Pro-Life and Pro-Choice
Abortion is a weird issue. It's the one thing that Democrats and Republicans still disagree vehemently on.
Think about it.
The two parties now agree on everything else:
-Ignoring the poor
-Militarizing the police
-Expanding the totalitarian surveillance-state apparatus.
Both parties are mostly cool with people of color (but are still fine with neo-colonialism).
Both parties are fine with having LGBTQ people as friends (as long as they're rich).
And while Republicans deny climate change and ecocide are even real, Democrats acknowledge them but refuse to make any real changes to society - at most, they'll pay a little bit more money for their consumer products (electric cars, solar panels, etc.), but they won't even discuss the total reorganization of human society and culture that's necessary to make civilization truly sustainable.
Both think billionaires should exist, and healthcare should be denied to those without money.
On guns, there is some disagreement on the details of which specific guns should be available, and how the process of buying them should work, but you won't find very many people ending friendships over a disagreement about gun policy.
On foreign policy and imperialism, you'll find the two parties disagreeing on which countries the USA should invade - but there is no debate on the question of whether we should be invading other countries at all. Both parties believe in empire, and in bombing whoever stands in the way.
On every issue, the Republicans and Democrats are either very similar, or downright identical.
But on abortion, they absolutely despise each other.
On this issue, people are unfriending others on social media, and terminating long-standing relationships with loved ones and friends. Simply because they disagree on abortion.
Weird, isn't it?
There's probably a reason for it. The manipulator class wants the two parties to converge, for its own convenience (i.e. it won't have to worry about which party gets power, if the agenda stays the same either way). That's why, whenever you hear the term "bipartisanship", or the phrase, "bipartisan consensus", you know you're about to get a larger-than-usual, jumbo-sized serving of tyranny and oppression.
But they still need to keep us hating each other. Because division is how they rule. They maintain their status by distracting us. By pitting us against each other. If we're busy fighting each other, we're not fighting the elites.
It's an age-old strategy. Race, sex, nationality, and religion have all been used for keeping us divided. And in some countries, like America, "political party" is added to that list.
But how will they do that? How will they keep us divided (by political party) if we've converged into an indistinguishable blob on every issue - economic and social, foreign and domestic?
Simple: By selecting one issue to keep us angry at each other. One issue to keep us at each other's throats.
But what issue?
It would have to be something that the elites feel doesn't really have any impact on them. It can't be taxes on billionaires - because billionaires are very heavily invested in one outcome, and not the other.
It can't be war - because again, they're heavily invested in keeping the war machine going. If one party is anti-war, it would sure make a great drama when they clash with the pro-war party, but it would risk allowing an actual anti-war movement to form, and perhaps even win elections.
So the issue has to be something they - the elites - don't actually care about, one way or the other.
And the abortion debate fits that bill perfectly.
We know the Republican Party bosses don't actually care about preborn people, because they don't care about born people.
And we know the Democrat bosses don't really care about women's access to "healthcare", because they don't care about anyone's access to healthcare! Plus, they (the bosses) are rich, and rich people can always find abortions, even in the Handmaid's Tale.
So it's quite obvious that something isn't quite as it seems. We are definitely getting played here. Someone, somewhere, is stringing us along.
So you're invited to ponder this subject from a neutral standpoint. Whatever your beliefs are, whichever way you lean on this subject, it would behoove you to take a fresh look at it, and evaluate it with unbiased logic, from the beginning.
If we can figure out the truth on this issue, and thereby come to peace on it, it would go a long way toward healing the "political divide."
The first thing to do is look at the big picture. What is this debate really about?
"It's about bodily sovereignty.
Women should have control
over their own bodies."
Yes, absolutely. Everyone should have this sovereignty.
But the problem is, there are two people involved in this question - not just one. If the mother were the only person whose rights were in question, then the slogan of "My Body, My Choice" would be the only argument ever necessary, and we could simply shut down the debate immediately after putting that slogan on the table.
But she's not. There is someone else whose rights are in jeopardy too.
"So you want to criminalize abortion,
throw women and abortion providers
in jail, make women your incubators,
and own women as property, is that it?"
No, and this is an example of the hyperbole that plagues both sides in this debate. If we want to be mature adults, and really solve problems, then we have to be willing to avoid such reactions, and maintain a rational approach.
"But if fetuses are "people", then it
stands to reason that women are not."
How do you come to that conclusion?
"Because if you're going to call a fetus
a person, then that would mean that the
mother can't abort, right? Which means
that she doesn't have control over her
own body, and she is therefore property
of the patriarchal state."
You're looking at this whole thing as binary, and binaryism is one of the key problems in not just this subject, but many other issues as well.
Binaryism is the attitude that everything has to be "all or nothing." Black and white. Zero and One.
Translated into the pro-life pro-choice debate, binaryism shows up as the belief that we have only two choices. Either we:
-recognize the humanity of the fetus, and treat pregnant mothers as objects/property
-we recognize the sovereignty of pregnant mothers, and treat fetuses as objects/property.
ALL of one, and NOTHING for the other.
"Someone" has to be property.
Why does it have to be that way? Why should it be binary?
"Because any time you defend
the fetus, you are BY DEFINITION
stepping on the rights of the
True. But at the same time, any time you abort someone, you are by definition stepping on their rights, are you not?
The right to not be killed is, after all, a very important right.
No matter what you do, someone's rights are going to be violated. There is literally no way for everyone to win on this topic. It's always going to be a trade-off. We're always going to have to put someone's rights over someone else's.
And therefore, we believe the fairest approach is one that balances the two. We seek a balance between the rights of the preborn, and the rights of the people carrying them.
Our position is to find that balance.
"Oh please! This whole argument
of yours rests on the idea that
"fetuses are people", and they
absolutely are not people!"
"So and so aren't people" is a very old argument, with a very long and infamous history.
If you identify as "pro-choice", then it's fairly safe to say you probably also identify as "progressive" or "liberal" - someone who believes in inclusion, and struggles for social acceptance and dignity for the weak and vulnerable among us.
Chances are, you look back with pride at all of the prior struggles for recognition of the rights of the vulnerable and different. You see these struggles as valid, and side with those waging them.
There have been many debates, throughout history, on the question of "who is a person", and "who deserves rights." We can even say that it's one of the defining dialectics in human civilization. Again and again and again, we get faced with the same question:
"Are so-and-so persons? Even though they're different from us?"
"Do they deserve rights? Even though they're too weak to secure such rights on their own?"
And every time we face such a debate, there are always two sides - the same two sides, appearing perennially:
-One side answers "Yes."
-The other side answers "No."
And this is the second reason why abortion is such a weird issue: It's the only issue on which the "progressive" side has explicitly sided with the "No's".
For every other struggle, the "Left" is always on the "Yes" side:
-legal status (i.e. convicts)
On every issue, in every time period, the "progressive" side of politics is, and has always been, on the "Yes" side - the side of "Yes, they're people, Yes, let's recognize their rights."
But when it comes to developmental stage, it flips, suddenly and rather inexplicably, to "No."
Even on the issue of animal rights, it's similar, but not quite as weird. Because again, many people who identify as "progressive" will answer "No" on animals. The hypocrisy does stink. However, at least it's not seen as a qualification for being progressive. Progressives are not expected to answer "No" for animals. Most still do (for now, out of habit and inertia), but it's not a requirement in order to be accepted in the progressive "tribe."
But for the preborn, it's a requirement. You must answer "No" if you want to be accepted in lefty progressive circles. You are expected to dehumanize them.
But it gets even worse. Defenders of the "No" are employing the exact same talking points as their counterparts in previous generations, for previous debates. All of the same horrific talking points used by 19th century slave-holders are now making the rounds again, whenever animals or the preborn are mentioned.
You'll find progressives saying things like:
-The don't have souls /consciousness /sentience.
-They're not really "alive" - not in the same way as us.
-They're mine / they belong to me.
-They don't matter.
-They're just things.
-They have no rights, and they deserve no rights.
-I don't care about them.
-I can do whatever I want to them.
-We can destroy them en mass, and slaughter them all, with no ethical qualms.
-They have no intrinsic value.
-They only have value if I decide to grant it to them.
-Whatever value they have is only because one of us saw fit to grace them with it, and if we don't see any value in them, they can be thrown away like garbage.
-If you don't believe in it, don't do it - but it's MY CHOICE to treat them this way, so leave me alone!
-It's a "personal choice."
-It's settled law already.
-You'll never change it, so just give up.
-You're a crazy radical and I'm not talking to you.
-Leave me alone!
Isn't this weird? How did it get like this? How did the "Left" - the side that's always been about fighting for the most vulnerable among us - switch over to the side of dehumanization and objectification?
How is it that we have people who would have been abolitionists, if they'd lived in the 1800's, fighting against slave-holders, now commandeering the very same talking-points of those very same slave-holders, and not even realizing the irony?
"Oh please! You're comparing
little clumps of cells to
grown-ass people! These struggles
are not even remotely similar!
There's no comparison! And it's
downright offensive, honestly! Don't
you dare compare the struggles and
oppression of MY people, and MY
ancestors, to... to... a little clump of
Do you think you're the first to say that?
The same argument was used during the Civil Rights movement. When racists attempted to justify their desire to continue oppressing colored people, Civil Rights activists pointed out the fact that some of their (the racists') own ancestors - the Irish, Italians, and Polish immigrants - were treated as less-than-human, up until quite recently.
And can you guess what the response was, from the racists?
"Don't you dare compare the struggles of MY people, MY Irish/Italian/Polish ancestors, to... to... to... negroes!"
Whenever you think you're being "clever" in your attempts to justify bigotry, please be aware: You're not.
Every argument you can come up with, for dehumanizing and objectifying the weak, vulnerable, and different among us, has already been used, many times, by many bigots, over the course of many debates. In every debate about "who deserves rights and who doesn't", every otherization argument has already been deployed.
And scorned by History.
So it's time to ask yourself: Whose company do you want to be in?
In every single one of these arguments, every single one, without exception, the side arguing "Yes, they deserve rights" turned out to be the correct side, while the side arguing "No, they don't deserve any rights", turned out to be shamed and despised for All Time.
So if you are taking the side of "No, they don't have rights", then you need to find a way to explain why this time, of all times, it will be different.
"It's different because fetuses
are anatomically different."
Anatomically different? Smaller? Well the same is true of animals. And our society is finally starting to recognize the rights of animals. We've got a lot of ground to cover, of course, but at least we're starting. The concept that animals have rights, at least some rights, is a concept that very few people reject. Very few people think the amount of ethical consideration to which animals are entitled is precisely zero. Some do, and those people are dipshits. But most agree that animals have some rights. So what about humans in development?
Feminism and progressivism are about expanding the circle to cover more beings under its protection. That's what it's always been about.
The pattern of history tells us that the side arguing in favor of rights is always the correct side.
Given dehumanization's abysmal track record, those claiming the preborn "aren't people" need to come up with a reason why this time, of all times, it will be different.
If you don't want the circle to expand, then you're not a feminist or progressive. Not in principle, anyway. You're just a person who wants society to respect YOU and YOUR rights - and the rights of whatever groups YOU belong to - but this isn't really a moral stand. It's just self-interest. Which isn't the spirit of progress.
First, let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that "pro-life" is the correct position, and that abortion is wrong, and should not be legally permitted by society.
Let's say that's your free Bingo square, to begin the debate.
First, let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that "pro-choice" is the correct position, and that the choice should always be up to the woman whose womb it is. Let's say that's your free Bingo square, to begin the debate.
Even with that in mind, we have to address the fact that the so-called
"pro-life movement" has become filled with an absolutely staggering amount of hypocrisy.
Look at this picture:
These are sentient beings. This is obvious. If you can't see that, then something's wrong with you.
Refusing to recognize the obvious sentience in this photo, and insisting that they're just "things" or "objects" with no intrinsic value whatsoever (unless a human decides to assign some) is just gross. And it's hurting your movement. It's making you look like colossal hypocrites who are looking for nothing more than to score moral brownie points with a religion, and couldn't care less about protecting the vulnerable.
Here's a screenshot taken of a real discussion from a "pro-life" Facebook group:
Here's a person who claims to be "pro-life", who campaigns to make sure that Life is recognized as sacred, and that those who are most vulnerable are protected, and that the voiceless have a voice.
And yet here they are, making jokes about the intentional taking of innocent life, from the vulnerable, from the voiceless.
Honestly, how do you expect people to believe you when you say you "respect the sacredness of Life", when you not only kill, and not only kill when you don't need to, but think that killing is funny - and not only funny, but funny enough to joke about in a group specifically dedicated to cultivating societal appreciation and respect for the value and sacredness of Life?
And if you're a "pro-lifer" who would readily tolerate this behavior in your group, how do you expect to be taken seriously by people outside your group, and outside your movement, if you allow this kind of abomination to occur freely in your midst, without calling it out, or admonishing the culprit in any way at all?
Can you really be surprised when people accuse you of not really caring about the babies, and only being interested in "pro-life" for some ulterior motive, like, for example, controlling women and their bodies?
Most pro-lifers claim to be in it to cultivate respect for, and protection of, Life. Well, are humans the sole constituents of Life in this world?
Most claim to be concerned with the protection of the vulnerable. With being voices for the voiceless. Well, are non-human animals not the most vulnerable members of our society? What voice do they have?
Even with that in mind, we have to address the fact that the so-called
"pro-choice movement" has become filled with an absolutely staggering amount of hypocrisy.
Look at this picture:
This is a person.
This is obvious. If you can't see that, then something's wrong with you.
Refusing to recognize the obvious humanity in this photo, and insisting that it's just "a clump of cells" with no intrinsic value whatsoever (unless the host decides to assign some) is just gross. And it's hurting your movement. It's making you look like selfish monsters who are only looking out for your own rights and your own freedom, with no concern for whom you might be hurting in the process.
Here's a screenshot taken of a real discussion from a pro-choice Facebook group:
Here's a person who likely identifies as "progressive", who campaigns to make sure "everyone is welcome", and no one is "dehumanized" or "otherized", and talks a lot about power and of speaking up for those without any.
And yet here they are dehumanizing, otherizing, and denying all rights to the most powerless people who exist.
Honestly, do you not see how hypocritical this is?
It's one thing to believe in "choice" - including the "choice" to kill life-forms who look exactly like human beings, and who have the exact same anatomical and neurological structures as human beings - but it's quite another thing to think it's funny.
Do you not see how utterly revolting this is?
Even if you're not the one making these "jokes", do you reject them or do you tolerate them? When you see someone else making them, do you call them out? Admonish them? Tell them how disgusting they are?
Or do you keep on scrolling?
With this kind of attitude accepted and normalized in pro-choice circles, can you really be surprised when the pro-lifers think of this debate in stark terms of absolute good and evil? Can you blame them for thinking you're literally allied with devils and demons?
And can you blame those in the "middle", who are "on the fence", for shying away from your team, and for rejecting the political "Left" in general, and refusing to vote for leftward parties and candidates, no matter how many other issues they agree with you on?
Because that's what's happening. This behavior reaches well beyond the abortion debate. A lot of people right now agree with you on ecology, war, helping the poor, healthcare, and so many other issues - but they can't stomach this proud celebration of killing. Even if they're partly in favor of abortion, they don't think it's something to celebrate. And they can't bring themselves to vote for people who think it is.
And it's understandable. If you take two seconds to just step back and listen to how repulsive it sounds.
Here are examples of acceptable positions to take:
"I feel for the unborn, I sympathize, they definitely deserve ethical consideration, they have a right to be considered in the equation, they're not "nothing", they do matter. But we have to respect the choice of the host."
"Society should do as much as it can to reduce abortions, but the option should still remain available."
These positions aren't exactly without problems. But they fall within the acceptable range of debate.
Here are some positions that fall outside the acceptable range:
"The unborn are not people. They have no consciousness."
This argument used to be made about people of other races. Racists said that other races had "no souls", (which is ye olden speech for "no consciousness"). And it wasn't a fringe belief. Most of western civilization believed in it, and they codified that belief into legally binding legislation, and used it to commit real concrete violence. If you're taking that pathway of argument, then you're in the company of slaveholders and conquistadors and southern sheriffs.
"The unborn are nothing, they don't matter at all, they deserve no rights, and have no value whatsoever, unless I assign them some."
"They are the same as the gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe."
"Abortion is fun, it's great, it's wonderful."
"Shout your abortion!"
There is nothing "empowering" about killing someone who never had any power in the first place.
Most pro-choicers identify as "progressives." But what is progress, if not the inclusion of more of us under the umbrella of compassion?
The process of social progress has always been about expanding the Circle, to include those who weren't previously included. It's about looking at those whom society says "don't matter", and saying, "Actually, they matter."
Questions addressed here:
"Is abortion acceptable?"
"Even if it's bad, should it still be legal?"
"Should there be any restrictions on it?"
"If so, what are they?"
Before deciding what the correct answers are, we first need to be clear on some larger moral principles:
1. Benign Sovereignty (also known as bodily autonomy):
Everyone has the innate right to sovereignty over their own self, as long as they are benign to others. This sovereignty includes autonomy over one's body. No one may make decisions about your body except you.
Benign Sovereignty is a natural law principle, meaning that it's true regardless of what society believes. Natural law is woven into the fabric of reality, and exists as truth, no matter what codes have (or haven't) been proclaimed by "legislators.'
Here it is, formalized in the Law of the Earth:
All human rights
are derived from one:
The right to Benign Sovereignty.
Everyone is entitled to
sovereignty (full freedom of choice)
as long as they are benign (not doing harm).
A sovereign being
may make any choice,
perform any action,
or refrain from any action,
as long as they are not infringing
upon the rights of anyone else.
Benign sovereignty can be extrapolated into a series of specific rights, which are enumerated in the Bill of Human Rights. First among them is the right to Physical Integrity:
To be physically Whole,
free from all forms of assault,
unless violating the rights of another;
free from non-consensual sexual contact;
and free from non-consensual anatomical alteration,
except in cases of diagnosed medical emergency
in which consent cannot be discerned.
In other words, your body is yours, and you get to decide what to do with it, and nobody has the right to harm you or make changes to your body without your permission.
"So if women have bodily autonomy / sovereignty, does that mean abortion is always legal to do?"
Not so fast. We aren't just talking about one body - we're talking about two. A fetus is not an organ of the body carrying them - they are a distinct body, with a distinct brain, a distinct nervous system, and a distinct mind (and possibly soul).
What about their bodily autonomy?
"But womens' rights are paramount!"
A woman who is aborted will never vote.
She'll never earn as much money as a man.
She'll never get to serve in the army.
She'll never get to explore her sexuality.
She'll never get to march in an LGBT pride parade.
She'll never get to say "yes" or "no" to a sexual advance.
She'll never get to walk down an alley at night without feeling afraid.
She'll never get to break the glass ceiling.
The logic behind the slogan of "My Body, My Choice" breaks down (with regards to abortion) when we realize that there are two bodies in question, and only one of them is the person chanting the slogan.
"So you're not pro-choice?"
We are absolutely pro-choice. But we believe in respecting everyone's right to choose - including that of partially developed people.
"Nonsense! Fetuses aren't people! They don't deserve the same rights as born persons!"
That may be true. Not the same rights. But... some rights? Some ethical consideration? Not necessarily the same as a born person, but still greater than zero?
Does it have to be binary? All or nothing?
"I don't buy that. Fetuses are NOTHING. They don't count - AT ALL. Until they're born, they have as much value as the gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe!"
If you believe that, then you aren't on the side of moral progress, and you should not call yourself "progressive."
Progress is about expanding the Circle of Rights to include more types of living beings - and progressives are people who want to do this.
Are you progressive?
2. The Circle of Rights
In recent centuries, one defining aspect of human progress has been the gradual incorporation of more and more types of living beings into the ethical sphere. In other words, as history progresses, our society recognizes an ever-expanding range of Life as holding ethical weight.
A long time ago, only kings and "nobles" were considered to have rights, and everyone else existed only to serve the upper classes. But then the common folk rose up to demand rights, and got them.
Then the sphere expanded to include women.
And other races.
And other nationalities.
And other religions.
And other sexual orientations.
One by one, more living beings became "worthy of rights." (Note: they were always worthy of rights, but society-at-large was just too ignorant to recognize it).
Today, animal rights are the emerging frontier in humanity's journey toward a compassionate society. Great strides are now being made in every aspect of human relationships with animals. People are recognizing that living beings whom they didn't believe had feelings and consciousness, indeed have feelings and consciousness. And with these, of course, come rights - i.e. entitlements to ethical consideration.
If you believe that animals deserve ethical consideration (and we do), then it logically follows that partially developed humans do too.
After all, if consciousness is the deciding factor in determining whether an entity has rights (and if so, what rights they have, and how much those rights weigh against the rights of others), then any being with consciousness must be entitled to some degree of ethical consideration.
Consciousness = Entitlement to Ethical Consideration.
Write that down.
"OK, maybe fetuses deserve some rights, or "ethical consideration", but what about the mother? Doesn't the one set of rights contradict the other set?"
Yes, and that's why no one should take a black-and-white position on this. There is a lot of nuance here, if we really want to be accurate.
3. Non-Binary Value
First, everyone should be able to agree, no matter which label you identify with, that a developing fetus deserves some degree of ethical consideration. Even if you believe the rights of the pregnant mother are more important than those of the fetus, you can't say the latter amount to zero. It can't be completely binary. They're not rocks. They're living beings, and we can't just ignore that.
As you may have deduced, principles #1 and #2 appear to contradict each other. A pregnant woman has the right to bodily autonomy... but this runs up against, and often clashes with, the rights of the living being she's carrying.
Clearly a fetus is not the same being as the mother - they are two distinct beings. They have two distinct bodies, nervous systems, brains, and minds.
What about the partially-developed person inside?
Does he/she have the right to bodily autonomy as well?
If "choice" is what's important, then what about his/hers.
And it seems that we have an ethical dilemma on our hands. We have two sets of rights that conflict. So what do we do?
Even if we can't arbitrate the answer just yet, we can still acknowledge that some sort of compromise is in order. The values of the two sets of rights are not binary. In other words, the answer is not going to be "all of one and none of the other." It's not going to be 0 and 1. Neither "all for the pregnant woman", nor "all for the fetus." It will be some sort of mixture.
Most people, even adamant pro-choicers, acknowledge that there's something wrong with electively aborting a baby 1 day before the due date, "just because."
Birth is not a binary line dividing consciousness from non-consciousness. Being born does not magically bestow consciousness. A late-term fetus has a fully functioning nervous system, and is capable of perception.
And likewise, most people acknowledge that there's something wrong with telling a teenage girl who was raped by an alcoholic family member that she can't abort the zygote, 1 day after fertilization, and will go to prison for 99 years if she tries.
Most people - the vast majority - acknowledge that there is a spectrum here.
4. The Spectrum of Consciousness
The answer (or at least part of it) is that the ethical weight of a being is determined by how far along that being's consciousness has developed. The more conscious (and the more complex the mind), the more ethical consideration they deserve.
This is the reason why a cow holds more ethical weight than a gnat. It's not because the cow is physically bigger, but rather because she/he is more complex, and thus has a more intense and intricate experience of the world.
Likewise, the spectrum applies to a fetus in development. The further along they are, the more consciousness they have - and thus, the more entitled to ethical consideration. A fully-developed fetus at the end of gestation clearly has more consciousness than one in the middle of gestation, who in turn has more than one in the beginning.
Because there's a spectrum of how conscious a fetus is, there's also a spectrum of ethical weight. And this means that the ethics of abortion change with the degree of fetal development.
A single-celled organism, even if its species is human, does not have the same perceptive ability as a person (or a fetus) with a developed nervous system. Even if a single-celled person holds ethical weight (due to species membership), the ability to feel pain and suffering has not yet developed (at least not to the extent of someone with a nervous system).
The line between conscious and non-conscious is difficult to place. There is no absolute distinction. Consciousness, in this case, is not 0 vs. 1, like a computer. It's a continuum. So a fetus in an intermediate or early stage of development may have some level of consciousness. Or they might not. Be we can't be sure. And since we're not sure, it's probably better to err on the side of caution, and assume that they do indeed have some form of consciousness. So, even an early stage fetus deserves some ethical consideration, even if it's just a little bit.
5. Variance in the weight of rights
Not all rights are equal. Some rights are more important than others. For instance, the right to freedom is more important than the right to a library card. The right to drive a car is less important than the right to not be hit by one - regardless of "who's" the driver and "who's" the pedestrian. The "who" is not what matters. What matters is the type of rights in question.
And the most important right of all is Life. Without that one, you can't exercise any others.
As we stated in principle #1, the only time one being's agency (i.e. free will) can be lawfully overruled is if it conflicts with the rights of another. And since there is more than one living being involved in an abortion, we have a conflict between the agency of two beings, so no matter what we do, SOMEONE's agency is going to be overruled.
So what can we do?
We can look at the things each being wants to use their agency for.
The partially-developed person in the womb would use their agency to stay alive. The big person carrying him/her would use it to do something other than stay alive.
No matter what that other thing is, can it ever be as important as life itself?
"That makes sense."
For this reason, the truth leans toward the side of Life. Life should be the general rule, and abortion should be the exception - not the other way around.
"But some abortions are medically necessary. If the pregnancy continues, it would jeopardize the life of the mother. In those cases, doesn't the mother have just as strong (and possibly stronger) of a claim than the fetus?"
Yes. Medically necessary abortions are different from elective ones. They have a different ethical nature, and should be treated differently by law.
In summary, each side of the debate has a strong claim. Generally speaking, the type of rights applicable to the fetus are more weighty than the type applicable to the woman carrying him/her, because Life is more important than any life choice. But the ethical weight of fetuses themselves may be less than that of a fully born person. We still have a spectrum to deal with here.
So now we've got some principles to work with. These will be our foundations as we work out the details - which we'll begin now.
1. Medically-necessary abortions belong to the category of Self-Defense, and are therefore ethical.
When a pregnancy endangers the life/health of the mother, then the type of right that applies is no longer merely that of autonomy and agency, but rather life itself, which puts it on par with the right applicable to the fetus.
Since the fetus threatens the life of the mother, the mother has the right to self-defense.
"Self-defense? What do you mean?"
If a robber breaks into your house and threatens to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself, by doing it to him first. Merely stealing is not enough to justify killing in response - but if you have a legitimate reason to believe he might kill you (i.e., he's pointing a gun at you), then you have the right to take his life before he takes yours.
Likewise, if a pregnancy threatens the life of its carrier, the carrier has the right to defend herself as well.
Medically necessary abortions may be performed at any stage of pregnancy.
2. If a doctor makes a determination of medical necessity, he or she should be prepared to back that up.
It's not unreasonable to expect the doctor who makes the determination of medical necessity to put his or her professional name on that determination, by documenting it as such, and filing it, along with whatever evidence he or she used for making the determination, and signing it, under penalty of perjury.
The documentation should include the medical diagnosis of the condition that the mother has, the evidence for that condition, and why the doctor believes continuing the pregnancy constitutes an unreasonable risk to her life.
It should also include a sworn affidavit stating that the procedure was, to the best of his/her knowledge, indispensable to the preservation of the life and health of the mother, and that, without it, she would have faced undue risk of death or serious physical injury.
This documentation process should not be required prior to the procedure, since "time is of the essence" in any medical issue. But after he or she performs the abortion and the patient is stable, this file should be created.
Reviews may be conducted by any licensed medical professional, and if evidence of dishonesty or continual incompetence is found, the normal institutional deliberations should be followed (in other words, however a jurisdiction deals with faulty doctors, that process should be used).
A doctor who repeatedly makes faulty determinations should face penalties, up to and including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. And in cases of outright lying/forgery and fabrication of evidence, criminal penalties equivalent to that of perjury are appropriate.
3. In cases of fundamentally non-viable fetuses, the determination belongs with the mother.
If there is medical proof that the baby will be born non-viable (i.e. will never be able to live without staying hooked up to machines, or will otherwise have a very brief, horrific, painful existence), then the determination is for the mother to make.
After all, if we truly care about the fetus, then subjecting them to a painful and cruel existence (that results in an early death anyway) might be worse than abortion. Might be. We don't know - no one really does - and it should be up to the mother, the person with the most intimate knowledge of them.
And again, the doctor must create a file, in the same manner as in #2, explaining what condition the fetus has, and how he/she (the doctor) knows the fetus has that condition (i.e. evidence), and why he or she believes that condition will prevent any chance at viability.
Now let's talk about elective abortion.
With medically necessary abortion, the right in question is the right to life, whereas with elective abortion, it's the right to self-determination. While both rights are important, the former is weightier than the latter.
Elective abortion can be further subdivided into two types: pregnancies arising from consensual and non-consensual intercourse.
4. Unwanted pregnancy arising from having been a rape victim reflects no moral failing or mistake on the mother's part.
A rape victim should not be held culpable for her unintended pregnancy. The public accountability rule for elective abortions (see above) should be waived for her.
"But it's not the fetus's fault! Why hold a fetus culpable for the crimes of their father?"
It's still a better choice not to abort, and we encourage any woman in this situation to have the child, and the community should mobilize its resources, both social and economic, to persuade her to voluntarily choose not to abort.
However, it's not fair or just, to force someone into such a major life-alteration for something that she didn't even have control over. It's one thing if she chose to have sex, and chose to take the risk of pregnancy - but quite another if she was raped.
While abortion is an ugly thing, it's even more grotesque to force a rape victim to carry a reminder of her rape inside her, if the trauma is too intense. In such scenarios, we are forced to choose between two horrible things, and no choice is going to be 100% right. We have to do the best we can, and in this case, it should be her choice.
5. If rape is claimed as a justification for elective abortion, then there needs to be a police report.
This principle should not be abused. A woman claiming justification for abortion due to rape should be willing to back up her accusation. If the intercourse was truly non-consensual, then a report should be filed. After all, there is a rapist on the loose, and he could victimize more people if he's not stopped.
"But some women don't report their rape, due to shame, disorientation, or the intimidating nature of police departments, which are usually mostly male, and insensitive to the needs of recently victimized women. Some police departments don't take women seriously. In some backwards countries, woman are even punished for their own rapes, and going to the police is dangerous!"
Any jurisdiction wishing to enforce this rule must provide a crisis-response-trained, all-female task force within its police department, for the purpose of receiving and handling such reports (so that the victim does not feel intimidated out of reporting, due to an insensitive, male-dominated police department).
If the jurisdiction does not provide this, then it may not require a police report for abortions due to rape, and a rape victim may have an abortion without filing a report.
"Hey, won't this result in false-rape allegations against men, since women will have an incentive to lie about being raped, in order to qualify for the abortion?"
If you have penetrative sex with a woman, you're taking the risk of creating the demand for an abortion. You're taking that risk willingly. So you better be sure about what you're doing, and whom you're doing it with. You're just as responsible as she is, and if she's going to be in an ethically and legally precarious situation, so should you.
"So a dramatic increase in false-rape allegations is OK?"
Maybe you shouldn't be sticking your dick in people you don't trust.
"What about the child? Will you take care of them? Or do you just care about them when they're in the womb, and don't give a crap about them once they're born?"
7. Jurisdictions wishing to enforce the prohibition on elective abortions must provide adequate care for mothers and their children.
This includes prenatal, natal, and postnatal care, full reasonable healthcare coverage for both mother and child up until the age of majority (18 years in the USA).
It also includes housing and food for mothers who can't afford it - all the way up until the child reaches the age of majority.
A jurisdiction that does not provide this care may not enforce the prohibition on elective abortion after 6 weeks.
That is the Abortion Determent Safety Net, or ADSN.
The ADSN can be provided at the local, or state, or national level - or any combination of those - but the bottom line is, whoever is doing the enforcing against abortion, must simultaneously be doing the alternative-providing.
"But... that sounds like socialism!"
Poverty and abortion go hand-in-hand. The ADSN removes all excuses. If poverty does not exist, it can no longer provide a believable excuse to terminate a pregnancy.
We don't own this planet. It's not our property. It's our community. We're members of the Community of Life. And we have a moral responsibility to respect that community, and all its members.
Your western so-called civilization started out with kings being the only beings with rights, and every other type of being, from nobles on down, had to fight for the recognition of their rights in order to get them recognized. Nobles, merchants, craftsmen, regular common-folk, peasants, women, children, the handicapped, other races, other religions, other sexual types, again and again and again and again and again, for one type of being after another, a fight was waged within society to get them their rights.
And during all these fights, there were people arguing against recognizing them, arguing to keep the them subjugated. And what time was the pro-subjugation side EVER correct? What time did they ever win? What type of oppression is it whose justifiers are not today remembered with nothing but shame and disgust?
None. History heaps scorn upon them all.
They're intersectional, meaning the fortunes of each one impact the fortunes of the other. The more compassion society develops, the better it is for all beings who are in need of compassion - like "a rising tide lifts all boats."
The hypocrisy of anti-fetus vegans is directly related to the hypocrisy of anti-animal PLers. I'm sure that accusation's going to make you indignant, but think about it. Think hard.
If PLers don't take PC vegans seriously, because of the latter's hypocrisy when it comes to preborn humans, then don't you think it might be true in the other direction also? That vegans might not be taking pro-lifers seriously, because of YOUR hypocrisy when it comes to fully born animals?
I mean, I know vegans who think exactly that. They think: "Those hypocritical pro-lifers, they care so much about fetuses, but don't even care about the rest of the living world beyond the human species. That's so hypocritical! They must not really care about the fetuses. There must be some other reason why they raise such a fuss about fetuses - something besides genuine compassion. If it was genuine compassion, they'd feel it for the animals too. But they don't... so... it must not be compassion that motivates them. It must be something else. It must be no more than an excuse to rationalize controlling women's bodies, or something."
That IS what they're thinking. Right now. Did you not know that?
That is, in my opinion, one of the main things stopping most vegans from making the logical realization that pre-born humans matter. It's nothing philosophical. It's their personal disdain for YOU. There are other reasons, of course, and that might not be the #1 reason, but it is a major one. They see you as hypocrites, and it bothers them. They lose their respect for you. And without respect, they don't listen to your arguments, and you have no chance to have a conversation with them.
If you only could talk to them, they'd be receptive to your entreaties. Vegans are NATURALLY fertile ground for a pro-life message, if only we could get past the fence and sprinkle some seeds. More so than any other "lefty" identified movement.
And that's because veganism IS a pro-life message. It is pro-life for animals, and living ecosystems, which constitute not only the majority of Life on this planet, but the foundation of human life, too - for without respect for the wider Community of Life, the human world has no ground to stand on, and collapses, as so many past civilizations have proven.
You each have a half. Vegans recognize animals, but not pre-born humans, while the PL movement recognizes pre-born humans, but not born animals. You are two halves of the overall combined Pro-Life attitude, which is necessary for stabilizing this world, spiritually.
Since veganism is a pro-life message, and YOUR message is a pro-life message, it should be easy to awaken vegans to your truth. Easier than any other movement out there. You're supposed to be ALLIES, in fact.
But if, when you look into the eyes of an animal, you refuse to recognize the Life that's looking back at you, then you alienate an ever growing portion of the population. And that means, in a nutshell, fewer conversations about fetal rights, and therefore, more abortions.
And it also means that you can strengthen the PL movement and attitude (and therefore save more babies) by casting off your hypocrisy. Even if you didn't care about the animals, it would still be in your interest to stop harming them, since the two oppressions, animal and pre-born human, are so intersectional.