Abortion Bans are Pro-Choice Paradox
Logical arguments have premises and a conclusion. For an argument to be valid, the premises must be related to/support the conclusion. A sound argument is a valid argument with all true premises and thus a true conclusion. An argument exposing something as objectively good must be a sound argument reached from entirely objectively good premises - good ends must come from good means.
Abortion bans are ultimately circular arguments. Circular arguments are necessarily fallacious and can be used to form absurd arguments. Banning abortion sets a premise that can be made to lead to allowing abortion so this is a paradox - you permit abortion by prohibiting it - then can go back to banning abortion. And many other atrocities. The premise that abortion bans are a good thing is a fallacious argument of personal beliefs, and it is substantiated by many other fallacies, paradoxes, and contradictions. It defies logic.
The Circular Logic In Favor of Abortion Bans
1. Reliance on Personal Beliefs: I support abortion bans because it kills a Zygote/Embryo/Fetus (ZEF) and I believe that a ZEF is a person/individual and I believe all killing is murder and murder is wrong.
2. Ignoring Existence of Justified Homicide: I choose to ignore that justified homicide exists - most commonly in instances of self-defense.
3. Ignoring All Rights Are Based on Self-Preservation, Erosion of 2nd Amendment and Violation of 9th Amendment: I choose to ignore that self-defense like abortion is a form of self-preservation. While I acknowledge the importance of self-defense I paradoxically challenge the importance of its parent concept of self-preservation, and ironically in arguing against self-preservation I weaken self-defense claims. I will ignore the relationship between self-preservation and self-defense and that these are the underlying principles of the 2nd amendment. I will pretend I haven't just undermined the 2nd amendment, and the 9th amendment in the implied right to self-preservation in the space of our own bodies.
4. Ignoring Objective Basis for Harm & Risk Assessment: I choose to ignore that statistics from the CDC and FBI indicate maternal mortality rates are higher than the murder-crime rates for rape and burglary, instances where lethal self-defense may generally be permissible. I also choose to ignore that pregnancy/birth is objectively inherently, inevitably harmful (at minimum lots of pain, discomfort, bleeding, loss of an organ, a large internal wound where said organ was previously attached, permanent anatomical changes, etc.). I also choose to ignore that the duty to retreat can't be fulfilled because of my stance because once pregnant abortion would be the only way to retreat from continued pregnancy/birth. I choose to ignore that objectively pregnancy/birth in general universally meets the most stringent set of self-defense criteria we have.
5. Ignoring the Unpredictable Nature of Pregnancy/Birth: I refuse to acknowledge that pregnancy/birth are both still very unpredictable medical events/conditions and even what seems like the most healthy pregnancy can rapidly and unexpectedly devolve into morbidity/mortality for the gestating person. I will ignore this in order to dismiss the "reasonable fear of harm" criteria for lethal means of self-defense/self-preservation, despite the fact that it is objectively substantiated by the inherent harm of pregnancy/birth, the high risk of death relative to crime murder rates for rape and burglary, and its unpredictable nature.
6. Placing Unequal Value on Human Entities, Innocence-Incrimination Paradox: I refuse to acknowledge the objective risks of pregnancy/birth because fundamentally I believe a ZEF's right to life is more important than any of the mother's rights. I believe this is fair because I believe in imposing through threat of force of the law the social constructs of motherhood on a pregnant person. I will ignore that the same social constructs (and the nature of pregnancy) would indicate a ZEF's will should be subservient to their mother's. I will ignore that pregnancy is one of the only biological forms of government and that pregnant mothers are the only legitimate law makers when it comes to the rules of their pregnancy. I will pretend that my characterization of the ZEF's innocence as basis to protect it also presumes that it is the ZEF's will to usurp it's mother's authority in the sovereign state of the confines of her body and incriminates the ZEF: I will ignore this innocence-incrimination paradox. I will make comparisons to bio parents' duty to safely transfer born children to other caretakers while conveniently ignoring the fact that care of a ZEF cannot be safely transferred to someone else. I will excuse my moral imperialism because I believe I am right.
7. Moral Imperialism Is a War Crime: I will conveniently ignore that the pregnant body is technically a sovereign state and that forceful moral imperialism directed toward any other sovereign state would be a war crime.
8. Baseless Duty to Provide Bodily Aid: I will conveniently ignore that there are not any other circumstances where a parent is lawfully required to physically suffer for the sake of their children's safety. They are specifically not able to be legally compelled to donate their organs/tissues/bodily fluids to their born children, whereas pregnancy requires all 3 to service the needs of a ZEF. I don't care though, I will demand it of pregnant people for the sake of my beliefs.
9. Conflating Individual Will/Consciousness with Legal Individualism: I will conveniently ignore that our laws generally only recognize "personhood" as beginning at birth. I will refuse to accept that this is because the role of government is to protect freedom where it naturally exists and that ZEFs are by nature completely constrained and unfree and wholly dependent entities. I will knowingly conflate individual will/consciousness with legal individualism. Also while I will insist on conflating individual will/consciousness with legal individualism for prohibitionary purposes I will reverse course when it is pointed out this view would necessitate extension of benefits to the ZEF and their mother. My belief that my beliefs on abortion are right validates me being inconsistent in my beliefs.
10. Perpetuation of Discrimination, Violation of 14th Amendment: In falsely categorizing a ZEF as a lawful individual I have placed more value in a potential person than an existing person. In continuing to insist they are both "people" I'm perpetuating discrimination. I am ok with bypassing the 14th amendment and supporting discrimination to further my beliefs on abortion. I will ignore that allowing one form of discrimination could be used to justify further forms of discrimination. I have accepted that discrimination is ok as long as my beliefs are justified.
11. Invalidation of Consent: I will insist that consent to sex is equal to consent to pregnancy despite the fact that they are obviously different things. I will ignore the fact that other conditions are routinely treated regardless of whether or not they are a product of "bad" or even "dangerous" choices. I will ignore established principles on consent - that it must be explicit, specific and ongoing. I will refuse to acknowledge that perpetuating disdain for consent apologizes rape and virtually all crime and abuses. I refuse to acknowledge the impact devaluing consent could have on medical decision making in general. I refuse to acknowledge the impact that devaluing consent will have on the restraint of government power. I refuse to acknowledge that our country is built on the principle of "consent of the governed" and that consent is the fundamental divide between free society and tyranny.
12. Disregard for Due Process, Violation of the 5th Amendment: I am willfully ignoring basic principles of consent in order to justify instituting laws that seek to punish people for getting pregnant. I will ignore that neither sex nor getting pregnant are crimes. I am ignoring that abortion bans punish people by restricting their right to self-preservation without due process. I will also deny the government/public has any obligation to provide just compensation to gestating persons for fulfilling the "duty to gestate" these laws seek to impose, contrary to the 5th amendment. I will pretend I haven't just made the case for every living pregnant person or person who has been pregnant to demand reparations for having fulfilled this government imposed "duty to gestate". I am ok with completely decimating the 5th amendment to further my beliefs.
13. Perpetuation of Involuntary Servitude, Violation of the 13th Amendment: I will conveniently ignore that abortion bans seek to force people who have committed no crime to unwillingly continue their pregnancies and endure labor and birth for someone else's benefit through threat of legal action. I will ignore that this by definition is involuntary servitude and that this is prohibited by the 13th amendment. I am ok with invalidating the 13th amendment for my beliefs.
14. Apologizing Slavery in Violating the 13th Amendment: I will conveniently ignore that the 13th amendment also prohibits slavery. I will pretend that I haven't apologized slavery even though I clearly have by supporting laws that bypass the 13th amendment.
15. Ignoring the Right to Bodily Sovereignty Permits Assault and Murder: I will continue to pretend that bodily sovereignty is not the most basic right a free society can protect. I will ignore that preservation of one's life cannot be separated from preservation of one's body. I will continue to try to delegitimize it to further my beliefs. I will ignore that in undermining the importance of this right I could be apologizing other transgressions against it, like assault of all kinds and murder. I will pretend that my logic can't be used to apologize murder, which paradoxically is the very thing I say my beliefs are trying to prevent.
16. Ignoring That Bodily Sovereignty Is Essential to Maintaining Legal Individualism: I will pretend that the logic of my beliefs couldn't be twisted to further other ends that I claim not to like. I will ignore that over the course of this argument I have basically argued against legal individualism and unwound much of our constitutional protections and undermined all things of objective moral value that this society claims to protect.
17. Refusal of Civic Duty to Rational Evaluation of the Law: I refuse to acknowledge that belief is not rationale. I refuse to rationally evaluate my beliefs. I refuse to acknowledge that it is my civic duty to put aside personal beliefs and evaluate laws honestly and rationally.
18. Refusal to Accept that Subjective Beliefs Can Be Made to Justify Anything: Because I am untethered to objective reality, I will rely solely on my subjective beliefs. Because beliefs can always be warped to justify other beliefs, back to point 1: "I support abortion bans because abortion kills a Zygote/Embryo/Fetus (ZEF). I believe that a ZEF is a person and I believe all killing is murder and murder is wrong".
A Logical Argument In Favor of Abortion Rights
To contrast, here would be a logically valid (and in my humble opinion sound) argument for abortion rights:
1. I know that abortion is a deeply morally divisive issue.
2. I know that not all females seek abortions, but if they did it would be objectively bad for our species. I also know it is objectively good to be respectful of the value of all lifeforms. Therefore, I recognize that there is at least some valid and good basis in being morally opposed to abortion.
3. I know that the purpose of the law in the US is to protect legal individualism while promoting legal individuals to seek to civically ally with one another to support mutual interests. I recognize that maintaining peace and order through consent are supposed to be the fundamental responsibilities of our government and what it should seek to instill in civilian interactions.
4. I recognize legal individualism requires a human to exist as an independent, self-reliant and rationally self-interested being. The less self-reliant and/or rationally self-interested a human is, naturally the less authority they tend to have over governing themselves (e.g. children, people in a vegetative state, people suffering from severe cognitive impairments, etc.).
5. I recognize that in being in the unique state of complete reliance on and encapsulation within one specific person while not having any apparent rational function (not to be conflated with sentience), a ZEF cannot meet the requirements of legal individualism. A ZEF is a human reliant entity. I recognize that the event that transforms a ZEF into a legal individual is birth - when a baby is physically liberated from the confines of their mother's womb and can service their own essential functions independent from another individual's body (even if only for a short time).
6. I recognize that pregnancy inherently involves a loss of individualism. A pregnant person's body is more accurately described as a sovereign state - a space occupied by two or more wills/consciousnesses/souls, but ultimately presided over by the the self-interest of the mother's will (both through her conscious and unconscious processes).
7. I recognize that our government exists to protect individual rights in the space of inter-personal social contracts. I recognize that it is also the government's duty to protect intra-personal rules and boundaries (i.e. bodily sovereignty) from being usurped by extra-personal forces in order to maintain justice, peace, and order. I recognize that abortion bans are themselves an extra-personal force seeking to usurp intra-personal arrangements and as such they are inherently unjust in their disrespect for the individual boundaries of the pregnant body's presiding individual will. I know that if our government were to enforce restrictions on any other sovereign state for the purposes of moral imperialism it would be considered a war crime.
8. I recognize that even ignoring the false equivalency of a ZEF to a legal individual, there is no objective basis for denying an abortion as the fear of harm/death from pregnancy/birth is objectively reasonable, and the basis for any justified homicide ultimately falls on reasonable fear of harm. Pregnancy/birth are unpredictable in nature and inherently, inevitably harmful (at minimum lots of pain, discomfort, bleeding, loss of an organ, a large internal wound where said organ was previously attached, permanent anatomical changes, etc.). Maternal mortality rates are higher than the murder-crime rates for rape and burglary. Pregnancy/birth fulfills all of the most stringent criteria for lethal means of self-defense (which I know is just another form of self-preservation).
9. I know that neither I nor any abortion-abolitionists I have argued with have been unable to cite any other laws that require a person to provide bodily aid to their children or anyone else. To the contrary, I have only found evidence that such laws are not legally viable or constitutional.
10. I know that ultimately the objective of any free society or just moral system is to recognize that we each have a will that we seek to freely follow, and in order to do that it must be free from undue restrictions. I understand that a mother's will to restrict or oppose her ZEF's will is due according to biology and the legal processes we have in place to protect the right to self-preservation. Contrastingly, I have encountered no objective proof that abortion bans constitute a duly justified restriction. As such, I know that abortion bans should be repealed as they are unjustified.
11. While I understand that abortion bans are objectively bad and unsubstantiated from a legal standpoint, I also understand that people are still entitled to their personal opinions on abortion as it relates to their own family-planning and peaceful efforts to try to lawfully persuade others of the value of taking a personally pro-life stance. Per point 2, honest pro-life arguments that are considerate of individual circumstances and merely seek to persuade rather than compel other individuals into valuing all human entities are objectively morally good.
Free Person Criteria
The benefits of legal individualism can logically only apply fully to civically and naturally free persons. A free person who is civically engaged would evidently be one who meets the following criteria:
An independent living human organism.
Not restrained by the law beyond its limitations.
Not restrained by other individuals beyond the limitations allowed by the law.
Not restrained by natural circumstances to a physical space (i.e. not inhabiting someone else's body) or state of existence (i.e. not dead or unborn) that are beyond the limits of the law.
The Cause of Our Divide
Governments of manmade design contrast to the one the natural state and governance pregnancy imparts in that there is no inherent dependency - if we socialize we are consciously engaged, and either seek to commune in peace or in hostility. Ultimately, our disposition is dictated according to what circumstances allow for the mutual continuation of our species. In a state of deprivation, hostility and competition is naturally warranted for survival. In a state of prosperity, peace is plentiful and cherished.
The underlying issue is we are or believe we are in a state of deprivation, either through societal or natural decline. We need to honestly come together for the purpose of actually fixing problems not creating them where they simply do not naturally exist. That requires checking our egos and working toward equitable, mutual interests prioritizing seeking truth, consent, and respect to the utmost degree possible so we can identify what our actual existential threats are and whether they are product of nature or man-made designs. In the interest of peace, we need address this issue and immediately repeal all abortion bans. Laws that would baselessly render free citizens involuntary servants are a war crime perpetrated against us by our own governments. Please do not form an opinion according to ideology here. Seek reason/knowledge, the most peaceful road to prosperity.
No comments:
Post a Comment