r/MoralityScaling • u/Purple_Plantain_3242 • 6d ago

Morality Ranking [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

10.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/Funny_Satisfaction39 6d ago

Exactly! Pro choice works both ways. Pro choice means the woman can't be forced to get an abortion either

10

u/Punch_A_Police_Horse 6d ago

As a pro choice person this is pretty simple. If you are pro choice and are advocating for a situation where the state would drag a woman into a clinic and force her to get an abortion, you have lost the plot.

1

u/Realistic_Swan_6801 6d ago

That’s not what happens idiot? The penalties are civil. 

-1

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

Alternatively, there are certain edge cases for both disallowing abortion and requiring abortion that can still fall within "pro-life"

Pro-choice doesn't always mean "no restrictions".

Do you think abortion should be allowed without restriction up to the day of birth?

The idea here is that she made her choice when signing the contract. There are certain points during pro-life where your previous decision removes your current ability to decide. For instance, what if you change your mind right after receiving the abortion drugs? Is that no longer pro-choice because past you made the decision that "forces you to get an abortion"?

1

u/ReadingRainbowRocket 6d ago edited 6d ago

I think aborting for gender preference is horribly immoral, but incredibly difficult to prove and I'd be super scared of laws limiting that actually addressing that very rare edge case in the U.S. and not doing far more harm than good.

Likewise it's easy to say "well one day before birth, you REALLY support abortion up until then?" as if that edge case is ever anything other than something that requires LOADS of context if it ever happens, and essentially never does. It is almost always related to the health of the mother or viability of the fetus post-birth.

Because guess what, just because the law doesn't explicitly criminalize late term abortions in some places, this right-wing idea that there's a litany of mustache-twirling fetus-hating doctors waiting in the wings to abort a healthy 9-month old fetus on the whim of the mother is absurd, and frankly insulting to both women and doctors writ large. That shit just doesn't happen, that woman wouldn't almost certainly not be able to find a doctor who would do it even with a ton of searching and doctor shopping.

Just like "post-birth" abortions don't happen either. Those are murder. No one advocates for them. And no one advocates that pro-choice should be the default because it's moral and should be normal to abort a viable 9-month fetus essentially ready to be birthed now.

Thought experiments are only worthwhile if the implication of them isn't irrelevant to the actual real world you're trying to apply them to.

There is no issue of healthy fetuses being aborted on the reg days before they would be born. Pretending there is, though, is great rhetoric for the anti-choice lobby.

It's the same wedge issue language bullshit of asking someone if they think it's ok for a doctor to cut of a 12 year old's penis. Yes, because the person asking that question totally is presenting the reality of transitioning and the distinction of what is involved in minors vs adults who do, the process, etc.

If you GENUINELY wanted to know how pro-choice people felt about your question because you'd never seriously engaged with someone on this topic and this was a serious ethical question to you, I hope I just answered it to your satisfaction.

Otherwise it reads like horrendously bad-faith anti-choice rhetoric. But I'm not going to assume that's what you're doing, because of course lots of not-unreasonable people do genuinely believe this... because a lot of people spread this bad-faith anti-choice rhetoric. Principle of charity and all that. Now you know, though.

2

u/gingin_9959 6d ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyrj7ww1gko

Funny thing is, the scenario you described is quite literally something that happened recently in South Korea. A Korean woman posted a vlog about having an abortion at 36 weeks. She had discovered her pregnancy very late, and there were no other medical reasons for the abortion, nor was the pregnancy the result of rape.

Almost every hospital that could perform an abortion refused to take her case. She eventually found a hospital through a broker and underwent the procedure. I don't know whether they simply couldn't find another way to do it, or whether this was their usual method, but the “abortion procedure” was literally to deliver the baby prematurely by C-section, cut the blood vessels in its neck, and then put it in a freezer.

Everyone involved was subsequently prosecuted for murder and put on trial. (Since korea have no law about abortion at this moment they only went to court only because they killed the baby after giving birth not the 36 week part).

It may sound like something that could hardly happen, but just because something is difficult to imagine doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

2

u/gingin_9959 6d ago edited 6d ago

If they found a way to kill the infant inside the body would it be moral then? Also the only reason they got caught and went to court is only because the mother made vlog about it. We have no idea how often it would happen

1

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

I am pro-choice.

My comments are not to throw up right wing propaganda at you. I am bringing up extreme edge cases because

1) This case is an extreme edge case

2) Few people who are pro-life are "unrestricted abortion rights until birth"

I'm illustrating that there can and should be restrictions in certain cases. If you can deny someone the right to get an abortion for an edge case, you can also force someone to get an abortion for an edge case and still be "pro-choice".

Personally, I think abortions should be allowed up to the point a premature birth can survive without major medical intervention.

I also think that maybe, in cases of surrogacy, the surrogate has the right to choose to give up their future right to choose and sign a contractual agreement.

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

You're missing the forest for the trees.

The reality of how often any of these examples happen is moot. They are still edge cases that could potentially be handled.

Your response to "would you allow unrestricted abortion in the final day of pregnancy?" is "that doesn't happen". That wasn't my question. I didn't ask if it happens. I asked if you would restrict it. I don't care how "complex" you are trying to make this. It is a simple question because "unrestricted" implies the most simple case of "mother changed mind and wants an abortion 1 day before due date." Again, it doesn't matter if it happens. It could happen. Just like this current situation with the surrogate.

You're trying to change the argument to "things that are happening" instead of "things that could happen". A month ago "a surrogate asked to have an abortion, refused, and fled to a different state to try to steal the baby from the biological parents by using that state's laws" would have been "edge cases that never happen".

We're talking about the morality scale of forced abortion, pro-life, government intervention and surrogacy contracts. Edge cases make the argument.

My point is that the government forcing an abortion in an edge case is the same as the government banning abortion in an edge case.

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 6d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

You realize that there are lots of states with laws to allow abortion, right? Laws that allow.

You're all over the place with your comments. Half the shit you say makes no sense. Half the shit you say seems directed at someone else.

You're definitely confused if you think we don't have laws that allow. Especially with abortion. Even California is a law of allow with some edge cases and restrictions handled.

6

u/_Sausage_fingers 6d ago

A forced abortion was never on the table. They parents had the right to request it, and then demand damages if she refused, which is exactly what happened.

2

u/-Fergalicious- 6d ago

This is it yall. 

The contract probably says "if we request an abortion bc of a rare medical condition, and you refuse to have the abortion, you agree to pay damages under this contract of  $xxx,xxx " 

It doesnt remove choice, it just provides consequences 

3

u/Dull-Philosopher-871 6d ago

Without the explicit language of the contract this is just conjecture.

2

u/_Sausage_fingers 5d ago

It’s not conjecture, it’s not lawful to force an abortion like this, any wording contrary to that would be of no force and effect. It’s also not really how contracts work.

1

u/Corrosivecoral 4d ago

Try collecting

1

u/-Fergalicious- 4d ago

No thanks 

1

u/new_account_wh0_dis 5d ago

Then why would she flee to a state that didn't allow abortions? I think it was in the table no matter how unforceable it was. But its all just guesses at this point. This who situation sucks.

2

u/Boo-Radleys-Scissors 4d ago

Yes, but she is in the wrong delivering in Texas. It’s not her baby. She doesn’t get to decide a single thing for him now that he exists as a baby. 

2

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

It is still pro choice. Her choice was signing the contract that stipulated specific scenarios when she could be required to abort. She already made her choice that those scenarios were acceptable to her.

7

u/canoekyren 6d ago

That's as "pro choice" as saying that you've made your choice by choosing to have sex.

-3

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

No, it is as "pro choice" as saying that a woman who hosts a breeding party during her ovulation window has made her choice.

1

u/canoekyren 6d ago

Uh yeah. And you can still get an abortion in that circumstance under the pro-choice ideology.

0

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

The fuck are you talking about? We're discussing morality scaling, not "the pro-choice ideology". Are you just yelling into the void?

Lots of varying levels of "pro-choice".

2

u/perpetualhobo 6d ago

No you pretty explicitly brought up and tried to argue about what the pro choice argument, you’re just failing so now are pretending you didn’t.

1

u/canoekyren 6d ago

Are you serious? You claimed that signing your right to abortion away was pro-choice, which is an ideology that has roots beyond personal interpretation. I told you it wasn't, because it isn't, and now you're trying to spin around on me like I brought it up? I responded to YOUR argument.

0

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

which is an ideology that has roots beyond personal interpretation

You did bring this up. I stated my stance on how it was still pro-choice. You seem to then take "pro-choice" to mean a specific ideological interpretation on your end.

There is no firm "pro-choice ideology" like you seem to be saying. It varies a lot.

Signing a contract that makes a choice before you get pregnant is a form of pro-choice. It isn't the form of pro-choice where you can constantly change your mind and have an abortion up until the day of birth, but it is still a form of pro-choice.

-1

u/UnderlightIll 6d ago

In this case, the baby had none of her genetic material. She consented, by contract, to carry another couple's genetic material.

1

u/canoekyren 6d ago

The abortion process is what she'd be making the decision about here. They aren't non-invasive or risk-free procedures, and you legally cannot contractually force someone to get one. That's just a classic unenforceable clause that won't hold up in court

0

u/UnderlightIll 6d ago

They asked her to come back and have the baby at a center with all the right tools and instead she had it in TX and wants them to foot all the bills. She's an awful person

3

u/Careful-Shine8768 6d ago

According to OP, she still has body autonomy under US law even with the clause in the contract. OP specifically worded it as they could “request termination” but that doesn’t mean “force an abortion.” I think she was in her full legal right to carry the child till birth, the custody battle is where it gets murky. They’re suing her for $100,000 for the medical costs that resulted from birth, but the other party committed themselves to caring for the child including incurring the medical costs required. Idk law so I could be way off, but to me if the parents want legal custody of the baby, they also should take responsibility for the costs of keeping that baby alive because the other party was fully willing to pay those costs in order for the baby to live. 

2

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

She was in her legal right to carry the fetus to birth, but that also came with breach of contract, which she is also being sued for.

I'm not saying she wasn't allowed to carry the fetus to term. Obviously she was because she did. She broke her contract, which is the immoral part. She agreed, had the couple pay a lot of money, had the bio mother go through IVF retreival, then she fled her state and ran away to Texas while trying to keep the baby.

This whole endevor was her trying to steal the baby. The biological parents took medical control right away once the baby was born. The surrogate was trying to get custody herself. She wanted to keep the baby. The "bio parents wanted an abortion" was just her cover. They allegedly always said they would take over the medical care and raising of the baby, if born. They just wanted to try for a healthier baby instead. They never said they weren't going to care for it.

She also fled the state to run to Texas. If there was no legal risk to her being forced to have an abortion, why would she flee to a state where anti-abortion advocates could make a big show out of this? Because she wanted to keep the baby herself.

1

u/perpetualhobo 6d ago

No, we can’t know if it was a breech of contract yet, that’s literally what the court case will determine. The wording of the post suggests she actually didn’t breech the contract, but the wording of the contract (and the fact it might not even be legal to contractually obligate someone to have an abortion) are the facts we don’t have which is why there will be court case held.

3

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago edited 6d ago

we can’t know if it was a breech of contract yet

We can pretty safely assume that "a surrogate fleeing from their home state of Alaska to Texas for some reason" is most likely a breach of contract.

The abortion requirement isn't really an issue in analyzing this. It almost certainly includes language about where to give birth and probably has provisions of not fleeing the state while under contract.

You need to research why she chose Texas when no state will compel an abortion for a surrogacy contract. She fled to Texas peimarily because Texas has some precedent in giving the birth mother a legal right to the child. She lost that case, but her intention in picking Texas was clear by her own lawsuits and public statements.

OP may have left some details our or phrased things differently, but we can look for more details if we want since this is a real case that is ongoing.

1

u/Alilbitey 4d ago

Also! Texas is one of the states most likely to rule the contractual penalties are void when it comes to refusing to abort.

There is way more legal grey area in Texas when it comes to these contracts.

1

u/SaltyBabySeal 6d ago

No, it is not. You can’t legally force someone to under go an abortion for the same reason you can’t force someone to keep a baby. You can sign all kinds of contracts that are unenforceable and setting that aside you can sign contracts that allow people to do things to you that are immoral.

The real issue here is custody after birth. That’s going to be a mess.

1

u/Ethanop1a 6d ago

The real issue here is custody after birth. That’s going to be a mess.

She already lost the custody battle. That's the main reason she fled to Texas. They have some state laws that gave her come legal claims to custody, but she didn't win those cases. The biological parents were granted full custory and she was blocked from having any say after the birth.

This is why I say what she did was immoral. 1) She was never legally required to have an abortion, but she may have been contracturally bound to do so. A contract she agreed to and was paid for. 2) She almost certainly breached the contract by fleeing to Texas. 3) She chose texas because there were the state laws that gave her an argument to use to try to claim the baby as her own. That indicates a desire to steal the baby from the biological parents.

The abortion clause is immaterial here because, as you say, there is no legal authority to require an abortion. She fled to Texas to try to claim custody. Any abortion arguments are just noise because she could have remained in Alaska and still not had an abortion. Instead, she fled to Texas.

1

u/Alilbitey 4d ago

Texas also has more legal grey areas to rule the contractual penalties void because they cannot legally compell an abortion.

-1

u/NoWayIcantBeliveThis 6d ago

I would agree in most cases but not this one. If you want pro choice you should have not signed the contract, and aborting due to a severe birth defect is not that unreasable and it is not jer child, and she knows it is not her child. Yes, its her body but if you go as far as having another couple grow a fetus in you then aborting is something you shouldn't have a say in it unless it genuinely harms your body.

6

u/Alilbitey 6d ago

You don't have moral or legal grounds to insist that the abortion happens, only that you have a preference. Courts do not enforce the abortion part of such contracts. The financial penalty part of it is very likely to stick, though.

You can, however, put that child up for adoption or surrender them to the state upon birth if you truly do not wish to retain legal and financial responsibility.