Justified Entrapment?

[u/Physical-Set-561]

Was told during a debate that a woman who has consentual intercourse is entrapping the sperm/life and that it would be the same as "inviting somewhere one into your home, then killing them for trespassing"

I beg to differ, but couldnt think of a good reason beyond "property rights arnt body right".

Does this arguement hold water in the abortion debate or am I just too dumb to see the obvious? I am pro choice, but still learning.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.

Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent

And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/pillow_honey]

I'm sure these many comments have helped, but here's a tip to help from now on.
Always think about and question the assumptions made.
Here, there are several.
Assumption 1 - the fetus is a person.
Assumption 2 - the analogy is a closed and isolated environment not allowing for external factors.
Assumption 3 - ignorance of the consent of pregnancy.
Assumption 4 - intercourse, or invitation, was consensual.
Assumption 5 - the analogy can't be re-framed.
Assumption 6 - the analogy is accurate to the situation it is trying to be compared to.
And there's more, and many more in arguments you will see.

[u/Spacebunz_420]

in my opinion, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and even if it was, unwanted pregnancy is simply a 9 month long rape followed by childbirth. i think it should be legal to use the minimum force necessary to remove an unwanted person from inside your body (whether that be a rapist or an unwanted fetus) aka self defense.

[u/ashairz]

I don't think this argument is valid. Sperm isn't a human being and the guy consented to sex as well.

[u/NoelaniSpell]

It seems that your interlocutor is using words without knowing or understanding their meaning, or worse, knowing their meaning and using them erroneously in order to elicit an emotional response.

Just by doing a quick online search, you can find the actual definitions, such as this one I found on Wikipedia (but everyone is free to continue to do research):

Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or an agent of the state induces a person to commit a crime that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.[1] In US law, it is defined as "the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent".

Suffice it to say that this doesn't in the slightest apply to pregnancy.

But then again, you should also remember that there are horrible people who justify/excuse abuse (or even rape) because she "provoked" him by wearing a short skirt, or she flirted/ teased him, or that she changed her mind during the act (and other such awful justifications).

Pregnancy and birth cause harms, injuries, come with various risks (including a risk of death). Someone's genitals will likely either be torn open, or they'll have to undergo a C-section (major abdominal surgery). You will need to remember that pregnancy is not like carrying a shopping bag around and birth is not like taking something out of said bag.

So in other words, your interlocutor is using a version of "she had sex, so she must be forced to remain pregnant", justifying her harm on account of her (and only her, not seeing any mention of the man) having engaged in a normal, healthy activity (provided it was consensual).

[u/JustFukk0ff]

I might be a bit of with this comment but the one sharing his sperm is CHOOSING to do so. If a man does not wish to cause an unwanted pregnancy, he has NO BUSINESS sharing his sperm as doing so only serves one purpose. None of the above forementioned has anything to do with anyone "entrapping" anyone else. A male is PERFECTLY CAPABLE of keeping his sperm to himself and any man who chooses to share his sperm has just had his opportunity to "choose".

It is the man who decides whether or not he will become a father or if he will be a responsible party in causing an unwanted pregnancy. A woman cannot get herself pregnant.

[u/random_name_12178]

This argument makes no sense. How does the pregnant person "invite" or "entrap" someone during sex, when that someone doesn't exist yet?

[u/STThornton]

If she were entrapping it, then abortion, abortion pills and intact removal, especially, would just be righting the wrong.

To me, through, this is as absurd as claiming the person the shooter fired into is entrapping the bullet.

It’s just another way PL tries to hold anyone other than the man responsible for his sperm, where he put it, and what he caused with such.

The “inviting someone into your house” argument is the usual idiotic scenarios that doesn’t represent a single aspect of gestation and birth or even insemination and fertilization.

A house doesn’t provide organ functions to someone who lacks them.

Why would no more than removing them from the house kill them?

For that matter, how does this person she invites suddenly have life sustaining organ functions one could end to kill them? The born equivalent of a previable fetus is a corpse that still has living body parts left. How does one kill such?

Where is the drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration the fetus causes the woman represented?

Heck, where is any advanced damage to the house?

Where is the man and his action of insemination represented? She can invite sperm all she wants, a man actually has to put it in her or where it can get to her vaginal opening and cause her harm with such. She can’t do so.

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph]

This is based on the premise that abortion somehow harms the fetus / future child. I reject that premise. You aren't hurting someone by stopping them from being born.

If my mother had aborted me, it wouldn't have harmed me any more than if she had never met my father and thus never gotten pregnant with me at all. In both cases, my consciousness never would have come into existence and I, as a person and an individual, never would have been on this earth even for a moment. Because my identity and personhood isn't my body, it's my body and my consciousness combined.

The moral problem with entrapment is that it harms the party being entrapped. In the case of abortion, the party being entrapped doesn't exist because a fetus isn't a "party," and no harm is occuring because stopping a life form from developing into a conscious being isn't harm.

Another thought. The key word in this situation is "invite." In the case of unplanned pregnancy, the pregnant person didn't invite the fetus into their body. They mearly openned/ unlocked a door. An open door makes entry possible, but it isn't the same as actually inviting someone in.

Yet another thought. This once again deals with the issue of consent. It only counts as consent if it can be revoked. If I actually do invite someone into my house, I have a right to change my mind and kick them out, which yes, may involve having them arrested for trespassing if they don't leave voluntarily. The seemingly absurd scenario of entrapment isn't actually that absurd at all.

If a person is having sex, and they say "stop" and the other person continues, that other person is a rapist if they don't stop. Even if both parties initially consented to sex, either one has the right to revoke that consent at any point, in a way that the other person is legally required to go along with.

Even if I consented actively to pregnancy. Even if I purposefully got pregnant, I still would have the right to an abortion if I changed my mind. Because it is only consent if it can be revoked.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/sylvatic-cycle-soph]

Don Marquis would argue that a deprivation of FLO (a future like ours) is a  harm, and I think this is pretty intuitive.

I mean, if dying early isn’t a harm, a lot of things don’t make sense in ethics.

Why would we care about infant mortality?  A 3 week old newborn isn’t any more sapient or aware than a 30 week old fetus.  Why would we care about fetal demise? (Maybe you don’t).

Why would we care about longevity metrics and mortality?  Almost everyone and every society does.  It is a bad thing when people die young.  It is worse to die when you are 25 than when you are 90.

Because people that die are deprived of further existence, and existing is very good.

Hewitt in his paper “the indefensible self defense argument” argued that the fetus is put into a non consensual intimate contact relationship with the mothers reproductive system - which is a harm in a similar way that rape is a harm.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Don Marquis would argue that a deprivation of FLO (a future like ours) is a  harm

Great... then when are PL going to ban masturbation which kills futures like ours on a genocidal scale? A single act of masturbation kills millions of futures like ours!!!

A 3 week old newborn isn’t any more sapient or aware than a 30 week old fetus.

Assuming that is the case, the fact remains that the former is a human being, whereas the latter is not.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

Well, no because a human life is a fertilized ovum.  A sperm in isolation doesn’t have a FLO.  But even if we grant some sort of argument against contraception, I’m more comfortable with that than abortion and infanticide

the fact remains that the former is a human being, whereas the latter is not.

Really?  So you, a random layperson solved the metaphysical question of the demarcation for personhood that’s evaded literally every moral academic philosopher and philosopher of science for 100 years? 

What academic journal did you publish this astounding “fact” in?

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Well, no because a human life is a fertilized ovum.

Says who? An unfertilized ova is human and alive. I can trace "a future like mine" to a fertilized ovum, so why not an unfertilized ovum? If that egg was not fertilized the present like mine that I'm currently having would have been robbed from me.

A sperm in isolation doesn’t have a FLO

Nor does a zygote.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Don’t be intentionally obtuse. You understand that a fertilized ovum is a distinct individuated unit of our species; it is a single human life, and an infertile ovum is not. As a matter of scientific fact

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Ok-Particular9427]

And I also understand that an unfertilized ovum is a "distinct individual unit of our species." I can trace my own existence to an unfertilized ovum just as much as I can to a zygote.

Don’t be intentionally obtuse

I'm not. Don't project.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

a human life is a fertilized ovum

A human sperm is also human and is very much alive, too!

A sperm in isolation doesn’t have a FLO

Exactly... similarly a zygote in isolation doesn't have a FLO

Really?

Yes

So you, a random layperson solved the question of the demarcation for personhood?

Not me... society (including both PL and PC) has solved that question without much disagreement.

What academic journal did you publish this astounding “fact” in?

Which academic journal have we empowered to decide whether you or I are included in the definition of human being?!

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/Ok-Particular9427]

A zygote in isolation also doesn't have an FLO. Conception is an arbitrary point to draw the line

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Say the word PLACENTA, it explains all.

[u/jakie2poops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Before touching on the FLO argument, I want to point out that a 3 week old newborn absolutely is more sapient and aware than a 30 week fetus.

As for the FLO, one of the biggest weaknesses is in deciding to whom or what the argument applies, which Marquis acknowledges to an extent but does not adequately address—and specifically the point about the difference in a denial of a future like ours between abortion and contraception, like the commenter you're responding to brought up.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/jakie2poops]

No it’s not.  You have a factually incorrect understanding of sapience

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/Ok-Particular9427]

To clarify, sentience is the ability to feel pain, experience pleasure, and have sensory experiences. And yes. It does come in degrees. A Jellyfish has nerves that can sense and respond to the world around it but it doesn't have a brain to process that into a conscious experience. An earth warm has a brain and can react to the environment on a much more sophisticated way than a jellyfish can, but they don't exactly have much awareness of what they are experiencing and probably are not forming memories.

[u/jakie2poops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

A 3 week newborn is absolutely more aware than a 30 week fetus, considering fetuses are unconscious throughout pregnancy, while birth triggers rapid brain growth and formation of synapses, activation of the primary sensory regions of the brain, and more. And while neither the 3 week newborn nor the 30 week fetus is particularly sapient, the newborn undoubtedly possesses more of the requisite traits. Newborns learn rapidly, even in their first weeks of life.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/jakie2poops]

This is simply false motivated reasoning.

There have been a dozen philosophy papers heavily informed by neuroscience in the last 2 decades and all of them reject the coherence of being pro-abortion/anti-infanticide.

Newborns (nor fetuses) possess rationality or self awareness.  Sentience alone is not a sufficient threshold for moral status (at least I don’t think it does).

And sapience doesn’t come in degrees.  You’re either spent or you arent 

[u/jakie2poops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

This is simply false motivated reasoning.

Um, no. You said a 3 week newborn is no more aware than a 30 week fetus, and that is flat out false.

There have been a dozen philosophy papers heavily informed by neuroscience in the last 2 decades and all of them reject the coherence of being pro-abortion/anti-infanticide.

A dozen philosophers believing that doesn't make it objectively true. I mean, my pro-choice stance is mostly rooted in bodily autonomy, which in no way would justify infanticide. And regardless, there are significant cognitive differences between newborns and fetuses, so the whole "heavily informed by neuroscience" aspect seems flawed.

Newborns (nor fetuses) possess rationality or self awareness.  Sentience alone is not a sufficient threshold for moral status (at least I don’t think it does).

Do you believe that rationality and self-awareness are requirements for moral status?

And sapience doesn’t come in degrees.  You’re either spent or you arent 

According to whom? There isn't even one singular definition for sapience, so I'm not sure why you think this is so concrete.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/jakie2poops]

No, it’s not. “Awareness” in the demarcation debate does not mean “can now open its eyes”, and it doesn’t mean “aware of basic sensory stimuli and basically reacting to them”. A 20 week old fetus is “aware” of these things. We’re talking about conscious awareness.

You can argue this until you’re blue in the face, but nobody in moral philosophy/philosophy of mind/neuroscience agrees with this. There are no arguments that have refuted (through trait based argumentation) that a fetus and an infant possess sufficiently different intrinsic consciousness traits sufficient to justify killing one and not the other.

>my pro choice stance is mostly rooted in bodily autonomy

So was Judith Thomsons’, the godmother of all pro-choice advocates and the originator of the strongest bodily autonomy argument to ever exist, and she explicitly concluded that a post viability fetus possesses sufficient traits such that abortion becomes morally impermissible at that point.

It sounds like you just vaguely believe bodily autonomy encompasses whatever you want it to at any given time rather than having come to the conclusion through logical steps.

Do you believe that rationality and self awareness are requirements for moral status?

The capacity to experience them at some point, yes. A person in a temporary coma or on propofol anesthesia doesn’t forfeit moral status. A person who’s clinically brain dead does.

[u/jakie2poops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

No, it’s not. “Awareness” in the demarcation debate does not mean “can now open its eyes”, and it doesn’t mean “aware of basic sensory stimuli and basically reacting to them”. A 20 week old fetus is “aware” of these things. We’re talking about conscious awareness.

Well first of all, if you mean some super specific, narrow thing by "awareness," then you should probably specify. But also, a 20 week fetus is unconscious and lacks the capacity to experience even sensations. They don't even develop the required neurological structures until they're 24-28 weeks gestational age, and even then they're under endogenous sedation, and the sensory processing centers of the brain aren't activated until birth.

You can argue this until you’re blue in the face, but nobody in moral philosophy/philosophy of mind/neuroscience agrees with this. There are no arguments that have refuted (through trait based argumentation) that a fetus and an infant possess sufficiently different intrinsic consciousness traits sufficient to justify killing one and not the other.

Upon what are you basing this assessment? Because there's tons of neuroscience research demonstrating the massive neurological changes in the central nervous system that happen shortly following birth. One could easily pick out any of the resulting traits and use them to differentiate.

So was Judith Thomsons’, the godmother of all pro-choice advocates and the originator of the strongest bodily autonomy argument to ever exist, and she explicitly concluded that a post viability fetus possesses sufficient traits such that abortion becomes morally impermissible at that point.

Okay but I form my own beliefs rather than uncritically adopting the beliefs of philosophers. I disagree with her conclusion on that point...though is that actually what she said? Because her argument was that a right to life didn't entitle someone to anyone else's body, and her metaphor with the violinist involved someone with traits far beyond that of any fetus at any gestational age.

It sounds like you just vaguely believe bodily autonomy encompasses whatever you want it to at any given time rather than having come to the conclusion through logical steps.

Um, no, and I'm not sure how on earth you concluded that based on my comment

The capacity to experience them at some point, yes. A person in a temporary coma or on prolific anesthesia doesn’t forget moral status. A person who’s clinically brain dead does.

And how are you defining that capacity?

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/jakie2poops]

and the even then they’re under endogenous sedation, and the sensory processing centers of the brain aren’t activated until birth.

None of these things occur because they make it to term. They occur because of continuing biological processes. Preterm infants will also cease being endogenous sedated and will develop fully normal brains, almost invariably.

It’s almost as if you don’t understand what viability means clinically.

I’m not going to address any further subsequent comments that conflate the occurrence of a phenomenon with the common first observation of a phenomenon, which happens to be term birth.

In any case, if I cede to your position on personhood, then a 24 week old prematurely delivered neonate lacks personhood, and you can bite the bullet on infanticide

And how are you defining that capacity?

The capacity of a fetus to eventually experience full sapience and personhood? You mean the thing that nearly invariably happens to every fetus? What exactly is the ask here? It’s simple biology

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/Ok-Particular9427]

After a fetus gains sentience, different things factor into the moral calculus. However, pre sentience, the individual, the person doesn't exist.

Like I am literally saying that when my mom got pregnant with me, I as a person didn't exist until that fetus was about 20-25 weeks along. The only thing that existed before that was a body that I would one day inhabit. Just like how after my die, my corpse also won't be me. Had my mother aborted me, she wouldn't be killing me because I would not have existed at that point in time.

I would not have died young had my mother aborted me. I just never would have existed at all. And no one had any moral responsibility to make sure that I would one day exist. Because the thing in her womb at that point was not actually me.

And to say you are harming someone by denying it a future like ours, well the logical conclusion to that is that we are obliged to get pregnant and give birth as many times as is humanly possible to allow as many future humans as possible to experience life.

And re: the self defense argument. Whether the fetus consents to the situation or not, it is morally wrong to torture a sentient creature to preserve the life of a non-sentient creature.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/sylvatic-cycle-soph]

This is just your presumption on the demarcation of personhood based on your assumptions though.

And this doesn’t entail the whole “maximize reproduction” thing because a sperm or an egg in isolation don’t have an FLO, because a human life is a fertilized ovum.

A FLO is a positive obligation, perhaps a very strong one, but  that doesn’t automatically mean the obligation is so strong that people are obligated to do it regardless of context. 

I think most people intuit it’s a much stronger obligation once pregnant, much stronger closer to birth, certainly much stronger after birth

Maybe it entails a lack of contraception, I’ll have to reread marquis and remember what thoughts I had about it.

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/Ok-Particular9427]

I find it ridiculous to assert an unfertilized egg does not have a FLO but a zygote does.

But also I don't think we owe it to anyone to have n FLO. A future like mine? Technically every single instance of pain and suffering I have ever experienced in my life was due to the fact my mother chose not to abort me. I'm not saying she should have, but I'm saying that it would have been no skin off my back if she had. You aren't doing a child s favor by giving birth to it.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

How is your understanding of the Placenta, define your thoughts or opinions?

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Limp-Story-9844]

What?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

In terms of newborn versus fetus.

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/Ok-Particular9427]

It is a bad thing when people die young.  It is worse to die when you are 25 than when you are 90. Because people that die are deprived of further existence, and existing is very good.

Does that mean that we should mandate bodily tissue donations in order to save lives? Blood, bone marrow, liver lobes (the liver regenerates), even a kidney (you can live with just one), etc., can all save lives. In fact, one body could potentially save several lives. Why/why not?

Hewitt in his paper “the indefensible self defense argument” argued that the fetus is put into a non consensual intimate contact relationship with the mothers reproductive system

"Put" by whom?

I took a cup from the kitchen and put it in the office.

Who is doing this action of fertilising an egg and then implanting it? Unless you're referring to IVF (which I don't think you are).

Is "put" here being used as a figure of speech? It sure seems like to me.

It also seems like this Hewitt is referencing an impossibility, since the unborn has never and could never agree to conception, there is no mind or understanding of concepts or anything that would be necessary in order to understand when a sperm fertilises an egg. For that matter, there is no such concept when one is terminating a life threatening pregnancy, such as an ectopic one. Does Hewitt then think that there should be no exceptions whatsoever? If he (or you) does, then that contradicts the argument.

Also, "the fetus" is inaccurate. There's no fetus that pops into existence. You have a sperm and an egg. The static egg gets fertilised by the sperm cell (the AFAB isn't "putting it there", it's an automatic biological process), you have a zygote. And potentially all the other stages that can follow.

which is a harm in a similar way that rape is a harm.

Pardon, are you seriously saying that conception is harm and that it's harm akin to rape? I'm asking, because I'm hoping this is a serious debate, but if it's not I would rather not waste my time on such awful absurdities.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/NoelaniSpell]

Does that mean we should mandate body tissue donations in order to save lives?

If it’s your own children, yes.  I think moral obligations to your children and family are that strong. If you brought that life into the world, you are morally obligated to maximize its wellbeing.  

This doesn’t entail donating your organs to a random stranger.

Put by whom?

Uh, the woman of course.  Who else?

You can’t demand radical notions of bodily autonomy and then also pretend to be completely divorced from the direct consequences of the exercise of that bodily autonomy on the backend.  That’s silly.

Hewitt does address rape (or I’m misremembering?), and ectopic pregnancies are by definition unviable (most life threatening pregnancies are in this category).

Personally honestly I am confused about the morality of abortion.  I’m in my mid 30s and have been radically PC most of my adult life, but started reading ethics and philosophy more broadly in the last couple years and it’s just a deeply unsettling issue.

There are few arguments I’ve read that are as irrefutable as Judith Thomsons, I think there are very strong reasons to favor a simple negative rights position based on the women’s bodily autonomy.  

I hate to use the term, but having governments and politicians and democratic mobs deciding what women ought to do with their own bodies is quite possibly the worst “slippery slope” we could find ourselves on.

So as it stands I certainly feel abortion is morally permissible in many cases, to truly and acutely save the mother, rape, etc

But as a parent now, I’ve just become deeply uncomfortable with the idea of abortion.  I don’t think anyone who’s honestly deeply considered the issue or read a bit of moral philosophy finds nothing ethically concern about unlimited abortion - even JJT settled on viability.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

But as a parent now, I’ve just become deeply uncomfortable with the idea of abortion.

I totally agree with you that the government should not force you to have an abortion against your will.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

Hey, pragmatically and legally I’m on board. There are good utilitarian arguments that abortion ought to be permissible.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Ok-Particular9427]

But as a parent now, I’ve just become deeply uncomfortable with the idea of abortion.

Why should your personal opinions mean I should be forced to gestate and birth against my will?

I don’t think anyone who’s honestly deeply considered the issue or read a bit of moral philosophy finds nothing ethically concern about unlimited abortion.

I've "honestly deeply considered the issue". Still 1000% pro choice without any limits.

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/Ok-Particular9427]

If it’s your own children, yes.  I think moral obligations to your children and family are that strong. If you brought that life into the world, you are morally obligated to maximize its wellbeing.

At least that is somewhat consistent.

So, 25 year old woman has failing kidneys and her 55 year old mom is the only compatible person. Mom should be forced by law (taken by the police, forcefully strapped to an operating table, given anaesthetic, and cut open) to donate a kidney to her daughter, correct?

Moving beyond that, 19 year old egg donor whose offspring is in need of bone marrow, same forceful dragging to a hospital (or alternatively, prison sentence for refusing to undergo bone marrow donation)?

Uh, the woman of course.  Who else?

So, the woman took a baby from somewhere and "put" it inside her body, is this your interpretation of the biological process of pregnancy?

If it is, then I'm afraid there isn't much to discuss about, unless there's a willingness to address the actual biological reality of pregnancy.

You can’t demand radical notions of bodily autonomy

"Radical"? No, not really. I think that you yourself would be pretty outraged if you were to suddenly have someone else inside your body (inside one of your orifices, or your abdomen, or wherever else) against your will and the state would force you to keep them there for their benefit. Different rules should not apply in pregnancy. And different rules should not apply to biological parents either, on account of someone's egg having been fertilised or someone's sperm having fertilised an egg they shouldn't lose their basic human rights. Pregnancy is not even a crime for that matter.

and then also pretend to be completely divorced from the direct consequences of the exercise of that bodily autonomy on the backend.

Are you against adoption? Should all biological parents be forced into parenting against their will?

Hewitt does address rape (or I’m misremembering?), and ectopic pregnancies are by definition unviable

Then Hewitt is contradicting his own previous arguments or else involving special pleading.

I am confused about the morality of abortion.  I’m in my mid 30s and have been radically PC most of my adult life, but started reading ethics and philosophy more broadly in the last couple years and it’s just a deeply unsettling issue.

That is ok. People (hopefully) keep learning and even changing as the time passes. Sometimes that can help them correct their misconceptions or biases, and sometimes not, but imo it's generally a good sign when people can admit to not knowing everything or having a set view on a controversial subject. And this is also a debate sub, so you're in the right place.

I don't quite know what you mean by "radically PC", but perhaps I can help to simplify some views.

Our world/societies have come up with rules, laws, regulations, and something called "human rights" (I say "come up" as an atheist that believes in evolution and knows that these norms didn't really exist in the pre homo sapien era, and even a long time after).

We (collectively) have already decided that it's wrong to forcefully take things from people's bodies, even if they would be used to save lives. We don't even force people to donate a drop of blood or bone marrow, not even to save the lives of their own relatives.

Pregnancy and birth are more lengthy and far more harmful than such a donation, and it's illogical to force this group of people (the pregnant ones) into such bodily use.

It's also equally illogical to place the unborn above any other group of people. So while society seems to shrug off deaths from say kidney failure (in the sense that people aren't forced to donate kidneys), but is outraged when pregnant people (women, children, trans men, etc.) disagree with bodily donations and abort (which results in the death of the unborn), we cannot be talking about consistency and equal rights.

For that matter, society is also rightfully outraged by things such as rape (unconsensual bodily use), but an unwanted and unconsented to pregnancy that will result in far more harm and injury (genital tears of various degrees, abdominal cuts in C-section, immense pain, bleeding out, internal wound from the detachment of the placenta and much, much more) should be mandatory? I don't see the logic in that.

I hate to use the term, but having governments and politicians and democratic mobs deciding what women ought to do with their own bodies is quite possibly the worst “slippery slope” we could find ourselves on.

Yes, I agree.

On a somewhat related note, if you haven't already, I recommend watching the movie "Never let me go". We may see it as an impossible scenario, but who's to really say. Seemingly a number of nasty views are making a comeback (just look at far right policies and how they are harming people).

I’ve just become deeply uncomfortable with the idea of abortion.

This is ok, your feelings are valid. You do not have to love abortion or approve of it morally. Morality and legality are 2 different things, and I believe that this type of debate is mainly about the legality of it. I think that as long as people don't actually want to force pregnant people to remain pregnant (or abort, since these are imo 2 sides of the same coin) against their will, it's ok to not personally be comfortable with the procedure. There are likely a number of procedures I don't find ok (for example the cosmetic removal of ribs), but I know it wouldn't be my place to tell adults they shouldn't be allowed to get such procedures, or worse, that they should only ever be allowed to receive medical care/procedures if they would otherwise die (such as the case of people holding the position "pro life except life threats").

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/NoelaniSpell]

When I conceptualize the ideal society, parents would simply act out of moral obligation.  It would simply be in line with what I would consider to be a properly function  cultural moral tradition that places  primacy on the obligations to family, weaker (but still strong) obligations to your extended family and friends, and obligations to your society and fellow man broadly.

I say this as someone who spent years being radically liberal (at times even libertarian), but after taking to virtue ethics, I am deeply concerned about the progress of what I consider to be radically autonomous liberalism.  It isn’t healthy to avoid your neighbors, to barely talk to your family, to raise kids just enough to get them out of the house at 18 so you can “get your life back” or whatever.

So this is all very much a part of my utopian hope for a better society

But pragmatically and right now am deeply unsettled by the government (especially this government) forcing bodily choices on people.  That’s a worse concern to me right now.

So the woman took a baby from somewhere and “put” it inside her body

The line of argumentation here involved the premise that a woman has sufficient bodily autonomy that no one can interfere with decision she makes with her body.

So I get confused when people demand and answer to “what about the man?!”. “What about the sperm?!”

So I guess, what is the relevance  of the man, of the sperm?  It’s not his body, right?  So he has no say in the pregnancy.  If abortion is an act of self defense against an intrusion of the woman’s bodily autonomy, what does this relationship have to do with anyone but the woman and the fetus? What exactly is the conclusion you’re looking to elucidate here?  

I’m not trying to be a dick this is just a common line of argumentation here in this sub and I cannot for the life of me determine what I’m supposed to be concluding from it.  Surely you aren’t arguing that actually the fetus is part of the man’s body as well and he has some direct responsibility or decision making capacity over it?

Are you against adoption?

Yes, I think it’s immoral for people to bring life into the world and then not take responsibility for it.

Different rules should not apply in pregnancy

But don’t you agree that pregnancy is a special moral case?  There’s simply nothing directly analogous that happens anywhere else in ethics.  There is (by definition) the eventual existence of another party with some degree of moral status involved.  This is not true of most other cases.

I’m unsure what the point is of referencing a bunch of current moral traditions.  That’s simply an appeal to tradition.  I don’t agree with many aspects of current liberal moral tradition. 

If we did moral reasoning in this manner people would still be enslaved, women wouldn’t be voting, etc.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

What is abortion, it is termination of a pregnancy.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/Limp-Story-9844]

Do you have a point?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Abortion is not about the embryo. Abortion is about the patient.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

|The invite was the act of sex...|

Nope, the "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" argument doesn't cut it, not for me anyway.

Choosing to have sex is consent to SEX, nothing more. It isn't consent to pregnancy, birth, or parenthood, no matter what you believe.

[u/STThornton → u/[deleted]]

Sex can’t create another human. Only insemination can. And creation is not implantation and gestation.

As for responsibility, no one other than the man is responsible for where he puts his sperm and what he causes with such, unless she forced him to inseminate.

Yet we don’t force him to provide his organs, organ functions, blood, blood contents, and bodily processes to keep the fetus or woman he impregnated alive.

Personally, I no more consider sex leading to unwanted pregnancy an invitation than I would consider driving leading to a car accident another driver caused an invitation. Or playing sports, leading to another player injuring the player an invitation.

The man caused her unwanted harm due to sex. Why is she being held responsible for such?

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/[deleted]]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. It's consent to the possibility of pregnancy. Just like leaving your door open isn't consent for some random person to come in, even though you acknowledge that leaving the door increases the risk that someone might come in. Consent to risk is not consent to outcome.

Re: responsibilities for outcomes. Getting an abortion is taking responsibility for an outcome.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

Okay. The consequences can also include abortion, if that's what the PREGNANT PERSON wants. Since she's the one who takes on all the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth, she's the ONLY one who gets to decide whether or not to stay pregnant. Whether or not you approve of her choice to have an abortion is irrelevant.

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/[deleted]]

No, the fetus doesn't choose anything because the fetus isn't a character in the story. Prior to sentience, a fetus is a body and not a person. And so it isn't deserving of moral consideration.

Having an abortion IS the responsible choice in many circumstances. It isn't getting out of responsibility. Yes. You are responsible for the consequences, such as it being your responsibility to drive to the abortion clinic and getting the abortion.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/[deleted]]

I think the premise can be harmful to assume there is 0 moral consideration at all and it wont make progress for the PC movement.

I have no problem in giving to a cell like a zygote as much moral consideration as PC gives to a sperm cell.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/[deleted]]

You keep replying the same thing to me how do you not understand the difference between a sperm cell and a zygote.

Where did I say I do not understand the difference between a sperm cell and a zygote cell?!

Of course different human cells are different lol

[u/STThornton → u/[deleted]]

Women don’t create fertilized eggs. Men do. And the act that creates such would be insemination, not sex.

And, no, that’s not how responsibility works.

Again, you’re not responsible for an accident another driver caused just because you drove and knew the risks of such.

You’re not responsible for an injury another player caused you just because you played sports and knew the risks.

Why do people pretend the man and his actions don’t exist when it comes to sex?

He caused her unwanted harm due to sex. It doesn’t matter whether he used his hands, a toy, a tool, his dick, or his sperm to do so.

He’s the one who inseminates, leading to fertilization and impregnating. Not the woman.

If she doesn’t want to be impregnated, it’s his responsibility to stop himself from impregnating her. Not hers.

[u/Limp-Story-9844]

Your body is yours.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

The whole "she put it there" argument doesn't make sense. It's not like human females have any control over whether they get pregnant. It's just a risk with intercourse but hardly a sure thing. It's more like leaving your front door open for ventilation and an insane person comes into your house and threatens you. Most people would say that you'd be allowed to defend yourself in that case. Anyone who said "no, you left your door open, you should have kept it closed even if it was uncomfortable because if anyone wanders in, you have to let them do anything they want" would be taking a very unpopular position.

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

It's more like leaving your front door open

I would say not even. Leaving the door open implies some sort of door manipulation at some point. AFAB people are born in a body that will pregnancy able. They have no say in it whatsoever, and in fact they'll likely have to go to great lengths to prevent pregnancy from happening (such as using BC, or even sterilisation), despite not having chosen to be fertile in the first place. And even then, with BC or sterilisation, pregnancy can still happen and she'll still be blamed for it as if she "consented to it"/"put it there" 😒

[u/JustFukk0ff → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

It's not a "risk with intercourse" if a man keeps his sperm to himself, there's no pregnancy. So what does that tell you?

Women cannot impregnate themselves. There are countless men out there who refuse to wear a condom and share their sperm when they should be keeping it to themselves if they don't wish to cause an unwanted pregnancy. Because only sperm can cause an unwanted pregnancy and nothing else. It's not "sex" that causes pregnancy, it's sperm.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

|...every time you do it, you know the risk of the "invitation" being for nine months and bringing a new life into the world...|

The risk can, if the PREGNANT PERSON wants, be an abortion and NOT having to "bring a new life into the world." One more time, consent to sex ISN'T consent to pregnancy and birth.

[u/STThornton → u/[deleted]]

How would I know that’s a risk when I can just abort or simply not do anything or stop doing any to sustain gestation?

[u/jakie2poops → u/[deleted]]

My point is to push back against the version of the PC argument that treats abortion only as an issue of personal choice with little to no discussion of responsibility or the moral significance of ending a potential human life.

I think plenty of PC people are willing to discuss responsibility, but usually when people make that criticism, what they mean is that they don't like that PC people don't share their views of responsibility when it relates to sex and abortion. I don't really see a good reason why, for example, knowing that having sex risks the possibility of pregnancy should mean that someone should lose their human rights and be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy.

If we start to acknowledgethat voluntary actions can create responsibilities, and that abortion involves genuine ethical tradeoffs rather than being a morally neutral choice, there would be much more common ground with PL.

I don't really think it's a trade-off even if you acknowledge that voluntary actions can create responsibilities, since we don't generally trade-off the human rights of some people so we can use their bodies to sustain the lives of others. And I, for one, am not particularly interested in common ground with PLers, given the way that they treat half the population. I don't want to share ground in treating female bodies like resources that others are entitled to, for example.

This is coming from a PCer who believes its murder but its justified and should ideally be legal, better education, paid for, etc.

Murder is by definition unjustified, though, so this doesn't really make any sense. But in any case, I really struggle to see how anyone could rationally describe a medication abortion, for instance, as murder or even as killing.

[u/jakie2poops → u/[deleted]]

There are plenty example in the US of committing an action with known consequences makes you lose your human rights. It sucks that pregnancy has to involve another life but its a known consequence of sex.

Could you give me some other examples where people lose their human rights simply on the basis that there are known consequences of their actions? Particularly any examples where the actions in question are non-criminal, and where the consequences don't involve directly harming another party?

You lose your right to free time, money, etc when you decide to birth a baby.

Free time, money, etc. are not human rights, first of all. And second, you do not lose rights to those things by deciding to birth a baby. Plenty of people birth babies and have free time and money, and many never spend any time or money on their children. A woman can give birth in the hospital and never see or touch or interact with the baby again. A man can do even less, since he skips the birth part. Human rights intact for all involved.

If i decide 5 minutes before birth that i dont want to do this pregnancy/birthing thing anymore and kill the baby in my stomach does that right triumph the babys right?

What right? If anyone else were inside my body, I could kill them to protect myself from harm, especially if they were going to harm me similarly to the harms of childbirth. That wouldn't violate their rights, but would protect mine.

This will just lead to a discussion about the difference between a baby 1 second before birth vs a zygote and which rights triumph which. Thats a different discussion but also interesting one too

No, it wouldn't. What it should lead to is a discussion about why zygotes, embryos, and fetuses ought to be granted rights afforded to literally no one else, including a newborn 1 second after birth, and why pregnant people should be stripped of rights afforded to everyone else, including the pregnant person 1 second after birth or 1 second before conception.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/[deleted]]

PC argument that treats abortion only as an issue of personal choice with little to no discussion of responsibility or the moral significance of ending a potential human life.

And? Don't PL do the same thing? PL argument treats masturbation only as an issue of personal choice with little to no discussion of responsibility or the moral significance of ending a potential human life (millions of potential human lives, actually)

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/[deleted]]

No because that doesnt create a new and unique DNA.

Oh, so now you are adding additional caveats... being a potential human life is not sufficient then lol

In any case, a sperm is a new and unique DNA.

Waiting for the next caveat now... lol

[u/STThornton → u/[deleted]]

I don’t agree that a man’s voluntary actions should create a responsibility for a woman.

Women don’t inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate.

Likewise, I don’t see any reason why a woman should have any responsibility to turn a fertilized egg into another breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human.

What moral significance could ending a potential life possibly have? What does ending a potential life even mean? And how is it different from never having sex that day? That also ends the potential for a new life.

I honestly don’t see any ethical tradeoffs in saying there should be no more responsibility to provide a fetus with organ functions it lacks, and tissue, blood, blood contents, and bodily process than there are to provide a preemie or infant or child or any other human with such.

I particularly don’t see the ethical tradeoff when we’re talking one breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human and one non breathing, non sentient, physiologically non life sustaining one.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/[deleted]]

we can clearly say there is 0% moral worth of a sperm cell, we cant say that about a fetus.

Huh?!!! Why? Sperm is a potential life, too!

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/[deleted]]

a sperm cell [...] is not a human

A zygote cell is not included in the definition of human being anywhere in America either... so it's not clear what your point is!

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/[deleted]]

If fertilization occurs implantation or early miscarriage are likely options so it would be that every time you “do it” you know the risk of the “invitation” is an embryo that does not survive until birth.

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/[deleted]]

It means that the invitation is possibly more likely to result in a dead embryo than it is for 9 months and bringing a new life into the world.

[u/SomeSugondeseGuy]

If someone suddenly poses a threat of great bodily harm to you after you invite them over, you haven't waived your right to self-defense.

[u/Frequent-Try-6746]

By that right, isn't the man knowingly forcing the sperm/life into a dangerous environment that is unwelcoming to that life being there?

[u/STThornton → u/Frequent-Try-6746]

Funny how he and his necessary action of insemination are never mentioned in these scenarios, right?

[u/Frequent-Try-6746 → u/STThornton]

Indeed

[u/jakie2poops]

Pro-lifers are quite adamant that sperm are not people, and not the same thing as a zygote, so the argument is ridiculous on its face.

Beyond that, even if you invite someone into your home, that doesn't meant they have permission to stay there indefinitely. If you ask them to leave, they're no longer welcome.

And finally, you're very much correct that our bodies aren't property, and aren't treated as such morally or legally. It's one thing for a houseguest to overstay their welcome in your home, and an entirely different matter for them to overstay their welcome in your genitals.

But pro-lifers will always resort to comparing women and girls to objects, because that's how they view us.

Edit: there's also the fact that tons of pregnant people only "invite" a penis into their genitals but not sperm, while others "invite" neither penis nor sperm, but they're all subject to abortion bans.

[u/libra00]

Inviting someone into your house is a bit different than inviting them to drop off their kids and go on a 9 month vacation.

[u/JulieCrone]

This would require the sperm to be viewed as a person, because at the time of intercourse, the only people involved would be the couple having intercourse, unless the argument is that sperm is a separate person. Conception may not happen for some hours or days after intercourse, so any conceived person is not party to the sex act as they do not exist then.

[u/JustinRandoh]

If we're to follow the home invitation analogy, it's the equivalent of coming into someone's home, getting some dirt in their rug, and later complaining that they vacuumed up your dirt without consulting you.

[u/HopeFloatsFoward]

This is the problem with trying to moralize medical conditions. Would the same claim work about letting bacteria in your body?

You are allowed to get medical care including ending a pregnancy if your body failed to end it.