Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Charlie Kirk versus Abortion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Charlie Kirk thinks he has a logical case against abortion.

I'll call it the DNA argument: "it's not your DNA, it's not your choice." He didn't go into much detail, but I suppose the basic idea is that a woman needs a man to fertilize her egg with his sperm, and because this produces an embryo with DNA from both the egg and the sperm, the man has a claim to 50% of the fetus. The problem with this argument is that without a contractual agreement such as a marriage, the sperm is merely a gift, and the man has no claim on it after giving it away voluntarily.

Also, even if the man owns 50% of the fetus, how is this an argument against abortion? Both parties could agree to abort.

In my opinion, the most effective argument against abortion is still "life begins at conception," because it challenges "life begins at birth" while sidelining the question of when rights begin. But I'm not interested in rehashing that old debate again. Mostly I'm curious what others think of this DNA argument.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Tumors are not your DNA, therefore it's not your choice to remove them."

It's a stupid argument. It's actually a rationalization of his conclusion rather than an argument for his conclusion. It fails in many ways.

He's assuming that having human DNA makes you human. Then he argues as usual, that killing other people is wrong. He doesn't go into more detail because he's too stupid to do so. That's Charlie Kirk for you. You are trying to give a charitable interpretation when there is no charitable interpretation in that way. Simply put, he is equivocating "human DNA" with "human" to argue that you can't make choices for other humans. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 3/28/2021 at 6:20 PM, Easy Truth said:

If it's fundamentally about DNA contribution, do the grandparents own a piece of the action too? What about their rights?

I hadn't even considered that. The slippery slope leads to DNA-based collectivism. The fetus is collectively owned by the surviving genetic lineage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/28/2021 at 1:57 PM, 2046 said:

An argument requires 3 terms

There's an implied initial premise.

If it's not your DNA, then it's not your choice.

It's not your DNA.

Thus, it's not your choice.

I addressed the implied premise with:

On 3/28/2021 at 11:02 AM, MisterSwig said:

Also, even if the man owns 50% of the fetus, how is this an argument against abortion? Both parties could agree to abort.

Eiuol is right, it's a stupid argument. But these new conservatives are flush with stupid arguments that should probably be shot to pieces for the sake of target practice or helping those who can't see the errors.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another aspect of this position is the issue of the cell cycle. A zygote grows and its cells divide numerous times within days of the egg being fertilized. So after only a few days the man's initial material contribution is reduced to basically nothing. The mother's body grows and produces the fetus, including all the new cells in the baby.

The DNA argument thus relies upon an assumed right to one's DNA sequence, not merely one's DNA material. So even if the father's original cells die inside the mother's fetus, he can still make a claim based on the DNA sequence in the new cells of the fetus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 12:20 PM, Doug Morris said:

Your first paragraph has it right.  There is also the point that the man may contribute 50% of the DNA, but the woman contributes 100% of carrying the fetus inside.

I think your point relates to my last post above. The mother does 100% of the carrying, which means 100% of the producing--after the initial insemination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, necrovore said:

Abortion should be legal because nobody has a "right" to another person's body.

I don't see how DNA makes any difference in that.

Outside of some contractual agreement like marriage, I agree. But within a marriage, one grants marital rights to one's spouse, and those rights can include reasonable use of the spouse's body for romantic and reproductive purposes. Denying such rights can be grounds for divorce, if the couple married for romance or in order to create and raise children.

So I can see where DNA might be a factor in a marriage, where the husband has a legal claim to the product of the marriage. But it doesn't seem to apply outside such an arrangement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

one grants marital rights to one's spouse, and those rights can include reasonable use of the spouse's body

But rights presuppose that somebody already has complete control and decision about how they use their body and mind to achieve ends. You can't in any sense sign away any part of your body as if it were property. Even if you wanted to. There cannot be a right to control a spouse for reproductive or romantic purposes. Of course there can be a basis for marriage contracts perhaps, but I don't think they would be valid in any way for dissatisfaction with sex or reproduction.  That's just a remnant of misogyny in the past where women really were property when it came to marriage, so of course you could say that the woman's body was signed away as if it were property when somebody offered a dowry. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You can't in any sense sign away any part of your body as if it were property. Even if you wanted to.

I'm talking about use rights, but people do sign away body parts that can be extracted or detached, such as hair, blood, eggs, sperm, bone marrow, kidneys. Even kids trade baby teeth for money from the tooth fairy.

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But rights presuppose that somebody already has complete control and decision about how they use their body and mind to achieve ends.

Yes, but a woman doesn't have a penis to insert into her own vagina and inseminate herself. She must grant that right to a man. And if she doesn't grant it, he's not permitted in there. If he uses force it's rape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm talking about use rights

So am I.

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

but people do sign away body parts that can be extracted or detached

The difference is that these are for medical purposes, or the things are no longer part of your body anyway. 

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

And if she doesn't grant it, he's not permitted in there. If he uses force it's rape.

I don't like the word right here, but in any case, it is not that the man is using a woman's body, but that he is coming into contact with her. That's why consent is necessary and also why consent doesn't sign away any control or decision making power. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Outside of some contractual agreement like marriage, I agree. But within a marriage, one grants marital rights to one's spouse, and those rights can include reasonable use of the spouse's body for romantic and reproductive purposes.

When I say "Nobody has a right to someone else's body," I mean that in the same way as "Nobody has a right to an iPhone."

Clearly you can buy an iPhone if you can find a willing seller, and when you do, you have a right to that iPhone, because you've bought it. (It might also be possible to rent, lease, or borrow an iPhone, and thus have the right to use that iPhone even though you don't own it.) However, I still think it's correct to say that "Nobody has a right to an iPhone."

People, by consenting, can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...