Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[1robin]

He tends to have his own meaning for words. Parasite is technically accurate.

But it is not sufficient and there lies the fallacy. It is technically accurate to call all human biological anomalies but no law assume we are merely biological anomalies but grants that we have rights which nature does not possess to bestow. I can call a basketball a sphere but it is not merely a sphere and so I can't not judge it as an equality with a sphere. The same with calling the sun a ball of gas, secular morality mere social fashion, or a calling consciousness merely matter in motion.

And even if a thing was merely a parasite and not about a thousand other things there is zero justification in killing it simply because it is one.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not what autonomy means.

autonomy
[aw-ton-uh-mee] /ɔˈtɒn ə mi/

noun, plural autonomies.

1. independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions:

If it actually meant what you claim it is still not granted. A mother cannot abort a baby legally after some arbitrary date that keeps changing over time. So some kind of actual autonomy necessitates a lack of restrictions. That is what the word is used to describe. A lack of limits. So if you have limits then you lack actual autonomy. Regardless you have only one source of all rights. That same source denies any autonomy is just that is not morally justified. Taking a life for convenience is the least justifiable action possible.

I'm hoping that was a joke. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Is "marriage" the same as "same-sex marriage," lol. The term "autonomy" is not the same as "bodily autonomy." Nice try, haha.

1. 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.

 

[leibowde84]

That is not what autonomy means.

autonomy
[aw-ton-uh-mee] /ɔˈtɒn ə mi/

noun, plural autonomies.

1. independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions:

If it actually meant what you claim it is still not granted. A mother cannot abort a baby legally after some arbitrary date that keeps changing over time. So some kind of actual autonomy necessitates a lack of restrictions. That is what the word is used to describe. A lack of limits. So if you have limits then you lack actual autonomy. Regardless you have only one source of all rights. That same source denies any autonomy is just that is not morally justified. Taking a life for convenience is the least justifiable action possible.

Viability is when bodily autonomy is not at issue. Our understanding of that point changes with scientific discovery. So, there is nothing wrong with having that line. Make sense?

 

[leibowde84]

But it is not sufficient and there lies the fallacy. It is technically accurate to call all human biological anomalies but no law assume we are merely biological anomalies but grants that we have rights which nature does not possess to bestow. I can call a basketball a sphere but it is not merely a sphere and so I can't not judge it as an equality with a sphere. The same with calling the sun a ball of gas, secular morality mere social fashion, or a calling consciousness merely matter in motion.

And even if a thing was merely a parasite and not about a thousand other things there is zero justification in killing it simply because it is one.

We are simply saying that women have a right to refuse the use of their body. The death of the fetus is merely a result of that choice.

 

[1robin]

If something is in a parasitic relationship it is a parasite by definition, right?

Please quote anything I ever said to the contrary. You have again misunderstood what I said. I said a human life is not merely a parasite. If you define a thing by a description then it must be equal in totality to that description or sufficiently so to justify the judgment.

And where in any possible universe is it written that even if a thing is merely a parasite it is morally justifiable to kill it? You are a parasite because you depend on external entities to survive is it ok to murder you? No law in any society is made by this kind of artificial minimizing, only bad excuses are.

 

[1robin]

We are simply saying that women have a right to refuse the use of their body. The death of the fetus is merely a result of that choice.

I know what your saying. I am still looking for any reason to believe what your saying is true or justifiable. This is merely a preference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it actually meant what you claim it is still not granted. A mother cannot abort a baby legally after some arbitrary date that keeps changing over time. So some kind of actual autonomy necessitates a lack of restrictions. That is what the word is used to describe. A lack of limits. So if ou have limits then you lack actual autonomy.

Two points:

- your (American?) perspective is not universal. Here in Canada, for instance, there are no legal restrictions on when an abortion can be performed.

- the issues you touch on illustrate the hypocrisy of banning or even limiting abortion. Our societies generally uphold bodily autonomy as sacrosanct, even when it can cost lives. This is why you aren't required to donate blood or put yourself in physical danger to save someone else. In many places, the only type of person who doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy is a pregnant woman.

 

[leibowde84]

I know what your saying. I am still looking for any reason to believe what your saying is true or justifiable. This is merely a preference.

All we are asking is that you explain why you feel that there is no justification. You have failed to point out a flaw in our reasoning. You just vaguely say, "I don't get it."

 

[1robin]

Where did I state on that sentence that the fetus was merely a parasite?

You passed a death sentence on it and gave one property and equaled it with one identity. The identity of the subject is not equal to the property.

Clearly, the way I have used the word 'parasite' was in the biological sense ( not at the strict sense since it is a term that doesn't apply to the same species, but that's the only divergence ). Therefore, your use of the word 'parasite' entailing that ''we all live on each other'' is not proper to how I was using the term. You were redefining the way I was using 'parasite'.

I hate semantic arguments. Lets say that it is a parasite. How do you get from that to it can be killed at will? I would hate to see the Armageddon that would result from rules based on the term parasite.

Wait a minute. I assumed you meant it in a biological sense, and my reply was in a biological sense. Where exactly is the foul again. We are biologically dependent on external beings. Actually I really do not car about this. I want to know how you get from parasite to permission to wipe it out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Viability is when bodily autonomy is not at issue. Our understanding of that point changes with scientific discovery. So, there is nothing wrong with having that line. Make sense?

I disagree. Bodily autonomy is at issue until the pregnancy ends.

If bodily autonomy was upheld consistently, viability would just mark the point where, based on medical and not legal criteria, the pregnancy might be ended with an attempt at inducing a live birth.

 

[leibowde84]

I know what your saying. I am still looking for any reason to believe what your saying is true or justifiable. This is merely a preference.

You haven't even told us what your preference is and why you feel that it is reasonable to hold the survival of the fetus as more important than a woman's right to decide what lives inside her body. Please do.

 

[leibowde84]

You passed a death sentence on it and gave one property and equaled it with one identity. The identity of the subject is not equal to the property.



I hate semantic arguments. Lets say that it is a parasite. How do you get from that to it can be killed at will? I would hate to see the Armageddon that would result from rules based on the term parasite.

Wait a minute. I assumed you meant it in a biological sense, and my reply was in a biological sense. Where exactly is the foul again. We are biologically dependent on external beings. Actually I really do not car about this. I want to know how you get from parasite to permission to wipe it out.

No one has claimed a "right to wipe it out." Just a right for the woman to refuse anything the use of her physical body against her will. The death is merely the outcome of that choice.

 

[leibowde84]

I disagree. Bodily autonomy is at issue until the pregnancy ends.

If bodily autonomy was upheld consistently, viability would just mark the point where, based on medical and not legal criteria, the pregnancy might be ended with an attempt at inducing a live birth.

It only works theoretically, really. I agree with you for the most part.

 

[1robin]

All we are asking is that you explain why you feel that there is no justification. You have failed to point out a flaw in our reasoning. You just vaguely say, "I don't get it."

The one who claims it is reasonable to take the life of another individual has the burden. Did you not already say it was not morally justifiable? What are you confused about? My position is no one knows so lets gamble on life, I have no burden. The other position is no one knows (and there is actually nothing to know without God) so lets gamble on death. That is the one with the burden.

 

[1robin]

No one has claimed a "right to wipe it out." Just a right for the woman to refuse anything the use of her physical body against her will. The death is merely the outcome of that choice.

Yes they did.

I don't see anything wrong with a person getting rid of a parasite, both legally and morally.

No mention of a woman's right to anything, no mention of autonomy, just parasite equals ok to kill it.

Merely correcting you is exhausting.

 

[1robin]

Two points:

- your (American?) perspective is not universal. Here in Canada, for instance, there are no legal restrictions on when an abortion can be performed.

- the issues you touch on illustrate the hypocrisy of banning or even limiting abortion. Our societies generally uphold bodily autonomy as sacrosanct, even when it can cost lives. This is why you aren't required to donate blood or put yourself in physical danger to save someone else. In many places, the only type of person who doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy is a pregnant woman.

I did not claim any universality. I did not even claim a majority even though the laws you mention are by far the minority. There is no such thing as geographical autonomy. I did not make a popularity argument but I think only less than the nations have no time limits. Of course I think Canada bans importing asbestos but leads the world in exporting it. Maybe banning water and dehydration is next. Just kidding.

I agree that limited abortion is hypocritical. I also think abortion in any case but for the sake of health is hypocritical. It affirms the right to life of one biological anomaly by denying it to another. It is as absurdly hypocritical as claiming the right to freedom while denying it to another. I will say that while completely legalizing abortion is hypocritical it is consistent with naturalism. But so is wiping out any one not in my tribe who compete for resources.

 

[1robin]

You haven't even told us what your preference is and why you feel that it is reasonable to hold the survival of the fetus as more important than a woman's right to decide what lives inside her body. Please do.

It is the one arguing to end life that has some explaining to do. I have already several times both given my preference and why it is justifiable but it is your burden. Does the one who lets other live or the ones who end lives on an industrial scale require the most explanations?

 

[leibowde84]

The one who claims it is reasonable to take the life of another individual has the burden. Did you not already say it was not morally justifiable? What are you confused about? My position is no one knows so lets gamble on life, I have no burden. The other position is no one knows (and there is actually nothing to know without God) so lets gamble on death. That is the one with the burden.

I'm not sure why you do not have the capacity to understand this, but we aren't saying it is reasonable to take a life. We are ONLY saying that it is unreasonable to take away a woman's right to bodily autonomy when she is pregnant (forcing her to allow the direct use of her body against her will) when it is unacceptable in every other circumstance. You have yet to come up with any valid example where a person is forced to donate the use of their physical body against their will without due process.

 

[leibowde84]

It is the one arguing to end life that has some explaining to do. I have already several times both given my preference and why it is justifiable but it is your burden. Does the one who lets other live or the ones who end lives on an industrial scale require the most explanations?

You have not provided any reasoning that addresses why, in only this circumstance, it is alright to ignore the woman's right to bodily autonomy. That is all we are asking for. And, this isn't court, so we both have a duty to back up our positions with reasoned arguments. Geeze ... we're trying to have a society here!!!

 

[pro4life]

I feel that a lot of pro-lifers refuse to address the issue that makes abortion so debateable. The issue is not the sanctity of life, when life begins, or whether abortion is morally wrong. The legal issue (and it is most certainly a legal question) is whether the fetus' right to live and use the mother's body to do so outweighs the woman's right to bodily autonomy. There is currently no law that forces someone to give up the use of their body to another against their will. So, if the fetus' right to survive inside the woman's body outweighs the mother's, what other laws could be enacted as a result.

Btw, I agree that morally speaking, abortion is wrong (most of the time). And, I also feel that the question of when life begins is not associated with this issue and is a means to distract frrom the real legal issue.

The decision to conceive a child should be 50/50. Well in the end you need a sperm and a egg.
In regards to abortion, it is just another word for child-killing