Abortion

[catch22]

The mother is allowed to refuse the use of her body to another living thing. The fetus has that same right, arguably, but that in no way means that the fetus has the right to use the mothers body against her will. Huge difference.

Back to square one. Where's a fetus supposed to go? In the mother's womb. Natural order. Who put it there? Cause and effect, how do women get pregnant? By who's choices was the baby in the womb, where it rightfully belongs?

You've said it perfectly: the mother's rights trump in this situation. At least someone said it. How bodily autonomy still works out for you is beyond me, because one has to violate the other in a fundamental fashion. Alas, legally, it is what it is until it is changed.

Most people try to say the fetus isn't human (just cells) and that justifies it for them. It's both amazing and interesting to me no such requirement is necessary for you to defend the idea.

 

[leibowde84]

Try not to get into the straw man further. The chance doesn't change anything. It's significant enough to warrant an entire term (unwanted pregnancy). It's cause and effect, which is undeniable. It's expected for many people, even if they bet against the house.

The reason abortions take place for many people is for THIS reason.... I mean, really? Let's get caught up in the chance? Come on.

My point is that 15-25% is not nearly sufficient to force consent each time a woman has sex.

 

[leibowde84]

Back to square one. Where's a fetus supposed to go? In the mother's womb. Natural order. Who put it there? Cause and effect, how do women get pregnant? By who's choices was the baby in the womb, where it rightfully belongs?

You've said it perfectly: the mother's rights trump in this situation. At least someone said it. How bodily autonomy still works out for you is beyond me, because one has to violate the other in a fundamental fashion. Alas, legally, it is what it is until it is changed.

Most people try to say the fetus isn't human (just cells) and that justifies it for them. It's both amazing and interesting to me no such requirement is necessary for you to defend the idea.

There is no violation of bodily autonomy when a mother refuses the use of her body to anyone, no matter what the end result is. I did not claim otherwise.

 

[catch22]

15-25% is significant, though.

I wasn't arguing consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. The concept is morbid, I can't rationalize it.

 

[leibowde84]

Back to square one. Where's a fetus supposed to go? In the mother's womb. Natural order. Who put it there? Cause and effect, how do women get pregnant? By who's choices was the baby in the womb, where it rightfully belongs?

You've said it perfectly: the mother's rights trump in this situation. At least someone said it. How bodily autonomy still works out for you is beyond me, because one has to violate the other in a fundamental fashion. Alas, legally, it is what it is until it is changed.

Most people try to say the fetus isn't human (just cells) and that justifies it for them. It's both amazing and interesting to me no such requirement is necessary for you to defend the idea.

I am not arguing for morality. I am saying that there is no way around the legal protection of a woman's right to dictate what gets to use her body directly.

 

[catch22]

There is no violation of bodily autonomy when a mother refuses the use of her body to anyone, no matter what the end result is. I did not claim otherwise.

You've already established the ending of one's life against their will, could be construed a violation of bodily autonomy for that individual.

 

[leibowde84]

15-25% is significant, though.

I wasn't arguing consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. The concept is morbid, I can't rationalize it.

That is what you are arguing if you think that the mother should be legally forced to bring the pregnancy to term, though.

 

[leibowde84]

You've already established the ending of one's life against their will, could be construed a violation of bodily autonomy for that individual.

Not if the death of the fetus is caused by the refusal of the mother to allow the use of her body. The fact that the fetus has no alternative is exactly why bodily autonomy becomes an issue.

 

[catch22]

That is what you are arguing if you think that the mother should be legally forced to bring the pregnancy to term, though.

The concept doesn't apply, is what I'm saying. I know some clever legislators or law makers made it a legal definition, so it does, but I cannot fathom it, per se.

Pregnancy could be considered a "risk" associated with having sex, depending who you ask and when. In other words, consent can't be required because it doesn't apply. Adding consent to risk factors makes no sense.

 

[catch22]

Not if the death of the fetus is caused by the refusal of the mother to allow the use of her body. The fact that the fetus has no alternative is exactly why bodily autonomy becomes an issue.

Why should it apply to this relationship? A fetus is supposed to be there, it is supposed to be in the mother's womb.

The burden of responsibility is not on the fetus in this case.

EDIT: it's depravation of natural being. Are you going to argue strangulation isn't murder, next?

 

[leibowde84]

Why should it apply to this relationship? A fetus is supposed to be there, it is supposed to be in the mother's womb.

The burden of responsibility is not on the fetus in this case.

EDIT: it's depravation of natural being. Are you going to argue strangulation isn't murder, next?

Why would I argue that strangulation isn't murder? What relevance does that have to bodily autonomy?

Whether something is "supposed" to be there, according to natural order, does not remove the requirement for consent of the mother. And, unless sex = consent to pregnancy, the mother's right to say "no, I am not going to allow you to develope inside my body" must be protected. In US law there can't be a simple "one-off", where bodily autonomy is ignored only in this specific instance. The future precedent of a change like this must be considered.

 

[leibowde84]

The concept doesn't apply, is what I'm saying. I know some clever legislators or law makers made it a legal definition, so it does, but I cannot fathom it, per se.

Pregnancy could be considered a "risk" associated with having sex, depending who you ask and when. In other words, consent can't be required because it doesn't apply. Adding consent to risk factors makes no sense.

There is absolutely no way around consent, though. It MUST be addressed. No one can be forced to give up the direct use of their physical body unless they provide some kind of consent.

Now, if you are going to argue that the risk of pregnancy should demand this consent, it would set extremely dangerous precedent. With only a 15-25% (on average) chance of getting pregnant each time a woman has sex, it is a tough sale. And, remember, US law in no way recognizes the main purpose of intercourse to be pregnancy. If it was, it would be facially discriminatory.

I get that pregnancy is the natural order of things. I do. I just don't see that as sufficient to infringe on a woman's right to deny the use of her body to anyone, unless required by law.

 

[Marisa]

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?

Historically, ladies of great wealth and breeding did not feed their own children, hence the term "wet nurse".

 

[catch22]

There is absolutely no way around consent, though. It MUST be addressed. No one can be forced to give up the direct use of their physical body unless they provide some kind of consent.

Now, if you are going to argue that the risk of pregnancy should demand this consent, it would set extremely dangerous precedent. With only a 15-25% (on average) chance of getting pregnant each time a woman has sex, it is a tough sale. And, remember, US law in no way recognizes the main purpose of intercourse to be pregnancy. If it was, it would be facially discriminatory.

Nah, I wouldn't argue it should be legislated in such a way. And you're right about the rest. It's of no surprise, we often legislate in strange ways, even against natural order.

I get that pregnancy is the natural order of things. I do. I just don't see that as sufficient to infringe on a woman's right to deny the use of her body to anyone, unless required by law.

Yeah. Just yeah.

Thanks for the go around.

 

[McBell]

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

Truth hurts?

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

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

But I'd argue it does.

When are you going to start that argument?

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

Seriously?
Wow.
Are you honestly that ignorant of child rearing or are you merely grasping at straws?
Neither one makes it seem possible to have an intelligent conversation on this topic with you.

Bueller?

Huh?

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

Beaten?
Hells bells, you haven't even presented a proper argument against bodily autonomy yet.

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

Perhaps you should pay better attention to what you post.
It gets to close to murder?
No it doesn't.
Why doesn't it?
Because abortion is legal.

Nice try though.

Is it human?

It is a human fetus, yes.

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

We are not talking about infants, we are talking about fetuses.
That you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference is most revealing.

Now if you want to know about fetus bodily autonomy...

Regardless of if legally consent to sex does not consent to pregnancy, people are responsible for their own actions.

I agree.
As it stands now abortion is a legal way of taking responsibility for ones actions.
That you dislike that particular option has no bearing on it being an option.

Eating food results in poop, having unprotected sex as a free choice can result in pregnancy.

And abortion is one option in dealing with said pregnancy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

May I try a different tack?

If you are pro-choice, what might change your stance?

 

[McBell]

May I try a different tack?

If you are pro-choice, what might change your stance?

A good compelling argument that shows no abortion ever is the best route to take.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

You would do better to stick to facts rather than demonizing your debate opponents. You are using histrionics. I'm using logic. Universal tolerance of abortion plus universal consent for/choice for abortion would likely require governments to institute abortion quotas and tactics in response. In China, something similar has already occurred!

 

[McBell]

You would do better to stick to facts rather than demonizing your debate opponents. You are using histrionics. I'm using logic. Universal tolerance of abortion plus universal consent for/choice for abortion would likely require governments to institute abortion quotas and tactics in response. In China, something similar has already occurred!

This sounds like mere fear mongering.
What am I missing?

 

[Marisa]

May I try a different tack?

If you are pro-choice, what might change your stance?

Do you understand the pro-choice argument? It says that all women are allowed to make their own choice. Why would I ever argue against women being equal to men in that capacity? Just asking this question reveals that you haven't a clue what you're arguing against. It strongly suggests that you also may not have any idea what you're arguing for.