Abortion: Does consenting to intercourse suspend a woman's rights over her body?

[aneeshm]

Quite an interesting question. I've been cogitating over the question of abortion.

Up till recently, I was of the opinion that abortion should be allowed at any stage of the pregnancy whatsoever. The reasoning behind this was that the woman's right over her body and the foetus' right to life were both absolutely equal, and that therefore the state did not have a moral basis to intervene in case of a conflict between the two rights, and that it would have to let whatever happened, happen.

However, I've realised that this stance considers only the moment, and not the context.

The question arose: does a woman's consent to intercourse imply that she has chosen to voluntary suspend her rights over her body with regards to the foetus and the pregnancy?

Of course, this means that when the intercourse was not in fact consensual, the situation reverts back to what the current position is.

I've devised a simple thought experiment to illustrate my point:

Imagine that there exists a person X. Person X knows that if he does act A, there is a chance that a completely unrelated person P will become completely dependent on X by becoming symbiotic with X's body for a set amount of time. X does it anyway. Now X can argue that he has a right over his body, and that he can choose to remove (and therefore lead to the death of) P at any time, but does this not ignore the context?

That is, when X did act A, knowing full well that it could result in P becoming symbiotically dependent on X, does it not then amount to X voluntarily choosing to suspend his right to remove P for that duration. given the fact that P had no choice in the matter?









I'm currently undecided as to where I should stand on abortion, because the above argument has made me question my previous unequivocal pro-abortion stance.

Opinions?

[LordShiva]

Re: Abortion: Does consenting to intercourse suspend a woman's rights over her body?

Originally posted by aneeshm
The question arose: does a woman's consent to intercourse imply that she has chosen to voluntary suspend her rights over her body with regards to the foetus and the pregnancy?

Of course not. What a ridiculous suggestion.

[Kidlicious]

You're thinking way too abstract. If you don't know what to dedice why don't you just not decide.

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: Abortion: Does consenting to intercourse suspend a woman's rights over her bo

Originally posted by LordShiva

Of course not. What a ridiculous suggestion.

Did you try out the thought experiment I made up?

As I said, I'm rather torn on this issue. I don't know what is the right choice in this situation.


EDIT: And I forgot to add, "knowing that it may result in pregnancy".

[Nikolai]

Well, this is really not about her right, it's about the child's rights. If you, as me, see the child as a fully human individual with every rights, abortion is wrong(the only exception being when there's a question of life versus life or possibly rape, where I am okay with it). But if you see the child as a lump of cells(which I have seen lots of people claim), I guess your question is valid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Well, this is really not about her right, it's about the child's rights. If you, as me, see the child as a fully human individual with every rights, abortion is wrong(the only exception being when there's a question of life versus life or possibly rape, where I am okay with it). But if you see the child as a lump of cells(which I have seen lots of people claim), I guess your question is valid.

Actually even if you consider the two equal you would have to believe that one person is obligated to carry the other in the womb.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Well, this is really not about her right, it's about the child's rights. If you, as me, see the child as a fully human individual with every rights, abortion is wrong(the only exception being when there's a question of life versus life or possibly rape, where I am okay with it). But if you see the child as a lump of cells(which I have seen lots of people claim), I guess your question is valid.

As I said, my previous position was based on the recognition of the rights of the foetus, the point being that the woman's right over her body was equivalent to the foetus' right to life, thus leading to a conflict of natural rights, where the state cannot interfere, and must let happen what happens (even abortion).

But the argument I presented in the OP has rather complicated matters.

[dannubis]

An embryo is not a child.

While I do agree that abortion is not something that should be decided upon lightly, the woman has every right to terminate the pregnancy when she wants (in the early stages anyway).

Look at it as having the same basis as "the right to carry arms". She has self control over her fate.

[Pekka]

There's a difference between allowing abortion and drawing the line to certain period of time when it can be still done, and allowing it at any stage.

Most people I know would protest aborting when baby is more developed, and as we'd call it, a human being.

Whereas the pro-life sees the pregnancy, the ... human is developed earlier. Most pro-choice people don't recognize this, they say it isn't a human yet.

So this is the difference most of the times. When is the baby a baby, and when is it still just a piece of mush.

The later in pregnancy thing usually would be that there's a big risk the mother will die so that's why they abort it but.. usually this is not the question, we're usually debating the early weeks, not the later stage. Later stage abortions would be mostly protested (because most would see a human being there by then).

[Thorn]

Fetus is not a baby, it doesn' t have a soul until it takes its first breath.... peroid. Don't ask me why it works this way, only it does.

Besides if we considered a fetus a real baby then every time there is a miscarraige the women should be arrested and investiagated for potentional murder and/or abuse/negligence.

[Gibsie]

If you do action A, knowing that it may lead to consequence P may come about, then that's all it is. You can't change the fact that a pregnancy comes about from sex, but that doesn't mean that you are obliged to take it to the conclusion of birth.

If however you think that a foetus has the rights of a person then the entire point is moot, a red herring and changes nothing.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Abortion: Does consenting to intercourse suspend a woman's rights over her body?

No. Duh.

[Thorn]

Does that mean if she consents, and then isn't enjoying it that the raper can finish it without retribution?

[KrazyHorse]

In Maryland, yes.

http://wjz.com/local/local_story_094220140.html

According to current Maryland law, "no" means no as long as it is said before two people begin having sex.

Once sex starts, all bets are off, and it is this part of the law that women's rights advocates are desperately trying to change.

A recent court ruling, which determined consent cannot be withdrawn during the act of intercourse, infuriated groups including the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

[Arrian]

Maryland takes a stand against blue balls.

-Arrian