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.
No comments:
Post a Comment