For the original argument these are in response to see McFall V. Shimp, the Right to Refuse Bodily Aid, and the Urgent Need to Protect Abortion and Our Constitution
1. Arguments of Nature: It is a woman's nature to carry, birth, and raise children.
Refutation: Reducing people to merely their nature or biology will not help any counter-argument in opposition to abortion. Research shows us that there is evidence that other mammals have evolved to miscarry-on-demand in order to survive when resources are scarce or when social conditions change and the risk of rival male infanticide increases. There a plenty of instances of outright maternal infanticide and newborn rejection throughout the animal world as well. Humans have evolved to use tools, and abortion is the use of tools to mitigate the risks of pregnancy and birth.
Biological reductions would make it permissible to take a "survival of the fittest" stance towards our offspring, jeopardizing the safety of living children. This logic would also necessitate supporting eugenics.
Our legal system rejects such reductions. The law has consistently upheld that sex-based interpretations are unconstitutional. If you are a citizen, per the 15th amendment you have the right to vote, regardless of sex. The 14th amendment is even broader and ensures equal protection to all people (not necessarily just citizens), and in case anyone needs a reminder, women are people.
2. Organ Function Argument: It would be wrong to be compelled to donate vital organs/tissues/bodily fluids as they have evolved to work specifically to support your body. A uterus's only purpose is to carry a ZEF.
Refutation: Uteruses are not self-sustaining. You can't just cut a uterus with a fertilized egg in it out of a person and 9 months later a healthy, full-term baby comes out. Pregnancy is sustained through multiple vital organ systems. A woman must produce 20-50% more blood to sustain a pregnancy, putting more strain on her heart, for example. Accepting the argument above does not justify compelled pregnancy, but does justify compelled sperm donation as sperm have no purpose beyond fertilizing eggs.
3. Bodily Aid vs. Bodily Responsibility Argument: Abortion is not refusing bodily aid, it is refusing bodily responsibility. A parent has an obligation to care for their child.
Refutation: While you are legally obligated to care for and shelter your children, you are not required to do so at your body's expense. If your child is starving with no food source available that does not mean you must permit them to cannibalize you.
4. "Regardless of Consent You Knew the Risk" Argument
Refutation: Invalidating consent is the means of tyranny. Our country was founded on the principle that government derives its power from the consent of the people. Undermining the importance of consent undermines the foundation of all our laws.
Knowing the risks of engaging in an activity does not necessarily mean you are at fault for all of the consequences it can have.
I would venture to say most drivers are aware that car accidents are pretty common and are a leading cause of death. In fact, the average driver can expect to be involved in 3-4 accidents in their lifetime. Knowing that doesn't mean they are automatically at fault if they get into an accident and should be stripped of their driving privileges.
Interestingly the average woman will have just over 2 children in her lifetime. So the risk of a woman having an accidental child is less than the risk of getting into a car accident.
Short of asking them to sign a contract acknowledging the risks of pregnancy, there really is no valid legal way to prove someone knew the risks sex entails. There are also definitely circumstances where people quite literally don't know the risks or cant possibly be aware of all of them, e.g. rape victims, minors.
5. Rejection of Involuntary Servitude Characterization:
Refutation: Cornell Law's definition: "The term 'involuntary servitude' includes a condition of servitude induced by means of— (A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process."
Again, the stipulation that consent must be ongoing is enforced. You can enter into an arrangement as a voluntary servant, revoke consent and if there are coercive factors like the abuse of legal process preventing you from leaving, then you are an involuntary servant.
If we accept that people have a right to refuse bodily aid, the state's use of abortion bans to induce you to continue in your service to another person are in themselves an abuse of the legal process.
As I have yet to see irrefutable evidence that the right to refuse bodily aid can justly be denied, the involuntary servant definition applies.
6. Arguments Refuting Lethal-Self Defense as Proportional and Likening Abortion to Shooting Accidental Home Intruders on Sight:
Refutation: The threat in that example doesn't involve an intrusion or threat to your body. Pregnancy does. If you get pregnant it will inevitably harm you to some degree (at minimum lots of pain, dinner plate-sized wound where your placenta was, lots of bleeding) and as stated in the essay you are more likely to find yourself dead due to pregnancy complications than murdered as a complication of rape. It is demonstrably permissible in cases of rape / attempted rape to use lethal force to protect yourself. A rapist/would-be rapist doesn't even need to brandish a weapon to justify using lethal use of force in defense against them. This is because we have a natural understanding that rape itself is physically harmful to a person and it may lead to them being killed. Pregnancy is also physically harmful and statistically more likely to kill you. Anyone arguing this point undermines self-defense as a a whole. Lethal self-defense is not an explicit right in the constitution, it is implied and affirmed through case law, so it is inherently subjective and varies from state to state. Pretty much all hinge on the reasonable belief that your life or body are in imminent danger. As stated above and in the essay pregnancy is imminent in nature and by function necessitates physical harm to the mother.
7. States Can Restrict Abortion as a Means of Self-Defense Argument:
Refutation: The right to self-defense is a natural right, it precedes government. You have a right to protect your body against any threat. The state's role is merely to verify that you did indeed act in self-defense and reacted appropriately to the threat.
Abortion by nature is a female-specific form of self-defense. The states cannot impose laws that would be discriminatory based off of sex. Abortion cannot be outright banned for this reason.
The state could require a trial to plead one's case that abortion was necessary. However, this would be an undue burden and an abuse of power by the state as it can always be proven that abortion is necessary. All pregnancies cause physical harm and are more likely to kill you than a crime for which lethal self-defense is seen as permissible (rape). There is no way to retreat. There are no other methods of defense to safely remove the ZEF that don't pose more of a risk to the mother. It all hinges around a pregnant person's reasonable belief of imminent harm, which is always reasonable because pregnancy necessitates harm to the mother (at minimum pain, loss of blood, loss of an organ (placenta), a large wound in your uterus where the placenta was). All that would be needed would be the requirement for a patient seeking abortion to sign a form listing the harmful risks associated with pregnancy and certifying that they are in fear of that harm and the potential for death.
8. Argument that the supreme court has previously ruled that the goal of preventing abortion does not constitute invidious discriminatory animus, and therefore banning abortion is not discriminatory.
Refutation: There is a key detail in my argument that I believe the courts - and most people - have not considered or been made aware of before. The maternal mortality rate (0.02%) is higher than the rape murder rate (0.017%). New information requires we re-examine the pretenses on which we permit self-defense. Otherwise ignoring this fact and downplaying the risks of pregnancy and birth pose is absolutely an act of invidious discriminatory animus.
If we permit rape victims to use lethal force to defend themselves, how can we not do the same for unwilling pregnant people facing a greater risk of harm and death? If your answer is that "there's no good reason to allow rape but there is good reason to prevent abortion" consider what you are really saying. If the cost of that "good" is the mother's will, bodily integrity, and possibly life, all you are protecting is her reproductive potential. If will, bodily integrity, and threat to life no longer matter, there is no point in preventing heterosexual rape as it increases reproductive potential. In this context, any anti-abortion argument devalues the right to self-defense and individual rights as a whole.
9. Argument that the military draft proves that the government is within its right to impose responsibilities on the people, even if they are burdensome and discriminatory.
Refutation: As a staunch Voluntaryist I vehemently reject the draft. It is a prime example of the government overstepping it's authority and watering down individual rights. The majority of Americans also disapprove of the draft, to such a degree that it would likely render it ineffective if our government actually had the audacity to start it back up after 50+ years. If a war is worth fighting, people will volunteer. The draft merely enables the government to force us into fruitless, unethical disputes we have no business being involved in like the Vietnam War. I don't think the draft is a good example of how to meet ethical ends.
Opinions aside I would like to point out that abortion bans are essentially a draft. Abortion bans are mandatory reproductive service for the "greater good". The draft is mandatory military service for the "greater good". Worse than the military draft though, the reproductive draft imposed by abortion bans is constituted of wholly unwilling candidates. We have seen how the military draft was abused in Vietnam. Do you not see the potential for abuse with a reproductive draft? Take into consideration China's One-Child policy. Was that a good idea? If the US were to require mandatory birth control, sterilization, and abortion to benefit the "greater good" would you support that too? Certainly mandatory birth control or sterilization would solve the abortion problem, so should we support that?
Additionally, even if we accept the premise that the government reserves the right to enforce mandatory reproductive service, it does not have the right to do it with discrimination towards the female sex. Even the military draft is being reworked so as not to discriminate against women, with a bill currently pending senate approval that would expand automatic draft registration to women so our government can strip us of our will *equally*. So how do you propose we enlist men to do their mandatory reproductive duty? Particularly, how can we do it in such a way that they face the same risks and increased risk of mortality that pregnant people do? As stated in the above paragraph, mandatory sterilization and birth control would certainly help solve the abortion issue (though still not as risky as pregnancy or birth), so should we start there? Maybe require donation of a testicle too?
I would hope that on further reflection you realize how absurd this argument is and how yet again it undermines human rights that you otherwise probably claim to support.
No comments:
Post a Comment