However, these rights are not absolute.
Governments regularly tell us what we cannot do with our bodies. Many locales require helmet use, there are all sorts of laws regarding illegal drugs (even for potentially beneficial, yet still-unapproved medicines), and government requires seatbelts. One cannot sell one's own organs, nor can one sell one's body for sexual purposes. Suicide is generally illegal.
Clearly there is no such thing as an unobstructed right to control one's own body. Nevertheless, we still possess some sort of right to control our own body. To what extent is the issue.
Since this is a property rights argument, let's analyze the issue by way of analogy. Suppose you own a property, perhaps a rental house. As a matter of right, your possession of this property entitles you, among other things, to make decisions about it according to your interests, unimpeded by government within certain constraints.
However, your property rights can be and often are diminished, as a matter of law. For example, you cannot use your property for illegal purposes, like to house prostitutes or to to sell drugs. You cannot use your property in a way that impedes the rights of others. You cannot rent your residential property for a commercial enterprise. You can't remodel it or demolish it without government review and/or permits.
Governments regularly tell us what we cannot do with our bodies. Many locales require helmet use, there are all sorts of laws regarding illegal drugs (even for potentially beneficial, yet still-unapproved medicines), and government requires seatbelts. One cannot sell one's own organs, nor can one sell one's body for sexual purposes. Suicide is generally illegal.
Clearly there is no such thing as an unobstructed right to control one's own body. Nevertheless, we still possess some sort of right to control our own body. To what extent is the issue.
Since this is a property rights argument, let's analyze the issue by way of analogy. Suppose you own a property, perhaps a rental house. As a matter of right, your possession of this property entitles you, among other things, to make decisions about it according to your interests, unimpeded by government within certain constraints.
However, your property rights can be and often are diminished, as a matter of law. For example, you cannot use your property for illegal purposes, like to house prostitutes or to to sell drugs. You cannot use your property in a way that impedes the rights of others. You cannot rent your residential property for a commercial enterprise. You can't remodel it or demolish it without government review and/or permits.
So, let's say you rent this property to a legal tenant. When you rent out your property, the rights of those who occupy the property now supersede some of your rights. The tenant has property rights, even though it is your property. The tenant has a right to occupy and possess the property per the rental contract. The tenant has an expectation of privacy, of the enjoyment of the property for his own legal purposes. He also enjoys the right to be free from arbitrary eviction. All these rights are established by either contract or by law.
Indeed, in many cities, you cannot refuse to rent to tenants for a variety of reasons, which means that your tenant has a legal right to rent from you, even though you might not be a willing participant.
This means you cannot act upon your rights if your act violates the rights of your tenant as set by the prescriptions of law. Your rights are subordinated to the superior rights of the tenant. And certainly, you cannot kill your tenant, no matter how unpleasant he may be or how much his presence inconveniences you.
Your tenant in no way belongs to you, even though he occupies your property.
So it is with the fetus. She is occupying your property. She is a tenant, and should enjoy certain rights, including the right to not be evicted. She should have property rights. However, the courts have ruled that the fetus does not have rights, and those decisions have been arbitrarily determined to favor the property rights of the mother over those of the fetus.
But the matter is not settled simply by virtue of court rulings. We know that in the past the courts have ruled that owning slaves is constitutional, for example. The courts do err. And indeed, they have erred in negating the property rights of the unborn child by simply deeming the child "not a person."
Ok, to this point we have only considered the legal status. That is what the courts have decided, the legal status of the fetus. However, medically speaking, the fetus is quite alive, and clearly human. True, she does not have the ability to survive unaided, but neither does a baby. And yes, a fetus is inconvenient. But again, so is a child. And maybe the fetus causes emotional distress. So do children. The fetus is certainly an impediment to fully enjoying one's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as are babies.
Indeed, in many cities, you cannot refuse to rent to tenants for a variety of reasons, which means that your tenant has a legal right to rent from you, even though you might not be a willing participant.
This means you cannot act upon your rights if your act violates the rights of your tenant as set by the prescriptions of law. Your rights are subordinated to the superior rights of the tenant. And certainly, you cannot kill your tenant, no matter how unpleasant he may be or how much his presence inconveniences you.
Your tenant in no way belongs to you, even though he occupies your property.
So it is with the fetus. She is occupying your property. She is a tenant, and should enjoy certain rights, including the right to not be evicted. She should have property rights. However, the courts have ruled that the fetus does not have rights, and those decisions have been arbitrarily determined to favor the property rights of the mother over those of the fetus.
But the matter is not settled simply by virtue of court rulings. We know that in the past the courts have ruled that owning slaves is constitutional, for example. The courts do err. And indeed, they have erred in negating the property rights of the unborn child by simply deeming the child "not a person."
Ok, to this point we have only considered the legal status. That is what the courts have decided, the legal status of the fetus. However, medically speaking, the fetus is quite alive, and clearly human. True, she does not have the ability to survive unaided, but neither does a baby. And yes, a fetus is inconvenient. But again, so is a child. And maybe the fetus causes emotional distress. So do children. The fetus is certainly an impediment to fully enjoying one's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as are babies.
There is really only one difference between a fetus and a baby: Her location. Thus, the law treats her differently because of the single fact that she has not undertaken the six inch journey down the birth canal. This is a completely arbitrary delineation of when personhood begins, and therefore, when property rights begin.
The fetus' location in the womb is that of a tenant. Her mother owes her a duty to exercise due care to protect the fetus' pre-eminent property rights. A woman, by becoming pregnant, has ceded certain aspects of her own property rights because of the rights of the occupant of her womb.
The fetus' location in the womb is that of a tenant. Her mother owes her a duty to exercise due care to protect the fetus' pre-eminent property rights. A woman, by becoming pregnant, has ceded certain aspects of her own property rights because of the rights of the occupant of her womb.
The presence of the fetus diminishes the rights of the woman, and rightly so.
Another closely related point is that the presence of a fetus does not *permanently* diminish the rights of the mother's body. Abortion advocates are quick to cite fringe cases, such as rape, although this accounts for such a small percentage of pregnancies as to be just that: fringe cases. And, in the case of rape, the victim may carry to term and find adoptive parents. She is inconvenienced for 9 months. I challenge abortion advocates to name any other capital crime in which the victim is inconvenienced less than 9 months, or in which person B (the fetus) is punished for the crimes of person A (the rapist). Person C (the mother) is inconvenienced, yes, but I am at a loss to name crimes in which there is not a victim and the victim is not *seriously* inconvenienced, sometimes with no ability to restore what has been taken - such as a spouse's or child's life. And how would the perhaps noble desire to lessen the impact on person B justify the forfeiture of person C's life?
ReplyDeleteOf couse, the rape discussions are usually deflection from the elephant in the room anyway: the "right" to abortion is almost never exercised primarily in response to actual rape. It is exercised primarily outside of marriage as a license to engage in unrestricted sexual activity without consequence. Women have the pill, implants, and various forms of near-foolproof birth control. We were told this would sexually liberate them, sexually and otherwise. It has been an enormous factor in doing just that - and with its own set of societal consequences. But like all progressive goals, it is never satisfied. It is incrementalism. Step two was abortion - in case the pill didn't work or rape occurred or the woman simply later regretted getting pregnant at an inconvenient time. Kind of like "yes means yes - until I decide I shouldn't have said yes."
Quite right. What do you think "step 3" might be?
ReplyDeleteThe impulsive response would be to say Step 3 is infanticide, employing the same justifications that abortion advocates use now: that every child must be *wanted* and that it is ultimately more compassionate to end a life than to perpetuate an unwanted life. And although I think that is the inescapable result of the abortion advocate's world view if taken to its logical conclusion, I don't think our society - as corrupt as it is - will take that plunge. Instead, I think step 3 is already upon us. Now that women have been "liberated" from the natural consequences of promiscuity and society has rushed to replace husbands with the compassionate pocketbook of the State, men are relegated to pack mules that can be dispensed with at whim. The fruits of their labor are important; they themselves are drones. The happiness of the female trumps all else and our legal and social systems have evolved to enshrine this as sacred. Even *questioning* the status quo or pointing to its obvious inequalities labels one a misogynist. And so we end up with a society in which the church "conserves" the feminism of the 60's and 70's, thinking that by opposing the extremes of radical feminism today, it is sufficient to return to the "balanced" view of four decades ago. The 1950s is universally condemned as the stone age, and the "advances" of the 60's and 70's are seen to be as "traditional". In some respects, conservatives are not that at all - they are merely 50 years behind liberals, but on the same trajectory. Yesterday's extreme is the new normal.
ReplyDelete