CMV: The autonomy argument for abortion is weak

Delta(s) from OP

I’m pro-choice but for a different reason. I think the moral permissibility of killing a fetus hinges entirely on whether the fetus has been granted personhood and that the autonomy of the woman is secondary to this.

There are different subjective criteria we can use to establish personhood. I think mine is fairly consistent which is: personhood should be granted when the conscious experience has formed. Of course we could never exactly pin this down, but the most conservative estimate I’ve seen based on the data is that it’s around 20 weeks.

I think this is a reasonable standard for personhood because the conscious experience is what we seem to value most about human beings. It’s why we think it’s fair to pull the plug on someone whose conscious experience has been indefinitely terminated. If Tim is essentially brain dead but his body is being artificially kept alive, we wouldn’t say “it’s still tim, he’s right there”. We would say it’s Tim’s body. However, if we could hypothetically keep Tim’s brain alive in a different body, we’d say it IS tim still. I don’t believe that moral rules apply to permanently unconscious or not-yet conscious bodies.

All of this being said, abortion is fair game prior to 20 weeks for any reason in my view.

Now, the autonomy argument allows abortion in virtue of a woman’s inherent ownership of her own body. They would say that it’s not the prerogative of a governmental body, or any other human for that matter, to decide which surgeries she’s allowed to have or to force her to remain pregnant. I often hear proponents use language about fetuses like “they’re aggressors” or “they’re violating autonomy” which is odd to me.

I think if we’re talking about ethics here, then what actually matters is whether or not it’s merely a woman’s body or if there are two that need to be considered.

To keep this relatively concise, I’m going to jump into 2 cases to illustrate my thoughts on consent.

Case 1: consensual sex

In this scenario, a man and a woman engage in consensual sex and I will even grant that they take full precautions. Nevertheless, when you have sex with someone, there is an implicit understanding that you might end up pregnant. It’s like signing a contract; you should understand the risk of what you’re about to do. In this regard, the woman is tacitly consenting to the potential creation of a fetus.

If she inadvertently gets pregnant, then there’s a 20 week grace period to terminate the pregnancy. This seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

Case 2: nonconsensual sex

I’m aware this is a difficult position to defend, but I think we can perform a reductio for any stance on abortion that one ought to just own if they want to be consistent.

If a rape occurs causing a pregnancy, then I believe that both the woman and the fetus have been aggressed on. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the fetus itself as some type of violator of autonomy when it didn’t consent to being formed in the womb. The man is the aggressor in this case.

Similarly in this case, the mother has the right to terminate the fetus by 20 weeks. Otherwise I don’t think it’s morally permissible to kill it if it IS indeed a person. We wouldn’t say in other circumstances that because one is victimized, they are allowed to kill an innocent party.

It also seems entirely inconsistent when people say abortion is wrong, except in cases of rape. Is it a person or not? That’s what matters.

in changemyviewby Powerful-Garage63161∆

38%

18d

View all comments

ProfessionalOven5677

2∆

18d

This is an interesting take. What would follow from that in the case of a pregnancy being a danker to the mother’s life after the 20th week (if the complications only happen after this or are found it then)? How does viability outside of the womb play into this? One could argue that one could hardly be a person if you’re not viable on your own outside of someone else’s body. What if later one it is found out that a fetus is not viable at all due to some development defects?

I feel another aspect the argument relies on and that seems to often distinguish people on different sides of the argument is the one about consent to a possible pregnancy. Personally, I don’t agree that having sex while taking all possible precautions means consenting to a possible pregnancy and thus having to keep it. For me knowing that there is a small chance/risk of some consequences is not equal to consenting to those consequences. If you drive your car on the road, there is a small chance you will be killed or end up severely impacted every time. Does this mean consenting to the possibility of being killed or ending up disabled? Would anyone ever say: ‘Well, it’s unfortunate, but they knew the risk and consented’?

And in regards to the fact of rape I would argue that the situation is hardly comparable to others and the analogy of in other cases it wouldn’t be okay to kill an innocent person just because someone violates you is hardly explicable. Because in all those other possible cases the innocent person is not inside of your body, feeding off you and possibly putting your life at risk plus the fact that you don’t have to care for this other innocent person for the next years. If you think the category innocent is applicable to a fetus, it still gets tricky because still this ‘person’ is an intruder, a pregnancy is aggressive on the body or can be, and especially in the case of rape you probably feel very much violated by this fetus.

Pale_Zebra8082

🍰

-2

6∆

18d

Being aware of a risk, however small, and choosing to engage in a behavior despite that risk, is absolutely consenting to it; whether having sex or driving a car.

ProfessionalOven5677

2∆

18d

I think there’s a difference (even if a small and hard to distinguish one) between knowing a risk and accepting it and consenting. Or maybe it’s better put that way: for me knowing that risk and accepting it or consenting or whatever, doesn’t bind you to any reaction to that consequence in my opinion. Because those consequences are usually extreme situations, that put your mind and/or body at extreme stress. And I think that for those situations you can only ever truly know how you feel and how you’ll react once the situations happens. You may say know if you get paraplegic due to a car accident you’ll not wanna live anymore, but how you’ll actually feel in the rare case that happens is an entirely different matter. Similar for unplanned pregnancies.

Pale_Zebra8082

🍰

6∆

18d

I guess we just disagree. This is just how risk works. We are nearly always in a position of making decisions related to risks with incomplete information about the true likelihood they will happen or exactly how we will feel if they do. That doesn’t absolve us of responsibility or spare us from facing reality if it happens.

ProfessionalOven5677

2∆

18d

Yes it seems we disagree.

But just to clarify: I’m not saying anyone is absolves of responsibility. Yes, we have to face the consequences and reality if it happens. And we are certainly responsible to make a decision and react, with all possible responsibilities that come with said decision. I’m just saying that doing something with a small but possible risk doesn’t bring an obligation to make the decision about how one would react if said risk became true beforehand or that one shouldn’t be able to change their minds in that case.

Pale_Zebra8082

🍰

6∆

18d

Well, that latter part all hinges on our take on the issue. If the fetus is not a person with rights, of course they can change their mind, because in that case this is all a nonissue, regardless of how we feel about accepting risk.