1st Trimester Abortion Rights Imply 3rd Trimester Abortion Rights

[david52875]

According to this article i read recently,

A 2011 Gallup poll showed that making abortion illegal in the last trimester got strong support from both pro-choice (79 percent) and pro-life advocates (94 percent).

So most "pro-choicers" agree with "pro-lifers" that abortion should be made illegal in the third trimester. The "pro-choice" position is, generally, that the mother has a right to privacy/her body/whatever and that from this it follows that she has the right to have an abortion, at least in the first trimester. The "pro-choicers" who are against third trimester abortion, however, also believe that the ZEF has a right to life after the third trimester. But someone's rights cannot just end, and rights are inalienable, so this would imply that the mother has the right to kill the ZEF and the ZEF has a right to life. That is, the mother has the right to violate the ZEF's rights. This is a logical contradiction. Two persons rights cannot conflict. In fact any attempt to derive a right to abortion from the existing rights of the mother while making an exception for the third trimester ends the same way. Consider the following reductio ad absurdum argument:

P1. The mother has a right to X.
P2. From P1, it follows that she has the right to have an abortion in the first trimester.
(Both P1 and P2 are necessarily true if the mothers rights imply her right to an abortion)
P3. The mother does not have the right to have an abortion in the third trimester. (necessarily true if abortion in the third trimester should be made illegal)

1. The mother's right to X exists before, during the duration of, and after her pregnancy. ( From the definition of rights as inalienable.)
2. The mother has a right to have an abortion before, during and after her pregnancy. (From P1 and 1)
3. Therefore, The mother has a right to a third trimester abortion. ( Follows from 2 since the third trimester occurs during pregnancy.)
C. ~P3 & P3 (reductio ad absurdum)

So was the article wrong about most "pro-choicers" being anti third trimester abortion, or do you pro-choicers have another way of justifying an exception for third trimester abortions? Keep in mind the topic of this post was whether or not it is logically consistent (not necessarily correct) to be both pro first trimester abortion rights and anti third trimester abortion rights, so I will ignore any post which tries to prove or disprove abortion rights.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I suppose the argument would hinge on medical definitions of when life begins, or more broadly, what a ZEF is capable of at a given point in gestation.

That 79% would think it's more important that a more advanced fetus has certain characteristics suggestive of life than the woman's desires, by that point in the pregnancy. Those characteristics are absent earlier in the pregnancy, and that's the difference.

There's really two ways of looking at the abortion debate from a pro-choice position.

One is as a matter of personal sovereignty and self-protection for the woman. From this perspective, I think it is difficult to argue that there should be a cut-off, after which a woman can't get an abortion. The fact is that these issues remain in play up until birth, so from this perspective, you're right, it isn't logically consistent to oppose late term abortion.

But the other perspective has more to do with right to life, and it deals more heavily with the medical considerations of when, exactly, life begins. Or, failing to find that, what medical factors of a developing life are significant enough to bring the fetus into equal consideration with the woman medically, and greater consideration philosophically. From this perspective, a late-term cut off is perfectly consistent, although I don't particularly understand how quantity of life trumps quality, which is basically the groundwork of this position.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I find a lot of pro-choicers to be very intellectually inconsistent. They will run around saying everyone who wants to limit abortion in some way is trying to "tell a woman what to do with her body" or "make her a slave and breeding stock" Yet most pro-choicers agree with anti-abortion laws for later stage elective abortions (when the mother's life isn't at risk). If you say things like "a woman has the right to do with her body whatever she wishes", then by that very statement you have to believe that she can have an elective abortion the day before the scheduled delivery.

Really, the only difference between most pro-choicers and most pro-lifers is a time-line disagreement of when it's acceptable.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I find a lot of pro-choicers to be very intellectually inconsistent. They will run around saying everyone who wants to limit abortion in some way is trying to "tell a woman what to do with her body" or "make her a slave and breeding stock" Yet most pro-choicers agree with anti-abortion laws for later stage elective abortions (when the mother's life isn't at risk). If you say things like "a woman has the right to do with her body whatever she wishes", then by that very statement you have to believe that she can have an elective abortion the day before the scheduled delivery.

Really, the only difference between most pro-choicers and most pro-lifers is a time-line disagreement of when it's acceptable.

I agree, as a pro-choicer. But it's not as though they have the monopoly on that kind of inconsistentcy.

On the other side, I totally get medical accepts to being anti-abortion. What I don't get is saying the ZEF is a life, and then saying that it's ok for a woman to abort electively after rape. How is it any less of a life due to how it was conceived? If you think a ZEF is a life, that's like saying that if someone abuses me, I'm allowed to kill their child. There's only two ways someone could have this position: they either haven't thought about it at all, or they are subliminally admitting the woman is simply more important.

Both sides have their version of this fallacy.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I agree, as a pro-choicer. But it's not as though they have the monopoly on that kind of inconsistentcy.

On the other side, I totally get medical accepts to being anti-abortion. What I don't get is saying the ZEF is a life, and then saying that it's ok for a woman to abort electively after rape. How is it any less of a life due to how it was conceived? If you think a ZEF is a life, that's like saying that if someone abuses me, I'm allowed to kill their child. There's only two ways someone could have this position: they either haven't thought about it at all, or they are subliminally admitting the woman is simply more important.

Both sides have their version of this fallacy.

I don't see any reason why a woman who was impregnated from rape will not know about it and be able to terminate it in the first 8-12 weeks. I personally am for an 8 week cutoff, because you should've been able to make your decision by then, but I could understand giving an extra 4 weeks for special cases like that. I don't support abortions after 12 weeks for any reason other than the medical health of the mother.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If an assault upon the pregnant woman causes termination of the pregnancy at what point is that "murder"? The Roe v. Wade decision, like the DC V. Heller decision, stated that no absolute right (without limits) exists yet the SCOTUS set no specific limit in either case. In both of those cases the SCOTUS said only what the law cannot be, not what the limits of the law can be.

 

[choiceone]

According to this article i read recently,



So most "pro-choicers" agree with "pro-lifers" that abortion should be made illegal in the third trimester. The "pro-choice" position is, generally, that the mother has a right to privacy/her body/whatever and that from this it follows that she has the right to have an abortion, at least in the first trimester. The "pro-choicers" who are against third trimester abortion, however, also believe that the ZEF has a right to life after the third trimester. But someone's rights cannot just end, and rights are inalienable, so this would imply that the mother has the right to kill the ZEF and the ZEF has a right to life. That is, the mother has the right to violate the ZEF's rights. This is a logical contradiction. Two persons rights cannot conflict. In fact any attempt to derive a right to abortion from the existing rights of the mother while making an exception for the third trimester ends the same way. Consider the following reductio ad absurdum argument:

P1. The mother has a right to X.
P2. From P1, it follows that she has the right to have an abortion in the first trimester.
(Both P1 and P2 are necessarily true if the mothers rights imply her right to an abortion)
P3. The mother does not have the right to have an abortion in the third trimester. (necessarily true if abortion in the third trimester should be made illegal)

1. The mother's right to X exists before, during the duration of, and after her pregnancy. ( From the definition of rights as inalienable.)
2. The mother has a right to have an abortion before, during and after her pregnancy. (From P1 and 1)
3. Therefore, The mother has a right to a third trimester abortion. ( Follows from 2 since the third trimester occurs during pregnancy.)
C. ~P3 & P3 (reductio ad absurdum)

So was the article wrong about most "pro-choicers" being anti third trimester abortion, or do you pro-choicers have another way of justifying an exception for third trimester abortions? Keep in mind the topic of this post was whether or not it is logically consistent (not necessarily correct) to be both pro first trimester abortion rights and anti third trimester abortion rights, so I will ignore any post which tries to prove or disprove abortion rights.

There are many different views, not just "pro-choice" and "pro-life." However, I would like to suggest that you may misunderstand why many pro-choicers do support exceptions for third-trimester abortions.

I basically agree with the Roe v Wade decision. For me, a woman is a person, and because she is, she has equal rights to life (including health), liberty (including bodily autonomy), security of person, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and privacy, which includes privacy regarding her internal body and medical consultations and records.

A person has a right only to his/her own physically and biologically separate life and body, not to the life and body of others. Since no person has the right to touch the inside of a person's sex organs or any other part of his/her internal body, to use any of his/her bodily tissue, organs, or blood, to take oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies out of his/her bloodstream, to disable any part of his/her immune system, or to put their waste products and chromosomes into his/her blood against his/her expressed conscious will, a blastocyst/embryo/fetus would not have a right to do so even if it were defined in law as an actual conscious person just like yourself.

Nonetheless, the state does have the right to protect the rights of persons, including preventing persons with serious contagious diseases from infecting others, preventing persons with illegal substances in their bodies from endangering the community, and regulating the practice of medicine to protect the rights of persons. It may even have the right to assert a compelling interest in protecting the potential life as a person after birth of a fetus who is not yet a person.

For this reason, it is possible to argue that the state can tell doctors that they can only perform abortions after the first trimester as long as it does not affect the health of the woman more adversely than continued pregnancy would. If is also possible to argue that at some point in pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting a fetus's potential life as a person after birth. However, it is unreasonable to put that point earlier than the one at which the fetus could survive if biologically detached and removed from the woman's body, because, prior to that point, its survival is wholly a function of the biological attachment to the woman's body, and not even a born person has the right to such a biological attachment for his/her survival.

Thus, viability is the earliest point at which the fetus has an obvious potential for life as a person, i.e., by itself in biological separation, which the state could claim it has a compelling interest in protecting. At the same time, however, precisely because not even born persons have the right to biological attachment to another person, the state has an obligation to protect a woman's right to life, including health, even after the point of viability.

I am willing to live with that view, which gives a state the right to ban abortion after viability as long as it makes exceptions for a woman's life and health, because it recognizes the state's interest, not fetal rights. I do not think any zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/fetus has any rights to use the body/blood/life of any born person against that person's expressed will, just as I do not think any born person has the right to use the body/blood/life of any other born person against that person's expressed will.

Meanwhile, I do not think the life/health exceptions for post-viability abortion are sufficient for the following reasons.

Some girls/women who are impregnated by rape could be lied to by anti-abortion doctors and made to believe that they are not pregnant or could be held in captivity by the rapist, and if such girls/women learned of the pregnancy or escaped only after the point of viability, I think they should still have the right to choose to have the rape pregnancies aborted. Some girls/women find out only after 22 weeks that they are pregnant with fetuses having serious anomalies, e.g., brains growing on the outside of the skull, etc., and I think they should have the right to refuse to continue those pregnancies. I am aware, though, that I may not have exhaustively imagined all the possible types of cases in which a just mind could persuasively argue for exceptions.

I would think that an intelligent electorate would prefer the decision should be made by the women and their medical doctors rather than a bunch of medical ignoramuses in statehouses, simply because, even with the exceptions I would add, other possible types of cases might occur in which exceptions would be justly warranted.

I fail to see why this view is in any way logically inconsistent, but if you see some inconsistencies, I welcome your logical criticism.

 

[iguanaman]

I find a lot of pro-choicers to be very intellectually inconsistent. They will run around saying everyone who wants to limit abortion in some way is trying to "tell a woman what to do with her body" or "make her a slave and breeding stock" Yet most pro-choicers agree with anti-abortion laws for later stage elective abortions (when the mother's life isn't at risk). If you say things like "a woman has the right to do with her body whatever she wishes", then by that very statement you have to believe that she can have an elective abortion the day before the scheduled delivery.

Really, the only difference between most pro-choicers and most pro-lifers is a time-line disagreement of when it's acceptable.

Huh? One side wants Roe vs Wade overturned and the other VAST MAJORITY does not. That is a pretty big differeence

As the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision takes place on Tuesday, a majority of Americans – for the first time – believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.

“These are profound changes,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and his colleagues.

NBC/WSJ poll: Majority, for first time, want abortion to be legal - First Read
It looks to me like the issue is settled law like a 40 years old decision should be. Give it up. Americans will not allow women to be just "vessels".

 

[choiceone]

I don't see any reason why a woman who was impregnated from rape will not know about it and be able to terminate it in the first 8-12 weeks. I personally am for an 8 week cutoff, because you should've been able to make your decision by then, but I could understand giving an extra 4 weeks for special cases like that. I don't support abortions after 12 weeks for any reason other than the medical health of the mother.

In 1996, there was a case in Michigan in which an 11-year-old girl was raped by her brother. She did not tell her parents, possibly because she felt threatened. She became pregnant and did not know that, because she was an ignorant little girl. Her parents did not imagine that she could be pregnant. The mother thought her daughter was sick as her belly swelled and took her to a doctor. The doctor did not consider the possibility of pregnancy, so that the pregnancy was not discovered until the girl was 24 weeks pregnant. Then, the whole story came out. Michigan did not allow abortions after 24 weeks in cases of incest or rape, so the parents made arrangements to take their daughter to New York for an abortion. The local district attorney, a diehard anti-abortion advocate who was herself the child of a rapist, found out about this before they left and got a court order to stop the family from leaving the state and went to court to demand that the state be made guardian of the fetus.

I don't like stories like this. The brother was a pig. The parents were stupid. The doctor was incompetent. But that little girl had a right to abort a rape incest pregnancy, in my view, even if she was 24 weeks pregnant. And the fact that the death rate in childbirth and rate of health complications in late pregnancy is much higher the younger the girl is and when the pregnancy is a rape pregnancy could, in my view, warrant an abortion at 25 weeks just on health grounds in such a case. But Michigan lawmakers were not prepared to let doctors make that decision, and an 11-year-old would have had a right to abort a rape incest pregnancy, in my view, even if her health/life were not threatened.