or parts of their body for anything including survival without the ongoing consent of the person who's body is being or would be used.

This is because we all have a basic right to self determination and total medical authority over our own autonomy. To take away this right would be absolutely devastating to humankind and would lead to what I think is a slippery slope of other people and even the government using our bodies for various things against our wills.

If we do not own our own bodies then what rights do we really have as people?

 

What is an unconscious patient on an Intenive Care Unit, depending from a ventilator and/or artificial kidney. Cutting those lines would mean immediate death. Like the fetus an unconscious ICU patient, has quote:" ...no control over him´/ her-self--not rational faculty. He/She only has the potential for these things."
The description of a fetus exactly matches the ICU patient. What is this patient then, a "thing"? Does this patient lose his human rights?

The feminist definition of the fetus and his/her rights is deeply flawed. It is as egocentric as feminism itself. That doesnt make it ethical.

 

At no time in the history of any civilization has the fetus been given legal control over the woman's body.

This is just a cynical attempt to control women, to put them in their place as second class citizens. It can be thought of as nothing other than an attempt to control.

 

This is an intellectually dishonest argument and will always be an intellectually dishonest argument. For this argument to have any honesty, a fetus would have to develop in a non-sexual fashion. A fetus or a zygote develops as the direct result of intercourse(ideally and hopefully by two Consenting adults). Furthermore, those adults were also born through intercourse.

To deny the zygote the ability to grow into the future, is to deny all of us our common humanity. To argue for it to be a parasite, you would have to successfully argue that it is living off of the parent. But that's not the case at all, there are many health benefits to pregnancy.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/pregnancy/issues/six-surprising-benefits-of-pregnancy6.htm

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health/article/1384020/exercising-during-pregnancy-offers-health-benefits-mother-and-baby

(That link on Pregnancy and exercise is a particularly nice find, considering the argument by many here that pregnancy is something to be feared for women).

This isn't an argument of choice, this is an anti-humanist argument that had been ever apparent in the 19th century and led the way for the Abortion movement in the first place. It just pronounces its nefarious position on the matter of 'birth control', so let's rename it "choice" and "autonomy".

However, I'll denounce this argument even more strongly than the first time. How can I give the zygote the same rights that we have, rights that all fundamental human beings should have? If a Zygote is a Human Being, then isn't it without saying that the mother is a parent?

Many Conservatives have pointed out the hypocrisy in the Peterson case(and other cases like it) in which if a pregnant woman is murdered, its counted as capital murder but apparently not so when an abortion doctor does so.

So even the argument of it being a non-human seems to be politically subjective, and it cannot in any form claim Humanism. I reject the hypocrisy of it, and I'll state the truth: Just as she was a parent when murdered, she's a parent alive.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/19-a/title19-asec1653.html

IMO, she has a moral responsibility if the pregnancy is completely healthy, to go through with it. We are not so superior as to deem whom is "fit" to come into this world. She does not have that "flexibility" or "right".

I'll also denounce the concept that a person's consciousness is what makes it a person. That's only what becomes observable.(Let's say for the sake of argument, that a fetus had a consciousness. We couldn't observe it(and we know that it certainly couldn't form it into words). So to your fallacious position, it still "wouldn't" have consciousness.

What makes a person, a person is the genetic DNA that then begins the process of forming human life. To disprove this, create a human being with non-human strands of DNA. That'll be particularly amusing.

A fetus is neither an animal nor a thing, and it isn't "nothing" either. It's a growing human life, at the very first stages. The Anti-humanist crowd denounces the fetus's life on the account of convenience and little more.

 

That's because the fetus doesn't have the right to control, neither does the women. Her right of control only existed insofar as she accepted intercourse(or rejected it summarily). What Abortion does, is it violates that right to self-ownership. A child has that same right to ownership, but clearly cannot live on its own.

There's no biological difference between the zygote and the child. The only difference is merely post-pregnancy. If I'm to illustrate evidence of that fact, it's that we men live in much the same rules.

Our only right to control existed upon the decision of intercourse. Hell, according to Pasithea in my conversation with her, we couldn't even pursue any measures of trying to retrieve our rights(should a mother decide to abort the child). Such as leaving the relationship, because that's "blackmail!".

But, what if it were the other way around?(And it is, most of the time). If we were to take one wrong step, what was once "consensual sex" is turned into a rape charge and there's no way to disprove the woman's claim(unless we're as lucky as say Winston to have friends watching over the event ROFL).

For men, having sex is far risker than it is for a woman. Because for every sexual offender, the sexual offense of a woman is hardly charged(or believed at all for that matter). A woman has sexual impunity in the U.S and a man would be foolish to believe otherwise.

This isn't about women being "second class" citizens, or "controlling women". As usual, Liberals either A: Dishonestly represent their position or B: Are honestly intellectually clueless about the situation. What Liberals have done, is indeed "empowered women". They are now the Master Race in the U.S superior to man and child.

Equality? Pfft. Men's rights groups get abused and even labeled as "hate groups"(Yes, it's HATEFUL to advocate for a man's rights. ROFL).

Meanwhile, the prodigies of the Feminist Mystique literally tore their undergarments, acted in civil disobedience, harassed a CEO for hours on end, just for a freaking newspaper.(They could've brought a column or two. Money talks).

As a man, I've said this a thousand times on this forum: I'm well aware of Sexual Politics. It is and always has been a war on men. Men might've made a few mistakes a long the way, in the society they crafted for the better of all. The proof is that women would like to keep the same political protection that their ancestors had, while having more political power.

If the old society was really so terrible, they wouldn't want to be politically protected as a gender. They wouldn't want the government to force a man to pay.

But in the 30 years after the Feminist Revolution, with more single mothers than ever before. I think the world men created for both, was far superior to the "world" women created for themselves.

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/388605/

This in particular was brought to my mind with the 'relationship' my grandmother had with her mother, and then with her daughter(my biological mother). Feminism has utterly destroyed women, in such a catastrophic way that it's been the biggest reason for the American Empire's moral decline.

If I could go back in time, I'd burn every single copy of the Feminist Mystique, I'd openly denounce Margret Sanger and her intellectually defunct views on womanhood, motherhood and life in general. Her personal experiences clouded her to any real experience in the world.

It's not the fault of American Women as a whole, they just don't have any figure that's actually worthy of admiration. Since they summarily reject womenhood, they're a confused and lost gender.

 

An unconscious patient who is dependant on medical aid to survive has one very big glaring difference to a zef, at some point in the patients life it was a separate sentient person .. the patient had been born and does not rely upon the single entity of a female in order to sustain it's life, any hospital could sustain the patients life .. this is what is known as socially dependant where as a zef is biologically dependant, there is a huge difference.

a fetus and an ICU patient do not match.

Only to those with personal agendas

 

So if we take this interpretation literally, when a child's born, it's no longer "biologically dependent"? In your view, would a healthy child be socially dependent?
If we were to take that argument, that's what allows for the State to be a nanny. It's what allows for indoctrination and the political "youth groups" of the past. I don't think we wanna go back there.

A child is always biologically connected with his/her parent. Abortion is merely punishing that child for that biological connection. In the 19th century, Abortion/Birth Control was seen as a morally defunct, but sometimes necessary mechanism. The 21st century interpretation of abortion has distorted and weakened a parent's value. So much so that ironically for women, they may very well lose motherhood rights in the future.

They lose it not to men, but to the State which is genderless and generally non-humanistic. As George Washington said, it's not eloquent. It's fire. Be careful what you wish for.

They match alot more than you think. Both require outside assistance to sustain life. The only difference being, whereas the patient is supported by mechanical means, the fetus is supported via the mother's womb.

Again, what was once deemed a sacred relationship has now been reduced to "parasitical tendencies". But I still contend that if you want to make such an argument intellectually sound, you're going to have to say that a child from 0-18 is a parasitical existence. After all, a parent must feed, cloth and maintain housing for the child(never mind for college), which costs thousands of dollars.

There's absolutely no wiggle room, the child must be a parasite by definition. Otherwise, drop that definition for the fetus. It's no different from the child, but merely an earlier stage of that child's life.

No, I happen to concur completely. It's flawed to the point of intellectual dishonesty. It's a very egocentric definition, one that denies our common humanity. Because our human body is still made up of cells.

Cells grow in our body every day. We're still repeating the process we first started with, only those cells do not have the genetic code to replicate a human inside of us(thank god).

 

I'm just going to say this...

A fetus, Baby, whatever you want to call it - it is human. Alive, and it's own person. To argue that it is not a human, or something less than a person is simply untrue and completely ignorant.

Having said that, my views on Abortion have changed. I am Pro-Choice now, and I do believe it should be a woman's right to control her pregnancy. But it is an actual HUMAN BEING that is being killed. To take away from that is completely disrespectful. It is a necessary evil, but what is more evil is trying to spin it off as being something not bad in any way, shape, or form.

In the end it is the woman's mistake. It was her body which had unprotected sex, without the use of birth control and got pregnant. However, I'm not gonna try to force an unmarried kid to try to raise a kid on her own without a dad. No one wins in that situation.

So i'm completely pro choice, however I'm not delusional to the facts like many pro choicers are.

 

What is a patient with no organs at all?

 

The OP is a semantical bait-and-switch. It starts by saying self-ownership is the most fundamental HUMAN right. Then, the switch is made to "individual" rights. Why? Because it cannot be argued that the fetus is not human, so another term must be used to deprive them of their fundamental human rights.

 

Correct

Yes they are social dependant on the person or people who care for them, be it the biological parents or not.

I don't see how, the only time the state gets involved is when there is no alternative but for the state to pay for the social dependency of unwanted children, something I note would increase should the pro-life groups manage to get abortion made illegal.

Not in a physical way it is not.

you cannot punish something that has no capability of understanding what punishment is.

In the 19th century men could rape their wives. wives could not testify in court against their husbands etc etc.

I disagree, I believe it has led to a stronger parental value, where, for the most, only children that are wanted are born.

Not so long as they have the right to decide on their reproductive rights.

more likely to happen if abortion is banned, that is taking away of rights already established.

not the only difference at all. The patient does not rely on a single entity to sustain it's life. The patient is not resident inside of another entity etc

Which despite the emotional appeal is still a scientific fact.

Yes, however these things can be supplied by any person, which they can remove if so wished, it is not reliant on a single entity which, if abortion is banned, would have no choice.

Actually you are wrong, the definition of a parasite is "an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense", which is something no one has said, the comment used is parasitic-like, there are four distinct types of symbiotic relationships of which parasitic is only one.

Only in your view point, intellectually the premise is sound.

Our cells do not have 'champions' claiming they have rights, no one is arrested and charged when the cut themselves.

The cells we grow every day do not require the sustaining properties given by the woman, it is directly through her sharing that the cells are able to grow, remove that and they die

 

You are dismissing what you do not understand.

Therefore we can make slaves of the invitro babies because those are not human.

BS emotional hype.

Quote who and where.

No argument needed it is fact.

Of course it is.

Ignorant BS. Abortion has been existent throughout history.

Good live by it and stay out of others' lives.

The only amusing thing here is your your grasping at things you clearly have no clue about. By your brilliant reasoning all human cells would be persons because they all contain DNA.

Wow and you came up with that all by yourself? Here is a clue, it is ot significant either beyond that give to it by the woman making its life possible.

 

Why not inform yourself before posting such ignorance. Is there no difference between a cell and a functioning human?

So we finally get to the real crux of the matter: punish the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

So you are jealous because? difficulty in getting some?

Inferiority complex?

Thanks for proving your misogynism.

 

You claim intellectual dishonesty then proceed to produce a dishonest comment yourself, a fetus or zygote does not have to be exclusively the product of sexual intercourse and you know this.

Just exactly how does it deny common humanity, it is purely denying the usage of an individuals resources in order to sustain another. you cannot have it all ways, you cannot give the fetus rights that over ride the already existing rights of the woman . .A woman already has the right to say who or what uses the resources of her body, that is a fundamental right that all people have, by denying her that right you are treating a pregnant woman as less than a non-pregnant woman and in so doing are granting the fetus greater rights than any other person.

The fetus gives some benefits to the woman . however it takes far more than it gives, strictly speaking it is not a parasite per se . .however it does display distinctive parasitic qualities. There are four clear type of symbiotic relationships, parasitic is just one of them.

Yet again, as you have done before, you are making the assumption based on pregnancies that were/are wanted .. have you searched for information on the affects on the woman of an unwanted pregnancy .. if not I suggest you do.

It has always been about choice, anything stated otherwise is just an attempt to muddy the waters.

No a parent is someone who has born children.

Again this boils down to choice and consent, a pregnant woman who is murdered has not been given a choice as to whether she and her fetus die, nor has she given consent for the death of herself and/or the fetus. Even the pro-lifer people who championed UVOVA stated it was not about abortion.

Then you are imposing your opinion onto it, there is no where it states that a pregnant woman is a parent, so your truth is purely subjective to your assumption.

and as all you are perfectly entitled to your opinion .. however your moral viewpoint is yours others may not follow your moral viewpoint. Morals are subjective.

Then you are fighting against all scientific findings, we can observe the mechanics that make up "consciousness" by the constant brain waves. Without these there is no "consciousness"

I find it amusing that you claim to have discovered something that scholars have been searching for and debating for centuries without finding the answer, and no one here has disputed that a zef is human life . .so are my heart cells.

The above is based on your assumptions.

 

There is no need to argue that a fetus is not human as anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology would know it is human.

My question to you is why does it matter whether it is human or not?

What are the fundamental rights of humans .. the right to life perhaps, can you provide anything to support that all humans have the right to life?

 

I will address each of your arguments one by one.

First, you argue that a fetus develops as a result of sexual intercourse, and therefore my argument is invalid. That is a complete non-sequitor. How the fetus comes into existence is irrelevant to whether or not it is at the given time in its stage of development a biologically autonomous human individual. It could be created in a non-sexual way in a lab or in a natural sexual way--that in no way changes its nature.

Second, you claim I deny a zygote's ability to grow in the future. That is absolutely false and a complete strawman. From my first post, I made it clear that "To say this is not to deny that the fetus is in some sense alive, or that the zygote is a potential human being." Yet having the ability to become a human individual does not make it an actual human individual. The idea that potential = actual is the true fallacy, and you are employing it.

Third, you say that the fetus is not living off of the mother, and is therefore not a parasite. This is perhaps your most absurd argument. It is undoubtedly clear that a fetus lives off the mother. It is physically attached to the mother by an umbilical cord, is effected by everything the mother eats or drinks, and survives by consuming the resources in the mother's body. Whatever benefits a woman may get from pregnancy are totally irrelevant to whether or not the fetus is living off of the mother. A leech too may have health benefits in some cases, acting as an anticoagulant, but are we to say that the leech therefore does not live off the host in these cases? Such conclusions are absurd and fly in the face of all scientific knowledge.

Fourth, you say distinct DNA is what makes a biologically autonomous individual. This too is false, and was already pointed out in the OP. It must first be noted that having distinct DNA in no way makes something biologically autonomous--that is simply not the definition of biological autonomy. Second, if unique DNA is what makes an individual, then if I were to kill a man and preserve his liver, which has his unique DNA, that liver would still be a human individual, because there is no other living thing on the planet with DNA like that liver. Given such an example, it is quite clear that, as already argued, "having a DNA encoding is not sufficient grounds upon which to claim individual rights." Something else is necessary to distinguish between a human liver with unique DNA and a human individual with equally unique DNA. The difference between a liver and a human individual is that a human individual is biologically autonomous. A fetus is not, and in order to give a fetus rights you must prove that it is. Good luck, for such is impossible.

You begin your argument with a strawman and a series of assertions already addressed by my original argument, and then have the audacity to call my argument intellectually dishonest? Such ad hominem is only a reflection of your own weak position.

 

I was using human in the sense of "human individual." That should have been inferred from the context. A strand of my hair is also "human" but nobody would suggest that my hair has the human right of self-ownership because it is "human" and can therefore not be cut. Human rights are given to human individuals. Nice try, but you are simply equivocating to avoid the argument.