The Argument from Possession (Abortion)

[Dimmesdale]

1. I possess my body as much as any other goods that I possess.
2. If I possess these goods, I have the right to deny them to whom I may (that is, illegitimate claimants).
3. An unwanted child (whom I have not invited) is as much an encroacher upon my goods as any other illegitimate claimant (e.g., a homeless person)
4. I have not invited this unwanted child.

Conclusion: It is not incumbent upon me to cater to any such illegitimate claimants. I have the right to abort such a child, if such is really an illegitimate claimant that I have not invited to my body.

Is this argument sound? Agree or disagree.

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #1]

I can come up with three objections to this argument.

1. One's body is not merely one's own (as in a piece of property or otherwise). From a religious point of view, the body may ultimately belong to God or a higher power. One is not, then, at absolute liberty to do whatever he or she wants with it. The issue of suicide is a case in point, to which many would agree is inherently wrong.

2. A fetus is not a claimant. To be a claimant, one needs to voluntarily decide to claim a piece of property. A thief, therefore, by his own will, steals. It was not necessary for him to steal; he decided to do so. Thus he is properly an agent of concern in this particular regard. A fetus does not (at least consciously) possess the will to do the same. Hence it belongs in a different category of being. One might compare it to that of an animal, who acts by necessity only. But whereas animals usually do not have rights accorded to them, human beings do.

3. Abortion involves the deliberate killing of innocent life, not merely the withholding of the means to life.

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #2]

Answer to Objections:

1. Even if God or a higher power is the ultimate proprietor or overseer of bodies, it should not be tacitly assumed that we are not granted some degree of sovereignty over our own, since in many other cases we clearly exercise such. As in refusing a vaccination, or not being an organ donor.

2. A fetus may not be a claimant in the sense of being a willing agent, but it is still an alien party that is imposing itself on another. Hence, it may be defined as a radical imposition on the autonomy of a person to which there is no obvious reason as to why it should be tolerated. Does it matter whether a thing is a reasoning person, an unreasoning person, an animal or a force of nature? Since this is not clear, the justification of abortion is not obviously obstructed. When it comes to rights, it is not clear why the right to life of the unborn should take precedence over the right to liberty of the woman.

3. The withholding of life and the deliberate taking of life are both likewise justified in this instance because they amount to the same thing. Only intentional malice would make the latter worse than the former. But there is no demonstrable evidence that malice is at issue more than pragmatic concern. At worst, taking abortion as a general rule, one might say one is being too flippant with life, one's will settling, if not upon malice, then on a shallow convenience-minded thinking. Ultimately, there is no way herein to discern right from wrong in any but a case by case basis.

[Purple Knight]

To deny the argument is sound you have to deny the idea that one owns one's own body, which to me is absurd.

Or you have to deny that the child is uninvited. The willing act of sexual intercourse (and this would not apply if unwilling) creates a child there. You may not want it to do that, but it does. I think the homeless person is a good analogy. Let's say some action you performed swept him into your house and made him dependent upon you. Even if you didn't want that to happen, we might say that he is not simply uninvited.

I think this applies all the way down, and all the way up. Some corporation might set up biodomes, then pollute the world to unlivability so they can charge people rent and make them slaves, kings of their domes, which of course they do own. Well, not quite. Since they caused the dependency these people have, they might be responsible for the dependents.

I don't think the idea of the child being not a claimant works as well, because even though he steals involuntarily, he still steals. If someone comes along and puts homeless people in my house, I can still remove them. If someone is a compulsive kleptomaniac, that might make them not liable for their theft, but it doesn't make my stuff, not my stuff. I can at very least demand it back.

[Dimmesdale]

To deny the argument is sound you have to deny the idea that one owns one's own body, which to me is absurd.

In some ways, perhaps not. If you are ordered to go to jail, then in some sense your body is a ward of the state. And in wartime this may apply also to your residence. You may have to house soldiers in your own household. So it seems that ownership is not absolute.

Or you have to deny that the child is uninvited. The willing act of sexual intercourse (and this would not apply if unwilling) creates a child there. You may not want it to do that, but it does.

Yes, in my mind the child would have to be uninvited in order to properly be an illegitimate claimant. If one engages in sexual acts unrestrainedly and therefore irresponsibly, one opens oneself to life, and that in my mind is grounds against the illegitimacy of the claimant.

I think the homeless person is a good analogy. Let's say some action you performed swept him into your house and made him dependent upon you. Even if you didn't want that to happen, we might say that he is not simply uninvited.

It would depend on the action in this case.

I think this applies all the way down, and all the way up. Some corporation might set up biodomes, then pollute the world to unlivability so they can charge people rent and make them slaves, kings of their domes, which of course they do own. Well, not quite. Since they caused the dependency these people have, they might be responsible for the dependents.

How this plays out in terms of law is beyond me at the moment.

I don't think the idea of the child being not a claimant works as well, because even though he steals involuntarily, he still steals. If someone comes along and puts homeless people in my house, I can still remove them. If someone is a compulsive kleptomaniac, that might make them not liable for their theft, but it doesn't make my stuff, not my stuff. I can at very least demand it back.

Thoughts to ponder.

Thanks.

[Dimmesdale]

(A slight edit.)

1. I possess my body as much as any other goods that I possess.
2. An illegitimate claimant is any agent that I have not invited to have a share in my goods.
3. If I possess these goods, I have the right to deny them to whom I may (that is, illegitimate claimants, e.g. a homeless person).
4. Any unwanted child whom I have not invited is an encroacher upon my goods and is therefore an illegitimate claimant
5. I have not invited this unwanted child.
6. The only viable means of removing this illegitimate claimant is as an abortion.

Conclusion: It is not incumbent upon me to cater to any such illegitimate claimants. I have the right to abort such a child, if such is really an illegitimate claimant that I have not invited to my body.

[Purple Knight]

In some ways, perhaps not. If you are ordered to go to jail, then in some sense your body is a ward of the state. And in wartime this may apply also to your residence. You may have to house soldiers in your own household. So it seems that ownership is not absolute.

I think people generally see soldiers in your house as government overreach. I don't, but I think it's the general conception. But as far as jail, I see that as being more about where you can't go than where you must go. I understand it's everywhere, but one thing that's definitely not absolute is your right to be in a particular place. Ugly women can't get into nightclubs. Why, then, should the rest of the world (that is NOT jail) tolerate people who not only offend your eyeballs, but might kill you or gouge them out? The fact that we build jails at all, to me, is a luxury to the criminal. If they break the social contract (the basic stuff, like don't kill people) then they are not entitled to more than being thrown in the ocean and told not to come back.

Yes, in my mind the child would have to be uninvited in order to properly be an illegitimate claimant. If one engages in sexual acts unrestrainedly and therefore irresponsibly, one opens oneself to life, and that in my mind is grounds against the illegitimacy of the claimant.

It would be different if people got pregnant randomly, but they don't. Aside from rape, the person with the unwanted person inside of them, had every opportunity not to have that unwanted person inside of them.

It would depend on the action in this case.

Maybe, but if the action was willing, could have easily been avoided, and created dependency, I don't see a reason not to hold the dependency-creator responsible for that dependency. And it's not really about law. It's about the thing that should guide law. I would say that is called fairness. If there was some drug that created a physical dependency such that anyone addicted would die if they didn't get the drug, and I went around dosing people with it, I'm probably responsible for supplying them with it for the rest of their lives. Because, without me, they'd have lived. If, with me, they die, that's maybe murder and at least theft.

[marke]

1. I possess my body as much as any other goods that I possess.
2. If I possess these goods, I have the right to deny them to whom I may (that is, illegitimate claimants).
3. An unwanted child (whom I have not invited) is as much an encroacher upon my goods as any other illegitimate claimant (e.g., a homeless person)
4. I have not invited this unwanted child.

Conclusion: It is not incumbent upon me to cater to any such illegitimate claimants. I have the right to abort such a child, if such is really an illegitimate claimant that I have not invited to my body.

Is this argument sound? Agree or disagree.

Executing a fully developed unborn baby because of some supposed 'mother's rights' claim is unjust, wicked, and despicable.