Abortion

[Marisa]

A fetus has different genetic makeup than the mother and is not defined, legally, as an organ or bodily fluid, but as something different. Nor does it cost you an organ or bodily fluid to have a child (it costs things like weight gain, more spending on food and lack of sleep). That's why moms and dads are called parents. "Fluid donor" and "egg donor" have different weights of meaning. We all need to learn this, obey this.

When I donate blood, I do not donate ALL of my blood. Yet despite the fact that I am not expected to give every last drop, I still cannot be compelled to donate any of it. Your argument is always going to fail because bodily autonomy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's immaterial whether anyone agrees with anyone else or not, that's one of the whole points of this conversation. I rather abhor the notion that anyone has to supply a socially acceptable reason for exercising their rights, we all have them and that is simply that. I don't need to justify why I make the choices I do, and nobody has the privilege of telling me I can only make the choices they would make. Yet far too many people are tickled pink the judge the worth and value of another person based on whether that person's choices for their own body and life line up with what they would choose, or whether that choice flatters their religious belief. That's the problem with morality, and it's why it's damn near impossible to legislate it.

FWIW, I totally agree with Tom that this life is all we get. Where we part ways is when he goes on to say that knowing that, I am rightly forced to continue a pregnancy I don't want to continue, despite the fact that this life is the only one I'll have and I am the one who being forced into doing something I don't want to do is going to affect. I suppose it just goes to show that no one really likes being told which rights they can exercise and under what conditions, most especially in a society with such a high premium on personal freedoms.

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...

 

[leibowde84]

pro-rights? I am pro-life. I think life is an incredible thing.

pro-choice? There are a lot of things in life we have no choice over - we cannot choose to live forever, we cannot choose to change the weather, we cannot choose the consequences of our actions. To pretend that we can choose in all matters is unrealistic. Facing up to the consequences of our actions can be a hard thing to do, but I think honesty is the best policy. Pretending a baby does not have a heartbeat, or brainwaves, or ears that hear and nerves that feel pain is not honest.



How do you define when personhood starts? I'm not one to define it at conception, I think it happens when a spirit enters a body, and I'm not sure when exactly that happens?

In any event, those who I know who had abortions when they were young and naive all deeply regret it now - to the point of one of my friends actually experiencing PTSD and going to continued counseling for it. ... I've never had anyone tell me "I wish I never gave birth, I hate my kids, my sacrifices for them were not worth it, if I could do it again, I would have never had kids" .... The people at my grandmother's retirement home - the ones who are happy? The happy ones are the ones who have their kids coming by to visit them. Talk to all the old people, and they will tell you the most important thing in their life was their family (regardless of how that family came about.)

"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.

 

[Marisa]

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...

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.

 

[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...

No one is arguing for every woman getting an abortion, so your first point is nothing but a straw man. I think I can safely say that there isn't anyone in favor of all women having abortions.

There are more orphaned/abandoned kids waiting to be adopted than there are responsible parents to adopt them, so your second point is invalid.

Disney and McDonald's (especially) profits should not be of any concern and are in no way relevant to this conversation. Yet again, another straw man. There is no real dangers with population decline in the US, so this is, yet again, another straw man.

 

[leibowde84]

pro-rights? I am pro-life. I think life is an incredible thing.

pro-choice? There are a lot of things in life we have no choice over - we cannot choose to live forever, we cannot choose to change the weather, we cannot choose the consequences of our actions. To pretend that we can choose in all matters is unrealistic. Facing up to the consequences of our actions can be a hard thing to do, but I think honesty is the best policy. Pretending a baby does not have a heartbeat, or brainwaves, or ears that hear and nerves that feel pain is not honest.



How do you define when personhood starts? I'm not one to define it at conception, I think it happens when a spirit enters a body, and I'm not sure when exactly that happens?

In any event, those who I know who had abortions when they were young and naive all deeply regret it now - to the point of one of my friends actually experiencing PTSD and going to continued counseling for it. ... I've never had anyone tell me "I wish I never gave birth, I hate my kids, my sacrifices for them were not worth it, if I could do it again, I would have never had kids" .... The people at my grandmother's retirement home - the ones who are happy? The happy ones are the ones who have their kids coming by to visit them. Talk to all the old people, and they will tell you the most important thing in their life was their family (regardless of how that family came about.)

This is irrelevant to the legal issue. It doesn't speak to why it should be illegal. Only why it should be discouraged. How do you escape the bodily autonomy issue? It creates an incredibly slippery slope.

 

[catch22]

When I donate blood, I do not donate ALL of my blood. Yet despite the fact that I am not expected to give every last drop, I still cannot be compelled to donate any of it. Your argument is always going to fail because bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy is a weak position. Do you masturbate in public? Should anyone be able to tell you otherwise? So there's limits on it, then eh? So much for autonomy, I guess. Here, this guy walks it up and down the street, probably better than I can. Read it, really. You won't ever agree, even though he's right, and you're... wrong.

I am afraid of this indisputable pro-choice argument - The Matt Walsh Blog

You live in a fantasy world. You have no autonomy. It's a projection, a falsehood, a fake warm comfy place you put yourself because the reality of the situation is too frightening, I dunno. How else does one ACTUALLY reason like this?

Ask the attendants of Auschwitz about their bodily autonomy. At any time someone can place their will over yours, and there's nothing you can do about it. Given the right circumstances, no one else will do anything, either. Physically, legally, you name it. You posit on the rationale of "rape" or forced pregnancy (making up less than what, 5% of actual abortion cases), which is, in itself, demonstration of the invalidity of your own theory. But because you really have no bodily autonomy, you shall then make an "autonomous" decision to make yourself feel better about the cold hard truth? So it exists as nothing but a framework in your mind, flying in the face of reality, which is, there is no such thing. If someone does something against your autonomy, surely, there will be consequences!

The air in your lungs is not yours. The blood in your veins does not belong to you. Everything you have ever had, possessed, or otherwise, is given to you by someone, or something, else. You are alive because of someone else. You are safe because of someone else. You are employed because of someone else. You eat because of someone else. You have warmth because of someone else.

The pride and insolence is fairly overwhelming here.

 

[leibowde84]

Bodily autonomy is a weak position. Do you masturbate in public? Should anyone be able to tell you otherwise? So there's limits on it, then eh? So much for autonomy, I guess. Here, this guy walks it up and down the street, probably better than I can. Read it, really. You won't ever agree, even though he's right, and you're... wrong.

I am afraid of this indisputable pro-choice argument - The Matt Walsh Blog

You live in a fantasy world. You have no autonomy. It's a projection, a falsehood, a fake warm comfy place you put yourself because the reality of the situation is too frightening, I dunno. How else does one ACTUALLY reason like this?

Ask the attendants of Auschwitz about their bodily autonomy. At any time someone can place their will over yours, and there's nothing you can do about it. Given the right circumstances, no one else will do anything, either. Physically, legally, you name it. You posit on the rationale of "rape" or forced pregnancy (making up less than what, 5% of actual abortion cases), which is, in itself, demonstration of the invalidity of your own theory. But because you really have no bodily autonomy, you shall then make an "autonomous" decision to make yourself feel better about the cold hard truth? So it exists as nothing but a framework in your mind, flying in the face of reality, which is, there is no such thing. If someone does something against your autonomy, surely, there will be consequences!

The air in your lungs is not yours. The blood in your veins does not belong to you. Everything you have ever had, possessed, or otherwise, is given to you by someone, or something, else. You are alive because of someone else. You are safe because of someone else. You are employed because of someone else. You eat because of someone else. You have warmth because of someone else.

The pride and insolence is fairly overwhelming here.

You obviously don't understand the concept of bodily autonomy. I would suggest researching it. Your hypothetical has nothing to do with it.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead.

 

[catch22]

You obviously don't understand the concept of bodily autonomy. I would suggest researching it. Your hypothetical has nothing to do with it.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead.

Oh no, I get it. It's just not true.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh no, I get it. It's just not true.

What isn't true. Provide an example of where a person is able to force another to give up direct use of their physical body against their will and without any kind of contractual obligation (including the social contract between citizens and government). You haven't done that at all, and you provided a completely irrelevant example.

 

[catch22]

Does murder or rape count?

 

[Cephus]

It used to be legal to kill slaves... Just because something is legal, does not mean it is not murder.

Yeah, actually it does. At the time when it was legal to kill slaves, there were no legal repercussions because it was legal. Today that isn't the case. You don't get to retroactively redefine history because human society changed its mind.

 

[Cephus]

Does murder or rape count?

Both of those are illegal for exactly the same reason as is being argued. The criminal is forcing the victim to give up their bodily autonomy and therefore, the act is against the law. Maybe you need to put down your Bible and just think about this for a bit.

 

[leibowde84]

Does murder or rape count?

LOL. Those are illegal, are they not? Obviously it isn't impossible to infringe on someone's bodily autonomy, as that would be absurd. Our argument is that there is no legally permitable way to do this in the US.

 

[catch22]

Both of those are illegal for exactly the same reason as is being argued. The criminal is forcing the victim to give up their bodily autonomy and therefore, the act is against the law. Maybe you need to put down your Bible and just think about this for a bit.

It's not illegal. Your concept of legality spans only your limited scope of protections. Ultimately, it doesn't matter anyway, because someone can or won't do something, again, it's out of your control. Put down your drink and think about it for a while. Rape and forced killing happen all the time, and there's no repercussions. People can condemn it all they want or demand action, but whether it happens or not is totally case dependent. People get raped and killed all the time against their will, with no justice.

So how does bodily autonomy help anyone?


If you want to be specific for an example in the United States, how about second hand smoke? You disallow smokers to smoke when their urge requires it. We cannot tell someone what they can put it or take out of their bodies, so it's their bodily autonomy to smoke.

Likewise, second hand smoke, the argument is the other direction -- yet scientifically, it's debunked.

Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer - Forbes


Not that it matters, I live in a place where smoking inside buildings is still just fine. I could care less. But a lot of places you are legally barred from it, even though there is no scientific reason to do so.

Small argument, but hey, one to think about. I think the rape/murder cases that go unprosecuted globally everyday are bigger issues, but I mean, that's me.

 

[catch22]

LOL. Those are illegal, are they not? Obviously it isn't impossible to infringe on someone's bodily autonomy, as that would be absurd. Our argument is that there is no legally permitable way to do this in the US.

How about abortion?

 

[leibowde84]

It's not illegal. Your concept of legality spans only your limited scope of protections. Ultimately, it doesn't matter anyway, because someone can or won't do something, again, it's out of your control. Put down your drink and think about it for a while. Rape and forced killing happen all the time, and there's no repercussions. People can condemn it all they want or demand action, but whether it happens or not is totally case dependent. People get raped and killed all the time against their will, with no justice.

So how does bodily autonomy help anyone?


If you want to be specific for an example in the United States, how about second hand smoke? You disallow smokers to smoke when their urge requires it. We cannot tell someone what they can put it or take out of their bodies, so it's their bodily autonomy to smoke.

Likewise, second hand smoke, the argument is the other direction -- yet scientifically, it's debunked.

Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer - Forbes


Not that it matters, I live in a place where smoking inside buildings is still just fine. I could care less. But a lot of places you are legally barred from it, even though there is no scientific reason to do so.

Small argument, but hey, one to think about. I think the rape/murder cases that go unprosecuted globally everyday are bigger issues, but I mean, that's me.

This is absurd. The entire argument is concerning the legality of abortion rights. Murder and rape are illegal, and your right to bodily autonomy is protected by law. Enforcement and opportunity have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Again, can you provide any LEGAL infringements on bodily autonomy? If not, it's OK, as I cannot think of any.

 

[leibowde84]

How about abortion?

Abortion is not a violation of bodily autonomy because the mother is the person who's bodily autonomy is being infringed upon. The fetus DOES NOT have the right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of the mother against the mothers will. Thus, the mother has the right to refuse the use of her body. This refusal is the abortion, at least legally speaking.

 

[catch22]

Abortion is not a violation of bodily autonomy because the mother is the person who's bodily autonomy is being infringed upon. The fetus DOES NOT have the right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of the mother against the mothers will. Thus, the mother has the right to refuse the use of her body. This refusal is the abortion, at least legally speaking.

Untrue. It's natural order. A baby belongs in their mother's womb, it is not imposing on her; it's literally what happens. By having sex and becoming impregnated, she entered into a natural order event. Kind of like when you eat, then take a dump?

The baby is supposed to be there after having sex that leads to conception. A fetus is genetically distinct from its mother. Killing it goes to the examples above, where killing is legal, depending on the law of the land in which one resides.

The choice the mother had was to not have sex that leads to conception. If you want to talk about rape and forced pregnancy, then we'd back to my previous points, I guess.

EDIT: spelling

 

[catch22]

This is absurd. The entire argument is concerning the legality of abortion rights. Murder and rape are illegal, and your right to bodily autonomy is protected by law. Enforcement and opportunity have absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Again, can you provide any LEGAL infringements on bodily autonomy? If not, it's OK, as I cannot think of any.

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.