Abortion

[McBell]

Where? Rape is legal in certain areas. So is killing. Well, most would say murder, but if it no one cares and no one stops it, is it murder anymore? I think so, but it depends who you ask. And even if these actions are condemned, it's highly likely no one cares and does nothing about it anyway, giving zero credence to the argument people of your ilk posit.

I think the second hand smoking thing was a decent argument but no one has replied. See above.

Perhaps you do not understand the question?
Here it is again:

can you provide any LEGAL infringements on bodily autonomy?​

You do an awful lot of dancing around it, but you have not yet actually answered the question.
Hells bells, you even make the claim that rape is legal in certain areas , but do not provide a lick of evidence in support of the claim.

 

[McBell]

My only question to this is: if genetically it will form into a human being, it will have life, and there's no reason to prevent or terminate it, aside from the grounds that said mother was irresponsible and partook in an act (which could easily be construed as strict liability mind you), why condone the behavior?

I do not have to condone the behavior to accept that the behavior exists.

I think pooping is gross, but who is really going to litigate that? It's nutty, right? So how does the natural order of having a child under the proper circumstances fall under a scenario where litigation is even necessary, and in fact, upheld in favor of the mother?

Perhaps you have heard of bodily autonomy?
If not, you should look it up.

Who speaks for the child?

Good god almighty I hope it is never you.

 

[idea]

"Choice" in this context refers to bodily autonomy and our right to be free from being forced to provide the use of our body to someone else against our will. The right to bodily autonomy is enjoyed by all US Citizens, but the "pro-life" movement wants to infringe on this right only for women and only when they become pregnant.

So "someone else" is referring to the unborn child? Do you believe the unborn child is a legally defined person who can be criminally charged with infringing on their mother's right to bodily autonomy?

We tell people not to do drugs, which is infringing on their right to bodily autonomy.
We tell people not to mutilate themselves - is that infringing on their right to bodily autonomy?
Under most state laws, helping someone commit suicide is a felony...
So it seems complete right to bodily autonomy is not enjoyed by US citizens. This is because we love and care for one another, and do not want people hurting themselves, or others.

 

[McBell]

So "someone else" is referring to the unborn child? Do you believe the unborn child is a legally defined person who can be criminally charged with infringing on their mother's right to bodily autonomy?

We tell people not to do drugs, which is infringing on their right to bodily autonomy.
We tell people not to mutilate themselves - is that infringing on their right to bodily autonomy?
Under most state laws, helping someone commit suicide is a felony...
So it seems complete right to bodily autonomy is not enjoyed by US citizens. This is because we love and care for one another, and do not want people hurting themselves, or others.

You really should look up what bodily autonomy is and is not before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[Cephus]

Perhaps you do not understand the question?
Here it is again:

can you provide any LEGAL infringements on bodily autonomy?​

You do an awful lot of dancing around it, but you have not yet actually answered the question.
Hells bells, you even make the claim that rape is legal in certain areas , but do not provide a lick of evidence in support of the claim.

Of course he can't, but this is SOP for apologists. They don't care about the reality, they only care about what makes them feel good. Twisting and turning and making things up is nothing unusual for them.

 

[leibowde84]

Really? I bring up a perfectly good example with smoking, and you don't care and ignore it repeatedly, even though that's what you asked for. And you wish to continually go in circles about this particular point we've already established is meaningless to you on the premise that because written under law as illegal and sometimes/might be/could be enforced, it's good enough for you.... I don't see why you keep going back to it.

Onward, already.

Sorry. Here you go. Smoking in public has nothing to do with bodily autonomy BECAUSE IT'S IN PUBLIC. It doesn't

Incoming lawsuits against new born children who demand breast milk? Infants who deprive their parents of sleep? Toddlers that test their parent's sanity? Is that not relying on the parent's body for well being?

Then you are obligated to defend and protect the mother who smokes, drinks, and does meth while pregnant -- despite the affect on the child. If it ends in death for the baby, what's the difference between that and abortion? Is it justified killing, or murder? Neither? How about a mother who smokes and their newborn baby dies from SIDS?

You're in the position to ideologically and legally protect the parent who allows their child to die because it's their right to not give blood that might save their child's life. Their blood, their decision. Their child, who cares? That's legally just fine, you're right there -- but do you support it? Remember the murders of ISIS in this, there's a reason I asked you those questions.

So then you legally do nothing because of bodily autonomy, but would you socially condemn the behavior? If you don't condemn it, do you encourage it?

Don't answer any of this. I don't care about your answers. My only goal is for you to consider the breadth of your view. It's seems logically fair and well, but it's an illusion -- regardless of it is written as law or not.

Straw men? Heh. Okay. I'm trying to figure out your position while asking you questions. Asking questions and you answering them is a straw man fallacy. Got it.

Again

By the way this is incoherent, like a lot of laws we have I suppose. I can consent to eat, but I do not consent to poop.

Ludicrous. You'd think all these science-types would appreciate good ol fashion natural order, but you know, not when they are inconvenienced after pleasuring themselves. I dunno.

Edit: Maybe I should argue to McDonalds, I consented to eat their food, but never consented to getting fat? Could work.

Talk about "incoherent". I don't even know what you are getting at here. This is coming out of such deep "left field", I don't even think it can be correctly referred to as a straw man. What does this have to do with anything. It is pure speculation and bias in action.

 

[leibowde84]

The point is that "legal" is a poor standard. Especially when it comes to killing.
Tom

I agree. But, what can you hope to achieve without addressing the legal matter?

 

[leibowde84]

Incoming lawsuits against new born children who demand breast milk? Infants who deprive their parents of sleep? Toddlers that test their parent's sanity? Is that not relying on the parent's body for well being?

Then you are obligated to defend and protect the mother who smokes, drinks, and does meth while pregnant -- despite the affect on the child. If it ends in death for the baby, what's the difference between that and abortion? Is it justified killing, or murder? Neither? How about a mother who smokes and their newborn baby dies from SIDS?

You're in the position to ideologically and legally protect the parent who allows their child to die because it's their right to not give blood that might save their child's life. Their blood, their decision. Their child, who cares? That's legally just fine, you're right there -- but do you support it? Remember the murders of ISIS in this, there's a reason I asked you those questions.

So then you legally do nothing because of bodily autonomy, but would you socially condemn the behavior? If you don't condemn it, do you encourage it?

Don't answer any of this. I don't care about your answers. My only goal is for you to consider the breadth of your view. It's seems logically fair and well, but it's an illusion -- regardless of it is written as law or not.

Straw men? Heh. Okay. I'm trying to figure out your position while asking you questions. Asking questions and you answering them is a straw man fallacy. Got it.

Again, you are ignorant of the legal concept of bodily autonomy. I provided the definition. Once you are physically autonomous, a.k.a. outside the womb in this context, the mother has the ability to give the baby up for adoption, give it to the father, give it to whoever, so that choice makes it separate from the concept of bodily autonomy. But, if the mother is forced to provide the use of ther body for the fetus to mature into a newborn baby, that is an infringement. It is the same reason why slavery is illegal. Unless a person has broken a law or entered into a contractual/employment situation, no one is aloud to force them to give up the use of their body against their will to another human being.

We all know that, after birth, children require a lot from their parents. But, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand, as they aren't direclty dependant on the body of the mother as they are while in the womb. I also agree, its not their fault, and it seems, in most cases to be unfair and thus immoral, but, nevertheless, it is still a violation of bodily autonomy that cannot be ignored, as you are attempting to do.

 

[leibowde84]

So "someone else" is referring to the unborn child? Do you believe the unborn child is a legally defined person who can be criminally charged with infringing on their mother's right to bodily autonomy?

We tell people not to do drugs, which is infringing on their right to bodily autonomy.
We tell people not to mutilate themselves - is that infringing on their right to bodily autonomy?
Under most state laws, helping someone commit suicide is a felony...
So it seems complete right to bodily autonomy is not enjoyed by US citizens. This is because we love and care for one another, and do not want people hurting themselves, or others.

None of the exmples here violate bodily autonomy, as they all deal with the social contract between government and citizen. Very obvious and actually necessary in any society. And, the child in this context does not enjoy more rights than a person, as that would be incredibly innane. So, by your logic, the fetus should be considred a "thing" and there would be no argument left to have. You are arguing against yourself, don't you see?

 

[idea]

None of the exmples here violate bodily autonomy, as they all deal with the social contract between government and citizen. Very obvious and actually necessary in any society. And, the child in this context does not enjoy more rights than a person, as that would be incredibly innane. So, by your logic, the fetus should be considred a "thing" and there would be no argument left to have. You are arguing against yourself, don't you see?

bodily autonomy is the idea that everyone should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies - drugs/suicide/kill other people etc. so obviously bodily autonomy does not exist in anything but anarchy.

If you decide to go to the pound and get a pet - are you obligated to take care of that pet? (yes)
If you decide to have sex which results in pregnancy - are you obligated to take care of your child? (yes)

The child did not make the decision. The people who made the decision are responsible for the consequences of their choice.

 

[McBell]

bodily autonomy is the idea that everyone should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies - drugs/suicide/kill other people etc. so obviously bodily autonomy does not exist in anything but anarchy.

If you decide to go to the pound and get a pet - are you obligated to take care of that pet? (yes)
If you decide to have sex which results in pregnancy - are you obligated to take care of your child? (yes)

The child did not make the decision. The people who made the decision are responsible for the consequences of their choice.

Please see post #1244

 

[leibowde84]

bodily autonomy is the idea that everyone should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies - drugs/suicide/kill other people etc. so obviously bodily autonomy does not exist in anything but anarchy.

If you decide to go to the pound and get a pet - are you obligated to take care of that pet? (yes)
If you decide to have sex which results in pregnancy - are you obligated to take care of your child? (yes)

The child did not make the decision. The people who made the decision are responsible for the consequences of their choice.

I have already acknowledged that the right can be freely given up via contract. You are arguing that having sex should be contractual consent to bringing a baby to term, correct?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do we need to have the conversation about not being disrespectful and attempting to win points via emotional blackmail again? It's getting extremely boring.

It's not emotional blackmail to talk about the potential to end human kind or the economic, real impacts of abortion on entire economies...

 

[leibowde84]

Perhaps. I wonder (I've watched a lot of post-apocalyptic themed films lately) about the implications of this statement you've made. I've noticed that my skeptic friends are very libertarian/libertine in most of what I would call biblical morality, but that they draw a line where society and the greater good is harmed. Let's say we hold to this standard and all childbearing-age women choose to terminate all pregnancies. Their bodily autonomy has ended human life on Earth. Consider...

There are millions of couples desperate to adopt. Consider...

Companies like Disney and McDonald's who market to (or prey on, if you like!) young people are facing irreversible losses because of negative population growth! Consider...

Also, the US population is growing, so it is incorrect to claim that there is "negative population growth". The US is growing by roughly .7% annually.

 

[leibowde84]

It's not emotional blackmail to talk about the potential to end human kind or the economic, real impacts of abortion on entire economies...

Having more children that must be supported by the state, as there are no parents available to adopt them, is good for the economy?!

In the US 397,122 children are living without permanent faamilies in the foster care system. Only 25% of these children will be eligible for adoption, and even they will have to wait at least 3 years before leaving the foster care system. FYI.

 

[Marisa]

It's not emotional blackmail to talk about the potential to end human kind or the economic, real impacts of abortion on entire economies...

If the human race goes extinct my friend, it will be because we changed the planet into something we couldn't adapt to living on. Not because . . . abortion. Histrionics don't make you look rational.

 

[catch22]

Again, you are ignorant of the legal concept of bodily autonomy. I provided the definition. Once you are physically autonomous, a.k.a. outside the womb in this context, the mother has the ability to give the baby up for adoption, give it to the father, give it to whoever, so that choice makes it separate from the concept of bodily autonomy. But, if the mother is forced to provide the use of ther body for the fetus to mature into a newborn baby, that is an infringement. It is the same reason why slavery is illegal. Unless a person has broken a law or entered into a contractual/employment situation, no one is aloud to force them to give up the use of their body against their will to another human being.

We all know that, after birth, children require a lot from their parents. But, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand, as they aren't direclty dependant on the body of the mother as they are while in the womb. I also agree, its not their fault, and it seems, in most cases to be unfair and thus immoral, but, nevertheless, it is still a violation of bodily autonomy that cannot be ignored, as you are attempting to do.

No, no. I'm not ignorant of the term. I just think it's hogwash. It's a mental fallacy people invent for themselves in order to justify morally depraved actions like killing babies.

This is my opinion. I'm not here saying this isn't a legal term or that it shouldn't be (it shouldn't, but I'm not arguing for legislation change or anything). I'm also not saying the bible's morality should be legislated or any such thing (even though other angry posters can't seem to realize I've left religion out of all of my posts here). Do I expect non-believers to live as believers? No. I know people are going to have abortions, whether they are legal or not, just like gay people are going to have sex and get married, whether it's legal or not.

I just think bodily autonomy is a crap argument, for abortion. People think it's a smoking gun for abortion, but it's not. It's swiss cheese. You don't need to be a Christian to think that, there are non-Christians who are against abortion and probably against this concept as a whole. Gasp.

New borns are directly dependent on someone's body, whether you want to attribute it to this fallacious mental construct or not. It's up to you to navigate the slippery slope, I'm just pointing out the holes. Put a new born in a field and leave it there. See what happens. Someone must feed the baby, someone must hold them, someone must care for them. That is someone's body, time, energy being spent to make sure the baby doesn't die or otherwise be damaged in it's development.

Consider this: one argues a new born in their mother's womb is a violation of bodily autonomy, even though it's natural order for it to exist there (where else does a fetus go?) So, in order for "that thing" to infringe on mother's rights, it must exist as something. If it was a TURD no one would care. If it was cancer no one would care. But because it IS A HUMAN BEING, it thus infringes.

The bodily autonomy argument doesn't even make sense; you have to attribute independent human identity onto the fetus (or project it), in order for it to infringe on the mother's bodily autonomy (because poop, pee, or other "natural" things with no identity don't infringe; those are perfectly normal natural order things no one cares about bothering them), yet cannot go so far as to consider it actual human life -- lest it gets too close to murder or other things that might make one feel morally repulsive.

I'm just asking you and others to consider this. Bodily autonomy is not a good argument for abortion; it borders on insanity and makes virtually no sense.

 

[leibowde84]

No, no. I'm not ignorant of the term. I just think it's hogwash. It's a mental fallacy people invent for themselves in order to justify morally depraved actions like killing babies.

This is my opinion. I'm not here saying this isn't a legal term or that it shouldn't be (it shouldn't, but I'm not arguing for legislation change or anything). I'm also not saying the bible's morality should be legislated or any such thing (even though other angry posters can't seem to realize I've left religion out of all of my posts here). Do I expect non-believers to live as believers? No. I know people are going to have abortions, whether they are legal or not, just like gay people are going to have sex and get married, whether it's legal or not.

I just think bodily autonomy is a crap argument. People think it's a smoking gun for abortion, but it's not. It's swiss cheese. You don't need to be a Christian to think that, there are non-Christians who are against abortion and probably against this concept as a whole. Gasp.

New borns are directly dependent on someone's body, whether you want to attribute it to this fallacious mental construct or not. It's up to you to navigate the slippery slope, I'm just pointing out the holes. Put a new born in a field and leave it there. See what happens. Someone must feed the baby, someone must hold them, someone must care for them. That is someone's body, time, energy being spent to make sure the baby doesn't die or otherwise be damaged in it's development.

Consider this: one argues a new born in their mother's womb is a violation of bodily autonomy, even though it's natural order for it to exist there (where else does a fetus go?) So, in order for "that thing" to infringe on mother's rights, it must exist as something. If it was a TURD no one would care. If it was cancer no one would care. But because it IS A HUMAN BEING, it thus infringes.

The bodily autonomy argument doesn't even make sense; you have to attribute independent human identity onto the fetus (or project it), in order for it to infringe on the mother's bodily autonomy (because poop, pee, or other "natural" things with no identity don't infringe; those are perfectly normal natural order things no one cares about bothering them), yet cannot go so far as to consider it actual human life -- lest it gets too close to murder or other things that might make one feeling morally repulsive.

I'm just asking you and others to consider this. Bodily autonomy is not a good argument for anything; it borders on insanity and makes virtually no sense.

Again, you don't understand the concept. No hard feelings, but it's true. Giving blood, donating organs, bringing a pregnancy to term, etc. are examples of how bodily autonomy is protected by law. A baby in the field has been born and, thus, is "autonimous". The fact that a baby needs help to survive and develop outside the womb has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. If a mother was forced to breastfeeding feed her baby and no one else could take her place, that might be an infringement.

In other words, the minute that the mother is not the only one who can provide the use of her body to sustain the life of the fetus/child, bodily autonomy is no longer at issue.

Do you think that people should be legally forced to donate organs/blood to save another person who would die otherwise?

 

[McBell]

No, no. I'm not ignorant of the term. I just think it's hogwash. It's a mental fallacy people invent for themselves in order to justify morally depraved actions like killing babies.

Except that it is not being used to justify killing babies.
Nice try with appeal to emotion fallacy.
Sadly it merely makes you look both ignorant and desperate.

I just think bodily autonomy is a crap argument, for abortion. People think it's a smoking gun for abortion, but it's not. It's swiss cheese. You don't need to be a Christian to think that, there are non-Christians who are against abortion and probably against this concept as a whole. Gasp.

The problem here is that bodily autonomy, regardless of how much you dislike the fact you have nothing to offer against it, is one of the facts of the matter of abortion.

New borns are directly dependent on someone's body, whether you want to attribute it to this fallacious mental construct or not. It's up to you to navigate the slippery slope, I'm just pointing out the holes. Put a new born in a field and leave it there. See what happens. Someone must feed the baby, someone must hold them, someone must care for them. That is someone's body, time, energy being spent to make sure the baby doesn't die or otherwise be damaged in it's development.

And it also has absolutely nothing to do with bodily autonomy....
Once it is born is no longer dependant upon the mother.

Consider this: one argues a new born in their mother's womb is a violation of bodily autonomy, even though it's natural order for it to exist there (where else does a fetus go?) So, in order for "that thing" to infringe on mother's rights, it must exist as something. If it was a TURD no one would care. If it was cancer no one would care. But because it IS A HUMAN BEING, it thus infringes.

New borns are not in the womb...
Until such time as "that thing" (your phrase, not mine) is given the right to violate the mothers bodily autonomy...
Oops, now I understand why you dislike the bodily autonomy argument.
You cannot defeat it.

The bodily autonomy argument doesn't even make sense; you have to attribute independent human identity onto the fetus (or project it), in order for it to infringe on the mother's bodily autonomy (because poop, pee, or other "natural" things with no identity don't infringe; those are perfectly normal natural order things no one cares about bothering them), yet cannot go so far as to consider it actual human life -- lest it gets too close to murder or other things that might make one feel morally repulsive.

Abortion is not murder.
Why?
Because abortion is legal.

Why do you think the fetus should have the right to force the mother into giving birth?

I'm just asking you and others to consider this. Bodily autonomy is not a good argument for anything; it borders on insanity and makes virtually no sense.

Your argument from incredulity does not impress.

 

[catch22]

Again, you don't understand the concept. No hard feelings, but it's true. Giving blood, donating organs, bringing a pregnancy to term, etc. are examples of how bodily autonomy is protected by law. A baby in the field has been born and, thus, is "autonimous". The fact that a baby needs help to survive and develop outside the womb has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. If a mother was forced to breastfeeding feed her baby and no one else could take her place, that might be an infringement.

In other words, the minute that the mother is not the only one who can provide the use of her body to sustain the life of the fetus/child, bodily autonomy is no longer at issue.

Do you think that people should be legally forced to donate organs/blood to save another person who would die otherwise?

A new born baby is not autonomous. By your mental construct, maybe so, but there's no reality to it. If it were, it wouldn't require anything to survive on its own. I know your angle on all this legal definition, but it's still a mental fallacy. Bodily autonomy concerning abortion must, essentially, violate itself in its own definition in order for it to work in the case of abortion. I said why in my previous post.

You used slavery as an example. The only difference between that and said newborn baby is compulsion. What compels one to partake in slavery versus the raising of a helpless child?

As for the example of blood/organs to save life, you ignore a key ingredient. Relationship. A mother and baby are related in a specific way. Some stranger laying in a bed somewhere who needs my blood is a completely different example. Maybe it makes you feel better to post such an unrealistic example, I don't know.