The debate on the initial thread has been… interesting. The capacity for people to talk past each other is quite distressing. I am really starting to appreciate the work George Lakoff has done on the issue Cognitive Framing in his book Moral Politics. How we think about and respond to issues is based on this cognitive framework which can affect how we view opposing points of view and how credible we judge them to be.
That being said, it is important to review the arguments in favour of ownership of one’s body.
1) A person owns themselves.
2) Self ownership implies the right to free will
3) In having free will, you cannot have a duty to perform any affirmative actions.
Conclusion– You have no duty to provide another with the means to live.
Therefore it is permissible to remove anything classified as a separate entity from your body.
The objections raised to this have been middling at best and include the assertion that the sylogism ‘begs the question’ by not addressing the issue of fetal rights or the status of the fetus. The actual explanation of the begging the question was left at that, but I will extrapolate and make the objection that the term person should also be applied to the fetus/zygote/blastocyst etc. (Note: Allowing this extrapolation does not invalidate this particular argument and it is still a strong argument for the right of a woman to control her body)
If we are to allow the idea of personhood to a fetus then it is important to allow the distinction between the biological definition of human and the moral definition of human. Biologically, the mass of cells in question can be defined as a ‘human being’ (and is often shrilly bleated repeatedly by the opponents of choice) but certainly not a fully functional independently biological entity. Is it fair to describe the zygote/embryo/blastocyst as equivalent to that of an adult human being?
This would entail this view:
1. Embryos are human beings.
2. All human beings have equal moral status.
3. Therefore, embryos have full moral status.
The implications of this argument have been discussed in part 2 of this series, which makes the claim that to be consistent those who endorse this claim must also accept the fact that spontaneous abortion is a much larger and more pressing issue that should be dealt with first, if we are to define the embryo as having full and equivalent moral status as an adult human being.
Going back to the conclusion of the first sylogism, we read that “In having free will, you cannot have a duty to perform any affirmative actions” the anti-choice side would put forward that the woman does have the duty to perform an affirmative action, that is to let the fetus grow in her womb (at direct risk to her health) as we have defined the embryo in question as having full moral rights equivalent to that of an adult human being, and therefore positive affirmative actions must be taken.
Therefore, if we are to follow the argumentation, we all have the absolute duty to save human beings and if given the opportunity to take affirmative action that will save a life we must do so. The implications of this are far reaching as consider the following case:
A house is on fire and someone is trapped behind a deadly wall of flame. That person will perish if we do not act to save his life. We are obligated then, to run into the fire and attempt to save his life, if we subscribe to the notion that it is a duty to take positive affirmative action.
So,the rights view of the anti-choice stance, to be consistent, should state that whenever there is an opportunity to take affirmative action to save a human life, it must be undertaken. This would lead to people being obligated to be the ‘hyper-good samaritain’. That is risking their life and abandoning their rights in order to save the life of another. This situation, clearly, is absurd.
This situation calls into question then the idea that a fetus/zygote/blastocyst should have the moral equivalence of an adult human being.
bleatmop
The Intransigent One
Mystro
The Arbourist
8 comments
June 21, 2009 at 4:24 pm
askingquestion
Would one have a duty to rescure the other trapped in the burning house if the one placed the other in the house and set the house on fire?
LikeLike
June 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm
The Arbourist
If I follow your argument this is how I would translate it.
A woman has a choice about having sex.
One of the outcomes of having sex is getting pregnant.
Having made the choice to have sex, the woman must accept the consequences of having sex thus carrying a fertilized egg to term.
If we look at the beginning of the argument and try and find where to splice in your objection…
1) A person owns themselves. – pretty solid I think, if we do not own ourselves at the very least we have a problem.
2) Self-ownership implies the right of free will. – There could be an objection basis here as free will is constrained by the social construction of our society, so we know that certain actions are by their nature prohibited.
3)In having free will, you cannot have a duty to perform any affirmative actions. This is the responsibility angle that I think is where your coming from.
A woman who has sex has, in essence, made the choice have a baby and should be bound to the terms of that choice.
The problem I see with this argument is that suddenly a woman’s autonomy lessens once she becomes pregnant. Autonomy is a quality that can be considered to be binary. Either a woman has say over what happens inside her body, or she does not.
A woman’s autonomous status should not change just because she has decided (or not decided in some cases) to become pregnant.
This argument is focused on the woman and is meant to counter parts of the ‘fetal focus fallacy’ discussed in other posts.
LikeLike
June 27, 2009 at 9:19 pm
askingquestion
Thank you for your analysis.
At the risk of “fetal focus fallacy” thinking, is what is “inside her body” the same as her body?
LikeLike
June 28, 2009 at 7:46 am
The Arbourist
That is a insightful question. My anti-choice trolls have helpfully pointed out that a fetus/zygote etc. has its unique a unique set of DNA and is therefore separate from the mother in question. A counterpoint to this argument is that a tumor or cancerous mass also has a unique DNA but is still considered to be a part of the mother. One could conclude that unique DNA cannot be considered valid criteria for distinguishing the ‘separateness’ of life.
Your question does however begin to stray toward the ‘FFF’ because even worrying about the same as/inside her body question has moved the focus from the mother to the fetus.
LikeLike
July 3, 2009 at 5:07 pm
askingquestion
Can the separateness basis also include partial birth abortions?
LikeLike
July 4, 2009 at 10:11 am
The Arbourist
The separate basis could be used in terms of partial birth abortions. It really comes down to how your frame the argument.
When does a woman lose her autonomy over her body, specifically her uterus? Versus – the ‘life’ of the fetus has precedence over the woman’s wishes.
I am framing the issue in terms of a woman’s autonomy and right to choose what happens to her body. Others would choose to frame the question in terms of preserving human life at the expense of an individuals rights.
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Debunking the Anti-Choice Arguments : But it is a human being!!! « Dead Wild Roses
[…] Gender Issues | Tags: Feminism, Gender Politics, Pro-Choice | by The Arbourist The argument from self ownership thread brought to my attention some of the ways the issue of abortion is dealt with. Semantic […]
LikeLike
February 25, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Do women have a right to make medical decisions on abortion? | The Prime Directive
[…] fact that most of their opponents are right-wingers who don’t believe in positive duties): A house is on fire and someone is trapped behind a deadly wall of flame. That person will perish if we do not act to […]
LikeLike