Another Abortion Debate

[Kooky]

I asked a simple question…………under your view is it absurd punish a man that forces a woman to abort?....

Are you familiar with the concept of bodily autonomy?

 

[leroy]

Are you familiar with the concept of bodily autonomy?

What is the point of quoting my comment if you are not going to answer it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is the point of quoting my comment if you are not going to answer it?

Seems to me the point is to correct the bad assumptions inherent in your question. Otherwise, the question can't be answered.

 

[Kooky]

What is the point of quoting my comment if you are not going to answer it?

I was trying to lead the horse to water, so to speak. But I guess not all of them want to be led.

 

[leroy]

Seems to me the point is to correct the bad assumptions inherent in your question. Otherwise, the question can't be answered.

@Kooky

I asked a very simple question.

Do you think that hitting a pregnant woman and killing the fetus as a consequence should be considered a worst crime that hitting an unpregant woman?..... yes ,yes both are horrible crimes, but would you agree that the former is worse than the last?

I am just asking a simple question.

1 If you say “yes, I agree” then you are granting that the fetus is a person (or at least an organism with intrinsic value”)

2 If you say “no I don’t agree” both crimes are the same, then you can deny that the fetus is a person and be intellectually consistent,

 

[Kooky]

@Kooky

I asked a very simple question.

Do you think that hitting a pregnant woman and killing the fetus as a consequence should be considered a worst crime that hitting an unpregant woman?..... yes ,yes both are horrible crimes, but would you agree that the former is worse than the last?

I am just asking a simple question.

1 If you say “yes, I agree” then you are granting that the fetus is a person (or at least an organism with intrinsic value”)

2 If you say “no I don’t agree” both crimes are the same, then you can deny that the fetus is a person and be intellectually consistent,

Your conclusion would only be valid if I was argueing that killing a fetus would kill a person, which I am not.

It is possible for one situation to be worse than another in terms of criminal damage or harm inflicted, without bringing personhood into it; seriously injuring somebody is generally treated as worse than only mildly injuring them, for example.

Therefore I would argue that hitting a pregnant woman so severely as to induce a miscarriage definitely inflicts greater harm on her, but I wouldn't argue that it is a crime of a different quality - it is simply a more severe case of domestic abuse.

You would avoid turning yourself into pretzels argumentatively if you simply learned and understood the concept of bodily autonomy, which forms the basis of abortionist/pro-choice argumentation. So far, unfortunately, it does not look to me like you've demonstrated any motivation at all to understand the position of the opposite side of this debate.

I recommend you try and learn something from this, and return to this debate after you've familiarized yourself with at least the foundational elements of your opponents' arguments, so that you can actually adress their actual ideas directly and show them why you think they are wrong on their terms, instead of so desperately trying to lead them into a reductio ad absurdum that appears only to you, and nobody else.

 

[leroy]

Your conclusion would only be valid if I was argueing that killing a fetus would kill a person, which I am not.

It is possible for one situation to be worse than another in terms of criminal damage or harm inflicted, without bringing personhood into it; seriously injuring somebody is generally treated as worse than only mildly injuring them, for example.

Therefore I would argue that hitting a pregnant woman so severely as to induce a miscarriage definitely inflicts greater harm on her, but I wouldn't argue that it is a crime of a different quality - it is simply a more severe case of domestic abuse.

You would avoid turning yourself into pretzels argumentatively if you simply learned and understood the concept of bodily autonomy, which forms the basis of abortionist/pro-choice argumentation. So far, unfortunately, it does not look to me like you've demonstrated any motivation at all to understand the position of the opposite side of this debate.

I recommend you try and learn something from this, and return to this debate after you've familiarized yourself with at least the foundational elements of your opponents' arguments, so that you can actually adress their actual ideas directly and show them why you think they are wrong on their terms, instead of so desperately trying to lead them into a reductio ad absurdum that appears only to you, and nobody else.

Sure I am interested in knowing the opposite side, so far based on my research I concluded that the prolife position is better and more reasonable than the prochoice position, but I am always open to new arguments.

Bodily autonomy as I understand it means that you have the right to do whatever you want with your own body as long and you don’t hurt (let alone kill) other people. ……. Is this what you understood by bodily autonomy?..........if not how would you define bodily autonomy?

If we are going to have a conversation on this topic, I would ask you to answer this question so that I can understand your position

¿do you grant that a fetus/embryo is a person?...¿is this question relevant? or woudl you justify abortion regardless if the fetus is a person or not?

 

[Kooky]

Sure I am interested in knowing the opposite side, so far based on my research I concluded that the prolife position is better and more reasonable than the prochoice position, but I am always open to new arguments.

Okay, then please explain your understanding of the concept of bodily autonomy, and why you think it is an insufficient basis to solve the ethical conundrum of family planning.

 

[leroy]

Okay, then please explain your understanding of the concept of bodily autonomy, and why you think it is an insufficient basis to solve the ethical conundrum of family planning.

Bodily autonomy as I understand it means that you have the right to do whatever you want with your own body as long and you don’t hurt (let alone kill) other people. ……. Is this what you understand by bodily autonomy?..........if not how would you define bodily autonomy?


In the cases where you do hurt other people, in my opinion one should look at those cases on a case by case basis.

 

[Willamena]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

Beta.

 

[Brian2]

Beta.

An apple and a leaf are part of the tree.
I don't see this as relevant to the abortion debate. Is it?