- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,987
- Reaction score
- 7,365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
What is the woman's actual right when it comes to pregnancy and her body? Does she actually have a right to an abortion, or is it that an abortion is currently the only method that will satisfy her actual right?
One of the main argument in support of abortion is the woman's right of bodily autonomy. Per this argument, the woman has the right to determine if and when anyone or anything can take from her bodily resources, and consequentially has the right to withdraw any given permission at any time, except after the fact. But does that fact actually give the woman the right to terminate the offspring as opposed to the termination of the offspring being the result of the exercised right? Right now, at the current level of medical knowledge and technology, at least for the early periods of the pregnancy, abortion is really the only possible solution. After viability, induced labor can satisfy that need as well.
Thus we then dive into the principle of the right. It seem to me that the right itself is not one of termination of the offspring, but of the pregnancy, regardless of whether the offspring lives or not. Which means that if a procedure is developed that is equally or less traumatic to the woman's body, that can end the pregnancy, at any stage of the pregnancy, even while preserving the offspring's life (the how of it is not important here as we are discussing the principle of a right, not whether this theoretical procedure can be actually developed), its existence would mean that abortion itself could be banned without violating the woman's right of bodily autonomy.
For the record, the poll is set up to account for the fact that a surrogate can now carry an offspring that is not hers genetically, via IVF. As such I felt that such a situation needs to be considered when addressing this issue. For the purposes of this particular issue, let us consider whether or not a surrogate can abort/remove an offspring of another person/couple another issue in and of itself.
One of the main argument in support of abortion is the woman's right of bodily autonomy. Per this argument, the woman has the right to determine if and when anyone or anything can take from her bodily resources, and consequentially has the right to withdraw any given permission at any time, except after the fact. But does that fact actually give the woman the right to terminate the offspring as opposed to the termination of the offspring being the result of the exercised right? Right now, at the current level of medical knowledge and technology, at least for the early periods of the pregnancy, abortion is really the only possible solution. After viability, induced labor can satisfy that need as well.
Thus we then dive into the principle of the right. It seem to me that the right itself is not one of termination of the offspring, but of the pregnancy, regardless of whether the offspring lives or not. Which means that if a procedure is developed that is equally or less traumatic to the woman's body, that can end the pregnancy, at any stage of the pregnancy, even while preserving the offspring's life (the how of it is not important here as we are discussing the principle of a right, not whether this theoretical procedure can be actually developed), its existence would mean that abortion itself could be banned without violating the woman's right of bodily autonomy.
For the record, the poll is set up to account for the fact that a surrogate can now carry an offspring that is not hers genetically, via IVF. As such I felt that such a situation needs to be considered when addressing this issue. For the purposes of this particular issue, let us consider whether or not a surrogate can abort/remove an offspring of another person/couple another issue in and of itself.