Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Page 15 of 21 [ 327 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 21  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Jun 2021, 5:36 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Legally, no human has any right to use the body of another human for any length of time, no matter how long or short.


That's not true for any country or state that puts time limits on access to abortion. The baby is granted the right to use of the mother's body once it is 22-24 weeks old or whatever the limit. The legal precedent is there.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

25 Jun 2021, 5:46 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Legally, no human has any right to use the body of another human for any length of time, no matter how long or short.


That's not true for any country or state that puts time limits on access to abortion. The baby is granted the right to use of the mother's body once it is 22-24 weeks old or whatever the limit. The legal precedent is there.


Once the baby is viable, it no longer needs the mother's body.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

25 Jun 2021, 5:48 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Pregnancy can wreak long-term physical, psychological, and emotional harm on women.

Legally, no human has any right to use the body of another human for any length of time, no matter how long or short.


Inb4 her interests are made secondary.
These arguments get predictable after awhile.


Which is why I sat forced-birthers are primarily interested in punishing women, not the well-being of babies.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,100
Location: Right over your left shoulder

25 Jun 2021, 5:54 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Pregnancy can wreak long-term physical, psychological, and emotional harm on women.

Legally, no human has any right to use the body of another human for any length of time, no matter how long or short.


Inb4 her interests are made secondary.
These arguments get predictable after awhile.


Which is why I say forced-birthers are primarily interested in punishing women, not the well-being of babies.


That's the logic I use to reach the same conclusion.

People seem to think that because they're not motivated by some sort of active hatred that it's unfair to label their attitudes a certain way but when a person consistently makes the interests of a segment of the population secondary it's hard to not eventually apply that label.


_________________
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become king, the palace becomes a circus.
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Jun 2021, 5:57 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Legally, no human has any right to use the body of another human for any length of time, no matter how long or short.


That's not true for any country or state that puts time limits on access to abortion. The baby is granted the right to use of the mother's body once it is 22-24 weeks old or whatever the limit. The legal precedent is there.


Once the baby is viable, it no longer needs the mother's body.


Attempting to remove it without good reason after that point is illegal - the baby is entitled to remain in the mother's body and use her bodily organs. The precedent is set.

Hopefully this argument will be moot once artificial wombs are perfected and you can stop accusing me of wanting to punish women. I didn't know until recently how far along they were:

Image


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

25 Jun 2021, 6:03 pm

Jesus Christ... :roll:

Bring on the artificial wombs. Also, if you ever father a child, just know they're entitled to use your organs as the fact you had sex removes your right to bodily autonomy.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Jun 2021, 6:09 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Also, if you ever father a child, just know they're entitled to use your organs as the fact you had sex removes your right to bodily autonomy.


Fine by me. You wouldn't even have to use the law to force me into not killing my own flesh and blood - insane as that might sound to you.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

25 Jun 2021, 6:18 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Also, if you ever father a child, just know they're entitled to use your organs as the fact you had sex removes your right to bodily autonomy.


Fine by me. You wouldn't even have to use the law to force me into not killing my own flesh and blood - insane as that might sound to you.


So, when your 20 year old son needs one of your kidneys, you're fine with being legally compelled to provide it? Cool. You also don't have the right to make that decision for anybody else.

As a civilized society, we believe in bodily autonomy. No human has the right to use another human's body to survive.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Jun 2021, 6:28 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
So, when your 20 year old son needs one of your kidneys, you're fine with being legally compelled to provide it? Cool. You also don't have the right to make that decision for anybody else.

As a civilized society, we believe in bodily autonomy. No human has the right to use another human's body to survive.


I wouldn't need to be compelled and we've had this argument before more than once. Using an organ donation parallel for pregnancy, the organ donation has already been made and you are seeking to retrieve your hypothetical organ no matter what happens to the recipient who only needs it temporarily.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

25 Jun 2021, 6:45 pm

Mikah wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
So, when your 20 year old son needs one of your kidneys, you're fine with being legally compelled to provide it? Cool. You also don't have the right to make that decision for anybody else.

As a civilized society, we believe in bodily autonomy. No human has the right to use another human's body to survive.


I wouldn't need to be compelled and we've had this argument before more than once. Using an organ donation parallel for pregnancy, the organ donation has already been made and you are seeking to retrieve your hypothetical organ no matter what happens to the recipient who only needs it temporarily.


Consent to sex is not consent to a pregnancy. The word "donation" implies consent.

And I'm not interested in discussing hypotheticals. Unwanted pregnancy is a REAL situation that women deal with, not some thought-experiment that men can comfortably ponder without any risk of experiencing themselves.

Let's chat when you're cool with being legally compelled to "donate" your body so another person can survive.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Jun 2021, 7:18 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Consent to sex is not consent to a pregnancy. The word "donation" implies consent.


Yes it is, we've argued about that as well, though you may have forgotten. Pregnancy is a well known risk of sex, even when using contraceptives. Abortion is about the right to terminate a pregnancy in progress, it doesn't follow in any way that in having sex that you are not consenting to the chance of becoming pregnant. It's like going rock climbing and saying "I do not consent to falling". No matter how many precautions you take, it might still happen and you are acknowledging the risk and consenting to its possible occurrence just by going rock climbing. If you live in an area where abortion is legal, you have a legal option to terminate, but don't kid yourself into thinking that by having sex you are not consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.

This is usually where Mr. Rapist enters the argument and I have to go through the organ theft hypotheticals instead of organ donation. And then you just ignore me or call me a misogynist who only wants to enslave women, and we start this argument again in about 18 months or so. Shall we give it a miss this time?


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,100
Location: Right over your left shoulder

25 Jun 2021, 7:39 pm

I'm not sure one consents to falling so much as accepts it as a potential risk that might occur no matter how many precautions that might be taken. I'd argue taking any degree of precaution against falling amounts to openly expressing non-consent in regards to falling, even if those precautions are minimal and amount to little more than telling one's self yeah, i'll be careful.

Unlike falling one has more options in regards to how to deal with the situation. Drinking a concoction to resolve the issue is absolutely a right that one can express even if the state fails to recognize that right. I'd just prefer that the safest one possible be available.


_________________
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become king, the palace becomes a circus.
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Jun 2021, 8:28 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
I'm not sure one consents to falling so much as accepts it as a potential risk that might occur no matter how many precautions that might be taken.


That is consent.

funeralxempire wrote:
I'd argue taking any degree of precaution against falling amounts to openly expressing non-consent in regards to falling


Not consenting and not wanting are not exactly the same. You can consent to things you do not want.

funeralxempire wrote:
Unlike falling one has more options in regards to how to deal with the situation. Drinking a concoction to resolve the issue is absolutely a right that one can express even if the state fails to recognize that right. I'd just prefer that the safest one possible be available.


The "issue" is a human life, "resolved" by deliberately ending it. You would not be so apathetic if it were an older human. Again, we arrive back at the nature of the unborn. As I said from the beginning, that is the be all and end all of this topic. If the unborn are human, this is morally wrong.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,100
Location: Right over your left shoulder

25 Jun 2021, 8:34 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I'm not sure one consents to falling so much as accepts it as a potential risk that might occur no matter how many precautions that might be taken.


That is consent.

funeralxempire wrote:
I'd argue taking any degree of precaution against falling amounts to openly expressing non-consent in regards to falling


Not consenting and not wanting are not exactly the same. You can consent to things you do not want.

funeralxempire wrote:
Unlike falling one has more options in regards to how to deal with the situation. Drinking a concoction to resolve the issue is absolutely a right that one can express even if the state fails to recognize that right. I'd just prefer that the safest one possible be available.


The "issue" is a human life, "resolved" by deliberately ending it. You would not be so apathetic if it were an older human. Again, we arrive back at the nature of the unborn. As I said from the beginning, that is the be all and end all of this topic. If the unborn are human, this is morally wrong.


You're right, if it was a human who wasn't at a stage where they are obliged to be dependent on residing inside someone else I wouldn't take this tact, because that's the crux of the issue. They represent a substantial burden upon another person that is unreasonable to expect them to bear without ongoing consent.


_________________
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become king, the palace becomes a circus.
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

25 Jun 2021, 9:11 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
You're right, if it was a human who wasn't at a stage where they are obliged to be dependent on residing inside someone else I wouldn't take this tact, because that's the crux of the issue. They represent a substantial burden upon another person that is unreasonable to expect them to bear without ongoing consent.


Many, many people are substantial burdens on others. Can you, a good left winger, think of other situations where a person's burden to another makes it acceptable to kill them in order to alleviate that burden?


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,100
Location: Right over your left shoulder

25 Jun 2021, 9:18 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
You're right, if it was a human who wasn't at a stage where they are obliged to be dependent on residing inside someone else I wouldn't take this tact, because that's the crux of the issue. They represent a substantial burden upon another person that is unreasonable to expect them to bear without ongoing consent.


Many, many people are substantial burdens on others. Can you, a good left winger, think of other situations where a person's burden to another makes it acceptable to kill them in order to alleviate that burden?


No, because they don't violate bodily autonomy in the same way.

If you crash into me in your car and are forced to have my head grafted onto your body due to the injuries you've inflicted I accept that I'm only there at your discretion even if the courts mandate otherwise.


_________________
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become king, the palace becomes a circus.
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell