[Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose,
Personal Choice & Social Harm
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 05:33:42 PST 2006
Andreas et. al.
I am surprised to find I disagree with you on so many points in this
thread. You must already know much of what I am going to point out, so I
suppose your statements on these issues are just accidental over statements
on your part.
There is a right to terminate another life, capitol punishment. This is
often referenced in the abortion debate, because so many who oppose abortion
sanction the death penalty, with some claiming this is hypocritical.
Society most definitely can force someone to receive life saving treatment
when they don't want it. Doctors cannot legally cooperate with suicide
except in very special circumstances, and not in all states. If you are not
dying of a terminal illness, all doctors must provide life saving treatment
if they can, even when someone makes it perfectly clear they wish to die.
The prostitute may indeed harm others, and the drug addict also, via
breaking up a family by cooperating with adultery or spreading STDs for the
former, and via the socially shared medical costs to treat addiction or the
costs to a family when an addict is a bad parent or spouse, for the later.
Addicts also support harmful crime (gangs, etc.) when they buy drugs in some
cases, so I do not think it is valid to claim the drug users are as innocent
as you seem to assert.
So called "victimless" crimes are often not as victimless as claimed.
Here are a few questions we might consider in the debate about how far we
should allow the state to make illegal risk taking or other forms of
behavior that involve personal choices between consenting adults to live
ones life as one wishes, even when harm to oneself or others does indeed
occur:
Should the state assess the damages that all acts inflict on a person or
others, and then insist that legal penalties should always apply to these
cases in proportion to this assessed damage?
And is the principle of allowing individual freedom and personal choice in
some cases not reducible to submission to other principles regarding using
the power of the state to protect the individual and society from harm?
We see this debate ongoing on many fronts with the state regulating peoples
lives to protect them and society from harm, even when the individuals
willingly and knowingly wish to assume the risks of their behavior.
I once asked a convenience store clerk in Moscow if they had any ethical
problems with selling tobacco, given the damage this plant and the drug it
contains (nicotine) is associated with in our society, death and health care
costs that exceed the death and damage from all illegal drugs many, many
times over. I was told that it is a personal choice, so the clerk claimed
they did not feel bad at all. Of course this so called "personal choice"
inflicts misery beyond belief when loved ones must watch their beloved die a
slow painful expensive death by cancer, etc.resulting from an addiction to
the powerfully addictive drug (nicotine) tobacco, not to mention the medical
costs driving up the cost of medical care and medical insurance.
Yet many in our society agree that smoking is a personal choice, and should
not be made illegal with those selling tobacco and using it going to jail
(except in the case of minors, a law that is so soft with so limited
penalties that it is a joke compared to the penalties for many illegal
drugs).
In other words, many people view selling and smoking tobacco as a personal
choice involving irreducible rights of individual freedom that should not be
submitted to other principles regarding using the power of the state to
protect the individual and society from harm.
Why do we view tobacco with this tolerance given the harm it inflicts?
Tradition and irrational bias no doubt are part of the reason, just as these
variables in a reverse application are part of the reason adult prostitution
and cannabis use are crimes, when they inflict far less harm than tobacco
use.
Anyway, I am far away from the issue of abortion, though the fact it is
called often a "women's right to choose" relates to the issue of whether
there are any irreducible principles of personal freedom and control over
ones life that the state should not be able to overrule, based on the harm a
personal choice can or might inflict on a person or society.
Abortion inflicts harm, even if we skip the issue of the existing or
potential "personhood" of the fetus that might require abortion to be viewed
as "murder."
It is an egregious misstatement to call those who support the right to
abortion "pro abortion." I do not know anyone who is "pro abortion."
Everyone I know would be happier if abortion never occurred. Everyone
agrees abortion is harmful. Many women and men are very saddened and
traumatized by abortion (I do not mean medically traumatized, a rare
occurrence), and can face serious psychological problems, even when they
view it as the best decision.
It is often stated that the issue of the "personhood" or potential
personhood of the fetus is the critical issue in abortion. I do not think
this issue is as easily solved as some seem to think, nor do I think that
many of those who support the right to abortion realize that this approach
can easily be utilized to argue that abortion is "murder," when they
use the brain development of the fetus as a guide to when abortion is or is
not illegal at what point of development, linking this development to the
point at which "personhood" begins.
I think the critical legal issues are 1) Whether a women has the right to
control the processes of her own body, and also her future, given the
implications that giving birth implies long after the pregnancy ends, and 2)
When can a fetus survive on its own without facing serious damage. If a
fetus realistically without damage cannot survive on its own apart from a
women's body, I think a case can be made the fetus is really a part of the
women's body, thus falling under the irreducible right the women has to make
independent free choices regarding her body.
The notion of a fetus attaining personhood based on brain development is a
very complicated and debatable point, given that we confer rights of
personhood on disabled or "challenged" individuals who have very limited
cognitive capabilities, with actual congenital brain abnormalities and
limited abilities to make rational choices. And also given the fact that
some animals have more intellectual capabilities of some sorts than a new
born human, though we don't confer upon these animals "human" rights, which
suggests that even a new born fetus has not achieved the full development of
the human brain that truly confers rational human decision making, rendering
the new born still in some sense possessing "potential" personhood. The
infant brain undergoes considerable development and neuronal connection
formation long after birth.
Following this argument does lead some to think that "potential" personhood
is a legal principle that should be applied to protect new borns, and that
potential personhood deserves full legal protection against "murder," and
thus should be applied to fetuses as well, meaning abortion is "murder" in
nearly all cases, with exceptions such as the health of the mother, or
perhaps rape, or when fetal abnormalities make normal brain development
impossible.
There may be variations in the speed of the maturity of development in
different fetuses, making it difficult to determine an exact lenght of
pregnancy to determine legal from illegal abortions, applying the viability
condition for legal and illegal abortions, an abortion legal one day, then
illegal after midnight.
Nonetheless, given all the above problems and complexities, I think a women
should have the irreducible right to control her own body with legal access
to abortion. And that the central legal issue is this right to control ones
own body (not the "personhood" of the fetus), despite all the harm this may
inflict and the extremely problematic human rights issues involved in
allowing the termination of a fetus. Once the fetus can survive apart from
the women's body, regardless of whether it can be proved "personhood" has
been reached, legal abortion becomes very difficult to defend, according to
this analysis. because no one will dispute the fetus has "potential"
personhood.
The fetus can be claimed to not be a part of the women's body subject to her
free choice to do as she wishes with her body when the fetus can
realistically without serious damage survive on its own, even if this
requires medical assistance.
I am aware this conclusion will be disliked by many, but the reasoning
employed above demands this conclusion.
I am not sure how to parse the constitutional rights involved in the
specific claim I am making for a "right" to control ones own body, so those
more informed can perhaps enlighten. It is clear many laws do not allow the
full right to control ones own body in all cases, so this "right" is limited
in current law.
Arguing from this principle of the right of adults to control their own
body, I think drug sale and use and prostitution between consenting adults
should be legal, though sensible regulation is of course required. HIV
positive prostitutes would be illegal, for example, and tainted drugs
illegal, just as "moonshine" is now illegal, though alcohol sold under state
regulation is legal. All advertising for all drugs, of course including
alcohol and tobacco, should be outlawed, which renders my view both
libertarian and socialist at the same time.
I am astounded that both tobacco and alcohol are allowed to be advertised
aggressively given the fantastic harm abuse of both of these drugs inflict,
harm exceeding all illegal drug use many, many times over. Those adults who
choose to use drugs, even the popular and tremendously destructive drugs
tobacco and alcohol, should have the freedom to do so, but society does have
an interest in not allowing aggressive promotion of the use of very
destructive drugs via massive advertising bombarding us from all sides.
Ted Moffett
On 1/18/06, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Phil --
>
> There definitely is an inconsistency in these laws. I do believe, though,
> that there's an underlying right that has been poorly articulated by both
> liberals and conservatives -- largely both sides have some sort of
> compelling interest. Liberals don't want to look like wimps on crime, and
> conservatives, especially religious conservatives, often believe that
> maintaining social order overrides any thinking about "rights". I realize
> that you may be toward the libertarian end of the spectrum, so don't think
> that I'm talking about you.
>
> From the point of view of the prostitute or the point of view of the
> addict, these crimes are victimless. The prostitute isn't hurting anyone but
> themself. The addict isn't hurting anyone but themself. From the point of
> view of the prostitute's pimp or john, or the point of view of the addict's
> dealer, there is a victim: the prostiute or addict themself.
>
> As a domestic violence advocate, I am well-acquainted with crimes in which
> there exists a certain amount of consent on the part of the victim. People
> often choose to stay in abusive relationships because they have a compelling
> economic interest, or because they might lose their housing if they leave
> the perpetrator, and so on and so on. But despite the fact that they consent
> to an aspect of the crime -- they don't report it -- this does not mean that
> a crime has not occurred. A criminal act is not a tort: it is not just an
> offense against another person, but also an offense against the civil order.
> While I agree with the general legal principle that victimless crimes should
> not exist, it's a profoundly bad legal idea to start to allow people to
> consent to crimes committed against them. This legalizes, amongst other
> things, duelling, prostitution, drugs, and most domestic violence,.
>
> In terms of drugs, an effective and sensible policy might be to punish
> those who sell and treat those who ingest -- which handles the drug issue
> from a supply and demand perspective. In terms of prostitution, arrest the
> johns, arrest the pimps, provide services to the prostitutes. There exists a
> strong principle in Western law that economic coercion should be illegal: I
> cannot offer you a deal whereby I don't shoot you in the head in exchange
> for a thousand dollars. It should likewise be illegal to offer a deal where
> you provide a twelve hour respite from a serious medical condition --
> withdrawal -- in exchange for far more than the product is worth.
>
> I admit that some ambiguity exists in both situations. Selling pot?
> Basically a victimless crime. Despite eighty years of trying to convince
> America, marijuana is still not addictive. Well regulated escort services
> with well-paid escorts? Not intrinsically exploitive. But these are the
> exceptions, not the rule, and in these cases -- as with the case of abortion
> -- I am willing to allow a little fudging around the edges in order for
> things to be run smoothly and for competing interests to be allowed some
> leeway. I don't demand, for instance, the total legalazation of abortion
> twenty minutes before birth: there exists, in that case, a definite
> competing interest on the part of the fetus-soon-to-be-infant.
>
> This was probably more words than the question demanded, but this is
> something I've really thought about.
>
> -- ACS
>
> -- ACS
>
>
> On 1/18/06, Phil Nisbet <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > I am not sure that control of ones body is a complete right in all
> > circumstances either. Society makes rules with respect to perfectly
> > logical
> > functions like expectoration and defecation, the right to sell ones own
> > organs or the right to sell the services of ones own body. If the right
> > to
> > privacy in the actions one takes with respect to ones body was an
> > absolute,
> > the act of prostitution could not be found to be illegal, since after
> > all,
> > the body parts of the two individuals involved in such an act are
> > definitely
> > parts belonging to the two people contracting in privacy to use
> > something
> > that definitely does not belong to the state.
> >
> > I have often found it strange that there is an assumed universal right
> > to
> > privacy with respect to an abortion, but no such right exists for people
> > involved in victimless crimes. We now have the right to kill ourselves
> > if
> > we are of sound mind, but if the same person of sound mind decides to
> > ingest
> > certain substances, they can and will be jailed for long periods of
> > time.
> > The substance used for the act of suicide can indeed be the same
> > substance
> > that in the non-lethal situation would place the person in jail.
> >
> > Similarly, if a man takes a woman to dinner, a show, gives her flowers
> > and a
> > gift of jewels and ends up in bed with her, there is a supposed right of
> >
> > privacy in the transaction. But if the same two people exchange far
> > less
> > cash and hop into bed, they are doing so criminally and their right to
> > privacy ceases to exist, including a right of the government to film
> > them in
> > the act in Technicolor with Dolby sound for effect.
> >
> > Perhaps it is best said, as did the Immortal Bard, the law is an
> > ass. The
> > only thing consistent in the privacy issue is its very inconsistency.
> >
> > Phil Nisbet
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com>
> > >To: Donovan Arnold < donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> > >CC: vision2020 at moscow.com, Nick Gier < ngier at uidaho.edu >
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops)
> > >Hangsinthe Balance
> > >Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:28:01 -0800
> > >
> > >The right to an abortion is not the right to terminate another human
> > life.
> > >There exists no right to terminate another human life; otherwise, the
> > right
> > >to abortion would extend to infanticide and murder. It does not.
> > >
> > >The right that exists in an abortion is the right to control the
> > processes
> > >of your own body. Society has no right to dictate whether or not you
> > are
> > >pregnant. It has no right to dictate whether you receive life-saving
> > >treatment if you don't want it. And, as the Supreme Court affirmed
> > >yesterday, it has no right to control whether or not you die, if that
> > >decision is being made from rational deliberation and not under the
> > >compulsion of mental illness.
> > >
> > >You do not have the right to purchase whatever you like. If such a
> > right
> > >existed, I would be driving to work in my gold-plated jet-powered Rolls
> > >Royce, when I felt like it. This is because resources are scarce;
> > rights
> > >are
> > >not. The scarce resource to be allocated in this case -- which, I might
> >
> > >add,
> > >we have the <i>right</i> to allocate in a democracy -- is Moscow's
> > retail
> > >business. Should we really allocate every last dollar of Moscow's
> > retail
> > >business to a business, simply because it can afford to eat ten years
> > of
> > >zero profits and no other business in town can?
> > >
> > >I really don't know why I'm doing this again, Donovan. It must be some
> > >infinite optimism about the basic reasonability of mankind. I've got to
> > say
> > >though: you've put a pretty big dent in infinity..
> > >
> > >-- ACS
> > >
> > >On 1/18/06, Donovan Arnold < donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No where in any of my posting did I state I was for illegalizing
> > >abortion
> > > > Hansen nor did I make any correction. Pretty sad I have to post it
> > TWICE
> > >or
> > > > three times and you still do not comprehend.
> > > >
> > > > Now you know why I have to post three or four time. You cannot read
> > or
> > > > comprehend arguments that are beyond the basic cookie cutter
> > arguments
> > >where
> > > > you are told how to think and respond with a set of preset
> > responses.
> > > >
> > > > Again, why is it that a women's choice to terminate the life of a
> > > > developing human MORE PARAMOUNT then her right to buy, sell, and
> > trade
> > > > property with whom she wishes for essential goods that impact her
> > >quality of
> > > > life?
> > > >
> > > > How can one make one argument with the other?
> > > >
> > > > Are you only for women making a freedom of choice providing it is a
> > >choice
> > > > you agree with?
> > > >
> > > > _DJA
> > > >
> > > > *Tom Hansen < thansen at moscow.com>* wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Arnold.
> > > >
> > > > However, I posted prior to your second (or was it third?)
> > correction.
> > > >
> > > > You really must get out more, Arnold.
> > > >
> > > > Enough said.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Hansen
> > > > Moscow, Idaho
> > > >
> > > > "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
> > > > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather
> > to
> > >skid
> > > > in sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body
> > >thoroughly
> > > > used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'"
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > *From:* Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com]
> > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:03 PM
> > > > *To:* Tom Hansen; 'Nick Gier'; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > *Subject:* RE: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she
> > shops)
> > > > Hangs inthe Balance
> > > >
> > > > Hansen,
> > > >
> > > > Do you read what the other person writes before responding?
> > Seriously.
> > > >
> > > > You wrote:
> > > > "Simply eliminating legal abortions will not eliminate abortions
> > > > altogether, Arnold."
> > > >
> > > > My argument, if you actually read it, you would have discovered that
> > I
> > > > stated I OPPOSED illegalizing abortion.
> > > >
> > > > It is you that wish to impose your preferences and beliefs on other
> > > > people, just like the religious right, you just have a different set
> > of
> > > > preferences and beliefs that you wish to impose on me.
> > > >
> > > > Take Care,
> > > >
> > > > Donovan J Arnold
> > > > _____________________________________________________
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > http://www.fsr.net !
> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
> > > > Photo
> > >Books<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photobooks/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38088/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//page?.file=photobook_splash.html
> > >.
> > > > You design it and we'll bind it!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____________________________________________________
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >_____________________________________________________
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060119/017eb844/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list