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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not claim any universality. I did not even claim a majority even though the laws you mention are by far the minority.

Your post didn't have any sort of disclaimer saying that it was US-specific.

I agree that limited abortion is hypocritical.

... or banning it.

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.

Our right to life isn't absolute. It's always contingent on the rights of others.

It is as absurdly hypocritical as claiming the right to freedom while denying it to another.

I think you're confused here. Any time rights come into conflict, one will have to lose out to the other. In the situation of abortion, even if you granted the fetus the full rights of a person (and you've done nothing to establish that we should, BTW), the woman's rights would still prevail.

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.

Heh... sounds like you're describing any number of Old Testament stories.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Wow, you proved my point perfectly. You just ignore the legal dilemma all together. Ignorance is bliss, huh?

 

[Koldo]

But to what end?

I need to know if you want to use your free speech responsibly or carelessly.

To actively work towards changing the world according to my liking.

 

[Koldo]

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 did ... what? When did I grant upon myself the power to perform abortions?

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.

Typical interpretation of bodily autonomy. Give me the example of a parasitic lifeform that you are not allowed to kill if you are the host.

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.

Please explain in what way we are dependent biologically on external beings.

 

[1robin]

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.

That was like saying I am not saying to kill all mankind I am only saying to push the button on the Nuclear football. But lets pretend that was not the case.

Are you and two non-theists the "we" you refer to? Regardless your the only one asking that specific question.


You must first establish anyone has a right to autonomy of any kind. What the extent of that autonomy is. What binds autonomy when it conflicts with another's autonomy. You can begin there.

 

[1robin]

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!!!

That is far too easy and something I have done several times. Because in this particular case the life of another human being which has infinite worth and value and a soul must be taken to grant the right you have yet to show even exists. This is like asking if we can machete all the water melons and grape fruits we want why not children? The one who is arguing that anything justifies killing hundreds of millions of lives has the burden of proof.

Geeze ... we're trying to have a society here

If you cannot challenge me to think at least you made me laugh. That is one of the funniest things I have seen today.

 

[1robin]

Wow, you are just a bold faced liar, huh. How on earth do you get to me "ending lives on an industrial scale?" Haha. You are crazy. I've never killed any person, fetus, or other human specimine. You are reachng.

And, why would you even make a claim if you can't even justify it. This is a discussion board.

That is the one time you will accuse me of lying and not have terminated the discussion at the same time. I in fact did not accuse you of anything. I said the ones who do X. If you do not do X then I am not talking about you am I? So your accusation was the only lie here. Again that is the last time I will continue this with your throwing around accusations that are not true and personal commentary.

 

[1robin]

Your post didn't have any sort of disclaimer saying that it was US-specific.

That is fair. It was clumsily stated. Let me re-state it as no law assumes absolute autonomy. Not even in Canada. There are always limits to it. In Canada maybe not concerning abortion but the issue was some kind of carte blanche granting of autonomy.

... or banning it.

No, banning it is not. It grants that both lives have equal rights.

Our right to life isn't absolute. It's always contingent on the rights of others.

Right but your denying even the right to life of one human life for the sake of convenience of another. Abortion is not constant with what you said here. All morals assume value and in general they weight life to have more value than either autonomy or convenience. In many places we don't even grant the autonomy to abort our selves (which I do not agree with).

I think you're confused here. Any time rights come into conflict, one will have to lose out to the other. In the situation of abortion, even if you granted the fetus the full rights of a person (and you've done nothing to establish that we should, BTW), the woman's rights would still prevail.

I think I can almost agree with everything here but your confused. Not even if it were a question of a life for a life is the mother claims better (but we have to chose and I will give her the benefit of doubt, but technically speaking the younger life is more valuable in many ways) but this is not a life or another life. This is convince versus life. All claims to rights are not equal. My right pursue happiness does not mean it equals your right to life.

BTW without God all rights do have equal weight, exactly zero.

Heh... sounds like you're describing any number of Old Testament stories.

I disagree but I appreciate the humor. No motive survives in the record that suggests resources were the reason for any Hebrew war. Unless moral sanity is a resource.

 

[leibowde84]

That was like saying I am not saying to kill all mankind I am only saying to push the button on the Nuclear football. But lets pretend that was not the case.

Are you and two non-theists the "we" you refer to? Regardless your the only one asking that specific question.


You must first establish anyone has a right to autonomy of any kind. What the extent of that autonomy is. What binds autonomy when it conflicts with another's autonomy. You can begin there.

This has been my point the entire time. You refuse to even acknowledge that there is an issue at all. I mean, why do you think the country is so split on this issue?

Why would I have to prove that people have autonomy, when the issue is ONLY bodily autonomy (a specific and well-defined/accepted term)? Bodily autonomy is control of one's own body ... nothing more.

 

[leibowde84]

That is the one time you will accuse me of lying and not have terminated the discussion at the same time. I in fact did not accuse you of anything. I said the ones who do X. If you do not do X then I am not talking about you am I? So your accusation was the only lie here. Again that is the last time I will continue this with your throwing around accusations that are not true and personal commentary.

So, why did you say that then. It is not relevant to the conversation if you weren't referring to those who are pro-choice. Were you only referring to doctors or something? I just assumed that you were referring to those in favor of keeping abortion as an option for women. Was I wrong? If so, who were you referring to?

 

[leibowde84]

That is fair. It was clumsily stated. Let me re-state it as no law assumes absolute autonomy. Not even in Canada. There are always limits to it. In Canada maybe not concerning abortion but the issue was some kind of carte blanche granting of autonomy.


No, banning it is not. It grants that both lives have equal rights.


Right but your denying even the right to life of one human life for the sake of convenience of another. Abortion is not constant with what you said here. All morals assume value and in general they weight life to have more value than either autonomy or convenience. In many places we don't even grant the autonomy to abort our selves (which I do not agree with).


I think I can almost agree with everything here but your confused. Not even if it were a question of a life for a life is the mother claims better (but we have to chose and I will give her the benefit of doubt, but technically speaking the younger life is more valuable in many ways) but this is not a life or another life. This is convince versus life. All claims to rights are not equal. My right pursue happiness does not mean it equals your right to life.

BTW without God all rights do have equal weight, exactly zero.


I disagree but I appreciate the humor. No motive survives in the record that suggests resources were the reason for any Hebrew war. Unless moral sanity is a resource.

Why do you keep discussing "autonomy" when we are discussing ONLY a certain kind of autonomy ("bodily autonomy")? Please explain. Or, when you say "autonomy" are you really saying "bodily autonomy?" Because they are very different things.

 

[1robin]

I did ... what? When did I grant upon myself the power to perform abortions?

I do not like semantic technicalities. I believe you said you have not problem with killing it because you had previously reduced a human life to a parasite as the sole property you mentioned. Now if you disagree then just quote what you stated as it is more than sufficient for my purposes. I am not going to haggle over semantics all day.

Typical interpretation of bodily autonomy. Give me the example of a parasitic lifeform that you are not allowed to kill if you are the host.

That is irrelevant. I am morally allowed to eat every other creature on earth but that does not make it moral to eat a baby. I can pump cows full of steroids, feed ducks by tubes, put chickens in a square foot of space, suffocate fish, and even spank monkey's according to some, but that does not excuse doing to a fetus. Since your claims are the ones that threaten lives please tell me what objective moral foundations allow any parasite to be killed by anything without appealing to the transcendent.
Actually that one guarantees failure. Let me make it easier. Let's assume that every parasite other than a human can be killed by any host with moral justification. Even if that was true why would that mean that a human could be killed?

Please explain in what way we are dependent biologically on external beings.

Unless your a self Cannibal (actually that one is not even an exception) I think this necessarily obvious.

 

[leibowde84]

That is fair. It was clumsily stated. Let me re-state it as no law assumes absolute autonomy. Not even in Canada. There are always limits to it. In Canada maybe not concerning abortion but the issue was some kind of carte blanche granting of autonomy.


No, banning it is not. It grants that both lives have equal rights.


Right but your denying even the right to life of one human life for the sake of convenience of another. Abortion is not constant with what you said here. All morals assume value and in general they weight life to have more value than either autonomy or convenience. In many places we don't even grant the autonomy to abort our selves (which I do not agree with).


I think I can almost agree with everything here but your confused. Not even if it were a question of a life for a life is the mother claims better (but we have to chose and I will give her the benefit of doubt, but technically speaking the younger life is more valuable in many ways) but this is not a life or another life. This is convince versus life. All claims to rights are not equal. My right pursue happiness does not mean it equals your right to life.

BTW without God all rights do have equal weight, exactly zero.


I disagree but I appreciate the humor. No motive survives in the record that suggests resources were the reason for any Hebrew war. Unless moral sanity is a resource.

No one on earth is guaranteed "autonomy," and no one has ever claimed that. It is only "bodily autonomy" that we are claiming as a guaranteed right.

 

[1robin]

This has been my point the entire time. You refuse to even acknowledge that there is an issue at all. I mean, why do you think the country is so split on this issue?

Because humanity is morally insane in large measure. Any race that has had 300 years of peace in 5000 of recorded history is morally schizophrenic.

Why would I have to prove that people have autonomy, when the issue is ONLY bodily autonomy (a specific and well-defined/accepted term)? Bodily autonomy is control of one's own body ... nothing more.

Do prisoners have full bodily autonomy or are they restricted in certain ways?

Before you bother with what it is can you please tell me where we got it?

 

[1robin]

So, why did you say that then. It is not relevant to the conversation if you weren't referring to those who are pro-choice. Were you only referring to doctors or something? I just assumed that you were referring to those in favor of keeping abortion as an option for women. Was I wrong? If so, who were you referring to?

I was not talking about you. I was comparing two hypothetical burdens. To supply an extreme example of a concept that you could not grasp when slightly stated less emphatically. It was to show that all positions do not have equal burdens. Since you did not understand this with your position which in the end would justify the death of lives I amplified to those who actually take lives for emphasis in a hypothetical.

 

[leibowde84]

I do not like semantic technicalities. I believe you said you have not problem with killing it because you had previously reduced a human life to a parasite as the sole property you mentioned. Now if you disagree then just quote what you stated as it is more than sufficient for my purposes. I am not going to haggle over semantics all day.



That is irrelevant. I am morally allowed to eat every other creature on earth but that does not make it moral to eat a baby. I can pump cows full of steroids, feed ducks by tubes, put chickens in a square foot of space, suffocate fish, and even spank monkey's according to some, but that does not excuse doing to a fetus. Since your claims are the ones that threaten lives please tell me what objective moral foundations allow any parasite to be killed by anything without appealing to the transcendent.
Actually that one guarantees failure. Let me make it easier. Let's assume that every parasite other than a human can be killed by any host with moral justification. Even if that was true why would that mean that a human could be killed?


Unless your a self Cannibal (actually that one is not even an exception) I think this necessarily obvious.

I think he was referring to dependence on one person physically without the option of depending on anyone else. The only time when this occurs is with a fetus in the womb. In any other circumstance, there are alternatives if the dependee refuses. Your example of self-cannibalism is not relevant.

 

[1robin]

Why do you keep discussing "autonomy" when we are discussing ONLY a certain kind of autonomy ("bodily autonomy")? Please explain. Or, when you say "autonomy" are you really saying "bodily autonomy?" Because they are very different things.

Because debate always assumes common ground of common language use. If I say the US kicked Russia's tail you do not think I mean we literally kicked anyone. I considered saying autonomy to be understood as bodily autonomy in a context where that has already been determined.

Why are all the questions where I ask for justifications and foundations turned into semantic technicalities?

 

[leibowde84]

I was not talking about you. I was comparing two hypothetical burdens. To supply an extreme example of a concept that you could not grasp when slightly stated less emphatically. It was to show that all positions do not have equal burdens. Since you did not understand this with your position which in the end would justify the death of lives I amplified to those who actually take lives for emphasis in a hypothetical.

I guess I don't see why protecting the mother's bodily autonomy, which is guaranteed to everyone else in every other situation in this country, doesn't adequately justify making this "choice" available. I see why morally there is a need to consider the life of the fetus, but this should certainly justify keeping the choice available legally.

Also, like I said before, I've only met one pro-choice person who thought that abortion was morally justified in all cases (who I actually met today on this site), so it seems offensive to even insinuate that the pro-choice group is at all responsible for the deaths of children.

 

[leibowde84]

I guess I don't see why protecting the mother's bodily autonomy, which is guaranteed to everyone else in every other situation in this country, doesn't adequately justify making this "choice" available. I see why morally there is a need to consider the life of the fetus, but this should certainly justify keeping the choice available legally.

Also, like I said before, I've only met one pro-choice person who thought that abortion was morally justified in all cases (who I actually met today on this site), so it seems offensive to even insinuate that the pro-choice group is at all responsible for the deaths of children.

If you want to blame anyone, it would have to be the founding fathers in this country, as they are the ones who found this right to bodily autonomy so crucial to protect.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Wouldn't denying the choice of a woman be the same as acknowledging the freedom of the fetus to live while denying the right of the woman to bodily autonomy?