Abortion - Responsibility and Rights

"Ultimately, just laws are created for two reasons. One, to protect people's rights (and prevent one person from infringing on another's rights). Two, to enforce fundamental responsibilities (responsibilities that are weighed as more important, in some instances, than the individual's rights). All just laws consider both these points and tries to find where the balance should be. The pro-life position tends to wish to protect the life of the unborn by upholding the responsibility of the mother. It is the desire to protect one's life but the responsibility aspect is considered when making this decision."

"Rights get limited by responsibilities and obligations all the time. Take a newborn baby as an example. The legal guardian of a newborn baby has moral and legal obligations which can, in some instances, limit the freedoms said guardian would enjoy if they did not have these obligations. This is why neglect of a child is a legal issue. Responsibility/obligation, in this instance, is placed before rights/freedom.

The question is if such a thing should be placed on the unborn as well. So, not including cases of rape, does a woman have a responsibility over the life of their unborn child, and does that responsibility lead to a limit on the bodily autonomy. That is the debate.

If you only care about maximizing freedom and rights then the answer might seem clear, no matter what the unborn is infringing on the bodily autonomy of the mother and thus is 'guilty' of violating the rights of another. However, if you prioritize only rights and freedom like this then, some would argue, we must also agree to get rid of laws around neglect (as well as some other laws). After all, these laws too put responsibility and obligations before rights and freedom, and the same ethos behind these laws can be argued to apply in cases of abortion."

Your moral standard is not something you get to force onto others

 No one wants to be in an accident, that does not stop one from driving. They drive safer. It still happens. 

So because we found muggings to be illegal I want kids to be raised to Spartans is that what you're implying that your moral standards okay but mine's not.

-->@Double_R

The most common arguments that early stage fetuses are human beings tend to center on the concept of the potential it has to develop into one

"I have been pro-choice for years and held this view, but it was really shaken when my unborn son died at 28-29 weeks. The reason for his death was because my, now ex, smoked and drank heavily during the first trimester (no matter how much I tried to get her to stop).

The thing is that I am sure we can agree that if killing someone is worse than drugging them (just drugging, nothing more). Even if not, they would be placed on an equal level, drugging someone is not usually seen as worse than killing.

So if we justify killing an unborn in the first trimester, can we take a stance against drugging one? Because it is the development in the first trimester that has the greatest impact on the viability of the unborn. If my ex did that smoking and drinking in the 2nd or 3rd trimester my son would have had a vastly greater chance at having been born. In fact, the later in the pregnancy that one takes drugs on any kind the less it impacts the child.

If we give no rights to the unborn in the 1st trimester in order to allow abortion, then does that mean that there is no moral issue with a woman purposefully taking hard drugs (or even starting to, so addiction cannot be used as an argument) in the first trimester as it only harms a 'potential human'? If they stop once it becomes an 'actual human' then it could be argued that the state they are in at that point is their natural state and thus any medical defects or abnormalities are just natural to said child and if they die (even after birth) that no one can be held even morally responsible?

An unborn child in the first trimester isn't just a 'potential human'. Even if we want to keep the label of 'potential' it is a 'potential human in which anything done to will have great impact on an actual human's well being'.

I am also curious how you define 'human' and at what point of development one becomes a 'human'.

Also, I created a new thread to talk about abortion itself since this thread is about 'abortion and covid', so would you like to continue the conversation over there? If so then just quoting what I stated here and respond over there should work well."

-->@3RU7AL

(IFF) the unborn have the rights of CITIZENS (THEN) every miscarriage and stillbirth must be investigated as MANSLAUGHTER

"Disagree. When a baby dies of SIDS there is rarely that much of an investigation into manslaughter. Miscarriages and stillbirths should be treated the same. If there is good reason to suspect that the guardian/parent did something that is when you might investigate, but otherwise there is little reason to."

Without violating medical privacy, how can anyone determine the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion ?

"You are aware that medical privacy is 'violated' all the time when it comes to legal issues, right? If child abuse is suspected, as one example, doctors will ignore medical privacy and report it to the police There are many instances of this, how would it be any different here? If a doctor suspects that it was an abortion then it can be reported and then an investigation happens."

-->@3RU7AL

I'm not sure an intentional miscarriage caused by alcohol and tobacco is going to be distinguishable from any other unintentional type of miscarriage.

"I'm sure that some intentional miscarriages would appear to be intentional by a doctor, but I agree that there would be those that do not.

If we are talking about drug usage leading to a miscarriage then I say that you only investigate that angle if a credible witness reports it, maybe have other factors involved for determining it.

Essentially, unintentional miscarriages would be treated similarly to SIDS and would be the default assumption, thus most miscarriages would never lead to an investigation.

Yes, there will always be those that intentionally miscarried or were reckless and caused the death of of the unborn child that never get caught, but that is true of all crime everywhere. That doesn't mean you do nothing."

Mugging involves a victim whose rights have been violated.

 I'm born don't have rights you cannot violate them.

You are not a citizen of the United States or even someone that can have a birth certificate or get a driver's license or ID or anything else until you're born

for the unborn to have rights I don't because I don't think they should.

We're discussing the unborn having rights if you're going to be like this then I don't need to respond to you again thanks.

So if we justify killing an unborn in the first trimester, can we take a stance against drugging one?

I am also curious how you define 'human' and at what point of development one becomes a 'human'.

Birth is the criteria that establishes humanness.

We're discussing the unborn having rights if you're going to be like this then I don't need to respond to you again thanks.

In reality however there is no one point, which is why I said earlier there’s a big grey area in the middle where it could go either way.

You might as well ask why rights exist.

Yeah, but I'm too busy asking you why the right to live doesn't exist for those that have been alive for less than ~9 months.

If the bar for personhood is low enough to allow zygotes,  for instance, then many other things - like cancer, gametes, or animals- will qualify for personhood as well.

Zygotes are unique DNA from either parent that wants to murder it. So, not like gametes.

It is human DNA, so it doesn't apply to animals.

It will grow to be a regular human, indistinguishable from others: walking, talking, eating. So it isn't like cancer.

 Your argument however is going down the path of inhuman treatment, which is a different conversation and poses no contradiction. We slaughter animals for food but still respect their rights as living beings (most of us would anyway).

One objection that SkepticalOne made was that "the limitations potentially imposed on a female parent by forced birth can never be applicable to the male parent." I must ask why this is, necessarily, an issue. Sexual dimorphism is a real thing, as such there will always be differences between men and women. There are some responsibilities that one sex might have to take on that the other cannot. We do not live in a perfectly 'fair' world, sexual dimorphism as a defense against taking on responsibilities needs a better defense than the existence of sexual dimorphism.

Another objection from SkepticalOne, in regards to the analogy to a newborn and neglect (from one of the above quotes), was that "an unwilling parent can legally give the child up." True, but even during periods in which they desire to give the child up for adoption they are responsible for the well-being of the child. Until such a time that another person consents to take responsibility over the child their well-being is still your responsibility.

For the record, I don't understand the exception for rape from a pro-life perspective. If someone believes abortion is murder or a violation of unborn rights, then how can an exception be allowed?

 I did not find the forced driving analogy helpful. We can hash that out as we go though.

Also, rights are not dimorphic. If they were then 'equal rights' is something that could never be

If someone believes abortion is murder or a violation of unborn rights, then how can an exception be allowed?

Because rights and responsibilities are inherently tied together.