Abortion

[catch22]

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.

...personal insults, yet again. How do you stay active on this site anyway? Pay money, they don't moderate you?

Sad and desperate is the guy who needs to be heard, I guess.

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

But I'd argue it does. Unless you can show me a method of caring for a new born infant that requires no parts of anyone's body?

Bueller?

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.

Yeah. You got me. I'm so beaten!

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

I didn't say abortions were murder (in the present legal capacity where they are allowed). Please read before replying.

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

Is it human? If not, how does it infringe of the mother's bodily autonomy?

If so, how can you consider the mother's bodily autonomy, but not the infants?

Regardless of if legally consent to sex does not consent to pregnancy, people are responsible for their own actions. Eating food results in poop, having unprotected sex as a free choice can result in pregnancy.

 

[catch22]

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?

Legalism doesn't suit anyone well.

Is eating food consent to fecal matter?

 

[leibowde84]

Unless you can show me a method of caring for a new born infant that requires no parts of anyone's body?

This, again, is a clear indication that you don't understand the concept of "bodily autonomy". No one is forced to provide the use of their body to the child against their will, unless they have accepted responsibility for the child or are contractually obligated. Bodily autonomy would prevent the state from forcing anyone to take care of the child against their will. The crux of the differentiation is consent to give up the use of their body. Under the law, sex is not consent. If your argument is that it should be, then express that. But, your argument against the concept of bodily autonomy is flawed because all of your hypotheticals have nothing to do with it.

Here is the meaning of bodily autonomy:
"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."

You have provided ZERO examples of people being forced to give up the use of their body against their will without any kind of contractual agreement or penalty for illegal activity. This would be necessary to "poke holes" in the concept of bodily autonomy. I'm all ears if you have one, though.

 

[leibowde84]

Legalism doesn't suit anyone well.

Is eating food consent to fecal matter?

Yes, because it is the necessary result of eating food. Pregnancy is merely a possible result of intercourse, so it is not a valid comparison.

 

[leibowde84]

Legalism doesn't suit anyone well.

Is eating food consent to fecal matter?

Isn't the legality of abortion the topic of discussion? What else is at issue? I'm not arguing that abortion is morally acceptable, as that is a separate issue altogether.

 

[catch22]

This, again, is a clear indication that you don't understand the concept of "bodily autonomy". No one is forced to provide the use of their body to the child against their will, unless they have accepted responsibility for the child or are contractually obligated. Bodily autonomy would prevent the state from forcing anyone to take care of the child against their will. The crux of the differentiation is consent to give up the use of their body. Under the law, sex is not consent. If your argument is that it should be, then express that. But, your argument against the concept of bodily autonomy is flawed because all of your hypotheticals have nothing to do with it.

Heh. I get it. For the newborn, just about always someone will take up the responsibility, and so your mental construct no longer applies.

Here is the meaning of bodily autonomy:
"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."

Got it. Knew it before posting. Thanks.

You have provided ZERO examples of people being forced to give up the use of their body against their will without any kind of contractual agreement or penalty for illegal activity. This would be necessary to "poke holes" in the concept of bodily autonomy. I'm all ears if you have one, though.

Murder. Rape. Slavery. You don't care, because it doesn't apply to you personally. We've established this. It's also not an infringement on anyone's bodily autonomy, because it goes unreported, or is otherwise, not enforced, legally or otherwise.

The argument only works if it's enforced. If it cannot be enforced, you can bemoan it, but it goes back to what it actually is all the time: useless.

You aren't listening because it doesn't apply to your personal legal scope (United States?). Your sense of legality is meaningless in the real world. It doesn't apply for lawlessness (a real problem in Syria/Iraq/Ukraine at the moment, for example) for one, and rape and killing under Sharia Law. I'm glad you have a mostly functional society for which to reason (and hide) behind, but go to the middle east. Raping one's wife is not illegal (or it is, but the community doesn't enforce it), nor is murdering, sorry KILLING, one's child for plethoras of reason (as in, young children like tweens and teenagers, not talking a fetus in the womb).

So here's a question: if a man rapes his wife in the United States, and she doesn't report it or ever challenge it, is it rape, or consent? Is it not consent if she allows him to go unpunished? So that's not rape then, right?

How do we know a murder victim wasn't willing to be killed, if they are dead, and we cannot ascertain for sure their consent?

If a fetus is supposed to be in their mother's womb (by their mother's own actions), and if a fetus is qualified as an entity capable of infringing on its mother's right to bodily autonomy, why does the fetus not get its own bodily autonomy argument?

 

[leibowde84]

Heh. I get it. For the newborn, just about always someone will take up the responsibility, and so your mental construct no longer applies.



Got it. Knew it before posting. Thanks.



Murder. Rape. Slavery. You don't care, because it doesn't apply to you personally. We've established this. It's also not an infringement on anyone's bodily autonomy, because it goes unreported, or is otherwise, not enforced, legally or otherwise.

The argument only works if it's enforced. If it cannot be enforced, you can bemoan it, but it goes back to what it actually is all the time: useless.

You aren't listening because it doesn't apply to your personal legal scope (United States?). Your sense of legality is meaningless in the real world. It doesn't apply for lawlessness (a real problem in Syria/Iraq/Ukraine at the moment, for example) for one, and rape and killing under Sharia Law. I'm glad you have a mostly functional society for which to reason (and hide) behind, but go to the middle east. Raping one's wife is not illegal (or it is, but the community doesn't enforce it), nor is murdering, sorry KILLING, one's child for plethoras of reason (as in, young children like tweens and teenagers, not talking a fetus in the womb).

So here's a question: if a man rapes his wife in the United States, and she doesn't report it or ever challenge it, is it rape, or consent? Is it not consent if she allows him to go unpunished? So that's not rape then, right?

How do we know a murder victim wasn't willing to be killed, if they are dead, and we cannot ascertain for sure their consent?

If a fetus is supposed to be in their mother's womb (by their mother's own actions), and if a fetus is qualified as an entity capable of infringing on its mother's right to bodily autonomy, why does the fetus not get its own bodily autonomy argument?

Whether or not a person is caught or the victim goes to the police, the act is still rape/murder and is still illegal. And, I am discussing US constitutionally protected rights under US law.

No one on earth has every claimed that bodily autonomy cannot be infringed upon at all, it just cannot be done legally. That is the whole point.

 

[catch22]

Yes, because it is the necessary result of eating food. Pregnancy is merely a possible result of intercourse, so it is not a valid comparison.

Possible or not, it's a natural outcome. Why isn't it valid? Some people get pregnant using multiple forms of birth control.

You eat, you poop. You drink, you pee. You have intercourse, you get pregnant. You get pregnant, you have a baby.

This is natural order. It's what happens. It's reproducible. It's science. It matters.

Is it not a valid comparison because it's detrimental to your case? Otherwise, demonstrate why they aren't similar.

 

[catch22]

Whether or not a person is caught or the victim goes to the police, the act is still rape/murder and is still illegal. And, I am discussing US constitutionally protected rights under US law.

No one on earth has every claimed that bodily autonomy cannot be infringed upon at all, it just cannot be done legally. That is the whole point.

From that last post, answer this specifically, please:

If a fetus is supposed to be in their mother's womb (by their mother's own actions), and if a fetus is qualified as an entity capable of infringing on its mother's right to bodily autonomy, why does the fetus not get its own bodily autonomy argument?


You agree murder is murder, even when it is not murder by those partaking in it. You agree rape is rape, even when it isn't by those partaking in it.

Now.... ?

 

[leibowde84]

Possible or not, it's a natural outcome. Why isn't it valid? Some people get pregnant using multiple forms of birth control.

You eat, you poop. You drink, you pee. You have intercourse, you get pregnant. You get pregnant, you have a baby.

This is natural order. It's what happens. It's reproducible. It's science. It matters.

Is it not a valid comparison because it's detrimental to your case? Otherwise, demonstrate why they aren't similar.

Sure. Here it is:

When you eat something, there is no way around it leaving your body either through vomit or the way you described. It is not a mere possibility, but an inevitability.

With pregnancy, although there is a risk (which can be reduced substantially through various means), it is not inevitable in any way. Your claim, "when you have intercourse, you get pregnant", is not true, which can be easily seen by the fact that normal intercourse has a probability of between 15-25% of resulting in pregnancy.

Eating leads to excrement/vomit = 100% (should be assumed)

Intercourse leads to pregnancy (even assuming contraception is used) = 15-25% (reasonably not assumed)

The mere possibility of something happening as a result of a specific act is not concent for it to occur. Everytime I ride my bike, I am putting myself at risk of being hit by a car. No matter what I do, the possibility is still there. But, certainly I do not give consent for cars to hit me when I ride my bike, as it is in no way inevitable that I will be hit.

 

[columbus]

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

Ultimately I think that the law does need to be changed. That isn't impossible. How many people would have predicted marriage equality in 2015 back in 2005?
The premise that personal autonomy applies to situations where someone freely Chose to take the risk of involving someone else does not make sense. I believe that the gap in the law can be fixed.
The same way we passed laws requiring fathers to provide "child support" for about 20 years, even if they don't want to be responsible for their Choice.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

From that last post, answer this specifically, please:

If a fetus is supposed to be in their mother's womb (by their mother's own actions), and if a fetus is qualified as an entity capable of infringing on its mother's right to bodily autonomy, why does the fetus not get its own bodily autonomy argument?


You agree murder is murder, even when it is not murder by those partaking in it. You agree rape is rape, even when it isn't by those partaking in it.

Now.... ?

The fetus, I woud argue, has bodily autonomy. But, that autonomy does not trump the mother's right to bodily autonomy. A mother has the legal right to refuse the use of her body to the fetus. The fetus has the right to be free from intrusion, but like all other rights, it only goes so far as to not infringe on the rights of others.

The fetus cannot survive without the use of that specific body, so the fetus dies as a result of the mother refusing the use of her body to it.

 

[leibowde84]

Ultimately I think that the law does need to be changed. That isn't impossible. How many people would have predicted marriage equality in 2015 back in 2005?
The premise that personal autonomy applies to situations where someone freely Chose to take the risk of involving someone else does not make sense. I believe that the gap in the law can be fixed.
The same way we passed laws requiring fathers to provide "child support" for about 20 years, even if they don't want to be responsible for their Choice.
Tom

Child support is financial. It is not forcing the father to give up the use of his body against his will. We would have to make sexual intercourse consent to pregnancy for all women. That is a huge hill to climb, imho.

 

[catch22]

Sure. Here it is:

When you eat something, there is no way around it leaving your body either through vomit or the way you described. It is not a mere possibility, but an inevitability.

With pregnancy, although there is a risk (which can be reduced substantially through various means), it is not inevitable in any way. Your claim, "when you have intercourse, you get pregnant", is not true, which can be easily seen by the fact that normal intercourse has a probability of between 15-25% of resulting in pregnancy.

Eating leads to excrement/vomit = 100% (should be assumed)

Intercourse leads to pregnancy (even assuming contraception is used) = 15-25% (reasonably not assumed)

The mere possibility of something happening as a result of a specific act is not concent for it to occur. Everytime I ride my bike, I am putting myself at risk of being hit by a car. No matter what I do, the possibility is still there. But, certainly I do not give consent for cars to hit me when I ride my bike, as it is in no way inevitable that I will be hit.

Horrible example. If you had a 25% chance to die every time you rode your bike, you would not ride your bike. But your figures aren't so impressive, because of the way you present them. For example, it'd be more convincing to say riding your bike Monday - Friday there is a 5% chance to be killed. On Saturday and Sunday, though (when you REALLY want to ride it, so your urge is much higher and you are more likely to do it), the chance is increased to 80%.

But, let me ask you like this. If I said riding your bike results in an 85% chance you'd die by the end of the year, would you ever ride your bike again? Because that's roughly the chance any woman gets pregnant when having unprotected sex.

But then I'll say, if you wear a helmet it goes down by 85% or so. And if you wear full riding gear, you'd likely only have a 1 to 2% chance of dying every year? That's birth control. If you don't use it, you will have between 85-90% chance to get pregnant, unless you are very lucky (or unlucky, depends who you ask), or something is wrong with you or your partner.


By the way, much of what you eat doesn't leave your body. It's actually quite ignorant to say that! Heck, 75% of your poop is just water.


The point is causality. Do you want to argue against causality, now?

 

[leibowde84]

Horrible example. If you had a 25% chance to die every time you rode your bike, you would not ride your bike. But your figures aren't so impressive, because of the way you present them. For example, it'd be more convincing to say riding your bike Monday - Friday there is a 5% chance to be killed. On Saturday and Sunday, though (when you REALLY want to ride it, so your urge is much higher and you are more likely to do it), the chance is increased to 80%.

But, let me ask you like this. If I said riding your bike results in an 85% chance you'd die by the end of the year, would you ever ride your bike again? Because that's roughly the chance any woman gets pregnant when having unprotected sex.

But then I'll say, if you wear a helmet it goes down by 85% or so. And if you wear full riding gear, you'd likely only have a 1 to 2% chance of dying every year? That's birth control. If you don't use it, you will have between 85-90% chance to get pregnant, unless you are very lucky (or unlucky, depends who you ask), or something is wrong with you or your partner.


By the way, much of what you eat doesn't leave your body. It's actually quite ignorant to say that! Heck, 75% of your poop is just water.


The point is causality. Do you want to argue against causality, now?

Where are you getting 85% from? Are you suggesting that the probability for pregnancy is 85% when a woman has sex? Can you provide a cite for that, as this is very different from all of the statistics I saw. I didn't see anything even claimed over 30%.

 

[leibowde84]

Horrible example. If you had a 25% chance to die every time you rode your bike, you would not ride your bike. But your figures aren't so impressive, because of the way you present them. For example, it'd be more convincing to say riding your bike Monday - Friday there is a 5% chance to be killed. On Saturday and Sunday, though (when you REALLY want to ride it, so your urge is much higher and you are more likely to do it), the chance is increased to 80%.

But, let me ask you like this. If I said riding your bike results in an 85% chance you'd die by the end of the year, would you ever ride your bike again? Because that's roughly the chance any woman gets pregnant when having unprotected sex.

But then I'll say, if you wear a helmet it goes down by 85% or so. And if you wear full riding gear, you'd likely only have a 1 to 2% chance of dying every year? That's birth control. If you don't use it, you will have between 85-90% chance to get pregnant, unless you are very lucky (or unlucky, depends who you ask), or something is wrong with you or your partner.


By the way, much of what you eat doesn't leave your body. It's actually quite ignorant to say that! Heck, 75% of your poop is just water.


The point is causality. Do you want to argue against causality, now?

But the likelihood of pregnancy is between 15 and 25%, so how is your hypothetical using 85% relevant? If it was really 85% likely, I would change my stance, but I would need to see some evidence.

 

[catch22]

The fetus, I woud argue, has bodily autonomy. But, that autonomy does not trump the mother's right to bodily autonomy. A mother has the legal right to refuse the use of her body to the fetus. The fetus has the right to be free from intrusion, but like all other rights, it only goes so far as to not infringe on the rights of others.

The fetus cannot survive without the use of that specific body, so the fetus dies as a result of the mother refusing the use of her body to it.

Okay. So if murder is the unjustifiable killing of a human being, the only thing that prevents this from being murder is because it's currently legal in the United States?

I mean, would it be fair to say the mother forced the child into the situation? Then just ended its life?

At what point do we identify maliciousness in this behavior?

 

[catch22]

Where are you getting 85% from? Are you suggesting that the probability for pregnancy is 85% when a woman has sex? Can you provide a cite for that, as this is very different from all of the statistics I saw. I didn't see anything even claimed over 30%.

Yes. Over the course of a year. I phrased it accordingly.

Let me google that for you

 

[leibowde84]

Okay. So if murder is the unjustifiable killing of a human being, the only thing that prevents this from being murder is because it's currently legal in the United States?

I mean, would it be fair to say the mother forced the child into the situation? Then just ended its life?

At what point do we identify maliciousness in this behavior?

Maliciousness would only be present if the sex was had in the interest of getting pregnant. I would not say that the mother forced the fetus into it for the same reason ... lack of intent.

 

[catch22]

Also, there's the issue of fecundity. Any given day or sexual encounter is not the same chance. It's best to measure it over the course of time.

Ask tons of teen mothers if they figured they'd get pregnant on their first try.