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

[leibowde84]

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?

Fair enough. I guess if you want me to answer a question, you just have to ask it. But, I can't be expected to answer it unless it is sufficiently specific. So, what justification would you like? You are speaking to justificaation for absolute bodily autonomy right? One exercise to understand this legal concept is to try to find any situation where bodily autonomy is legally taken away without due process or a contractual agreement. Can you name one?

 

[pro4life]

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

Ban abortion period. That is the solution.

 

[Koldo]

I do not like semantic technicalities.

It is not a just semantic technality. You said that I have passed down a death sentence. As if I had, or as if I claim to have, such a power.

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.

I have not reduced a human life to a parasite. What I have said could properly be stated such as this though: Whether it is human is of no consequence to whether a host should be able to, morally and legally, kill a parasite. I pretty much ignore if it is human if it exists as a parasite and can't survive in any other way, it is irrelevant to me.

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.

And so what?

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.

I do not need objective moral foundations for anything at all. Actually, I don't even think such a thing exists.

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?

Why not ? Why make it an exception ?

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

It is not. Let me teach you basic biology: A carnivore is not a parasite for feeding on meat from other animals.

 

[leibowde84]

Ban abortion period. That is the solution.

Fair enough, but can you provide your argument for overcoming the legal dilemma of a woman's right to bodily autonomy? Because, Congress will never be able to outlaw abortion until this dilemma is addressed. If you really feel this way about abortion rights, you should take some time and think about this issue that creates such a division in this country. If you already have, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for your input.

 

[leibowde84]

Ban abortion period. That is the solution.

In other words, how would you go about getting leglislation of this kind passed. Since our legal system is not based on morality, but, instead, social justice, there needs to be a solid argument for taking away a woman's bodily autonomy in this instance, but not when a child needs a transplant, blood, etc. The law's purpose is to be objective and coherent. It seems to be incoherent if a pregnant woman's right to dominion over their own physical body is ignored in this instance.

 

[Koldo]

Fair enough, but can you provide your argument for overcoming the legal dilemma of a woman's right to bodily autonomy? Because, Congress will never be able to outlaw abortion until this dilemma is addressed. If you really feel this way about abortion rights, you should take some time and think about this issue that creates such a division in this country. If you already have, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for your input.

I sincerely doubt the congress would be able to outright ban abortion at this point. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the SCOTUS could reject the application of any law that contradicted their former decision since we are dealing with human rights. The whole matter seems to depend a whole lot on the willingness of the SCOTUS to have a change of mind.

 

[pro4life]

Fair enough, but can you provide your argument for overcoming the legal dilemma of a woman's right to bodily autonomy? Because, Congress will never be able to outlaw abortion until this dilemma is addressed. If you really feel this way about abortion rights, you should take some time and think about this issue that creates such a division in this country. If you already have, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for your input.

Ok then, here is some food for thought.
Since this is a religious forum, am going to stick to the religious aspect to this issue. As per the United States, I don't care if you like or not but the nation was first built on Christian principles and values. After we have established this fact you should realize they have a book that talks about life's sanctity.
As for morality on abortion, the only source you can borrow moral values is from religion. In the Christian Bible, life's sanctity should be upheld in all circumstances.

 

[oldbadger]

Ok then, here is some food for thought.
Since this is a religious forum, am going to stick to the religious aspect to this issue. As per the United States, I don't care if you like or not but the nation was first built on Christian principles and values. After we have established this fact you should realize they have a book that talks about life's sanctity.
As for morality on abortion, the only source you can borrow moral values is from religion. In the Christian Bible, life's sanctity should be upheld in all circumstances.

Question:- Suppose that a foetus is scanned and has Spina Bifida, Hydracephalus, clubbed feet..... should the mother be stopped from choosing to terminating the pregnancy?

 

[1robin]

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.

Is he having a debate by proxy? I am just kidding but I think so far you have only defending non-Christian points and people. I don't think my response differed from your paraphrasing at all.

So I will ask you the same questions.

1. I do not care what things have done, please show that killing any parasite of any kind by anything is actually justified.
2. Even if you can prove that in every single case the parasite not only can be but should be killed by the host explain why that in anyway means that that is true or should be for humanity.

 

[1robin]

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.

I have read the constitution and the declaration and have been to where it was signed and read the federal papers and about the founders. Where is this autonomy word at?

I am not blaming anyone because you have not shown anyone did or even has this right to give anyone.

 

[1robin]

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?

Let me again say for at least the third time. These are not equal rights. The right to autonomy is not equal to the right to life. I don't think any society that ever existed thought differently.

 

[1robin]

Fair enough. I guess if you want me to answer a question, you just have to ask it. But, I can't be expected to answer it unless it is sufficiently specific. So, what justification would you like? You are speaking to justificaation for absolute bodily autonomy right?

Close enough.

One exercise to understand this legal concept is to try to find any situation where bodily autonomy is legally taken away without due process or a contractual agreement. Can you name one?

That is an explanation of legal precedent and is not even true, and it is not applicable. What is dues process? Does a woman go to court and have a jury consider a death sentence on convenience or does some politician make a blanket statement to what does not exist and he cannot know. If that is due process then more processes are due.

I am asking for the principle on which any (or in this case a specific law) can be founded. I know how things become laws, I am asking how this law becomes right.

 

[pro4life]

Question:- Suppose that a foetus is scanned and has Spina Bifida, Hydracephalus, clubbed feet..... should the mother be stopped from choosing to terminating the pregnancy?

Ofcourse. We currently have procedures to fix those three problems.

 

[leibowde84]

Close enough.

That is an explanation of legal precedent and is not even true, and it is not applicable. What is dues process? Does a woman go to court and have a jury consider a death sentence on convenience or does some politician make a blanket statement to what does not exist and he cannot know. If that is due process then more processes are due.

I am asking for the principle on which any (or in this case a specific law) can be founded. I know how things become laws, I am asking how this law becomes right.

The right to reproductive rights was decided by the supreme court.

 

[leibowde84]

Close enough.

That is an explanation of legal precedent and is not even true, and it is not applicable. What is dues process? Does a woman go to court and have a jury consider a death sentence on convenience or does some politician make a blanket statement to what does not exist and he cannot know. If that is due process then more processes are due.

I am asking for the principle on which any (or in this case a specific law) can be founded. I know how things become laws, I am asking how this law becomes right.

Why isn't it relevant? Is your position that the right for a fetus to use the mothers body makes every other right disapear?

 

[leibowde84]

Close enough.

That is an explanation of legal precedent and is not even true, and it is not applicable. What is dues process? Does a woman go to court and have a jury consider a death sentence on convenience or does some politician make a blanket statement to what does not exist and he cannot know. If that is due process then more processes are due.

I am asking for the principle on which any (or in this case a specific law) can be founded. I know how things become laws, I am asking how this law becomes right.

So you can't name another situation where the state ignores this right?

 

[oldbadger]

Ofcourse. We currently have procedures to fix those three problems.

Who does?
Fix those problems?
You don't know, do you?

 

[1robin]

I have not reduced a human life to a parasite. What I have said could properly be stated such as this though: Whether it is human is of no consequence to whether a host should be able to, morally and legally, kill a parasite. I pretty much ignore if it is human if it exists as a parasite and can't survive in any other way, it is irrelevant to me.

That is sufficient and the problem. It is never negligible whether the individual is human or not. In fact no other factor carries more weight that I can think of. This is getting depressing.

Let me add an exception.

It is never negligible whether it is a human life if it ever was. Without God humanity has no special significance. We are just another genetic anomalies with no more inherent value that any other bag of atoms.

And so what?

You made the argument that the rule justifies ignoring even the potential of exceptions. If you do not know what that is evidence of the problem.

I do not need objective moral foundations for anything at all. Actually, I don't even think such a thing exists.

So whether a moral duty or value actually exists in fact is irrelevant to you. You might need an attorney. Since the irrational ship has left the harbor what excuse have you even invented to justify out killing off more humans that all religions combined without even the potential of actually being right, or even an actual right even existing.

Why not ? Why make it an exception ?

Again since rationality and even a potential fact of the matter is no longer even a goal let me use an atheistic argument I constantly here. I suggest that without God that all morality is merely preference. I get in response "We can look at evolution (which is a theory and not an entity to begin with) and clearly see survival he goal and pattern laws on that. So even without the desire to be objectively moral how can you even claim to be consistent with materialism or naturalism. What exactly beyond your preference are you consistent with.

It is not my burden. You made a claim to knowledge. You said since every X then Y. So why is that.

It is not. Let me teach you basic biology: A carnivore is not a parasite for feeding on meat from other animals.

Oh crap, the most boring subject in history.

So a lion eating it's own young is just fine, but a baby through no fault of it's own attached by an umbilical can be killed for any reason?

Can you find me in any law, in any society, from any time, that is patterned on the idea that killing unborn humans is ok because other parasites have no rights to life. I had to write this 4 times because I cannot not even make that idea coherent.

I not only have no idea how you get there from anywhere I am becoming pretty sure I don't even want to know.

 

[1robin]

So you can't name another situation where the state ignores this right?

I did not ask what states have done. I have said until I am sick that I don't care about legality I care about what is right. But even if every state and every human who ever existed has done so you have not answered my question. Legal precedent has no moral quality or value.

 

[pro4life]

Who does?
Fix those problems?
You don't know, do you?
View attachment 7499

solutions for spina bifida, club foot, hydrocephalus.